Solomonia Archive: A Presbyterian That Gets It

Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Writing in Commentary and musing about Elie Wiesel's, Night, Christopher Leighton, a Presbyterian minister observes:

...No doubt many readers, empathizing with Jewish suffering, will see a certain grandeur in the ability to endure and to survive a long history of affliction. But the role thereby assigned to God’s chosen people hardly meshes with the record of, for example, the Jewish community of the United States, which has scaled the ladder of social success, achieved enviable economic stability, and actively contributed to every aspect of our national life. Nor does the status of victim fit the state of Israel, which has successfully stood up to the onslaught of its Arab enemies in the conviction that only military might and political grit will secure its future.

The resulting dissonance has had baleful implications. Today, in the querulous reactions of many European and American Christians to Israel’s unblinking refusal to submit to Arab terrorism, we have seen all too clearly the distorted moral priorities of a world prepared to welcome Jews only when they follow an ancient script, achieving tragic nobility through impotence and passivity—through sacrifice. Any Holocaust curriculum that does not move beyond Elie Wiesel’s Night will fail to teach mainstream American Christians the falsity and dangerous arrogance of that stereotype...

Everyone is sympathetic toward dead Jews. Personally, I have no intention of playing that role, and I don't expect anyone else to volunteer for it, either.

Oprah, Elie Wiesel, and My Fellow Christians

Posted by Solomon at 12:36 PM on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 | Comments (3)
Click to share this post

3 Comments

#1 Cynic | May 9, 2006 1:12 PM

"Nor does the status of victim fit the state of Israel, which has successfully stood up to the onslaught of its Arab enemies ..."

In what category is 58 years of constant stress and suffering due to familial losses along with property destruction, that took decades to develop, defined? That of the agressor?

Basically one is saying that because a man has a certain wealth he is not really a victim if his family is murdered or his property plundered?

#2 Solomon | May 9, 2006 1:51 PM

I think that what he's saying si really that for some people, the country you describe is a victim so long as it doesn't fight back. In that way, Israel doesn't fit the victim paradigm, and for that it (incorrectly) loses the sympathy it deserves. Let's recgonize a friend here.

#3 Michael B | May 10, 2006 8:07 PM

Try as I might I don't find these types of analyses satisfying in any thorough-going sense. No doubt he's right to some degree - and he does state his case with some tentativeness - but everything he imputes, seemingly to many people, I find repulsive on intellectual, theological and other grounds. Admittedly, mine is something of a subjective and intuitive judgement, though too specific aspects of his analysis are overly leveraged and far too self-assurred (e.g., his construal of the Francois Mauriac quote he excerpts just more than half way through the piece; Mauriac is referencing "human suffering" in general, not Auschwitz and the Shoah specifically, additionally Mauriac was a Nobelist when it still meant something and is no longer around to defend his view). Additionally he leaves too many dimensions unexplored and unreferenced (e.g., this brief but cogent exploration of Adorno's post-Auschwitz views and themes).

Still, to the extent he's right his corrective is fully warranted as well.