Holocaust ‘Shutting Down Debate’ About Treatment of Palestinians, New York Times Frets

The real problem with the Holocaust is that it is “shutting down debate about Israeli treatment of Palestinians.”

That’s the argument getting respectful attention in a New York Times book review. The review lavishes praise — “conscientious,” “especially timely,” “concise and accessible” — on a book that applies the label of “knee-jerk Zionism” to the views of Jewish Holocaust survivors in displaced persons camps.

It’s hard to tell how much of the complaining about Israel and Zionism is from the book, The Holocaust: An Unfinished History, by Dan Stone, and how much is added by the Times book reviewer, staff critic Jennifer Szalai.

The book itself, as the reference to “knee-jerk Zionism” indicates, has its problems. A sentence from the introduction asserts, “It would take several decades for the events which accompanied the creation of the state of Israel, especially the Nakba, or Palestinian catastrophe, when Palestinians were expelled from their towns and villages to make way for Jewish settlers, to make its mark on Israeli intellectuals and the public.” Never mind that many of those Arabs fled on their own, hoping that the invading Arab armies would destroy Israel, and never mind that some Jewish officials at the time urged the local Arabs to remain.

Yet as the review notes, the “book was first published in Britain in January of last year — too early to include events from the last few months.” That doesn’t stop the Times reviewer from using the Holocaust as a platform to opine about the Israel-Hamas war.

“Prominent historians have decried the misuse of ‘Holocaust memory’ by politicians to justify Israel’s bombing of Gaza after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks,” the Times reviewer writes, hyperlinking to a Nov. 2023 letter from a motley collection of far left academics accusing Israeli leaders of “promoting racist narratives” and blaming Israel for “seventy-five years of displacement, fifty-six years of occupation, and sixteen years of the Gaza blockade.”

The Times review includes this passage:

In Germany, regulations on how the Holocaust is remembered are so restrictive that criticism of Israel gets branded as antisemitic (a conflation that occurs elsewhere, including here in the United States). Stone deplores the effects of Germany’s position. In addition to shutting down debate about Israeli treatment of Palestinians, it has the perverse result of equating Jews with Israel “in the fetishized manner of both hard-line Zionist and anti-Zionist thought.”

If the Holocaust indeed has had the effect of “shutting down debate about Israeli treatment of Palestinians,” you sure wouldn’t know it from reading the New York Times, where such criticism, even if not justified, is nonetheless pervasive. And equating Jews with Israel isn’t some sort of “hard-line” “fetish”; it is merely an acknowledgment of the reality that for the overwhelming majority of Jews worldwide, identification with Israel is an intrinsic part of their identity. And maybe the Times might want to be a little more cautious in cheering on overly permissive definitions of antisemitism in Germany?

As the Times itself has conceded, it failed during the actual Holocaust to adequately cover the war against the Jews. A Times executive editor, Max Frankel, has called it a “staggering, staining failure.” By falsely portraying the Holocaust’s contemporary significance as constraining criticism of Israel’s self-defense, the Times compounds its original error.

Israel’s elected leaders are well aware of the history. In 2022, Benjamin Netanyahu responded to a Times editorial by writing, “After burying the Holocaust for years on its back pages and demonizing Israel for decades on its front pages, the New York Times now shamefully calls for undermining Israel’s elected incoming government.”

It could be that rather than constraining criticism of Israel, as the Times claims, the Holocaust encourages criticism of Israel. Institutions such as the Times, which failed abjectly to rise to the mission of defending the Jews during the Holocaust, now seek to salve their own guilt by falsely portraying Jews as perpetrators of Nazi-scale crimes against humanity.

As the historian Bernard Lewis memorably put it, “For more than half a century, any discussion of Jews and their problems has been overshadowed by the grim memories of the crimes of the Nazis and of the complicity, acquiescence, or indifference of so many others. But inevitably, the memory of those days is fading, and now Israel and its problems afford an opportunity to relinquish the unfamiliar and uncomfortable posture of guilt and contrition and to resume the more familiar and more comfortable position of stern reproof from an attitude of moral superiority.”

Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.