In my book The Wandering Who, I delved into the fascinating and well accepted notion that historical thinking is foreign to Judaic thought. It is a recognised historical fact that Jews didn’t produce any historical texts for almost 2 millennia or more precisely, in between Flavius Josephus (37 CE – circa 100 CE) and Heinrich Graetz (1817 –1891). Within the context of Judaic Rabbinical discourse, the religious text effectively replaces historical and temporal thinking. The present and the future are realised and interpreted in the light of the Biblical canonical narratives. Hitler, Stalin and Corbyn for instance, are reduced into ‘Amalek figures.’ Those western leaders who serve Jewish interests fit nicely with the Judaic notion of the “Sabbos Goy.” From a Judaic perspective, Jewish suffering is regarded as inherent in Jewish destiny and experience, it is implied by the Biblical narrative and it is, to a certain extent, accepted.
In 19th century Europe, following the rapid process of Jewish emancipation that resulted in vast secularisation and the decline of the hegemony of the Rabbinical authorities, assimilated Jews felt a growing need to understand their past, present and future within a historical context. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand argues, this process involved, inter alia, a lot of imagination: the Jews invented large parts of their past. This creative tendency was not practiced by Zionists alone, it is actually a crucial part of every Jewish Identitarian narrative. The Zionists invented the notion of a ‘historical right’ to other people’s land, and their so called Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist foes have been at least as duplicitous. When they preach to us in the name of ‘Jewish universal ethics,’ they are just fibbing, albeit in an institutional manner, as there is no such a thing as ‘Jewish universal ethics’ (moral philosophy). Judaism replaces ethics (a mode employing cognitive moral judgment) with Mitzvoth (a legalistic moralist apparatus that replaces judgment with obedience to rules). Judaism also replaces universalism with racially oriented tribalism that is largely chauvinist if not supremacist.
it is crucial to add that inventing one’s past is not solely a Jewish domain. An element of creativity is present for most people and probably all nationalists when they construct a narrative of their pasts. In his book Heidegger and “the Jews,” French Philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard points out that – history may claim to tell us what really happened but what it does in practice, most of the time, is the opposite. History conceals our collective shame in an aggressive, and institutional manner.
Americans have been hard at work concealing their genocides by peppering their cities with Holocaust museums. The Brits are no different, they have made their Imperial Wars Museum into a holocaust monument. For obvious reasons neither the Americans nor the British Holocaust shrines chronicle the embarrassing fact that both Britain and America closed their gates to Jewish refugees at the time of the Holocaust. History serves to conceal our shame rather than address it.
But Jewish history goes beyond mere concealment of Jewish shame. Jewish history often appears as a unique intellectual domain that seeks the participation of everyone else in the concealment of Jewish shame. Not only do Jews build their historical narrative in a fashion that prevents Jews or anyone else from the crucial study of what it is that makes the Jewish past into a chain car accident saturated with colossal tragedies, pogroms, expulsions and shoahs, ‘Jewish history’ is often a ‘system of thought’ that recruits others to participate and sustain the Jewish concealment apparatus.
The following article is an English translation of a Polish piece that appeared on BritishPoles.Uk a few days ago. It describes how Israeli History Professor Yehuda Bauer “taught young British historians how to describe the Holocaust.” as recounted by British Polish Oxford History Prof. Norman Davies in his recent autobiography.
As far back as 1974, Bauer, according to Davies, instructed British historians to refer to the Poles as merely “observers” rejecting all references to Polish suffering and ignoring the fact that Poland is the country that suffered most during World War II, losing over 17% of its population. The Israeli ‘historian’ referred to the Poles as “bystanders” despite the fact that Poles make up more than a quarter and more than any other country of the 26.793 Righteous Among the Nations recognized by Yad Vashem. More than 50,000 Poles were executed by the Germans solely as punishment for saving Jews.
Assuming that Prof Davies’ account is true and I have every good reason to believe it is, then what motivated Prof. Bauer to depict the Holocaust and the Poles in such a misleading light? Presumably, truth seeking wasn’t his prime motivation. Even more telling, if Prof. Davies account is accurate, then it is reasonable to assume that the Israeli historian wasn’t at all interested in uncovering the truth, instead he was investing in the concealment of truth and seeking support for his project from the British historians.
Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power. Similarly, Jewish history, can be seen as the attempt to conceal the fact that Jews actually have a history. Everything that is happening to Jews now, has happened too many times before and will keep repeating itself as long as we are too shy to unveil that which Prof. Bauer attempts (presumably) to conceal.
Norman Davies reveals how the anti-Polish narrative of the Holocaust began:
#British #historian Norman #Davies describes how #Israeli professor Yehuda #Bauer taught british historians how to speak about #Holocaust – presenting #Polish people as #bystanders who were not suffering during #WWII https://t.co/4q3KjUhGRR pic.twitter.com/G8QxWxA7o2
— Poland In (@Polandin_com) October 7, 2019