I am arriving late to the story of Arun Gandhi–grandson of the famous Indian reformer and sometime pacifist–and his disgusting whine against the Jews on January 7th in the “On Faith” blog of “Newsweek” and the “Washington Post.”
Gandhi is the head of an Institute for Nonviolence at the University of Rochester, and he’s quite the preacher. “We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity,” he intoned. And that’s only a part of what annoyed Mr. Gandhi about the Jews. He’s greatly annoyed that people keep talking about the Holocaust, which he calls “a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed.” He thinks that the Jews’ refusal to “forgive and move on” has antagonized the rest of the world. And he doesn’t like the Israelis’ determination to fight against the Palestinians; he thinks they should do away with the security fence, share military technology with Hamas and Fatah, and “build a relationship.” Otherwise, you can take it from him that “the Jewish identity in the future appears bleak.”
As it happens, this sort of advice to the Jews is an integral part of the Gandhi family album. At the beginning of that annoying Holocaust, Mahatma himself advised the Jews of Europe to offer themselves up to the Fuhrer without any resistance.
If only the Jews of Germany had the good sense to offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers’ knives and throw themselves into the sea from cliffs they would arouse world public opinion, Gandhi was convinced, and their moral triumph would be remembered for “ages to come.” If they would only pray for Hitler (as their throats were cut, presumably), they would leave a “rich heritage to mankind.” …Even after the war, when the full extent of the Holocaust was revealed, Gandhi told Louis Fischer, one of his biographers, that the Jews died anyway, didn’t they? They might as well have died significantly. (From Richard Grenier’s essay, “The Gandhi Nobody Knows,” in “Commentary,” March 1983).
Mahatma Gandhi’s advice to die with dignity wasn’t very attractive, but at least he didn’t blame the Jews for those who were determined to exterminate them. That noxious accusation was made by his grandson on the “Washington Post” religion blog. And Arun Gandhi, perhaps relying on his family name to protect him from criticism, didn’t even take the usual precaution of wrapping his Jew hatred in the mantle of legitimate concern about the policies of the state of Israel. He makes it quite clear that his beef is with the Jews AND Israel, but above all, with the Jews.
After the predictable firestorm erupted, Gandhi came forth with a mealy-mouthed “apology,” saying that he shouldn’t have suggested that Israeli policies reflected the “views of all Jewish people,” and adding that some Jews even agree with him. In other words, “don’t blame me; some of my best friends are Jews.” And then he offered his resignation to the University of Rochester, whose president had strongly condemned Gandhi’s remarks.
By January 18th–eleven days after the original tirade–the two key figures at the blog, “Newsweek” managing editor Jon Meachem and the “Post”’s celebrated Sally Quinn, posted a straightforward apology. “We regret the initial posting, and we apologize for the episode.” More power to them, and would that we got more such apologies. It could have been faster and stronger–Quinn and Meachem should have done more than “regret” the Gandhi post, in my opinion. They should have denounced him for what he is, a disgusting anti-semite. But let’s not be churlish; they had the honesty and courage to apologize. And let’s try to understand what it all means.
Above all, it bespeaks a considerable indifference to Jew hatred. I have long since stopped subscribing to either publication, and I would have missed this story had it not been for blogs like Powerline, and emails from organizations like CAMERA. One of the reasons I stopped subscribing was the ease with which totally false statements are published in “Newsweek” and the “Post,” and I think my judgment was confirmed when the infamous Mr. Kos, in his maiden column in “Newsweek,” repeated lies about my daughter, for which others had already been forced to apologize.
There are many other examples of their indifference to the truth. The man who sits atop the corporate pyramid that includes “Newsweek” and the “Post” is Donald Graham, who is famous in my family for failing to take action when, early in the Iraq war, he was personally given films from Saddam’s regime that documented the horrors regularly practiced on the Iraqi people. The “Post” buried the story in the back of the front section, and even wondered out loud if the films were American propaganda. Graham knew better, but let the misleading and underreported story stand.
Now I don’t for a moment think that Donald Graham, Sally Quinn, or Jon Meachem is an anti-Semite. But I do think they are accustomed to screeds against Israel–their publications are full of them–and so they just didn’t notice that Gandhi was talking about the Jews, and blaming the Jews for their enemies’ bigotry. I think that shows that the much-vaunted dividing line between “legitimate criticism of Israel” and outright anti-semitism is often a rhetorical trick. Gandhi gave it away when he failed to make enough distinctions between “Israel” and “the Jews,” and the editors showed their own bias when they failed to see what Gandhi was up to.
Finally, the whole sequence suggests that the editors hoped Gandhi’s “apology” would get them out of the mess they’d created, and they only came forward when it was clear that Gandhi had only made things worse.
It will be interesting to see what the University of Rochester does when Gandhi shows up on the 24th to learn whether his resignation’s been accepted. As it will be interesting to see whether the dead-tree versions of “Newsweek” and the “Post” cover that story.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
18 Comments
a Duoist:As ever, the most intelligent and talented of peoples are the most reviled. It’s very interesting that the academic head of a non-violence institute makes no connection between expressing his hate and unintentionaly teaching violence.
Jan 21, 2008 - 7:05 pm Mark William Paules:It sickens me to watch utopian imbeciles perform their moral preening in public. It’s always so easy for them to sacrifice the lives and liberties of other people without risk to themselves.
Nonviolence can be a successful tactic against injustice when it appeals to our higher moral nature. Mohandas Gandhi and MLK made their respective appeals to societies they knew to be decent, fair and law abiding. Such societies will invariably recoil when brutality is used against innocents.
But to assume that a Hitler or Saddam would yield to nonviolent protest is folly. Such tactics would only make the job of genocide easier. And without a free press to cover the events, the sacrifice would be futile. When ordinary Britains got word of the Amritsar massacre, they were outraged. When America watched black citizens being savaged by the police, they were appalled. Both societies reacted by demanding justice.
Yasser Arafat could have been another Gandhi or MLK, but he chose instead a campaign based on hatred and violence. Much could have been won through a campaign of nonviolence. The Jews have been an intensely introspective, moral and ethical people going back thousands of years.
Israel reacts with a measured response to one provocation after another, yet she gets no credit for showing restraint. Why should the Jews care at this point what the world has to say? The West dithers in a muddle of self-doubt and moral relativism, but the Jews retain clarity honed to a razor’s edge. National survival depends on it.
I generally don’t lapse into into profanity, but piss on you, Mr. Gandhi the Younger. You haven’t earned your grandfather’s cloak of respectability. You’re nothing but a moral exhibitionist. So stuff it until you venture into Gaza personally and lead an unarmed protest against the violence. But I won’t hold my breath . . .
Jan 21, 2008 - 9:08 pm narciso:Interesting that there’s an Harry Turtledove alternate reality tale, that references what would have happened if Hitler had prevailed and sent Ge. Model to India to bring
Jan 21, 2008 - 10:49 pm El Jefe Maximo:the Indian independence movement to heel. The consequences were not very
good for Mohandas or the Indian people in particular. Dyer was an exception to the British system (Amritsar) His conduct would have
been standard procedure for the Third Reich; if a little on the soft side. A more realistic scenario would have been in Subandas
Bhose; the Indian ‘Quisling’ would have prevailed.
I confess to being somewhat unmoved by the Mahatma, who was lucky in his enemies. Had be been dealing with the British of 100 years previously, or with Romans (let alone Hitler), he might have made slightly different discoveries about the effectiveness of moral triumphs. If he had “died with dignity” under such conditions, who would have ever recorded it ?
As for Professor Gandhi, all his talk about snake-pits, befriending and the Culture of Violence is bumpf that could only exist and be taken seriously by people who actually think there’s a point to an “Institute for Nonviolence” in a world where wackos can fire rockets across borders at unarmed civilians without effective sanction of any kind, including moral.
ML:
I am not impressed by anyone who tells me I should shut up and die with dignity. I’m writing a chapter right now on the “cult of death,” and I am struck, as I am always, by the fact that the leaders of such movements like to send others to die, but never, ever, march to death themselves…
Jan 22, 2008 - 12:12 pm John D:Michael, I find Gandhi’s words abhorant. But please don’t ask for him to be silence or censored. Let him display to the world his ignorance and take note of those who will defend him.
Rebut, argue, correct, but never censor.
Look to our north at the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission who are asking publishers to explain their thoughts while publishing articles critical of Muslims to see the consquences of such actions.
I respect you, I respect Israel and do not think much of Mr. Gandhi, the younger or the elder. That is the results of actually reading your thoughts and their thoughts, somthing that I could not have done if anyone was kept from publishing their views.
ML:
Right. One of the great things about America is that you never have to shut up, heh…unless of course you’re politically incorrect. I don’t think little Gandhi has much to worry about.
Jan 22, 2008 - 1:59 pm Chris:The comment above about General Dyer is extremely ignorant. See Andrew Roberts ‘A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900′ for what the situation was on the ground (very dangerous to innocent parties), the measured reality of Dyer’s response (there were multiple advance warnings to the demonstrators and the public), and the Indian response to the shootings (much of it favourable to Dyer. He was made an honorary Sikh.)
Jan 23, 2008 - 7:03 am Judith:Funny how it’s always a double-standard when it comes to the Jews…guess that’s the definition of anti-Semitism. Since their exile, for over 1900 years, the Jews were constantly persecuted not bc/ they murdered or stole from anyone, but merely because they were hated. Sixty years ago, the Jews re-establish the state of Israel and the mentality of the pacifist-Jew-in-exile, by necessity, had to also morph into a warrior mentality in the face of blood thirsty enemies. Like any state that must defend itself against it’s enemies, Israel must fight it’s war to victory…anything less is criminal…and war is messy. (Lord knows, if we eschewed appeasement to stand firm & kill Hitler in 1940, 20 million people would be alive & not sacrificed to some delusional-Gandhiesque-pacifism.) Even today, only Israel is asked to provide fuel & food to Gazan terrorists who are committed to Israel’s extinction, even though, under international law, Israel isn’t required to support a hostile entity, especially as it lobs 30 kasams into Sederot on a daily basis. Only the Jews are asked to explain themselves against the obvious & in the face of it’s very existential self-defense. Sorry world, a stateless Jew is a powerless Jew & he can ill afford to satisfy Newsweek/WashPost/Gandhi et al by reverting to the deadly pacifism of its exile years.
Jan 23, 2008 - 8:13 am Caligula:to quote the movie fight club- “i’d fight gahndi”
Jan 23, 2008 - 11:42 am Winston:Western/American mainstream media are entrenched against the current war on terrorism and jihadism and they sound a lot like the media in Iran, Palestine, Syria or other anti-jewish Islamic countries. I remember what this guy wrote on Newsweek blog against the Jews is similar to what we used to hear back in Iran that Jews are to blame for their own mass-murder. This is disgusting beyond belief.
Jan 23, 2008 - 3:21 pm David W. Lincoln:The British in India, and those that they were answerable to in Westminster exercised far more self-restraint that Adolf and his motley crue.
This is why Mohandas Gandhi didn’t die at the hands of the British.
Neglecting important variables is stock in trade of frankly those who are challenged ethically.
For how in Heaven’s high name can the post-modernists say that they are of better ethical standing than the “benighted” who take the Ten Commandments seriously? For intellectual honesty dovetails with freedom, as far as I can tell.
ML:
You are certainly right, but I don’t know anyone who feels morally inferior, do you?
Jan 23, 2008 - 5:18 pm Greenconsciousness:Gandhi, as so many others, understood his own oppression but not “the other”. He oppressed and exploited the females in and out of his family including 12 and 13 year old girls. And we see how sensitive he was about the genocide of Jews. And this rot runs through his family line because none of them have come to terms with it. Exposure is what that family needs - the spotlight should be directed at the entire line, wherever it sits. Shame on their name.
Jan 23, 2008 - 6:24 pm Joseph Hayyim:How - why - was Ghandi selected for the position, given his views? Or were they résumé enhancements, perhaps?
ML:
I dunno, you could ask Rochester U.
Jan 23, 2008 - 7:17 pm David W. Lincoln:Well, Michael, as rebuttal, there are people who feel fine and then they keel over. Turns out they tend to ignore warning signs up to the very end.
So, there are limits to subjectivity. At least, from my perch.
ML:
Roger that.
Jan 23, 2008 - 7:56 pm tanstaafl:Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?
Arun doesn’t seem to get that those very neighbors have had Israel in their sights for the duration, since 1948.
That writing of AG’s in the blog was some kind of brain dead pap. I guess the only thing he has to trade on is the last name.
Jan 24, 2008 - 2:57 pm old progrmr:Mr. Ledeen, I have just found your “blog”. I read in one of your articles your observation that the west is currently being led by rather “intellectually challenged” people. I certainly agree. I have termed it an “epidemic of stupidity”. What I don’t understand is how we got ourselves into this mess. I have associated with many extremely brilliant people over my 68 years; but, it appears something happens to men and women who enter “public service” that cause a significant loss of common sense. I would appreciate you expanding on your observations of this phenomenon. I fear we are in real trouble if we continue to be led by the ignorant. And, I don’t believe the very bad decisions we see being made on a daily basis are just politics as usual, I really think these are actions of not very bright people. Where are the smart and practical leaders?
ML:
Yes we are in trouble, and we have always been in trouble, like most peoples and countries in the history of the world. We are badly led, and mankind has almost always been badly led. Great leaders are very rare. Plus, there is the specifically American component: Tocqueville saw immediately that the best Americans almost never go into government, they do business, or law, or religion. That’s easy to understand, but it has the consequences you describe so well.
So I don’t think there is anything unusual about our current condition. In the past, we have often been saved by our enemies, who underestimate our ability to learn quickly from our errors and correct them. Look at Iraq, for example. We made lots of mistakes, we recognized them, we changed our methods, and now we are doing better. It’s great (lucky) to be a superpower because we have larger margins of error than smaller, weaker countries who get destroyed or dominated if they make serious blunders.
Finally, the lawyers have become omnipresent in our government, which often produces catastrophic misjudgments, especially in war-fighting doctrines and practices. For example, our soldiers on the battlefield nowadays often have to obtain approval for rapid response to enemy attacks, which delays action and increases our risk and the efficacy of our counter attacks. I think it’s now impossible to drop a bomb or launch an artillery shell without explicit approval from a lawyer.
This seems to me a new element, with positive elements (fewer innocents are killed) and negative ones (more of our own guys get killed and wounded, and it makes prosecution of the war slower).
I hope that helps.
Jan 26, 2008 - 1:01 pm Ran:Old Progrmr,
ML’s book “Freedom Betrayed” provides much of the background for his return comments.
Mr. Ledeem,
As a naturalized citizen, I take great interest in the founding fathers’ ideas at the birth of this nation. It is miraculous, to me, that so many talented minds and libertarian souls led a revolution in thought, a war to ensure freedom and then the framing of the Constitution. The founders saw government first as a moral and individual restraint on action, then in the contexts of family, community, State and Nation, last. We’ve had few such minds since in the political arena… ask almost anyone today what “government” means and the first thing they discuss is “social security” or “health care” or “taxes”.
The phrase “ubiquitous computing” comes to mind. If this machine is to run well, perhaps superb national leadership is not the issue. Perhaps it’s superb local leadership, right down to the individual level, that will make the difference. Heh - I’m in a match now with our local school to unwind some of the sociotripe they’re feeding my kids.
This is why Arun Gandhi’s shaming and resignation is so very important: as leadership on a local level, his attitudes and racism had the potential to spread.
Jan 27, 2008 - 11:12 am David W. Lincoln:Good news! Ghandi has resigned.
Once again we see that actions speak louder than words.
Jan 27, 2008 - 11:03 pm RCC:Anti-semitism is a highly charged word and in some circles is abused to simply mean anyone who doesn’t agree with Israel’s policies. I strongly disagree with anything remotely close to that usage. Israel is a strange beast, and favoring or disfavoring their policies is no reflection upon Judaism as a religion or its peoples. And, as much as I have fondness for Jews, I think that the Holocaust, for all of its invocations in today’s culture, deserves no more or less credit than Stalin’s Purge as a historical lesson on the willingness of Empire to turn on its people in the goal of mass-murder and political cleansing. The tragedy of the Holocaust was the betrayal of the very jews who built and created Germany for generations. The Holocaust was an important event in history, yes, but no matter how ineloquent or rabidly biased Gandhi’s words may have been, I do think at some point it’s important for Jews to kindly let some old wounds heal in that regard; but historical reflection is a strong attribute to their faith, and that must be measured carefully on their own terms.
I have not yet read Gandhi’s words for I, myself, am sometimes averse to Newsweek as well and this is an instance where Mr. Ledeen is a primary source. But I would like to think that there is at least some wisdom behind Gandhi’s hystrionics– we are, as many have said, looking down the barrel of a ‘big war’ that ‘could last for decades,’ and I believe that in the great global debate we’re witnessing that big words on one side are due to be matched by big words on the other. Gandhi’s words, however charged, are fair play, and it’s a shame to see him lose position simply for participating.
Israel is a great land full of many achievements. It is a shame that what remains of Palestine must exist as a prison state in order to guarantee Israel’s success. Iran, for all of its faults, pays more respect to its Jews than that. Or am I misinformed?
Mr Ledeen, I read with interest your thoughts on leadership and the current engagement in Iraq. It is a shame, indeed, that we must fight a war and respond through legal channels as opposed to letting a good fight play out naturally. But those are the costs of the type of war we’re fighting, I believe. A war of necessity would never be so hamstrung by those limitations.
Cheers
PS to MWP: I must admit to taking serious issue with comparing the acts of British colonialism, as well as the acts of MLK’s 1950’s American South to be representative of “decent, fair, and law-abiding societies.” I can’t fairly express how I would begin to reconcile the chasm I’m finding here…
Jan 28, 2008 - 3:38 am