A review of a biography by Joseph Berger of the late Elie Wiesel, a survivor of Auschwitz, has just appeared in the British newspaper, The Telegraph. According to Adam Levick, the review was most disturbing, for the reviewer seemed to think it unacceptable that Wiesel was and remained a strong supporter of Israel. More on this review can be found here: “Telegraph Chides Elie Wiesel For Not Having Criticised Israel,” by Adam Levick, CAMERA, June 6, 2023:
A review of a new book in the UK’s The Telegraph tried to attack the late Elie Wiesel for supporting Israel.
Joseph Berger’s judicious and well-crafted portrait of this remarkable man stops short of hagiography, [but] its reverentially respectful tone leaves its impact a bit flat,” writes Rupert Christiansen in his Telegraph review of a book about Wiesel (“How Elie Wiesel taught the world to face the horror of the Holocaust,” June 4).
A few paragraphs in, the Telegraph author writes this:
[Wiesel] was righteously furious with God, who had mysteriously abandoned the Chosen Race in its darkest hours…”
First, we’re not aware of any writing by Wiesel referring to Jews as the “Chosen Race” — which is curiously capitalized by the journalist. Nor, for that matter, do we know of any Jewish figure who’s used that term. Indeed, the characterization of Jews as “race” is a relatively recent phenomenon. While the idea of Jews as the “chosen people“ is common — often meant to refer to the task of “communicating the monotheistic idea and a set of moral ideals to humanity” — the term “Chosen Race“ more resembles the concept used by the Nazis to refer to the alleged racial supremacy of Aryans. It’s unsettling, to say the least, that the reviewer decided on that specific rhetorical formula.
The ”Chosen Race” is sinister, redolent of the Nazis’ “Master Race”; Wiesel would never have used that phrase to describe the Jews. “Chosen People” is the phrase used by Jews — as old as Judaism itself — that does not imply, as some think, any superiority to others. As a Conservative Jewish handbook explains: “Few beliefs have been subject to as much misunderstanding as the ‘Chosen People’ doctrine. The Torah and the Prophets clearly stated that this does not imply any innate Jewish superiority. In the words of Amos (3:2) ‘You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth—that is why I will call you to account for your iniquities.’ The Torah tells us that we are to be ‘a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ with obligations and duties which flowed from our willingness to accept this status. Far from being a license for special privilege, it entailed additional responsibilities not only toward God but to our fellow human beings. As expressed in the blessing at the reading of the Torah, our people have always felt it to be a privilege to be selected for such a purpose.”
The Jews were “chosen” by God to bring monotheism to the world, and to share a moral code with all peoples. By replacing “Chosen People” with “Chosen Race,” Christiansen turns an obligation toward God, which must be fulfilled by the Jews, into something quite different – a claim of racial superiority.
Even worse, Christiansen calls out Wiesel, the late Holocaust survivor, for his “moral blind spot” regarding Israel:
Wiesel was to all intents and purposes a Zionist, and such was his fealty to Israel that he could never bring himself to issue more than polite suggestions that its government should be a beacon of probity and currently wasn’t. He rejoiced in the outcome of the Six Day War and remained silent on the illegal settlements: his compassion would extend to Armenians, the Vietnamese boat people and black South Africans, but he had nothing to say in defence of brutally disenfranchised Palestinians.
This is just a suggestion, but perhaps the next time that Telegraph editors commission a review on a book about a Holocaust survivor, they might want to insist that the contributor has at least a passing understanding of what Zionism means.
So Christiansen faults Wiesel for not being sufficiently critical of Israel, the way that all right-thinking people should be. His Zionist ardor is held against him. But there is nothing sinister about Zionism. It is nothing more than the belief that the Jews have a right to re-establish their ancient homeland in Eretz Israel, the Land of Israel, where Jews have lived for 3,500 years, and to be able to defend their tiny state against those who have already tried three times to destroy it.
If Christiansen had known that Zionism merely refers to Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state in the Jews’ ancestral homeland, he wouldn’t have oddly asserted that Wiesel was for “all intents and purposes” a “Zionist” — as if Wiesel’s belief in the country’s right to live was somehow less than clear.
Wiesel wasn’t “for all intents and purposes” a Zionist. He was a “Zionist,” period. The phrase used by Christiansen suggests that being a Zionist was something Wiesel wished to hide, but “to all intents and purposes” he was exactly that. Wiesel was always proud to be a Zionist.
As Christiansen acknowledges, Wiesel spent his life not only writing and talking about the Holocaust, but speaking out against other acts of mass slaughter, as well. However, the suggestion that — for the sake of moral consistency — he was thus obligated to advocate on behalf of the Palestinians rests on the perverse suggestion that they were, too, victims of something akin to genocide.
Christiansen thinks that Wiesel deserves criticism because he failed to embrace the cause of the Palestinians, as if they too had suffered in the same way as the Jews. But they haven’t. The Israeli Arabs have exactly the same rights as Israeli Jews. As for the “disenfranchised” Palestinians, their disenfranchisement is not Israel’s fault. It was not Israel that imposed the despotism of the terror group Hamas in Gaza, nor was it Israel that imposed the despotic and colossally corrupt Mahmoud Abbas on the Palestinians in the West Bank.
And what is the “cause of the Palestinians” that Christiansen thinks Wiesel should have championed? Let’s not mince words. It is to replace the only Jewish state by a 23rd Arab state, the state of Palestine, that would extend “from the river to the sea.” The Palestinians in Hamas and in the P.A. differ on tactics and timing, but agree on their ultimate aims – the disappearance of the Jewish state. Hamas calls explicitly in its Charter for the destruction of Israel. This must be accomplished by violence – the “terrorism” from both within and without Israel that will finally lead the state to collapse. The “moderates” of the P.A. are willing to wait, as they chip away at Israel’s legitimacy through a sustained diplomatic campaign rather than violence, in the hope that the Israelis will finally agree to be squeezed back within the 1949 armistice lines, the lines that Abba Eban once described as “the lines of Auschwitz,” with a nine-mile-wide waist from Qalqilya to the sea. Once that has been achieved, the Arabs will again be able to launch a many-sided assault on a dimidiated Israel, and this time, succeed where they failed in 1948, and 1967, and 1973.
Wiesel “rejoiced in the outcome of the Six Day War” (as Christiansen writes) because Jews – for the second time in 19 years, and just 22 years after the Holocaust — successfully defended themselves against enemies who again sought their annihilation….
My, my. How terrible of Wiesel to “rejoice” in the fact that Israel managed to defeat the three Arab states that had tried to defeat and destroy it. How terrible of him to welcome the fact that Jews could again visit the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, and pray at the Western Wall – both of which had been denied to them between 1949 and 1967. According to Christiansen, Wiesel has let us all down. Morally, he should have deplored the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War, not “rejoiced” in it; Wiesel should have wanted the Arabs, at the very least, not to have been so crushingly defeated. Christiansen clearly has his knickers in a twist over Israel’s triumph over its enemies in that war. If you find his attitude troubling, you are not alone.
As the CAMERA article says, “Elie Wiesel had nothing to apologize for.” Rupert Christiansen, however, does.
The istanbulian says
What do you expect from a Christian son?
We can all play word games…
JOHN LLOYD SCHARF says
Using adhominim falllacies started the holocaust. The writer of that article starts off with “Wiesel will go down in history as the man who invented the concept of the Holocaust.”
People like you invented the concept of the Holocaust. Your blamestorming based on religion is the SAME bigotry. Hitler was a fear mongering opportunist feeding on religious stereotyping, not a Christian. He considered Christianity WEAK. If anything he was PAGAN because Odinism praises warfare and conquest. He ADMIRED Muhammadanism for the same reason.
I now am curious about a book entitled, “How Elie Wiesel taught the world to face the horror of the Holocaust.” The one in the last Great Depression or the one in the NEXT Great Depression. People like you provoke REPEATS of history with your blamestorming stereotyping bigotry. Pitting Jews against Christians is the same as pitting Christians against Jews. ALL ARE LOSERS in that and in wars.
somehistory says
Some people, a growing number, see things their way and if another does not see things their way, then that one is a criminal, a liar, a bigot, racist, etc.
The “reviewer” sees bad things about Israel and the Jews. Therefore, to please him, Mr. Wiesel also had to see bad things in Israel and the Jews.
The Bible says that the Jews were given the Law so mankind could recognize their *need* for Someone to redeem them, because they could not keep the Law as they were commanded. They had shortcomings, committed acts of idolatry and rebellion; some committed murder; others adultery.
But because of the faithfulness of Abraham, his descendants were ‘chosen” to provide the line to Christ, record the Law and inform others
Not a ‘superior’ people, but a “chosen” one. A Promise/Covenant made to Abraham, renewed in David and recognized in Jesus Christ.
Hoi Polloi says
Yes, even a child can comprehend that choosing a flavor for his birthday cake does not render that flavor superior, just a choice.
These individuals can’t satiate themselves in their quest for fights with the dead who can’t fight back, or greed for an improved territory such as Israel (our native Christian guide had quite a bit to say about how much advancement and improvement the Jews had brought to Israel), or the power to redefine words, ideas, and identities, or theft of others’ children, or control of farmland and freedom of thought and movement (but only for law abiders), and all the rest.
Anyone who believes they’ll be less greedy with more power is deranged.
somehistory says
Absolutely; everything you wrote. HP
JOHN LLOYD SCHARF says
Being “chosen” by the Creator is a responsibility; not a perquisite. Look at the history of ALL chosen by HIM to be leaders, kings, soldiers, and prophets. They lived hell on earth. Never asked to be chosen or taught patience by the King of Creation. If I am wrong, let a Rabbi teach me better from the Torah or Psalms or Proverbs.
somehistory says
“not a perquisite”?
Most certainly it is. It was a great privilege for the Jews to be given the Law, although it was a “burden” on them because being imperfect meant they could not keep it as it was written.
It was a great privilege to be “heirs with a promise,” and to produce Jesus Christ to save mankind from a sure and certain death.
It was a great privilege to be given the good news first; to be chosen to rule with Jesus in heaven first among mankind.
And it certainly was a very great privilege to have Almighty God as One who fights for his people and blesses them when they obey His Laws, orders, commandments, as their God.
As the young Hebrews thrown into the furnace, as Daniel thrown into the lion’s den, as Moses at the Red Sea, as Joseph rescued after being thrown into prison, as David going against the giant Goliath….so many examples of people being *saved,* rescued by the God Who “chose” the descendants of Abraham to be given His Law.
No greater privilege could there be than being “chosen” by God for a special purpose.
Hoi Polloi says
Given the many, many promises of protection and advantage to those who keep the law, it’s both; chosen to have truth revealed and choosing the blessings as promised reward to those who seek and live truth. God made clear that King David, for example, chose his punishment through his choice of deviance from the law. Both he and his son lived in great luxury.
Hoi Polloi says
Thanks, SH. Love your work here.
James Lincoln says
somehistory says,
“Some people, a growing number, see things their way and if another does not see things their way, then that one is a criminal, a liar, a bigot, racist, etc.”
I remember, just a few short years ago, when we could simply “agree to disagree”.
somehistory says
I remember that too, James. It’s only possible now if both are reasonable people. Mostly, that’s the case with those who are willing to acknowledge the Truth when it is not what they wish to hear.
We all have to be careful lest the attitude of “I’m right and you have to agree” rubs off.
Chief Mac says
So wanting Jewish to be free and sovereign in their homeland is now somehow evil. Only to moronic anti-semite
Hoi Polloi says
Yes, this writer chose himself, ahem, to be the individual who judges Wiesel to be insufficiently willing to debase himself, his people, and his homeland. The irony.
JOHN LLOYD SCHARF says
Morons have a lack of intellegence, but not always a lack of common sense, which comes from a common experience. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems, not the wisdom to do so for the better.
On the other hand, most anti-semites have the intelligence required to turn paradise into hell. They have the stupidity to make that choice. Stupidity is not a lack of intelligence, facts, or skills in logic. It is a willingness to ignore knowledge of reason, and especially obvious facts.
Morons are not culpable for failing at researching facts or using reason.
The intelligent have the power, but no such excuse. The most vile and dangerous anti-semites are intelligent beyond their wisdom. They KNOW good from evil. They willingly ignore the good and CHOOSE evil.
mgoldberg says
Just looking at the previous article ‘Muslims murder 12 people, beheading many with hatchets and machetes’. Articles like this from lands with muslim Jihadists, slaughtering others, across the globe and
in Israel, especially Israel, long before it was formed into its reconstituted 3200 yr old home for the jewish people, mean nothing to leftists. Yet the slaughtering goes on, across the globe by the religion of pieces.
The only baseline the reviewer has is the notion of the ‘oppressed’, but its’ so skewed because it only assumes that the arabs in Israel are oppressed and that Wiesel cannot see it, but it is he, and all the other ‘progressives’ who wear blinders and skew the facts over and over.
somehistory says
Yes. They have chosen an enemy and no matter that their enemy is not evil, they will support or ignore the evil of another, while verbally abusing their enemy for the good that has been done.
Calling “evil good and good evil,” as Isaiah wrote. Makes them evil, though they self-righteously deny it.
gershompesach says
zionism is not just a modern political movement—it is integral to our religion—“the Promised Land” is where Moses was heading 2500 yrs ago…& away from the “corruption” of Egypt… It wud B like telling a christian everything about Christianity is wonderful—except U find this Jesus being —the way, the truth & the life….offensive!
Neto says
Tjecjpsemsdfsdfsfdsdfsdf