HOLOCAUST as a power word

I was watching CNN just now, their report on the protests in front of the Israeli embassy in London against Israel's air strikes on Gaza.

Among the assorted - not very many different - signs the protesters were carrying two were predominant: Free Palestine and Stop the holocaust in Gaza.

In the news "ticker" running at the bottom of the screen CNN chose to highlight the slogan Free Palestine - which is indeed the most all-encompassing and essential message of these protests. That is, in fact, the ultimate goal of most politically active Palestinians - certainly of the Hamas.

The eye of the camera, however, lingered on another one: Stop the holocaust in Gaza.
(N.B. It may have "lingered" on it simply because the group displaying it was the most vocal and visually agitated one.)

In the past thirty years or so, the term holocaust has become synonymous with the most unfortunate chapters in the history of Jewish people.
Furthermore, it has been elevated to a sort of "trademark" of the Jewish people and culture. This statement may sound cynical (even though its intention is far from it), but it is the truth.
(Should you need proof, you can prove it to yourself quite easily. When you hear it, do you think of, say, Rwanda? Armenia in 1916? The Nuba? The Roma - AKA Gypsies - in Nazi Germany? Do you?)

And it was the EYE - not history books or articles - which elevated it to such a status. The eye of the camera - of Hollywood, to be more precise. (Of Steven Spielberg's cameras, to be painfully precise.) The public in the TV era think with their eye.

And so, if you are going to use it - or any "power word" - for your own purposes, you'd better do it by harnessing the power of the camera. Articles, editorials and so on will only get you so far - which, in this day and age, with functional illiteracy rampant, isn't very far. To be seen at all, you have to be seen on TV.

Which brings us to today's protests in London.

If the protesters are using the word "holocaust" as a premeditated attempt to succinctly represent the extent and human suffering, the horror (perceived or real) of what the Israeli government is doing, they have jumped the gun.

To have its presumed intended effect, such a powerful "power word" should only be used in conjunction with much more spectacular protests - or as a consequence of much more (you're going to hate me for this, but your hatred will be misplaced) "dramatic" carnage.

For the media, a few hundred dead - unless it's in the USA or a European capital - is simply not "striking" enough. Worrying - yes, breaking news - most definitely. But at this stage - which, admittedly, may escalate, and quickly - those protests don't seem compelling enough to command "the world's" - i.e. the media - undivided attention.

Now imagine this scene. The air strikes continue, the number of dead rises, the media reports become much more alarming, until there is an ocean of people willing to take center stage in one or more prominent European and USA cities - all displaying just two signs: Free Palestine and (as an example) Stop the Holocaust in Palestine.

The message you want picked by the media and the world's public must be clear and concise (and should not contain too many - more than four - words) - and, of course, in direct correlation with the events that triggered the protests.

And so, you choose a clear and concise wording of your ultimate aim - in this case, - complemented by a message the force of which is directly borrowed from the force of your adversary.
In martial arts terms: you use your adversary's own weight and strength against him. The use of the word holocaust in these specific circumstances is such a message.

What happens?
By seemingly (I said seemingly) mis-using the term usually "reserved" for the Jewish (hence, by implication - whether justifiably or not is another question - Israel) it triggers a brief pause: it makes people stop and think, evaluate what the term really means (we're talking of an extremely fast thought process here: of seconds, perhaps tenths of seconds).

The final conclusion regarding its validity (most reasonably educated people would, of course, agree that the term cannot be justifiably applied to just one group of the world's population) is almost irrelevant.

Because the power of the "power word" - holocaust - is still there.
The emotional and intellectual power it has accumulated - via books and, most especially, the media - from the countless tragedies associated with it is intact. Only, now it has been transfered onto another group.
Furthermore, when it is associated with bloody events - on a large scale - that everyone can witness it potentially harnesses the haunting shadow of historic collective guilt expressed (if not necessarily heart-felt) by parts of the intellectual public - including politicians - regarding the world's lack of reaction to the mistreatment of Jews (and not just them, by the way) 70 years ago.

We're not talking of necessarily very profound emotions on the part of the viewing public; and even the rage - i.e. the direction of the emotions - of those who may oppose its use by the Palestinians is more or less irrelevant. (And BTW, the less the public knows about history, the better.)

What matters is that the transfer of such a powerful and long-lasting "power word" effectively attracts attention; and when it's done on a very large, visually overwhelming scale - and consistently - the process of empathy, emotional adoption (on the part of the viewing public), begins.

And so does the increase of the protesters' bargaining power.
In the eye of the public, of course.
What goes on behind the scenes... ah well, that is another matter.
"History-makers" aren't always the fastest thinking lot around. And they seem to be blood-powered or something: they don't budge unless X-number of gallons of blood have been spilled.
But that is another story.

Or is it?



* This is a slightly longer version of the article published here.

"Arab" is the new Jew

(aka "Muslim is the new Jew")

I saw a nice programme yesterday, an episode of the series Who do you think you are?, about the actress Julia Sawalha's quest for her ancestors. (Her father, the renowned actor Nadim Sawalha, was born in Jordan.)

At a certain point, after filming a group of Beduins in the Jordanian desert, the actress recounted how one of the Beduins asked her, earnestly, whether they (= the crew) were 'making another film that would show that Arabs or Muslims were all terrorists and they should be shot, all of them'. (I am paraphrasing, but it's close enough.)
Of course Sawalha assured him that they were doing no such thing and promised to send him a copy of the programme. 'But he looked me in the eyes, so deeply, as if he weren't quite sure' (= whether she was telling the truth about the intended "message" of the programme), she said.

I felt that was so sad.

What's even sadder, this reticence about Arabs/Muslims is not at all surprising. On a global level I started noticing it - as did you, I am sure - soon after September 11, 2001 (OT: I really wish the Americans would stop calling it "nine-eleven"...), when a little boy in the USA was viciously attacked because he was a Muslim (or maybe just perceived as one, not that it matters).

On a personal level, I've been struck and saddened by this phenomenon ever since I "met" somebody on a philosophy message board. He liked what I had written and told me so in a very kind personal message. I was very glad to receive that message; but, being a friendly gal myself, I made a remark (a very kind one) about the meaning of his nickname which, I had noticed, was Arabic. I am not sure what exactly his feelings were, but by the serious (still kind) tone of his reply I realised that he didn't appreciate the attention I had paid to his nickname, shifting it away from the philosophy debate; that he wasn't sure about my attitude towards him; that he was maybe disappointed by the fact that I had noticed his Arabic nickname.

I wasn't offended (of course) or even embarrassed - but I did feel great sorrow. I felt deeply sorry for him; I felt sorry for all Arabs and/or Muslims (no, it's not the same - and that's part of the problem) that they should be forced to screen every single sentence or remark for possible indications of a generalised contempt - or worse - for Arabs/Muslims. And I felt sorry for myself, and for all of us, that the world has come to this.

What's even more disturbing is the openness I've been noticing lately (on message boards and other such public forums) with which those who "don't like" Arabs and/or Muslims express their opinions. So, not even the present-day political correctness (which I normally loathe) can protect people of Arabic origin or Muslim faith against open hostility, based solely on their "race" and/or faith...?

That is alarming.

And because I refuse to live in such a world - even though I have to - here I am, writing about it: because writing is a parallel life ("I write, therefore I think") - or rather, a substitute for life, an Ersatz living, if you fancy fancy words.


INSERT INTERRUPTION HERE...


Judging by the sound of it, my PC is about to take off...
(I can tell it will fly - through the window - if it doesn't shut up.)
I can't work like this; I'll end this post tomorrow.
Or the day after.

Or - hey, this is a good idea! - YOU can end it for me... :)


P.S. It's the day after and the PC is still unseemly loud. I cannot be inspired to write under such circumstances. But, luckily, other people are interested in the (more or less) same topic, so here's an interesting article about the perception of Arabs among "Soviet" Jews in Israel:

My poor cousin, my feared enemy

And speaking of flying...

A zeppelin over the Tower of David,
Jerusalem, April 11, 1931

Now there's a photograph the likes of which you don't see everyday.

If you love it, like we do, then you'll love the blog from which it was taken:

SHORPY
The 100 Year Old Photo Blog