Elie Wiesel: no lover of humanity

Ahmed Bouzid

I remember a few years ago, in the dark of the Bosnian genocide night, Charlie Rose asked Elie Wiesel in a one-on-one interview with him whether he felt that the genocidal mass killing of Bosnians could be equated with the Holocaust. The question itself is one of those absurdities that only people who make their living asking questions would pose with a straight face, but Elie Wiesel did not think it was silly or absurd. He paused dramatically, as he only knows how, lowered his eyes and reflected, and then, with a wounded, pained grimace, and of course with great sadness, responded that, no, one cannot compare the two. The Holocaust was something beyond anything. It was not that the lives of the Holocaust victims were more precious than those of Bosnians, but rather that the Holocaust was something special in history, that it stood by itself, above all other man-made human catastrophes.

I remember shaking my head in shock and disbelief at what I was hearing. The question may have been absurd, but the answer was clearly wrong and immoral, especially coming from a man who has made a living and a career at being the world's Czar on morality and human suffering. There was one, and only one correct and moral answer to that absurd question: all killings of the innocent are Holocausts, no matter how small, no matter who the victims are, no matter their age, or of what race or gender they may be -- killing the innocent is a sin, and will always be a sin. Instead, Elie Wiesel preferred to defend his turf, to reduce the Holocaust to a historical event rather than elevate it to a symbol for all humanity -- i.e., he preferred to jealously guard what he felt was his own.

Up until his January 24, 2001, column in the New York Times, "Jerusalem in my heart", Elie Wiesel by and large remained silent on the crisis in the Occupied Territories and Israel. Indeed, he himself notes in his column that this behavior has earned him many a scolding "for not protesting whenever Israeli police or soldiers react excessively to violence from Palestinian soldiers or civilians." But, the equanimous Wiesel tells us, "My critics have their conception of social and individual ethics; I have mine." The rest of his article tells us exactly the sort of ethics that animate Mr. Wiesel's conscience: the very same ethics that led him to sublimate the Jewish Holocaust above all other sufferings, and to subordinate the genocide of Bosnians to a lower category of human pain.

On Jerusalem and the Palestinians' right of return, Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel and war-monger/abettor of massacres, Ariel Sharon, differ not one whit. Jerusalem is not that important to Muslims, he says, adopting the most vulgar arguments from the most vulgar pro-Sharon right wingers. Arabs are only now mentioning Jerusalem, when they have always neglected it, he says, mimicking the hysterical ranting of one-trick scribes that never tire of repeating the same drivel. He rehashes a convenient history, in which Israel offered its hand in peace only to be rebuffed by Arabs thirsty for Jewish blood, and in which 600,000 Palestinians left of their own accord rather than flee in fear and panic the murderous onslaught of Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers. As for the Palestinians' right of return, Mr. Wiesel has no qualms saying what's on his mind: "To many Israelis, that would be tantamount to suicide."

And so religion -- Jerusalem's place in Judaism -- trumps not only international law (which has always considered all of Jerusalem Occupied Territory) but the most basic right for self-determination of those who inhabit the city, those who have seen their land confiscated, their houses taken over by newly arriving Jews, or demolished. And so also race -- the need to maintain the Jewish character of Israel -- trumps international law and the most basic of human rights. Jews from anywhere in the world have a right to "return" to an Israel they have never set foot upon, while those Palestinians with deeds in hand, deep historical roots, and living ties to their land and property will need to accept their fate and go somewhere else.

What can one say but this: Shame on Mr. Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor, who suffered under the hands of those who asserted glory and pride above humanity, but who now forgets.

Shame on Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor, who suffered under the hands of those who denied his humanity and who drove him from his land and his home, but who now forgets.

Shame on him a thousand times for mimicking his old-executioners. He has no love but for his own kind -- a man who puts dusty glories above simple humanity -- a man who stays silent as children's skulls are crushed and their bones shattered by bullets, but who all of a sudden speaks with a shrill voice because he feels his cherished memories threatened.

Mr. Wiesel once said: "Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Whenever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe."

It is clear now more than ever that Mr. Wiesel was not speaking for or about all of humanity. He was speaking for his own kind, his own people -- only!

Mr. Wiesel: surrender at once your badge as spokesman for humanity's conscience