I have heard of Mr. Burg, though I wasn't familiar with his views until listening to him tonight. Mr. Burg and Mr. Gorenberg are obviously writers with whose work I should become familiar. It's about time that a book like Mr. Burg's came from the Israeli establishment, albeit the liberal quarter (I applaud his association with Meretz-Yachad). I have no information on either man's opinion of Norman Finkelstein, but I can't help but see Burg's book as something of a vindication of Finkelstein's 'The Holocaust Industry'. And of Paul Treanor's 'Why Forget the Holocaust' (publicly), found here: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/forget.html. An excerpt: "...Liberal-democratic societies are partly founded on Holocaust memory. In theory, liberal social philosophy is 'non-foundational' - it does not start from some principle of what society ought to be. In practice, the liberal social model presents itself as an alternative to the horrors of war, poverty and dictatorship - the only alternative. "In Germany this (non-)foundationalism (sic) is at its most explicit. The German state, and the German social elite, constantly refer to Nazi Germany as legitimation of their own political existence. In turn, any deviance from official democratic orthodoxy is at once attacked as an imminent return to the Nazi era. The great emphasis in Germany on

Although it's commendable that both these Israeli intellectuals are taking on some very tough subjects, like the appalling brainwashing of Jewish teenagers on their pilgrimages to Auschwitz, Gershom himself seems a bit brainwashed in a way that's very disturbing, but not unusual; I've seen it dozens of times before: Even though the population of Israel is 20% Israeli Arab (i.e., non-Jewish), the Arabs are invisible to Gershom. In discussing the adolescent Shoah tours, he comments on the "almost universal experience for Israeli high school students." But of course the experience is not "almost universal" for Israelis; it's almost universal for Jewish Israelis.

I couldn't help but think of the elephant in the room - the other elephant besides the Arab Israelis - the money and other assistance the US gives to Israel. There's a certain quality to what Burg is arguing, but I wonder if Israel CAN search itself and change without both casting itself adrift and alienating the US. In that sense, I would ask if the US is ready for a reformed Israel.

Quoting Wonderment: like the appalling brainwashing of Jewish teenagers on their pilgrimages to Auschwitz

What appalling brainwashing? What brainwashing?

Bob, Please, can BhTV aim for a bit of balance in the discussions on Israel? I like Gershom and am glad Avraham Burg is on (and maybe I'll comment on the diavlog later), but these guys are easily as far left as Netanyahu e.g. is right (in both cases, pretty far, but not extreme). How about some informed, intelligent Israeli representatives (or non-Israeli experts) of the right, or even the center, the Israeli main stream?

Quoting mvantony: Bob,

Please, can BhTV aim for a bit of balance in the discussions on Israel? I like Gershom and am glad Avraham Burg is on (and maybe I'll comment on the diavlog later), but these guys are easily as far left as Netanyahu e.g. is right (in both cases, pretty far, but not extreme).

How about some informed, intelligent Israeli representatives (or non-Israeli experts) of the right, or even the center, the Israeli main stream?

Exactly. How about Ephaim Karsh? Burg was a member of Peace Now , he basically advocates Israeli surrender to every arab demand with no security guarantess at all, thinks suicide bombing is unsuprising, and he advocates a total end to Israel as a Jewish state.

Call me crazy, but I would not want my 16-yr-old children obligated a) to do a European death camp tour and b) to get drafted 2 years later, as is the case "almost universally" [sic] in Israel. If you don't see this as extreme indoctrination (brainwashing), Michael, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course, my disagreement doesn't matter, since I am only used for fundraising purposes by the Israeli state when it wants to perpetrate the hoax that we are "one people" and that all Jews have a stake in Israel (propaganda, the primary tool of brainwashing). I have taken many students to the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. I know what kind of lasting impression such an experience has on them, even though musuem tours last an hour or so and are led by people who have no political agenda and whose message is the one Burg recommended (we ALL share responsibility for these horrors, as opposed to a message of this is what it means to be a Jew, "they" did this to "us" and "they" are still out to nuke us and push us into the sea, which is why we become paratroopers

Quoting gwlaw99: Burg . . . thinks suicide bombing is unsuprising . . .

Surely suicide bombing, like the Spanish Inquisition, isn't exactly a surprising tactic by now.

I like Gershom and am glad Avraham Burg is on (and maybe I'll comment on the diavlog later), but these guys are easily as far left as Netanyahu e.g. is right (in both cases, pretty far, but not extreme).

Not sure I'd agree. Calling Burg, a former Labor bigshot and potential Prime Minister, "far left" is (roughly) like calling Jimmy Carter far left. In both cases you have mainstream politicians who got better at speaking their minds once out of power. Also, Burg now supports the Meretz party in Israel. It's true that Meretz is on the progressive left, but it's also true that it's backed by some of Israel's foremost intellectuals. Meretz includes, for example, Amoz Oz, A.B. Yehoshua and David Grossman -- Israel's most widely translated and important novelists. Each one has been mentioned as a possible Nobel Prize for Literature laureate. These three writers have been virtually the literary voice for Israel over the past few decades. Far left? Maybe. But when you start marginalizing your nation's literally immortals, it's not a good sign.

I'd also like to point out that not only is Gershom the obvious choice, as a Bloggingheads regular, for this diavlog. But also, this was an interview of a book author. Generally, these sorts of assignments are done by Bob or Will Wilkinson, and the tone is usually inquisitive yet not overtly contentious. In other words this seemed like an interview about the book not a debate about the merits. In this respect, I thought Greshom was great. He asked all the right questions, and frankly if I didn't already know his political leanings, I wouldn't have guessed whether he agreed with Burg or not. Though I agree that right-leaning Israeli's would be a nice added touch the next time Gershom is on, I think this was a solid diavlog and it piqued my interest about the book, which was ultimately the goal.

A few comments: 1. I thought I detected something discordant in part of Burg's argument about the Holocaust. I understand clearly that he objects to the cheapening of its memory by the turning of it into a repository for vulgar references and metaphors for everyday experience in which everyone is a fascist and so on, by it being the coin of cheap political rhetoric, and by the phenomenon of Shoa business, to repeat that bad but telling pun. Where he confuses me is in his wanting to preserve the memory of the Holocaust as "sacred" in Jewish history, but not wanting it to be, as I heard him, a constituent of Israeli (or Jewish) identity. I do not know how it can be the first without being the latter. 2. My (or his) confusion goes to my second comment. I find Burg to make a mistaken connection between a certain reconstruction of the memory of the Holocaust to Israeli self victimization to building a defensive Maginot like wall to sheer internalization to a Masada like inclination to suicidal martyrdom. I find this line of connection mythopoeic rather than Israeli policy being, however right or wrong, squarely rooted in

As a post script I too saw no sign of Gorenberg’s brainwashing.

Do you agree with his statement that trips to Auschwitz are an ""almost universal experience for Israeli high school students"?

Where he confuses me is in his wanting to preserve the memory of the Holocaust as "sacred" in Jewish history, but not wanting it to be, as I heard him, a constituent of Israeli (or Jewish) identity. I do not know how it can be the first without being the latter.

Firstly, Burg talked about understanding Jewish contributions to German history, and then situating Jewish contributions within European history. I think he's arguing that Judaism is a part of the humanistic project, not antagonistic to it. It's very anti-Maccabees. The Holocaust is both a Jewish and a human tragedy, not just something that proves Judaism should exist outside of the humanistic tradition. Orthodoxy, for one, would resent his argument. Actually, I thought Burg was arguing against what you characterize as his arguments. I thought he was speaking in the voice of his detractors. Perhaps, I am reading my own opinion into his performance, but I thought he was arguing against a notion of Israel opposed to all humanity for one of an Israel looking for a political identity.

Baltimoron: You may be right and perhaps I have not taken in the fullness of Burg’s argument. My mind did wander off some while I tried to listen to him as I found that difficult. And there is a contradiction ( mine?) between saying, as he does, that the Holocaust should be a sacred memory in Jewish consciousness and then wanting to assimilate it—if indeed he is saying this—to all genocide everywhere whereby it loses for Jews its particularity, as evident in his construction of "Never Again.". Moreover, in support for what you are saying, the Holocaust losing its particularity for Jews does not follow necessarily from wanting to locate it in the sweep of like events in human history. But I’m not sure as to what he is saying. Your putting part of his argument on the footing you describe, however, does not help alleviate the confusion I mentioned in my first post and which you cite. As long as Israel faces existential dangers, and so soon, in historic time, on the heels of the Holocaust, its memory will be intensified; it will continue to cast a long shadow; and “Never Again” will continue to have