Some things, as Lenny Bruce taught us, are quintessentially Jewish and some things are absolutely not.

“If you’re from New York and you’re Catholic, you’re still Jewish. If you’re from Butte Montana and you’re Jewish, you’re still goyisch. The Air Force is Jewish, the Marine Corps dangerous goyisch. Rye bread is Jewish, instant potatoes, scary goyisch. Eddie Cantor is goyisch, George Jessel is goyisch-Coleman Hawkins is Jewish.”

This famous Lenny Bruce routine brings to mind the most recent effort of Jews to show their support for peace in Darfur; an effort organized by the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, an organization that shines a bright light on that dark period of Jewish history. Their organized effort to protest the tragedy ongoing in the Sudan has drawn a response from many rabbis. (See story, this issue.)
It’s natural that a Jewish organization would be the keeper of this flame. In keeping with the Bruce stereotype, if you’re Jewish, you are likely to be more sensitive to the pain and suffering of those who are going through what the Jewish people so recently experienced during the Holocaust. You are more aware. Jews must, absolutely must, adopt a position that condemns those conditions, and we do. We relentlessly oppose this killing and call for others – including world bodies charged with this duty, like the U.N. – to act.
Unfortunately, these protests and petitioning do little, if anything, to stop the murder and mayhem. That’s because the real solution, according to a Lenny Bruce analysis, would not be very Jewish: It would entail the use of force. And so, the Jewish part of raising our voices loudly and lining up in protest of the slaughter now ongoing in Sudan’s Darfur region is very Jewish – but actually doing something about it, is not.
Just as the bombing of Auschwitz would have been the only way to stop or slow down the wanton killing of Jews during World War II, so too is the need for an active and forceful intervention the only way to slow down and stop the killing in the Darfur region of Sudan today. The reality, however, is that a forceful intervention will not happen. The much-maligned George Bush had difficulty sustaining the use of force in Iraq, so that his ability to insinuate a solution into Darfur was non-existent. President Obama has no record of using force as a solution, and so, using it in Darfur would be highly unlikely.
Here is some more reality.
The Muslims are perpetrating this violence on other Muslims after years of killing of Christian blacks in the region. The world is home to 54 Muslim countries who choose not to come to the aid of the Muslim minority in Darfur; 22 of those 54 countries are Arab Muslim, many of them in close geographic proximity to the Sudan. They choose to turn aside and ignore Sudan’s evil handiwork in its southern region. Obviously, it is okay for one group of Muslims to kill and maim, and it is okay for another group to be brutalized and killed. This form of Jihad is not uncommon in the history of the Arab world. We’ve seen it unfold most recently in places like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Algeria; just about everywhere in the Muslim world.
Force has displaced millions, and murdered and mutilated hundreds of thousands. Diplomacy will not stop the Janjaweed militias, the instrument of that force. People continue to be killed. Limbs are cut off every day. Territory is seized. Land is being depopulated.
It would help if we were more specific in our condemnation and entreaties, calling not merely for peace, but for the use of force to effect it, if necessary. Once open to forcing the issue, there are alternatives to weigh. For example, in hindsight, bombing Auschwitz might have been the best way to slow down the machinery of the Shoah, but there were other things that could have been done as well: Opening the doors of Palestine to Jews. Pressuring Nazi allies and satellites. Destroying infrastructure around the camps. In the case of Darfur there are indirect options as well. Economic sanctions. No-fly zones would cut down on the mobility of the marauding cavalry on the ground. Weapon embargoes would be difficult, but worth the effort. Pressures on the Muslim countries that support the murderers and who depend on the West for so much would be in order, too. These are all small steps involving force that we ignore now and by not mentioning them, reject them. Only advocating increased diplomacy sends a message that the perpetrators have a free hand.
So many Rabbis and professionals expressing themselves about Darfur is a good thing. At the same time, however, we also need to heed the lessons of Auschwitz: a general protest is not enough. Enabling a forceful solution would be far better. Lenny Bruce might not agree, but if there is only one way to stop the killing, and force is involved, then this might very well be the Jewish way. Our protest ought to embody that.

-nrg

Comments are closed.