Friday, January 25, 2008
Now, comes news from The Telegraph of Calcutta, India that "America’s omnipotent Jewish community has forced Mahatma Gandhi’s grandson, Arun Gandhi, to resign from the institute he founded in the US 17 years ago to spread the message of the Father of the Nation." The Telegraph goes on to note the global aspects of the row:
New Delhi cannot afford to even tangentially annoy the American Jewish community because successive Indian governments have relied on this community for at least 15 years to bring Indo-US relations to its present health. The nuclear deal between India and the US would not have got to its present phase of implementation without the active involvement of the American Jewish community in its favour.Sadly, the AP confirms yesterday that Gandhi's resignation was accepted and that he has capitulated to the Shylocks clamoring for a pound of his flesh.
Arun’s offer to resign follows several days of grovelling apologies by him, by the moderators of the online discussion on the Post website and defensive statements by University of Rochester president Joel Seligman for having associated with the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Non-violence.
Hundreds of messages assailing Arun and The Washington Post were posted on the website, most of them clearly by Jews. The powerful American Jewish Committee’s executive director David A. Harris pre-empted any Indian reaction by hinting in a statement that India was being ungrateful for all that his organisation did for New Delhi.
“We are proud at the American Jewish Committee to have played a vital role in nurturing the India-Israel bilateral relationship, as well as strengthening the bonds between American Jews and Indian Americans,” Harris said.
“the Jews [in Europe] should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."
So forgive me if I don't believe the Ghandi family's message about Israel and Palestine has any credibility.
The standard "holocaust" narrative says that, in the main, Jews did little or nothing to resist internment. In fact, we know that Zionists and the Judenrat collaborated with the Nazis. In contrast to that, Gandhi is advocating massive nonviolent resistance that he thinks might have succeeded in stopping or ameliorating the suffering and loss of life. In other words, he did not advocate passive acceptance as you would apparently like to suggest.
I do not know if Gandhi ever acknowledged the accuracy of the remarks attributed to him by Louis Fischer. Gandhi was killed about a year after Fischer's Gandhi and Stalin was published. In any case, in 1949, George Orwell weighed-in (emphasis added):
"In relation to the late war, one question that every pacifist had a clear obligation to answer was: 'What about the Jews? Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?' I must say that I have never heard, from any Western pacifist, an honest answer to this question, though I have heard plenty of evasions, usually of the 'you're another' type. But it so happens that Gandhi was asked a somewhat similar question in 1938 and that his answer is on record in Mr. Louis Fischer's Gandhi and Stalin. According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which 'would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence.' After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly. One has the impression that this attitude staggered even so warm an admirer as Mr. Fischer, but Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way."
Admirer or not, Fischer was, at one time at least, a violent Zionist Jew who served in the Jewish Legion and the International Brigade in Spain. His representations of Gandhi's remarks re: WWII are suspect on those grounds.