J'Accuse: Shame on Germany for Circumcision Ban
Why do countries with long histories of anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry seem to care more about the so-called rights of young children not to be circumcised than do other countries in the world with far better histories of concern for human rights? The same rhetorical question can be asked of countries, such as Norway, that care so much about the rights of animals not to be slaughtered according to Jewish ritual. These questions are entirely rhetorical because every thinking person knows the answer. It's not because Germans or Norwegians are better people and care more about children and animals than do Americans. It is because they care less about Jews. Or more precisely they care a lot about Jews. They just don't like them very much and don't care if they are forced to leave the country because they cannot practice their religion there.
So let no one praise a nation that murdered a million Jewish babies and children for shedding crocodile tears over the plight of the poor little baby boy who, following a many thousand year old tradition, is circumcised 8 days after birth. Every good person should condemn Germany for what really lies at the heart of efforts to ban circumcision—old-fashioned anti-Semitism, a term coined by Germans for Germans and against Jews.
History is not irrelevant in assessing current policies. The history of Germany (and Norway) in prohibiting Jews from practicing their traditional rituals goes back to a time when overt anti-Semitism was not only acceptable, it was de rigeur. Today, new words replace discredited old ones. Anti-Zionism instead of anti-Semitism. The welfare of children instead of the banning of religious rituals. But it's all the same. Anyone who falls for the new pseudo-scientific nonsense about the evils of circumcision or ritual slaughter is as naïve or bigoted as those who fell for the old pseudo-scientific racial claims of Nazism.
Indeed, there is an ugly whiff of "racial superiority" in the implicit assumption underlying these bigoted laws: Namely, that Germans and Norwegians are somehow morally (if not racially) superior to other countries that permit such "barbaric" practices.
So let's call a spade a spade and let's call anti-Semitism by its true name.
How then should reasonable people respond to these unreasonable efforts to make it difficult to practice traditional Judaism? Some have called for a legal response. Perhaps. But fighting these bigoted practices in court plays into the hands of those who are proposing it. In Nazi Germany, respected jurists were able to use the law to justify the most primitive forms of racism. Indeed Nazism operated through the Nuremberg laws and other such anti-Semitic legal enactments, which were declared entirely lawful by the German courts. Efforts to use the law against these manifestations of racism backfired, by legitimating the Nazis' legalistic undertakings. So let those who seek to challenge these laws do so but not without understanding the downside of such action.
Some may suggest that the alleged science purporting to support these bans be challenged on the basis of scientific truth. Perhaps. But that too may play into the hands of those who would argue that even acknowledging a possible scientific basis for these bigoted proposals lends some legitimacy to them. "Science" too was used to support Nazi racial studies. Should German scientists now conduct "twin studies" on circumcised and uncircumcised siblings? Why is Germany not willing to accept the conclusion reached by the American Academy of Pediatrics following a five year review of the best research, that "the health benefits" of circumcision – including reduction of HIV and papillomavirus transmission – "outweigh the risks?"
The best response is to shame the Germans into rejecting this new form of left-wing anti-Semitism, by showing them how similar it is to the Nazism they now claim to abhor. This approach will not work in Norway, because Norwegians have forgotten their history and still believe they were victims of Nazism rather than collaborators. Norway's anti-Semitic laws preventing kosher slaughter of animals date back to the pre-Nazi period and have remained in force since that time. Norway seems to have no shame nor is it capable of being shamed. Many Germans, on the other hand, seem willing to remember the past—at least up to a point. They must confront that past and look into the historical mirror before they once again go down the road of treating their Jewish citizens as second class or worse.
Shame on those Germans who would ban circumcision. Shame on those Germans who do not care enough to rise up in anger against the pseudo-scientific bigots who falsely claim to be interested in the sensitivities of children. Praise for those Germans who do stand against the bigotry of their countrymen.
Let other countries with cleaner hands take the lead in conducting real scientific research and in seeking to protect the rights of children and animals. The dirty hands and filthy past of Germany forever disqualifies that country from leading the effort to ban Jewish rituals. For shame!
This article was published in German by the Juedische-Allgemeine
Reader comments on this item
|personal rights [82 words]||VOLKER WETZEL||Sep 11, 2012 04:57|
|A reply to Alan Dershowitz's accusation [186 words]||Michael Glass||Sep 9, 2012 21:43|
|leave God out of it [103 words]||Abigail||Sep 8, 2012 18:20|
|Bravo Alan [80 words]||Ethan P.||Sep 6, 2012 16:05|
|Many Jews Question Circumcision [145 words]||Ronald Goldman||Sep 6, 2012 14:40|
|↔ Leave the AAP out of the courtroom, Alan, because its recent report is incompetent [159 words]||concerned cynic||Sep 8, 2012 00:08|
|↔ circumcision = masturbation? [75 words]||abigail||Sep 9, 2012 14:39|
|May God Bless you, Mr. Dershowitz [100 words]||Batya Casper||Sep 6, 2012 13:52|
|Circumcision... in Belgium [225 words]||Andre von BREMEN-Hans||Sep 6, 2012 13:28|
|Ban on circumcision is not anti-Semitism [288 words]||Max Myers||Sep 6, 2012 13:22|
|↔ Max Myers said, "This ban is not anti-Semitic." [220 words]||Jerry||Sep 6, 2012 20:56|
|↔ Uncut Jews are anti-Semites? [218 words]||Max Myers||Sep 7, 2012 08:24|
|↔ Max Myers as potential anti-Semite [99 words]||Jerry||Sep 7, 2012 18:43|
|↔ What does God have to say on the issue? [313 words]||Joshua Schonfeld||Sep 7, 2012 19:25|
|↔ Intact does not imply antiSemite [83 words]||concerned cynic||Sep 7, 2012 23:15|
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.
by Shoshana Bryen
Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about [equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court.
"The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and "necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.