Masha Gessen Responds to Controversy Over Gaza Comments

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR:  Now, our next guest has just won the prestigious Hannah Arendt Prize for Political Thought, but in a scaled back ceremony after a very public spat. Author and staff writer at The New Yorker Masha Gessen faced backlash after comparing Gaza to Jewish ghettos in the Nazi era with an essay entitled “In the Shadow of the Holocaust.” Masha Gessen now joins Michelle Martin to discuss the difficulties of exercising critical thought at this time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Masha Gessen, thank you so much for joining us once again.

MASHA GESSEN, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER AND WRITER, “IN THE SHADOW OF THE HOLOCAUST”: Thank you for having me.

MARTIN: You know, you’re a familiar face and voice here, you know, on this program. A lot of people are familiar with your work. But there’s one piece we wanted to talk about. A piece that many people may have seen by now. The title of your piece was “In the Shadow of the Holocaust: How the Politics of Memory in Europe Obscures What We See in Israel and Gaza Today.” You reflected on the politics of memory, which you said have become the policy of memory. So, I just wanted to start by asking you, what are the politics of memory? What did you mean by that?

GESSEN: So, the piece was written as I was actually on my way into Ukraine to continue reporting on the war there, and I started out reporting in Germany on the politics of memory there, then went through Poland, mentioned Poland a little bit and wound up in Kyiv. And what I’m writing about is the way in which memory of the Holocaust is wielded, to put it very bluntly, to turn Israel into a forever victim that is unassailable. And at this particular moment, to turn off any criticism of its actions in Gaza. And, you know, more profoundly, I think, not just to silence criticism, but to really make it very difficult to see what is happening in Gaza.

MARTIN: I take it your, your views of this didn’t start with what’s happening in Gaza. So how did — how do you think this started?

GESSEN: The particular case that I started with is the case of Germany, which for obvious reasons is the center — or at least one of the centers of this memory politics. And in Germany, over the last few years, yes, it did not start yesterday, the whole machinery of anti antisemitism bureaucracy has shown up. One of the precipitating factors is this resolution, and it sounds very obscure, but it’s had a huge influence. So, there’s a — or rather not the resolution, but the definition of antisemitism that was written by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association, which is a nongovernmental organization and this definition has no legal force per se, but it is interpreted in such a way as to basically frame any criticism of the State of Israel and importantly to my piece, any comparison of Israeli policies to those of the Nazis as a priori antisemitic. And this definition of antisemitism is used by this anti antisemitism bureaucracy in Germany to silence any criticism of Israel. And it’s had a profound impact because the German State is so generous. So, it funds all the culture. It funds so much of the media. It funds sort of all of this production. And basically, anybody who is at all critical of Israel and disproportionately actually Jewish artists and writers and thinkers because we care about Israel have been silenced by this definition. But it doesn’t stop in Germany. I mean, this is actually a huge issue in the United States.

MARTIN: One of the things you point out is that, you know, there have been efforts by governments to define antisemitism, to make sure that they can, you know, address it when it exists to, you know, whatever means. And you point out that this — you talked about this, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance came up with this definition. This was in 2016. It was adopted by dozens of E.U. states and the United States. One of the issues that it identifies is drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. Why is that so important and why do you take issue with that?

GESSEN: Look, our entire post Second World War idea of how we protect people, how we protect human rights, how we protect people from crimes against humanity, that entire intellectual and legal framework is based on what came after the Holocaust. This is when the world said, never again. So, in a sense, every time when we’re looking at a country and at its human rights record, and at the way it wages war, we’re comparing it to the Holocaust. We’re comparing it to the Nazis. Does this rise to the kind of crime, to the kind of violation that requires the world to intervene and protect people in the way that it failed to protect Jews during the Second World War? And so, when — with the support of the right-wing Israeli government, who’s been in — which has been in power for more years than I can count, this definition prevents that comparison. It basically positions Israel as being outside the framework of international humanitarian law and outside the human rights framework. That’s why we’re building that comparison is such a grievous thing.

MARTIN: You explain in the piece of why, you know, Holocaust remembrance is so important to Germany and, you know, for very good reasons, I mean, for very good reasons. Here’s this line in particular that seems to have evoked a lot of background. You say that you were comparing Gaza to Jewish ghettos under the Nazis. You say, not like the Jewish ghetto in Venice or an inner-city ghetto in America, but like a Jewish ghetto in an Eastern European country occupied by Nazi Germany. And we’re off to the races.

GESSEN: Right. So, I obviously violated the letter of the ASHRAE definition. I compared — I directly compared Israeli policy to the Nazis. I’m not the first person to do it. I was about to receive the Hannah Arendt Prize for Political Thought, which Hannah Arendt was one of the original people who really was sounding the alarm back in 1948, comparing the politics of — and actions of some Israeli political parties to those of the Nazis. And I think it is essential to make that comparison right now. Because if we’re serious about never again, this is the moment, to when people can still be saved in Gaza.

MARTIN: Did you hesitate at all when you wrote those words? Did you anticipate a backlash, a negative reaction, anger, resentment, fury?

GESSEN: Of course. I mean, as I said to the fact checkers, we’re going through the piece, I said, this is the moment when people throw their laptops across the room. That line was the point of the piece. The other 7,500 words were making my argument. Of course, it’s a huge thing to make that comparison, of course, it makes people upset. It should make people upset. We should be losing sleep every day because of what’s happening in Gaza because that comparison is valid.

MARTIN: You know, one of the things about your piece that was so, I thought, profound and it’s frankly difficult to talk about in a sensitive way is that, you spoke about the way it makes sort of Israel a permanent victim, and I just wondered if you would talk more about why you think that, sort of emphasizing the singularity of the experience and saying, this only applies to Jewish people and the State of Israel and why you feel that that’s so kind of compromising of Israel and its own kind of moral agency. Would you just say more about that?

GESSEN: I think you put it beautifully. It is compromising of moral agency, because when you are actively being a victim, when you’re in such extraordinary pain, and this pain has indeed been passed on through generations, how do you hold yourself to account morally? When — and when you’re driven by the desire for — to avenge your pain as Israelis, many Israelis, certainly not all Israelis, are right now in Gaza, who is going to hold you to account? And if you — if you’re relieved of that responsibility because your people are a permanent victim, my people, in this case are permanent victim, and if the world is not going to intervene and hold you to account, that creates a moral catastrophe.

MARTIN: So, the backlash. You were on your way to receive this prestigious Hannah Arendt Prize in Germany, and then a foundation connected to the award call for it to be rescinded. The city withdrew the venue where the prize ceremony was scheduled to take place. The ceremony was suspended. It was scaled back. You did receive the award, but, you know, it — I mean, frankly, let’s just be honest, it’s become kind of an international incident. Could you just tell us how you found out about all this?

GESSEN: I was about to fly to Germany when I got an e-mail from one of the organizers, actually a Hannah Arendt scholar who’s a member of the Hannah Arendt organization, which awards the prize. And the e-mail was — the subject line was, be prepared, and she said the Heinrich Boell Foundation, which is not just a foundation that supports the prize, it’s the biggest political foundation in Germany and it is connected to the Green Party.It’s the foundation of the Green Party, which is the government party in Germany right now. So, she said the Heinrich Boell Foundation has pulled out of the prize. And as a result, we’ve lost the venue, which was city hall in the City of Bremen. So, we’ll hold the prize at an alternative venue. And then, I thought for a minute about whether I should fly or not, and I flew. And by the time I got there, it was kind of an international scandal. And in the end, the price ceremony was held — instead of a dinner for 400 to 500 people at city hall, there was a dozen people dining at a private house. And then the next day, there was a prize ceremony, I kid you not, in like a fortified shed. Because we couldn’t get another venue.

MARTIN: So, here’s what they said. There was an open letter calling for the award to be rescinded. And they said, it is incomprehensible to us how a scholar as experienced as Masha Gessen, who has made such a great contribution to the critical analysis of Russian imperialism, can seriously equate Gaza with the Nazi extermination ghettos. For us, there is only one explanation, a deep-seated and fundamental negative prejudice against the Jewish state. This has nothing to do with political judgment in the sense of Hannah Arendt. Masha Gessen is free to hold such views, we have such discussions on many occasions these days, just as the critical assessment of Israeli politics is also a permanent part of our work as the DIG. But Masha Gessen’s views should not be honored with an award that is intended to commemorate the Jewish philosopher, Hannah Arendt. That is extraordinary. And in essence, they’re calling you, a descendant of Holocaust survivors, a Jewish thinker, a person who has been, you know, attacked by totalitarian governments before, whose family fled a totalitarian regime, basically, they’re calling you an anti-Semite. I mean, that’s basically what it is, yes?

GESSEN: Yes, that is exactly what they’re saying. And that is also part of what I was writing about in the piece, is that this anti antisemitism bureaucracy is run by non-Jews, but the people that they accuse of antisemitism are disproportionately Jews.

MARTIN: Why do you think they have such alacrity around, you know, policing speech in this way? I mean, it just — I’m just wondering why there is not more critical distance there? Because they claim that they are open to criticism of the Israeli government.

GESSEN: Right.

MARTIN: And its policies and its actions. So, I guess I’m just sort of wondering what do you make of this?

GESSEN: I think (INAUDIBLE) is a huge element of it. But I think I also have to say that it’s — I don’t — I have doubts about how sincere they are in their efforts to fight antisemitism. I think there are elements to this policy that are basically antisemitic. This — the targeting of Jews. The ease with which Jewish voices are silent. The equating of Jews with the State of Israel. I think there’s an argument to be made, but that is in itself antisemitic. And it’s no accident that the party that has probably benefited most from this antisemitism — anti antisemitism bureaucracy is the IFD, the far-right party. It rode into the political mainstream on this sort of antisemitism trump card. And again, this was not dissimilar to what we’re seeing in the United States right now. I don’t think that Representative Stefanik is losing sleep over antisemitism, but she sure finds it convenient to target university presidents under the guise of fighting antisemitism.

MARTIN: Why is there such enthusiasm for this kind of policing of speech? Because it would seem that to people who are targeted by this would see it — would draw the same comparison that you do.

GESSEN: It takes a lot of time and intellectual energy to draw that comparison, and people don’t have time and intellectual energy when they’re scared. And, you know Jews are actually scared. I think a lot of it is — you know, the aftermath of October 7th has blinded people to the fate of others, which is what happens when people are scared to see what happened in Israel and to have the Israeli government spin it as an antisemitic attack, when in fact, it was an anti-Israeli attack. Really makes people feel like they’re under attack. And so, you know, in that state, people just want to ban everything, stop everything, go along with whoever tells them that they’re going to be able to punish the people responsible.

MARTIN: Why did you think it’s so important to draw the connection to what is happening in Gaza now?

GESSEN: Well, what is happening in Gaza now is that people who have been effectively ghettoized for the last 17 years are being indiscriminately targeted, killed and starved, and this is probably, at this point, the strongest connection. You know, you may not realize that out of the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, 1.3Million died of starvation and disease, exactly what is being inflicted upon people in Gaza as a weapon of war right now. The biggest difference between Gaza and the Jewish ghetto in Nazi occupied Europe is that most Gazans are still alive. There’s still an opportunity for the world to stop in and stop — step in and stop this.

MARTIN: Do you think it’s a genocide, what is happening in Gaza? Would you use that expression?

GESSEN: I think there are some fine distinctions between genocide and ethnic cleansing. And I think that they are valid arguments for using both terms. But I think that it’s incumbent on the world to either stop or prevent a genocide.

MARTIN: But you do think it’s ethnic cleansing?

GESSEN: It is — at the very least, it’s ethnic cleansing.

MARTIN: There are those who would argue that however valid your critique that at a time when Jews are, in fact, under attack, in the United States and elsewhere, that, you know, for example, I don’t know how — as we are speaking now, literally hundreds of Jewish institutions, schools, synagogues, et cetera, were the subject of bomb threats, you know, over the weekend. And there are those who would argue that however valid what it is that you’re saying right now, at a time when Jewish people are under attack, it would have been better to not say it. And I just — I know you’ve heard that. So, I’d like to ask, what is your reaction to that?

GESSEN: Look, I don’t believe that we have to act like humans are stupid. I don’t believe that we have to act as though we can only protect one population at a time. I really think that we’re capable of protecting Jews in the United States and elsewhere from antisemitic attacks at the same time that would criticize the State of Israel and protect Palestinians in Gaza from an overwhelming military onslaught.

MARTIN: Masha Gessen, thank you so much for talking with us once again.

GESSEN: Thank you for having me.