Call for papers CONGRESSO SUL TEMA:

La posizione degli ebrei che hanno “collaborato” con i regimi antisemiti

The history of the Jews has selected two “virtuous” models of reaction to occupation by a foreign power. The first of these, the revolt of the Maccabees, has entered in the list of Jewish festivals, being an example of a success in regaining national independence. The same approach, attempted by Bar Kochba against the Romans, led to national disaster. The second “virtuous” model is the behaviour of Yohanan ben Zakkai, who found a compromise with the Romans in order to insure the survival of Jewish culture. Another interesting model of that time is that of Joseph Flavius, this didn’t meet full approval in the Jewish world, because it tastes of assimilation; it can not be considered fully “virtuous”.

For centuries after the destruction of the temple the Yohanan ben Zakkai model has been the standard approach. Dispersed among more powerful populations, who hardly recognised their status as human, the Jews compromised with the local power, in order to insure the conditions of survival. This has been completely absorbed in Jewish culture.

The Shoah was a trauma for many reasons. One was the fact that the survival strategies that had worked for centuries no longer helped. The representatives of the European Jewish Communities, whether elected or nominated by the Germans, accepted compromises with Nazis in the attempt to save something (maybe, in some cases, just themselves), but to no effect.

Today, with the knowledge we now have, we can say they were two times wrong: because no compromise could divert the disaster the Nazis were planning, and because armed resistance, in the contest of WW2, finally paid a dividend. But what could a Jewish leader expect in 1940?

Today the Yohanan ben Zakkai model is no longer popular, Bar Kochba and Rabbi Akiva set the standard. Our culture has changed. Fighting back is the only “virtuous” approach. But can we apply this model to the generation before ours?

Jehudah Halevi taught: “When passing judgement on people compare them with their times; you will find that your judgements are full of darkness”. Aren’t we passing judgement on the generation that carried great responsibilities in the early ‘40’s by comparing them with our, not with their, times?

Are we fair with Adam Czerniakow in Warsaw, Chaim Rumkowski in Lodz, Benjamin Murmelstein in Theresienstadt, Yacov Gens in Vilnius, and many others? Czerniakow committed suicide, Rumkowski was deported and Gens was killed in Vilnius: judgement on them is open. Benjamin Murmelstein, who survived the Shoah, ended his life in Italy, despised as a traitor.

We would like to open a discussion on this subject, and are organizing a conference to be held in Padua in October 2010.

We would welcome written contributions on the following subjects:

• people who, during Shoah or in other circumstances, have had to govern conflicts of their group with a hostile power, and how their actions have been considered

• cultural and moral conditioning typical of the time and area of the instances described

• effect of the tragic experiences of the past century and of the final success of armed resistance on the standards of judgement of the survivors.

And, of course, we would very much welcome any discussion.

The titles of proposed contributions, with a brief abstract, should be submitted before the end of June 2010: inclusion in the program will be made known in July.

The contributions received in Word format by September 15^th will be made available to participants in order to enhance understanding and discussion.

Inviare i proposals con abstract a: Mario Jona e-mail: marioj@tin.it