{"id":7341,"date":"2010-03-02T08:38:16","date_gmt":"2010-03-02T07:38:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jvenice.org\/maestro\/it\/2010\/03\/call-for-paper-ebrei-e-qcollaborazionismoq\/"},"modified":"2010-03-02T08:38:16","modified_gmt":"2010-03-02T07:38:16","slug":"call-for-paper-ebrei-e-qcollaborazionismoq","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/renatomaestro.org\/it\/2010\/03\/call-for-paper-ebrei-e-qcollaborazionismoq\/","title":{"rendered":"Call for paper – Ebrei e “collaborazionismo”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Call for papers<\/span><\/font> <\/span><\/font>CONGRESSO SUL TEMA:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

La posizione degli ebrei che hanno \u201ccollaborato\u201d con i regimi antisemiti<\/strong><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The history of the Jews has selected two \u201cvirtuous\u201d models of reaction to occupation by a foreign power. The first of these, the revolt of the<\/span><\/font><\/font> Maccabees<\/span><\/font><\/font>, 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 \u201cvirtuous\u201d 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\u2019t meet full approval in the Jewish world, because it tastes of assimilation; it can not be considered fully \u201cvirtuous\u201d.<\/span><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

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.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

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.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

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?<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

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 \u201cvirtuous\u201d approach. But can we apply this model to the generation before ours?<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

Jehudah Halevi taught: \u201cWhen passing judgement on people compare them with their times; you will find that your judgements are full of darkness\u201d. Aren\u2019t we passing judgement on the generation that carried great responsibilities in the early \u201840\u2019s by comparing them with our, not with their, times?<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

We would like to open a discussion on this subject, and are organizing a conference to be held in Padua in October 2010.<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

We would welcome written contributions on the following subjects:<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n