|
|
October 1, 1999/21 Tishri 5760, Vol. 52, No.5
Twisting the truthEditorialWhile film critics quibble about the historical authenticity of "Jakob the Liar," pundits debate presidential contender Patrick J. Buchanan's version of history - also with relation to World War II.In his book "A Republic, Not an Empire," Buchanan asserts that Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany did not pose a "physical threat" to America prior to the United States' decision to enter the war, and that the Allies should have done less to stop Hitler. It is a repugnant supposition, offensive not only to Jews and other victims of the Holocaust, but to anyone who professes to have a moral conscience. It is a particularly reprehensible interpretation of American history from a man aspiring to the highest office in the land. For the past 10 years, Buchanan has peddled latent anti-Semitism in the guise of populist rhetoric. For instance, in a 1990 newspaper column, he accused Israel of fomenting war in the Persian Gulf and risking the lives of non-Jewish American soldiers to further its ends. His assertions trumpet his isolationist and xenophobic views, laced with anti-Jewish vitriol. In his book, he questions not only American intervention in World War II, but the subsequent strength of Jewish political power. Credit goes to presidential contender Sen. John McCain that Buchanan is quickly becoming persona non grata in the Republican Party, and may defect to Ross Perot's Reform Party. McCain has denounced Buchanan's wrong-headedness and urged his ouster, even though this might siphon some Republican votes come Election Day. Even as Buchanan defends his book, filmmaker Peter Kossovitz is deflecting criticism that "Jakob the Liar" minimizes the horrors of ghetto life with its deft comedic touch. Yet the film is uplifting in its portrayal of hope in the face of suffering and despair, remaining well within the bounds of artistic license. "Jakob the Liar" doesn't tell the truth about the ugliness of ghetto life. But unlike Buchanan, the film does not brazenly cross the line of blurring historical fact. In art, mendacity may be legitimate. In history and politics, it is simply wrong. |
