what Diane Ravitch, writing in Commentary,rncalled “The Great School Wars/’rnfought in New York Cit’ over communityrncontrol of the public schools, and otherrn”vibrations,” picked up b- the sensitivernantennae of Jewish leaders, that Novickrnne’ertheless describes as “almost laughablyrntrivial,” “a series of anti-Semitic remarksrnmade by a few militant blacks inrnthe late sixties, as the civil rights movementrnwas collapsing into impotence andrndisarra}’.” (Podhoretz, in conversationrnwith a journalistic supporter of communit-rncontrol, accused him of wanting torn”shove the Jewish people back into therngas ovens.”)rnThe School Wars were soon nearlv asrnlost to memorv as the Wars of thernRoses, vet after the late 60’s a change becamernapparent in the American Jewishrncommunit}’. Jewish philanthropists gavernmore of their monev to Jewish causes,rnand Jews generally, while remainingrnL^cmocrats, grew more conservatie.rnThough the “golden age” in reality wasrnmore gilded than ever, American Jewsrnbegan to worry about being “killed byrnkindness” — meaning intermarriage withrngentiles specifically as well as, morernbroadly, a loss of Jewish identity. Thernprocess, of course, fit well with the rise ofrnethnic consciousness among all minorit}’rngroups, with the resultant identity politicsrnand the competitive politics of victimhood.rnIn an atmosphere in which Tikkunrnexpressed the desire that Jews not bernrolled together with the white Americanrnmajority —even questioning whetherrnJews are really “white” —the holocaustrnmushroomed on the American scenernas purevors of holocaust awarenessrnclaimed for its victims the status of havingrnexperienced a level or tpe of sufferingrnunic[ue in human history. Jacob Neusner,rndismissing this claim as “intellectuallyrnvulgar,” protested, “If ou know whornyou are, vou don’t have to make statementsrnlike that.” To which Novick adds:rnhi part it may be because manyrnJews don’t know who they are, exceptrninsofar as they ha’e arn”unique” victim identity-, and becausernthe uniqueness of the Holocaustrnis the sole guarantor oi theirrnuniqueness.rnFor whatever reasons, the holocaustrnhas become “sacralized” in the “folk Judaism”rnof America (particularlv amongrnthe least observant American Jews),rnmade the basis of a “mvsterv religion” inrnwhich sun’ivors have assumed the role ofrnpriests: a process forwarded b’ PresidentrnCarter’s establishment of a holocaustrncommission in 1977 to commemorate Israel’srn30th birthday, by NBC’s Hohcamtrnminiseries (the network’s answer tornABC’s Roots) in 1978, and Spielberg’srnSchindler’s List. Wiile the popidarit}- ofrnholocaust material with American Jewsrnto a certain extent needs no explaining,rnNosick emphasizes that:rnits rise to the top of the Jewishrnagenda was b}- no means a spontaneousrndevelopment. More thanrnaru’thing else, it was the consequencernof decisions made by communalrnleaders in response to theirrnappraisals of current communalrnneeds—of what worked in dealingrnwith immediate problems. Thatrnthe end result. . . would be to putrnthe Holocaust at die center of howrnJews understood themselves andrnwanted others to understand themrnwas neither foreseen nor intendedrnby most of those who set the processrnin motion.rnLike most Jew ish religious leaders andrnscholars, Novick is unable to discern anythingrn”revelational” in the holocaust.rnElie Wiesel, among others, insists that itrnamounts to a “unique” event with “uni-rnersal” implications. But how, No’ickrnasks, can the holocaust be unique andrnuniversal at the same time? And hov’ canrnit be both an illustration and a source ofrnhistorical lessons? For Novick, the holocaust’srnutilit}’ in providing instruction forrnthe quotidian world is extremely limited,rnunless one believes feelings of “awe” andrn”horror” amount to moral lessons.rnOprah Winfrc} congratulated herself onrnhaving become “a better person” afterrnwatching Schindler’s List, while manyrnother viewers claimed the film provokedrn”horror” and “grief in them. But \h”,rnNovick wants to know, are these reactionsrnthat need or ought to be draw n fromrnAmericans?rnIn the United States, memor)- ofrnthe Holocaust is so Jianal, so inconsequential,rnnot memorv’ at all, preciselyrnbecause it is so uncontroersial,rnso unrelated to real divisions inrnAmerican society, so apoHtical.rnThe American people bear no responsibilits’rnfor the holocaust. Yet its treatmentrnin contemporary culture, Novick suggests,rnmay have the effect of desensitizingrnAmericans to other atrocities and unpleasantrnevents, some of which they arernanswerable for. Observing the originalrnimpetus bcliind the “centering” of thernholocaust to have spent itself at least inrnpart, he feels something like relief:rnThere is a sense in which FmilrnFackenheim was right to sav thatrnfor Jews to forget Hitler’s ictimsrnwould be to grant him a “posthumousrnvictory.” But it would be anrneven greater posthumous victoryrnfor Hitler were we to tacitly endorsernhis definition of ourselves as despisedrnpariahs by making the Holocaustrnthe emblematic Jewish experience.rn’Lhe Holocaust in American Life is arnvaluable as well as fascinating work; itsrnsole fault, to mv mind, is that conceptuallyrnit is somewhat free-floating. “Thernmemory of the Holocaust,” Novick suggests,rnprobabU tended to inhibit publicrncriticism of Israel. (The Holocaustrnmade most Americans bend overrnbackward to avoid anything thatrncould be represented, or misrepresented,rnas anti-Semitism.) But earlierrnthere wasn’t that much criticismrnof Israel to inhibit; in recentrnyears, criticism hasn’t been that inhibited.rnIt was at this point —page 166 —that Irncheeked the index for the absent namesrnof Patrick J. Buchanan and Joseph Sobran,rnbefore coming on the next page tornNovick’s observation that:rnunlike just about even,’ other issuernon which interest groups work tornwin congressional support—thingsrnlike abortion, gun control, and affirmativernaction—there have been nornsignificant forces in the legislativernarena opposing [pro-Israeli lobbyists].rnPeter Novick, who is himself Jewish,rnhas displayed great courage in engagingrnthis inflammatory subject, and if his accountrndisplays occasional lacunae or absencernof a critical dimension, the explanationrnma’ lie in the author’s closeness tornthe subject.rn28/CHRONICLESrnrnrn