Academic exercises are the purview of wealthy societies. And Dennis Prager is obviously a big fan of them. He is most interesting when he discusses the intersection of religious philosophy and morality with everyday life, but here he misses the forest for the trees.
We already know who hid the Jews. It wasn’t enough, because the vast majority of European society didn’t particularly care about the plight of the Jews, and a large minority embraced the policies of genocide.
There is something about most Jews that few non-Jews know: We Jews often ask ourselves if a non-Jew in our lives would hide us in the event of a Nazi-like outbreak.
I don’t know if young Jews think about this, but nearly all Jews who grew up in the decades following the Holocaust often wondered: Would this non-Jew hide me?
I have thought about this all my life because the question, “Who hid Jews?” is one of the most important questions anyone—Jew or non-Jew—needs to think about. That question is far more important than “Who didn’t hide Jews?” because great goodness is rarer than great evil and even rarer than simple moral cowardice. Yet, a vast number of books have been written attempting to understand evil, while relatively few have been written attempting to explain good.
Granting the legitimacy of the moral question, it is of very little practical value, because the Holocaust, its aftermath, and the treatment of Israel and Jews by the world for the last 60 years has demonstrated that a far more important question is: How many guns do you have, how much ammo for each of them, and do you know how to use them?
Israel has shown the world that a robust defense is far more important than relying on the kindness of strangers. And the world’s reaction to that attitude has exposed the reality that that the world has never forgiven the Jews for not all dying in the Holocaust.
My advice to Dennis Prager is to learn how to shoot, buy some guns, find like-minded Jews (they exist!) and worry less about who will shelter you and more about fighting those who would toss you into boxcars.
And as the events in once free Australia are demonstrating as we speak, the ability to resist government is predicated on force, because that is the ultimate weapon of any government, and no amount of posturing and speech-making and editorializing will counter a government that is willing to use violence against non-violence.
Is there a reason why in America, violent government reactions against our current freedom fighters has been tepid and bureaucratic, unlike the government thugs of Melbourne? Could it be the hundreds of millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammunition in the hands of Americans?