Otto Frank letters

A series of desperate letters from Otto Frank (Anne Frank’s father) have surfaced at the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research in New York and will be released next month.

Otto Frank wrote the letters in 1941 in a despairing effort to get his family out of Nazi-occupied Amsterdam, before finally hiding the family, including Anne, in secret rooms in an Amsterdam office building for two years until they were betrayed, Time magazine said Thursday.

The family was sent to Nazi prison camps where Anne, her sister Margot, and their mother Edith died before the war’s end. But Otto Frank survived and returned to Amsterdam where he recovered his daughter’s diary of their time hiding from the Nazis.

There are approximately 80 documents in all and YIVO plans to make them public on February 14.

Rwanda wants first lady charged

Rwanda is now demanding that France arrest their former first lady — Agathe Habyarimana. This is the latest in the an on-going political conflict between France and Rwanda, where Rwanda is attempting to extradite and prosecute war criminals, and France continues to put pressure on the African nation for the role they believe President Kagame played in the former President’s death (just prior to the genocide).

We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families

When you deal with books on genocide, you’re usually looking at one of three different formats. The most commonly seen is probably the third person objective variety; the second is the first person narrative (the survivors tale); and the third is the fictionalized novel.

The last one is useful to those who study Holocaust/genocide literature, but of lesser value to those who want to study the dynamics and outcomes of a particular genocide. In We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families, Philip Gourevitch manages to use his skills as a reporter to meld the third person narrative with eye-witness accounts to create a personal history of the Rwandan genocide that’s far more accessible than a traditional academic study.

What initially drew me into Gourevitch’s book is the fact that he and I share the same questions. Like myself, he wants to know, more than anything else, how such an atrocity can happen.

No doubt, the promise of material gain and living space did move some killers. But why hasn’t Bangladesh, or any other terribly poor and terribly crowded place of the many one might name, had a genocide? Over population doesn’t explain why hundreds of thousands of people agreed to murder nearly a million of their neighbors in the course of a few weeks. Nothing really explains that. [p.180]

He goes on to outline a laundry list of reasons that are at least marginally responsible for the sudden swell toward genocide – including precolonial inequalities, the hierarchical government, the Hamitic myth, the economic collapse of the 1980’s, the extremist Hutu Power, propaganda, superstition, ignorance, alcoholism, and any number of other factors that figure into the complex cultural soup that still exists in Rwanda today.

By using a series of visits to the country and interviewing those who took part in the genocide as well as the survivors, he manages to weave together a depiction that is both vivid and frightening. Unlike the Holocaust, where the victims are looking back at an atrocity that happened fifty or sixty years ago, Gourevitch is able to talk with people who are still struggling with what happened, and living in the state of uncertainty that follows any genocidal outbreak.

While the Rwandan genocide differed greatly from the Holocaust, the sense of separation, extremism, and fear are clearly palpable through Gourevitch’s interviews in a way that eerily echoes the past. It’s through this accessibility that we see how little has changed since those nationalistically turbulent days, and through this narrative, we can clearly see the cautionary signs of what we might expect as Darfur continues to deteriorate.

It’s this tangible quality that makes We Wish to Inform You a valuable book on modern genocide.

Iranian president charged?

John Bolton, the outgoing US ambassador to the United Nations, will be joining the call to bring charges against Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad for inciting genocide. The idea of charging Ahmadi-Nejad arises on the heels of the Iranian Holocaust conference, which has been drawing huge complaints internationally. A study produced by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists concluded that the President of Iran was promoting a campaign of hate against Israel and the Jewish people.

A series of remarks by Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, including one in which he reportedly questioned whether Zionists were human beings, “constitute direct and public incitement to genocide”, the study alleges. While reminiscent of incitement before the Rwanda genocide, “the critical difference is that while the Hutus in Rwanda were equipped with machetes, Iran, should the international community do nothing to prevent it, will soon acquire nuclear weapons,” it says.

Even as the Iranian Mission to the UN countered that the international court should be looking at the genocide of Palestinian people by the Israeli government, the lack of movement to “prevent” a genocide from occurring in parts of the world where “vulnerable populations [can’t] defend themselves” continues to be an enduring problem.

Darfur Plan B

Even as the United Nations continues to put diplomatic pressure on Sudan to allow peacekeeping forces to replace the beleaguered African Union troops in Darfur, the Sudanese government maintains its position to resist any attempt at international intervention. Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that he would consider a “plan B” that would begin enforcement of a no-fly zone over the Darfur region.