A

couple of years ago my wife and I made the first of three trips to Poland to

visit her family's ancestral home. As far as anyone knows, the

Gruenbaum/Ellenbogen family had been living in the Galicia area of Poland for

centuries.

That

long sojourn ended with the German invasion of 1939. There is no need to describe

what happened subsequently, except to note that the Auschwitz-Birkenau and

Maidanek death camps were each about 90 minutes from the family's home in

Rozwadow.

The

family members who survived the Holocaust ended up in the United States,

Israel, Canada, and Australia. Some remained in Poland until after the 1967 Six Day War when the Communist regime there drove

them out as "Zionists." A few remained in Poland long

enough to rejoice in the downfall of the Communist regime.

Our

visits to Poland are always emotional. Next year,

we will return to visit the Museum of the History of Polish Jews for its opening. The museum, a joint

project of the Polish and Israeli governments, focuses not on how the Jews of

Poland died, but rather on how they lived. They will be memorialized not just

as three million victims, but celebrated as Jews

and Poles: as people.

Nonetheless,

it is impossible to forget how they were killed. Nor should we try to forget.

Although recalling the Holocaust does nothing for the victims, remembrance is a

weapon against other acts of genocide (although, as is obvious, only a limited

one). It also serves of a reminder of where hate —

in this case anti-Semitism — can lead.

That

is why so-called Holocaust deniers insist that it never happened. If it didn't,

they believe, then the nexus between racial/ethnic hate and murder is broken

and it is easier for them to openly hate Jews, African-Americans, gays or whoever. If

no one can say, "you know where that kind of thinking can lead, don't you,"

then they are more comfortable promulgating their hate.

Fortunately,

Holocaust denial is no more successful than Civil War denial (which, to my

knowledge, does not exist). Yes, a few nutty people could assert that no civil

war occurred in America between 1861 and 1865. But only crazy people would ever

believe it.

No

one can make the memory of the Holocaust or its

use as an antidote to hatred disappear.

But

people do succeed in trivializing the Holocaust.

Until

recently, that did not happen very often. The memory of the Six Million or the

single face of Anne Frank, or the little boy with his hands held in the air, in

front of a Nazi soldier, prevent people from disrespecting the victims.

No

more. Today anyone can be called an anti-Semite and any event can be likened to

the Holocaust. I don't know when that started,

but it reached a new height when Glenn Beck, the former Fox commentator,

decided that the best way to destroy the reputation of liberal philanthropist

George Soros

was to lie and say that this Holocaust victim was, in fact, a Nazi accomplice.

Since

then, the right has utilized Nazi horrors as a tool against every progressive

cause they don't like including the president's signature health care law and his call for

Congress to raise the debt ceiling.

Even

worse is the name-calling. If the right does not like someone, there is a good

chance he will be likened to Nazis or called an anti-Semite. That applies to

Jews, even Israelis, who oppose bombing Iran or want to end the occupation.

This

week's target of choice is CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien who had the temerity to

challenge (and essentially eviscerate) a Breitbart.com editor for saying that

President Obama's friendship with professor Derrick Bell (the first tenured

African-American professor at the Harvard Law School) is evidence that Obama is

a radical anti-white leftist.

I

won't describe the controversy here, allowing Eli Clifton to describe it in Think Progress. It is enough to say

that the absurdity of the whole manufactured brouhaha was made manifest when

Sarah Palin jumped in to say that Obama's friendship with Bell was evidence

that these two African-Americans wanted to return America to the

days before the Emancipation Proclamation. The bottom line is that Breitbart.com

and the "editor" who tried to debate the Harvard-educated O'Brien looked

ridiculous. A laughing stock.

And

then, sure as clockwork, came the charge that Soledad O'Brien is an

anti-Semite. In an exchange of public

tweets,

Chris Loesch, the husband of CNN commentator Dana Loesch, wrote that O'Brien's denial

of Obama's radicalism was dictated by the fact that "it's cool and edgy to be

an anti-Semitic leftist right now."

Say

what? The whole rightist case against Obama and Bell is that they were two

incredibly accomplished African-Americans who happened to be friends and who

agreed that American racism was a deep-seated problem that had to be addressed.

Also relevant, no doubt, is that the two men broke down the doors of white

privilege — in Obama's case, the ultimate such door.

But

anti-Semitism? Anti-Semitism has as much to do with this phony controversy as the

number of points Jeremy Lin scored in the Knicks' last game.

The

only reason it is only being employed to discredit O'Brien is because she, on

national television, so successfully tore apart the arguments of a Breitbart fantasist,

who happens to be Jewish.

Far

more relevant is that this is a classic right-wing tactic: attack the

opponent's strength. Call war hero John Kerry a war shirker. Call George Soros,

the leading funder of anti-Communist movements, a Communist. And label liberalism,

the political ideology to which 80 percent of Jews adhere,

as "anti-Semitic."

All

this would be funny if it weren't so hateful and calculated. The fact is that

the overwhelming majority of Jews are liberal Democrats. (Had Jews been the

only people voting, history would record the landslide victories of presidents

named McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.) To call liberals and

progressives anti-Semitic is to call Jews anti-Semitic.

Perhaps

even worse is the revolting disrespect to the memory of the victims of the

Holocaust demonstrated by the slam at O'Brien. Six million Jews were murdered in the name of anti-Semitism. A million and a half of

them were children. They were gassed and their bodies were burned in

crematoria.

I

don't know what the proper response is to that, except the old, but still true, mantra: Never Again. That and,

as Elie Wiesel says, respectful silence.

To

trivialize anti-Semitism (and by extension the Holocaust) by tossing the "anti-Semite"

charge around with joyful recklessness is ugly, disrespectful, and obscene.

Is

it too much to ask the right to show a little respect for the dead?