From Antisemitism to Anti-Zionism: The Past & Present of a Lethal Ideology 9781618115669

Citation preview

From Antisemitism To Anti-Zionism THE PAST & PRESENT OF A LETHAL IDEOLOGY

Antisemitism in America Series Editor Eunice G. Pollack (University of North Texas)

From Antisemitism To Anti-Zionism

THE PAST & PRESENT OF A LETHAL IDEOLOGY edited by

EUNICE G. POLLACK

Boston 2017

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Pollack, Eunice G., editor. Title: From antisemitism to anti-Zionism : the past & present of a lethal ideology / editor Eunice G. Pollack. Description: Brighton, MA : Academic Studies Press, [2017] Series: Antisemitism in America | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016052711 (print) | LCCN 2016053248 (ebook) | ISBN 9781618115652 (hardback) | ISBN 9781618115669 (e-book) Subjects: LCSH: Antisemitism—United States. | Antisemitism—Europe. | Antisemitism—History—21st century. | Zionism—United States. | Arab-Israeli conflict—1993—Influence. Classification: LCC DS146.U6 F76 2017 (print) | LCC DS146.U6 (ebook) | DDC 305.892/4—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016052711 Copyright© 2017, Academic Studies Press

ISBN 978-1-61811-565-2 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-61811-566-9 (electronic) Book design by Kryon Publishing

www.kryonpublishing.com Academic Studies Press

28 Montfern Avenue Brighton, MA 02135, USA www.academicstudiespress.com [email protected]

Contents

Preface: From a Pariah People to a Pariah State Eunice G. Pollack vii PART I  Denying Antisemitism



CHAPTER 1 H  ow Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive: The Livingstone Formulation David Hirsh 2 CHAPTER 2 The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community: The Neglect of Muslim Antisemitism in English-Language Courses, Textbooks, and Research Neil J. Kressel 29 PART II Antisemitism in America Before—and After— The Founding of the Jewish State: The Elites and the Masses



1

69

CHAPTER 3 Antisemitism in the White House Rafael Medoff 70 CHAPTER 4 Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955 Stephen H. Norwood 113 CHAPTER 5 Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936 Stephen H. Norwood 148

Contents

PART III Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust



CHAPTER 6 T  he Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad Richard Landes 186 CHAPTER 7 Palestinian Identity Theft and the Delegitimization of Israel: Jerold S. Auerbach 215 CHAPTER 8 Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism Eunice G. Pollack 227 CHAPTER 9 Past and Present: Plus Ça Change, Plus C’est la Me  me Chose Edward Alexander 265 PART IV  Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State CHAPTER 10 CHAPTER 11

 hristian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews? C Benjamin Ginsberg Holy Land, Sacred History, and Anti-Zionism David Patterson

PART V Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat





185

279

280 311 333

CHAPTER 12 Z  ionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass Andre Oboler 334 CHAPTER 13 Perspectives on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Contemporary Canada Ira Robinson 361 CHAPTER 14 The Delegitimization—and Relegitimization— of Israel Joel Fishman 387 Contributors 405 Index 408

vi

Preface From a Pariah People to a Pariah State Eunice G. Pollack

Since the Holocaust, in much of the Western world, the expression or acknowledgment of antisemitic views came to be considered unacceptable. Over the last half century, however, even febrile anti-Zionist pronouncements increasingly elicit no censure—are routinely applauded—no matter how readily recognizable they are as updated versions of the world’s oldest hatred. The overlap has become so substantial, so frequent, that Benjamin Ginsberg finds that although “it is . . . possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic . . ., what is true in principle is often not so true in practice.” United by their anti-Zionism, “‘green/brown’ alliances . . . between progressives and neo-Nazis [now] find common ground on the Jewish question.” Similarly, Jerold Auerbach identifies anti-Zionism as “the currently fashionable expression of antisemitism.” Anti-Zionism and antisemitism have often become so intertwined, he observes, that “gullible students claiming to be ‘progressive’ (while failing to understand their own antisemitism) have flocked to the cause [of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions—BDS].” He concludes that “a generation of students . . . brainwashed by their professors into believing the worst about Israel . . . have unknowingly endorsed the final solution to the Jewish problem embraced by every maniacal dictator from Titus to Hitler.” Not infrequently, however, the anti-Zionist veil is fully lifted, and the old familiar features of antisemitism cannot be gainsaid. Exposed by David Patterson, the glaring countenance is unmistakable in

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

Nobel laureate José Saramago’s 2002 depiction of Israel as “a racist state by virtue of Judaism’s monstrous doctrines—racist not just against the Palestinians, but against the entire world, which it seeks to manipulate and abuse.” Similarly, the declamation of the anti-­ Zionist Salafist Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Yaqoub, broadcast in 2009, reveals his naked, artless antisemitism: “If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. . .. Our fighting with the Jews is eternal, and it will not end . . ., until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth.” Thus the contributors to From Antisemitism to Anti-Zionism— utilizing the lenses of history, sociology, political science, psychology, philosophy, religion, and literature—examine, disentangle, and remove the disguises from the many forms of antisemitism and anti-Zionism inhabiting the English-speaking world, past and present. One of the major themes of this study—a phenomenon the authors encountered again and again—is the widespread refusal to acknowledge even blatant antisemitism—the elephant in the middle of the room. Alternatively, antisemitism is evaded by recrafting it— defending it—as only a rational response to alleged execrable actions—no longer attributed to Jews, but to the Jewish state. The accusation of the modern antisemite is not the hoary deicide charge, but one more potent in an increasingly secular age—that of genocide committed by the Jewish state. Still, in an era in which the enlightened scrutinize themselves and all others for traces of racism, sexism, homophobia—and recently, Islamophobia—and condemn putative microaggressions against those identified as minority groups, the mandatory diversity curricula and training rarely devote any attention to antisemitism, anti-Zionism, or Jews. Thus Part I exposes and analyzes the many facets of “antisemitism denial.” In Chapter 1, David Hirsh finds among a number of prominent political, academic, and media figures in England not only “a recurrent pattern of refusal even to try” to recognize one’s antisemitism, but also the ready disclaimer of bigotry that all “I am doing is criticizing Israel.” Their response to any accusation of viii

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

antisemitism is the counteraccusation that the accuser’s “real concern” can only be “to silence . . . criticisms of Israeli human rights abuses.” Hirsh is led to conclude that “hostility to Israel is becoming more and more a marker of belonging on the contemporary Left.” The deflection and denial of any accusation of antisemitism have, however, “inoculated the progressive movement not against antisemitism itself, but against having to take the issue of antisemitism seriously.” In Chapter 2, Neil Kressel approaches the issue from another angle, but he too finds that antisemitism—if not denied—is simply ignored. After showing that there exists a “cauldron of antisemitic hatred in much of the Muslim world,” which is “widespread, intense, and deeply ingrained, dangerous, and growing,” he finds it “jolting” that the “mainstream anti-racist community in the United States”— or in the West—rarely acknowledges it—and even those who do, try “to attribute this bigotry to sources remote from Islam per se.” When Kressel turns to social scientists’ study of antisemitism, once again, his findings are “startling,” for “the social sciences, which once built major theoretical advances upon research into the origins of Jew-hatred, have all but abandoned the topic.” His review of the massive PSYCHINFO index of peer-reviewed social scientific studies finds that only a minuscule percentage of the entries (1990– 2009) that “examined racism, prejudice, or discrimination .  .  . focused on antisemitism,” and “most of those items . . . dealt with the Holocaust.” Similarly, his survey of “standard textbooks” and syllabi of courses on “prejudice, racism, or diversity” reveals only minimal attention to antisemitism, and the complete neglect of Muslims’ “anti-Jewish bigotry.” Indeed, “anti-Islamic bigotry and anti-Arab bigotry are covered more heavily.” Part II focuses on the historical dimensions of antisemitism in the United States, shining new light on the bigotry of both elites and the masses. Here it is not only the efforts to ignore antisemitism that are exposed, but the determination to erase it from the historical record. Rafael Medoff, in Chapter 3, systematically examines the frequent, profoundly antisemitic comments and analyses of ix

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, and Richard M. Nixon. There is President Nixon speaking of “Jew boys,” a “kike,” imagining a “Jewish cabal,” and denouncing his attorney—“Goddamn his Jewish soul!” There is Truman writing (in 1945!): “The Jews claim God Almighty picked ’em out for special privilege. Well I’m sure he had better judgment.” And FDR, boasting to a senator that “there is no Jewish blood in our veins,” and rationalizing “German antisemitism as an ‘understandable’ response to Jewish behavior.” Medoff points out, however, that despite holding antisemitic views, Truman extended “de facto recognition [to] the newborn State of Israel” and Nixon provided “the massive American airlift of arms to Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.” By contrast, FDR’s antisemitism shaped his deleterious policies toward Jewish refugees during the years of the Third Reich, infecting “his otherwise inexplicable policy of suppressing Jewish immigration far below the legal limits” of the time. Here too the antisemitism is literally blotted out. Medoff recounts that, for the most part, the public did not learn of the presidents’ bigotry until long after they had left office. The extent and depth of Nixon’s antisemitism became evident only upon the release of Oval Office tapes in the 1990s and from 2009 to 2013, though he died in 1994. Medoff observes that Truman “long enjoyed near-heroic status in the Jewish community,” because his highly antisemitic characterizations of Jews remained largely unknown until 1983 and 2003, though he left office in 1953 and died in 1972. The public was “shocked” by the revelations, because noted historians had watered down—and had even chosen “to withhold evidence” of—Truman’s “private expressions about Jews.” Indeed, Medoff explains that the classic studies of America’s response to the Holocaust, published in the 1960s and 70s, attributed FDR’s actions “entirely . . . [to] political and military considerations,” because the evidence of his “private attitudes toward Jews” remained buried. Here too eminent scholars chose to omit any mention of Roosevelt’s disturbing antisemitic exchanges and refrained from publishing documentation of his antisemitic statements. Notably, Medoff contends that even in a 2013 x

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

work, historians went to considerable lengths in their efforts to trivialize and deny FDR’s antisemitism. Stephen Norwood directs his attention in Chapter 4 to the antisemitism not of the presidents, but of the masses—and he too finds a cover-up of antisemitism, though not by historians. Norwood focuses on the virulent antisemitic propaganda disseminated by the Christian Front—whose membership consisted largely of IrishAmericans inspired by the anti-Jewish vitriol of the radio-priest Charles Coughlin—and on their physical assaults on Jews from the 1930s through the mid-1950s. He finds that not only did the police refuse to protect those under attack, but that the authorities obscured the antisemitic nature of the Jew-hunting expeditions, the repeated beatings of Jews, and the “destruction of Jewish property.” In Boston, for example, even the “mainstream press refrained from reporting the bloody physical assaults . . . in part because the Christian Front commanded widespread grassroots support.” And when the journalist Arnold Beichman broke the story on the “Christian Front’s ‘organized campaign of terrorism’” in the newspaper PM, the Massachusetts governor “angrily denounced [his] ‘stinking’ article.” The Christian Front and the “Coughlinite press” also “trivialized” the antisemitic attacks—just as they minimized Nazis’ persecution of Jews. The head of Boston’s Christian Front declared in 1940 that “all the stories about murders and attacks” on Germany’s Jews were “lies and mere propaganda.” Moreover, the Coughlinite press claimed that “the Catholic persecution [in Germany] far outruns the Jewish.” To be sure, this was allegedly hidden from the public because of “Jewish control of the American media.” Such contentions are echoed today in anti-Zionists’ strenuous efforts to minimize the existence of antisemitism and insistence that, in any event, it is far surpassed by Islamophobia. And once more, the truth allegedly remains concealed, because Jews continue to control the media. Indeed, many of the antisemitic tropes, charges, and strategies that Norwood uncovers for the Christian Front and its allies in the earlier period resurface in the anti-Zionist movement that gathered xi

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

strength after the founding of the Jewish state. Where the Christian Front once plastered “genocidal” threats in the New York subways, anti-Zionists promise to drive the Jews into the sea and their posters on campus wipe Israel off the map of the Middle East. As targets of antisemitic assaults, Jews in the earlier period felt unsafe on many American city streets, and young boys were “afraid to wear skullcaps” outdoors. In recent years, Jews fear attacks by anti-Zionists in many European cities, where they dare not wear yarmulkes, and on campuses in the United States, where armed guards must patrol “Jewish events.” And just as the Christian Front and allied groups, “imitating the Nazis’ example,” conducted boycotts of Jewish-owned stores in the United States, “progressive” anti-Zionist academics and churches now call for boycotts of Israel, Israeli products, and even Israeli Jews. Where Norwood shows that Coughlinite ideology “combined traditional Christian theological” convictions and racial antisemitic beliefs—linking Jewish bankers with the “Jewish leaders” who allegedly “ordered Jesus’s crucifixion”—anti-Zionists often join Islamic theological and racial images of Jews—explicitly connecting contemporary Israelis to the Jews who fought Muhammad and tried to poison him. Many textbooks in American parochial schools were found to depict Jews “as cursed by God;” many anti-Zionist texts now instruct that Jews are cursed by Allah. Where Coughlinites taught that by cornering the market in gold, “the elder Rothschild,” along with the Jews, planned to “control the world,” many anti-­ Zionists contend that by settling Palestine, in a determined effort to conquer the market in “black gold,” Baron L. W. Rothschild and the Jews were again attempting to fulfill their plans to dominate the world. Notably, both the antisemites of the earlier period and anti-Zionists of the modern era gleaned much of their evidence for the nefarious plots from the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. In the last chapter of Part II, on “Entertaining Nazi Warriors,” Stephen Norwood turns his attention to America’s elites, revealing their avid support for Nazism at a critical juncture and their xii

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

widespread indifference to Nazi persecution of Jews. Norwood shows how the Hitler regime effectively used voyages of its cruisers, which docked in numerous U.S. ports, in a major effort to promote antisemitism among Americans and, at the same time, to generate goodwill to “the New Germany” to preclude American involvement in the next European conflagration. It was through these propaganda missions that the regime sought to counter charges leveled by Jews and in the Western press exposing its intense antisemitism, and to propagate the view of Nazism as merely a movement for justice and German dignity—and an ideology of peace. Norwood reveals that in the first year—or even months—of Nazi rule, American and British journalists well informed about German affairs were reporting in the press that the “Nazi brutality against Jews . . . was unprecedented in history,” that the Jews were “in mortal danger,” and that Nazi policies “aimed to exterminate and expel the whole [German] Jewish population.” From the beginning of the Nazis’ assumption of power, American “Jews at the grassroots” responded with “spontaneous boycotts of German goods.” They organized massive demonstrations and protested the libelous harangues of the Nazi propagandists and the accolades accorded the officers and crew of the cruisers that steamed into U.S. harbors flying the swastika flag. For the most part, however, he finds that American Jews were “largely on their own,” joined only “on occasion” in their protests by Communists or left-wing “non-Jewish trade unionists.” By contrast, city and state officials, business and society leaders—and the U.S. Navy high command—warmly welcomed the Nazis with elaborate luncheons, teas, galas, and dances—the Navy even including a twenty-one-gun salute. Naval colleges lent their support and joined the celebration as well. The Naval War College hosted lectures by a leading “theorist”/proponent of antisemitism, and the U.S. Naval Academy invited the officers and cadets of a Nazi cruiser to its campus to be feted “as honored guests.” Once again, there are a considerable number of strong parallels— and continuities—between the earlier antisemitic and later xiii

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

anti-Zionist propaganda campaigns, as well as in the responses they elicited. There is the endlessly invoked defense proffered by many Islamic anti-Zionists that their belief system only means “peace”— a claim that generally goes unchallenged. Once more, there are the ceaseless images, designed to elicit Western guilt, of the wrongly injured people only seeking justice and redress—not for the Versailles Treaty or the occupation of the Rhineland, but for the 1947 Partition Plan, the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the occupation that followed the Six-Day War, when fourteen Arab armies fought to destroy Israel and lost—this loss also attributed to stabs in the back. And just as the Nazi regime used German-American societies to spread its propaganda and to publicly acclaim the Führer and the Third Reich, Arab regimes deployed the Organization of Arab Students (OAS) as their “propaganda army.” The director of the Arab League Information Center in the United States urged all OAS members to “‘infiltrate student organizations’ and do all they could to promote the view that ‘Israel stands for colonialism’ and supporters of Israel are only ‘accomplices of colonialism and imperialism.’”1 Notably, unlike the Nazis, the Arab states did not have to send warships to U.S. ports to disseminate their anti-Zionist narrative, because the UN—and universities—provided the platforms through which they reached the elites. After Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Holocaust denier and then-president of Iran, addressed the UN General Assembly in 2010, he had “a ‘secret’ ‘hush-hush meal’ . . . with ‘over one hundred Muslim leaders from across the country,’” at which Louis Farrakhan, America’s leading antisemite at the time, “was the guest seated next to him ‘in the first seat in the front.’” Two years later, Farrakhan spoke to 700 students attending the Afrikan Black Coalition Conference at the University of California, Berkeley, where he assured them that “Iran will never attack Israel even though she’s being provoked to attack” because “our Islam says we are never to be the aggressor!” After proclaiming that “I will never advise   1 Eunice G. Pollack, Racializing Antisemitism: Black Militants, Jews, and Israel, 1950–Present (Jerusalem: Vidal Sassoon International Centre for the Study of Antisemitism, 2013), 26–27.

xiv

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

young . . . Americans to . . . spend the lifeblood of Americans for Israeli aggression—I’m asking all Americans to become conscientious objectors!,” the students gave him “a standing ovation.”2 And, unlike in the earlier period, when the Far Left on occasion protested antisemitic harangues, in the modern era, the Left is almost always found on the other side, demonizing Israel and championing the anti-Zionist cause.3 Part III focuses directly on anti-Zionism, assessing the web of claims at the core of the ideology and analyzing why many self-­ proclaimed progressives have fervently—even fanatically—embraced this cause. Authors uncover and trace the common, interwoven threads of antisemitic and anti-Zionist charges—ties that most anti-Zionists choose to deny or ignore. Richard Landes finds the progressives “not only . . . in denial about themselves—no antisemitism among us!—but in denial about Muslim antisemitism, which thrives in the most lurid forms within the community of the faithful, and to which their progressive allies pay no attention.” This part exposes not only the continuity between the earlier prejudice against Jews and the ooze “just beneath” what now appears as “the ‘genteel’ veneer of anti-Zionism,” but reveals that many in the West appear to have adopted the once-discredited policies of appeasement. Landes concludes that since 2000, officials have favored “policies of non-­ confrontation [which] repeatedly conceded positions of strength to accommodate Muslim ‘sensitivities.’” “Perhaps . . . most deeply damaging of all,” he adds, is “the eagerness with which academics, journalists, and ‘human rights’ NGOs adopted the triumphalist Muslim’s enemy as their own: Israel Unser Unglück”— “Israel Our Misfortune,” a slight modification of the ubiquitous Nazi cry. In Chapter 6, Landes examines how the anti-Zionist narratives— including those of “apocalyptic Jihad”—have been effectively promoted in the West, and why the “progressive camp” finds these “scapegoating, Jew-loathing narratives” so compelling. Landes shows   2 Ibid., 16–17.   3 Stephen H. Norwood, Antisemitism and the American Far Left (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013).

xv

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

that the Western press, led initially by the BBC and the Guardian, adopted the “persistent, systematic, and pervasive practice” of presenting “Jihadi war propaganda as news.” Providing “the public with an inverted image of reality,” the press depicts “radical Muslim operatives as ‘moderates,’” and labels “those who plan to use democracy to destroy democracy, . . . friendly and benign.” He characterizes the media’s willingness to “swallow whole Palestinian war propaganda aimed at destroying Israel” as “lethal journalism”—as the reporters merely repeat “their accounts of slaughters and massacres, . . . unrestrained by any form of journalistic skepticism.” Landes attributes this “constant violation of basic standards for information professionals”—which results in an “orgy of accusation against Israel”—in part to “intimidation”—long deployed by Muslims against subject populations and now directed at the infidel reporters in their midst, insuring their deference, their public support of the Arab and Muslim anti-Zionist myths. Landes investigates and evaluates additional explanations for the “moral and empirical disorientation of the current intelligentsia.” He recognizes the important roles played by “the animosity toward Jews among Western intelligentsia,” as well as “the power of a politically correct post-colonial ideology that favors ‘marginalized and underrepresented minority voices,’” but finds these explanations insufficient. They cannot account for the “near hysteria that characterizes much of the anti-Israel discourse”—where the “negatives” “the post-colonialists” attach to Israel “characterize precisely the enemies of Zionism.” To fully understand the views of the “progressive secular Left,” Landes argues, “a position of central importance should be accorded to the role of an unconscious supersessionism.” “Post-modern supersessionists,” he finds, like their religious forebears, “thrive on narratives about the moral depravity of their rivals.” And to the progressives, “the Zionists seem to be the greatest threat . . . to their sense that they are the moral cutting edge of the global community.” “The profound hostility to Israel as a ‘chosen nation’ replicates the antagonism towards Jews believing that they are the chosen people.” xvi

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

And where “gentiles [generally] project their own definition of chosenness (the promise of dominion) onto the Jews . . . and hate the Jews for what they themselves are,” progressives now “share their Jew-hatred”—and their projections—with the greatest “fanatics of dominion on the planet, the Jihadis.” Similarly, in Chapter 7, Jerold Auerbach finds that “the fusion of liberalism and anti-Zionism in the delegitimization of Israel has become the conventional wisdom in academic circles.” Acclaimed intellectual celebrities instruct that Zionism is “a colonial and racist movement” that brought “a largely European people” to Palestine, who “pretend that it was empty of inhabitants, conquer it by force, and drive out 70 percent of its inhabitants.” This is the currently preferred paradigm, even though, as Auerbach explains, quoting the scholar Ruth Wisse, “Jews have more concurrent rights to their land than any other people on this earth can claim.” Indeed, Auerbach points out that it was “Zionist land development,” and the “increasing work prospects that accompanied” it “from the end of the nineteenth century, and especially during the decades of British Mandatory rule,” that “began to attract Arabs . . . who came to Palestine in search of a better life (and eventually became ‘Palestinians’).” Moreover, he stresses, quoting the historian Diana Muir, Arabs “neither perceived Palestine as a distinct country, nor Palestinians as a people.” Auerbach explains that it was only after Israel won the Six-Day War in June 1967, and “Jordanian rule was terminated” on the West Bank, that “West Bank Arabs began to construct a Palestinian national identity . . . in a land that never had been inhabited by a (previously nonexistent) ‘Palestinian’ people.” The reason was clear. As a military commander of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) conceded, “the vision of a Palestinian state . . . was merely ‘a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel.’” In “constructing their own national narrative,” however, Auerbach finds that the “Palestinians” simply “plundered Jewish and Israeli sources.” They “reinvented themselves as the ‘real’ Jews, entitled to the land, history, holy sites, and symbols that have defined Judaism for three millennia.” xvii

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

It was not only the identity of a “Palestinian people” that was purloined and fabricated, but the identity of the leading proponent of the anti-Zionist Palestinian cause on campus. Auerbach observes that Edward Said, professor of English and comparative literature, routinely joined his “jeremiads against Israel” to his “self-identification as a victimized Palestinian refugee,” forced, as he put it, by “the 1948 Catastrophe to live in exile.” This was, Auerbach conclusively shows, a wholly contrived narrative, and “Israel had nothing . . . to do with his profound sense of identity dislocation.” It was “only after the Six-Day War” that Said, “by then a tenured professor” at Columbia University, “reinvented himself as a Palestinian”—in an effort to indict the Jewish state. The parallel was clear—like earlier refugees, he had been driven into exile on Morningside Heights by the new “Nazi state.” Apparently, in an era that often demands authenticity, exceptions are made when the fable advances the anti-Zionist cause—and Said achieved—and retained—iconic status. The charlatan also serves, however, as a symbol of a campus that has lost its way. Chapter 8, which I wrote, examines the core myths promoted by anti-Zionists over the years, an amalgam of the harshest vilifications and tropes of the era. Echoing hoary anti-Judaic charges, it is the Zionists who are now deemed insatiably “bloodthirsty”—though “genocide” replaces deicide, and it is “the Zionist creed” that mandates “mastery of the ‘Chosen People’ over the ‘Arab natives.’” The next layer is composed of easily recognizable inversions—the “race-supremacist Zionists” deploying napalm—not Zyklon B— as they embark on “the ‘final solution’ to the ‘Arab problem’ in Palestine.” Surrounding these condemnations is always the anti-Zionist myth that there was no need for a Jewish state because Jews had been happily ensconced as equal “citizens” in Muslim lands for more than a millennium. Moreover, the Jews—unlike the Arabs and, in later versions, the Palestinians—form only a religious group, never a people or a nation, and the Arab states had always ensured “justice and equality . . . regardless of . . . creed,” with “anti-Jewish xviii

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

attitudes . . . virtually unknown in the Arab world.” It was Islam—the Arabs assured the credulous West—that had been the source of this “perfect harmony”—because Islam is “a most tolerant faith.” Thus, unlike the Palestinians, who were driven out of their land, there were no Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Lured only by Zionist “blackmail,” they departed in “conditions of leisure and ease.” I show that these anti-Zionist claims were factitious—“bore no resemblance to reality.” Travelers to Arab lands reported that Muslims treated Jews “with more disdain than they would their animals,” or “as a master might treat a slave.” And it was Islam, which taught that Jews were “laden with Allah’s anger,” and thus would suffer “degradation in this world and a mighty chastisement in the next world,” that sealed their fate. For over a millennium, the Pact of Umar, in which were encoded the teachings of the Qur’an, provided the web of restrictions that ensured the Jews’ “subjugation, humiliation and inferiority” to Muslims—though they would be “tolerated as a faith.” After centuries of subjugating and abasing Jews, driven by the conviction that this was mandated by Allah, Arabs and Muslims could not—or would not—accommodate the strong, autonomous Jewish state. I argue that Arab/Muslim attacks on Israelis—which the West routinely construes only as rational responses to egregious acts—were strongly influenced by the centuries-old patterns of their persecution of inferior Jews. Arab youth “stoning” Zionists are holding fast to their traditional mode of expressing enmity and contempt for Jews. The false charges regularly leveled at Israelis— accepted uncritically by “progressives” in the West—are often echoes of an abusive practice deeply rooted in a time when “courts would not accept a Jew’s testimony over that of a Muslim.” Similarly, I show that many of the allegations of execrable Israeli actions should be seen largely as “projections of Muslims’ time-honored treatment of the subjugated Jews.” I also elaborate on the explicitly theological dimensions of the anti-Zionist assault on the Jewish state, as Muslims increasingly defined their conflict with Zionists and the “Zionist entity” in xix

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

religious terms. Sermons framed the clash as a death-struggle with the “arch-enemy of Islam”—a continuation of the Prophet’s wars with the Jews. Clerics reminded the faithful that “the Jews of our time are the descendants of the Jews who harmed the Prophet” and summoned them to “purify Holy Palestine from their filth.” Muslim clerics dismissed “the Zionist claim that Palestine . . . is the spiritual and national homeland of the Jewish people” as “utter nonsense.” I show how they were aided in their efforts by mainstream Protestant theologians, who offered “proof” that Zionists intentionally “misinterpret Holy Scripture to justify Jews’ return to Palestine.” These theologians rejected Christian Zionists’ views as arising “out of ignorance,” and stressed that there is “within the Old Testament . . . no prophecy of a ‘second return.’” A sinful people, who disobeyed “the will of God,” the Jews’ punishment after the destruction of the Second Temple was to remain forever “scattered among the nations.” The New Covenant had replaced the Old—“universalism” had supplanted the “‘nationalism’ of the Jewish tradition”—the concept of “Israel of the flesh” had given way to that of “Israel of the spirit.” The promise of the restoration of the Jews’ homeland had been superseded. Muslims could now point to “proof” that the Bible did not support a Jewish state. They could plausibly proclaim that they were not opposed to Judaism—and thus could not be considered antisemitic. This part closes with Edward Alexander’s analysis, in Chapter 9, of leftist Jewish intellectuals’ problematic responses—non-­ responses—to the Holocaust and the Jewish state. It was, Alexander shows, the publication of Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963) that aroused “a storm of controversy,” especially among the Jewish intelligentsia, over her allegations that “the Jews had cooperated significantly in their own destruction” in the Holocaust. In a larger sense, he explains, the conflict was over “the ingrained intellectual tradition of blaming Jews for the violence unleashed against them”—a tendency that persists in the relentless faulting of Israel for the attacks on it. Arendt’s egregious claims and the clashes that ensued also led some to consider—at last—in the pained reflection of “the socialist xx

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

and literary critic Irving Howe,” “why our intellectual community . . . had paid so little attention to the Holocaust at the time it was taking place.” Moreover, as Alexander observes, “the ‘first-rank’ Jewish intellectuals” continued to show the same “appalling indifference” when, “a few years after the destruction of European Jewry, the Jewish people had created the State of Israel . . . imposing a pattern of meaning upon otherwise incomprehensible suffering.” Alexander then addresses the “new challenge” that confronted Jewish intellectuals when, after Israel defeated the Arabs in the Six-Day War—which the president of Egypt had promised would “turn the Mediterranean red with Jewish blood”—the Arabs “commenced [or amplified] an ideological onslaught against Zionism itself.” By 1970, Howe recognized the response—“the treachery of the younger generation of Jewish intellectuals”—“children of the generation that saw Auschwitz, hate democratic Israel and celebrate as ‘revolutionary’ the Egyptian dictatorship; . . . a few . . . collect money for Al Fatah, which pledges to take Tel Aviv. About this, I cannot say more; it is simply too painful.” Considering the decades since 1970, Alexander confirms Howe’s worst fears—“the tenacity of the Arabs’ rejection of Israel and their worldwide campaign to destroy Israel’s moral image . . . have brought about a mass defection of Jewish liberals from Israel.” Dividing them into several categories, Alexander identifies, for example, “ashamed Jews”—“desperate to escape the negative role in which they are being cast by the alleged sins of Israel.” Some, as Tony Judt, “recommend politicide—the end of Israel”—as the cure for their own “insecurity.” Others, who have no connection to their Jewish­ ness, invent “their Jewish ‘identity’” by becoming anti-­Zionists. Flaunting “their own goodness” “by denouncing Israel for its manifold sins, [they] call for the dismantling of the [Jewish] state.” Then there is the “organization called J Street,” which heads the list of “Zionists against Israel.” Although J Street “misses no opportunity to blacken Israel’s reputation, and . . . very few opportunities to encourage campaigns to delegitimize it, . . . it insists on calling itself ‘pro-Israel, pro-peace.’” The sociologist Werner Cohn, Alexander xxi

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

points out, has characterized J Street as a “spectacle of methodical disingenuousness.” Part IV focuses on theological components of support for, and opposition to, the Jewish state. In Chapter 10, Benjamin Ginsberg explores both the doctrinal and “earthly considerations” that led evangelicals—known as Christian Zionists—to become unwavering supporters of Israel. This was so central to their belief-system that, Ginsberg notes, the evangelical minister Jerry Falwell “was fond of declaring that God commanded Americans to support Israel.” Understandably, “Every Israeli prime minister since David Ben-­ Gurion himself has cultivated the friendship of America’s evangelical leaders.” Ginsberg explains that Christian Zionists maintain that their “support for Israel is based directly upon Holy Scripture, . . . [which] makes it clear that God gave the Holy Land to the Jews . . . but definitely not to Ishmael,” from whom Muslims claim descent. Moreover, as premillennialists, “most white evangelical Protestants . . . believe that Israel has a critical role to play in end times.” In a larger sense, they also recognize the importance of “God’s promise to Abraham to bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse the Jews.” Some evangelicals—the dispensationalists—contend that “the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and the reestablishment of the biblical Jewish kingdom” signal that “the Millennium—[the] one-thousand-year reign of Christ on earth”—is near. Ginsberg observes that the disputes over Israel within the Christian community often “seem to have a theological basis,” as “Israel’s mainline Protestant critics are . . . covenantalists,” who believe that “God’s . . . promises to the Jews were already fulfilled by the coming of Jesus, his death and resurrection, and the founding of the Christian church.” With the establishment of the Jewish state, however, evangelicals would contend that they had won the ­argument—“their truth [had been proven] true.” Notably, “in the 1940s, a majority of American Protestants belonged to the mainline liberal denominations. Today, the evangelicals outnumber [them] by a 2 to 1 margin.” xxii

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

Ginsberg shows how the evangelicals’ secular commitments reinforced their biblically sanctioned support for “God’s chosen people” and the Jewish state. As “evangelicals emerged from [World War II] ‘as America’s most patriotic . . . citizens’” and Israel became drawn into “America’s global struggle against Communism” as it played out in the Middle East, their support for the Jewish state “expanded and solidified.” In the mid-to-late 1950s, as the Soviet Union became a major arms supplier to Egypt and “Syria, too, became a Soviet client,” “for evangelicals, the Bible and the American flag now clearly sent the same message of support for Israel.” Even more important was the Six-Day War, which Ginsberg identifies as “a watershed in the relationship between Christians and Israel”—as well as in the divide between evangelicals and “liberal Christian groups, .  .  . [which] became increasingly antagonistic toward the Jewish state.” Many “evangelicals thought God must have fought on Israel’s side,” and dispensationalists construed “the reunification of Jerusalem by the Jews” as an indication that “events leading to the return of Jesus Christ would soon take place.” By contrast, mainstream Protestants, who viewed the war “through the lens of Vietnam protest . . . and the growing influence of liberation theology,” “began to see Israel as a white colonial power repressing people of color.” With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the increasing threat posed by “militant Islam” to both the United States and Israel—the “great Satan” and the “little Satan”—once more, evangelicals’ patriotism fortified “a biblical understanding calling for support for Israel.” In Chapter 11, which concludes this part, David Patterson focuses on theological antisemitism, which “in our time . . . is most fanatically manifest in the murderous diatribes of the world’s Islamic Jihadists.” He reveals that the goals of these “anti-Zionist antisemites” extend far beyond the physical extirpation of the Jews from “Palestine.” Observing that “anti-Zionists use the term Zion with contempt,” he finds that this is “a contempt both for the Jews and for the sacred history they represent.” Thus anti-Zionists seek not only “to remove the Jews from their dwelling place” but “to purge xxiii

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

the world of Jewish teaching and testimony”—of the “Jewish understanding of . . . Holy Land and sacred history, as affirmed in the Covenant of Torah.” Anti-Zionism, then, is “steeped not only in a hatred of the People of the Book but also in a hatred of the Book itself” and the “understanding of space and time” that it contains. “The anti-Zionist determination to erase Zion from the face of the earth is a determination to erase the Torah that ‘goes forth from Zion.’” That the anti-Zionists chose to launch the 1973 war to annihilate Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year, did not reflect military strategy alone. The Islamic Jihadists’ supersessionist claim to Jerusalem—a core component of anti-Zionist antisemitism—also reveals their assault on the “sacred history couched in the Covenant of Torah.” Patterson explains that unlike “the anti-Zionist Jihadists who claim Jerusalem as their own, the Jews do not lay claim to Jerusalem—Jerusalem lays claim to the Jews.” Therefore in prayer, Jews “refer to Jerusalem as . . . ‘Your city,’ that is, God’s city.” “The anti-Zionists would ban the Jews from Jerusalem, as they were banned from the Old City” when it was under Jordanian control. By contrast, because “the Jewish testimony to the holiness of Jerusalem demands an openness to every human being, that openness has been attained . . . since Jerusalem became reunified as the capital of the Jewish state in 1967.” It is, Patterson explains, Muslims’ very different view of what “a ‘holy city’ means” that provides insight into “what drives Muslim anti-Zionism.” Where “Jerusalem signifies the holiness of humanity”—“the bond between God and humanity. . .. the tie between human and human”— “Mecca signifies the truth of Islam” and is “closed to all except Muslims.” Thus much of the “visceral hatred” that infuses the Jihadists’ anti-Zionist antisemitism is “rooted in an opposition to . . . metaphysical categories”—to Jewish testimony to “Holy Land and sacred history”—“not in the contingencies of ‘occupation.’” Whereas traditional antisemites tied Jews inextricably to Satan—for centuries picturing the Jew mounted on Satan’s goat—anti-Zionist antisemites depict “the Jewish state [as] demonic in its essence,” identifying it as

xxiv

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

“the source of every evil.” For the Jihadists, it is Israel that is “the epicenter of a satanic plot to take over the world,” to spread “the ‘cancer’ of Zionism . . . throughout the world”—and they openly call for the “‘final solution’”—“the extermination of the . . . ‘Zionist entity,’” “‘the enemy not only of Islam but of all humanity.’” Thus it is by murdering Jews—not other unbelievers—that the Jihadist anti-Zionist martyr “purchases his ticket to paradise”—a commitment to which, Patterson notes, “secular anti-Zionists have offered no objection.” The last section, Part V, explores additional aspects of contemporary anti-Zionist antisemitism. In his examination of the impact of the Internet, in Chapter 12, Andre Oboler shows “how embedded anti-Zionist libels are in the fabric of the online world”—in “both the old web accessed through search engines and the new web of social media.” In 1984, Oboler heard Robert Wistrich, the major historian of antisemitism, warn—in a talk given at the home of the president of Israel—that “through anti-Zionism, a revival of all the latent murderous potential of antisemitism is in fact already taking place.” He issued this alarm before the advent of the World Wide Web, when anti-Zionist propaganda—in the form of pamphlets, lectures, magazines, and newsletters—was readily available largely to the already convinced. This reach and ease of access have expanded exponentially in the era of the Internet—each site, packed with misinformation and disinformation, providing instant links to the next. Oboler notes that a Google search on the term “Zionazi”—part of the language of Holocaust inversion spoken by anti-Zionists—­ “returned 56,700 results”! Oboler finds that anti-Zionist sites appear early even in a basic Google search on “Zionism.” The reader—even the cursory reader— is soon instructed that “Zionism is not categorically different from Nazism;” that Zionists plan “to expel from Israeli-controlled territory all the indigenous inhabitants,” the reader learning that this is a practice “known as ethnic cleansing, . . . derived from the Nazi practice” with respect to the Jews. The information-seeker is taught that “in reality the Zionist leadership and the Nazis were the best of friends”—and, more recently, that the Zionists are currently xxv

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

committing “genocide” and have turned Gaza into a “concentration camp.” Oboler warns that “online antisemitism is more than a virtual danger” and cautions that college students are particularly “engaged with online content and . . . take what they learn into campus life.” Oboler reveals the major role played by “memes” in the spread of anti-Zionist antisemitism “through social media and comment sections of online newspapers,” where they “appear and reappear, . . . gain traction and are impossible to dislodge.” “Graphical memes,” he explains, are “images with some overlaid text.” A typical graphical meme “juxtaposes Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and Hitler,” or embeds a “swastika into the design of the Israeli flag.” As such images are “shared through social media time and time again, . . . the message of anti-Zionist antisemitism” is “normalized.” They then “become conceptual memes . . . as they morph and reappear in conversations.” Oboler provides an extensive discussion of the difficulties encountered when trying to limit the dissemination of antisemitism online. Although “social media platforms provide mechanisms for reporting online hate,” he notes, the method has proved particularly problematic with respect to efforts to curb or delete anti-Zionist antisemitic content: within ten months of being notified of such material, YouTube, for example, had removed “just 4 percent.” And, he finds, it is even more difficult to counter the spread of memes. Next, Ira Robinson, in Chapter 13, considers the extent and sources of antisemitism—often thinly disguised as anti-Zionism— in contemporary Canada. Quoting Irving Abella and Harold Troper’s classic study of the Jews of Canada, None Is Too Many (1983), Robinson notes that before 1948, Jews were “the pariahs of Canadian society, demeaned, despised, and discriminated against.” By contrast, by the end of the twentieth century, Canadian Jews held “prominent positions . . . practically unattainable a generation or two ago.” Still, antisemitism has persisted in Canada—is even increasing—albeit generally in its anti-Zionist guise. The Anti-Defamation League’s global survey, issued in 2014, found that “almost 4 million Canadians are afflicted by this disease;” that “14% of Canadians surveyed xxvi

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

responded ‘probably true’ to a majority of the questions designed to elicit antisemitic attitudes.” Among contemporary antisemites, Robinson identifies the “numerous anti-Zionist activists” in “the Muslim community in Canada,” who flourish in “a cultural milieu that makes no essential distinction between ‘Israel’ and ‘Jews.’” They include Mohamed Elmasry, a professor and former head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, who maintains that Jews form a “‘cabal’ that effectively runs the Canadian government.” “There are clerics, like the leader of the Vancouver mosque Dar al-Madinah,” who denounces Jews as “‘the brothers of monkeys and swine,’” and reminds the faithful that “the Qur’an depicts Jews as treacherous.” A “series of articles appearing in . . . a Muslim newspaper in British Columbia . . . blamed the Jews for both world wars [and] the 9/11 terror attacks.” Robinson also identifies Quebec as both a historical and contemporary center of “overt antisemitism.” Recently, the ombudsman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) was even led to “call upon Radio-Canada”—the CBC’s French-language network— “to address a ‘systemic bias’ in its coverage of Israel.” And in the summer of 2014, at the time of the Israel–Hamas conflict in Gaza, a journalist informed her readers that she “won’t be writing about Israel for a while. At least not at home in Quebec, where,” she explained, “the time-honoured pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel bias in the media is now so strong that columnists like me who strive to offer a more balanced view . . . are symbolically marched out of town. Sometimes with a yellow star on their sleeve.” Canadian universities have also become central sites of contemporary anti-Zionist antisemitism. Robinson explains that the campus activities associated with the annual observance of “Israel Apartheid Week” and the demonstrations and accusations of the endless BDS campaign have led to many reports of “anti-Jewish intimidation” and complaints of a “hostile environment” for Jewish students. Driven by her own experiences on the Canadian campus, the academic Nora Gold wrote a novel, Fields of Exile. She reported, “I was so distressed by the anti-Israelism around me that I really xxvii

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

couldn’t write about anything else. . .. Year after year, I witnessed . . . the increasing normalization of Israel-bashing in classes, in faculty meetings, and at conferences ... in certain disciplines it was almost de rigueur to trash Israel.” Robinson shows that there are some Canadian political leaders—generally in the Conservative Party—who have openly identified the campus movements for what they are. In response to a question in the House of Commons, Tim Uppal, the minister of state for multiculturalism, “condemn[ed] this one-sided resolution that singles out Israel alone with boycott, divestment, and sanctions”—­ flatly characterizing it as “this new type of antisemitism.” In a compelling address before the Israeli Knesset in 2014, Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, assessed the current trend: “in much of the western world, the old hatred has been translated into more sophisticated language. . . . People who would never say they hate and blame the Jews for . . . the problems of the world, instead declare their hatred of Israel and blame the only Jewish state. . . . As once Jewish businesses were boycotted, some . . . leaders today call for a boycott of Israel. . .. This is the face of the new anti-Semitism. It targets the Jewish people by targeting Israel and attempts to make the old bigotry acceptable for a new generation.” The concluding chapter, by Joel Fishman, is a study of the delegitimization process, presented as a framework within which to situate anti-Zionist campaigns discussed throughout this volume. A form of political warfare, delegitimization is chosen when an opponent recognizes it cannot succeed in conventional warfare. It is generally a protracted conflict, relying on the cumulative effect of the relentless dissemination of disinformation. “The ultimate goal of delegitimization is,” Fishman avers, “politicide”—the “downfall and ultimate destruction” of the state. Fishman discusses the typical weapons deployed by delegitimization armies. Among the more potent weapons targeting the Jewish state, he includes those aimed at “obliterating [its] history”— the historical and biblical ties of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel; those directed at erasing “national identity”—denying the existence of a Jewish People; those that undermine the “right of xxviii

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

self-defense”—characterizing every response to an attack as “disproportionate.” Other weapons train their sights on isolating the Jewish state—labeling its leaders and soldiers “war criminals” to be banned from the “community of nations.” And, of course, there are those that specialize in Holocaust inversion—the Israelis cast as the Nazis committing genocide against the Palestinian Arabs, the new Jews. Among the more recent volleys leveled on this battlefield of “delegitimization and defamation” are the accusations of a massacre at Jenin, the Muhammad al-Dura blood libel, and the false claims of the Goldstone Report—that the “Israel Defense Forces . . . intentionally attacked civilians.” The current weapon of choice, however, is the artillery of the BDS brigades. Viewed from the perspective of the delegitimization trajectory, the protests of those who allege they are merely opposing the illegitimate policies of the Israeli government appear disingenuous. Fishman presents the “passage [in 1975] of UNGA Resolution 3379 . . . (Zionism is Racism)” as “the defining moment in the international assault on Israel’s legitimacy,” and he points to the “lasting damage” it produced. “Even today the accusation of racism serves as the foundation for the political war against the Jewish state. The program of the Durban Conference, the Boycott Movement (BDS), and the call for a third Intifada date back to UNGA 3379.” Fishman cites the conclusions of the political scientist Ehud Sprinzak, who studied the resolution and its impact. Sprinzak contended that the successful “Arab and Russian effort to brand Israel a racist state” injected “a new level of intensity” into the delegitimization campaign, “because the two known racist states of the time were Nazi Germany and South Africa.” With the resolution, Zionism—and the “Zionist entity”—had become “object[s] of dehumanization.” Fishman adds that, according to the president of Genocide Watch, dehumanization is “one of the ‘Eight Stages of Genocide.’” Sprinzak also explained that when a state is “subjected to widespread delegitimization,” it is “denied the right to speak and be heard”: “whatever its spokesmen may have to say . . . is perceived as irrelevant. They are no longer accepted as partners in legitimate discourse. . .. The basic paradigm of their thought and action is considered defective.” xxix

From a Pariah People to a Pariah State

Thus, as we have seen, Jewish students are intimidated; Israeli spokespersons are shouted down; and experts who would present an accurate account—even a “balanced” assessment—of the Arab–Israeli conflict are silenced, denied the right to speak. Fishman laments that following the adoption of the “Zionism is Racism” resolution, “Israel’s political class remained for the most part complacently unresponsive, mainly because this group failed to grasp its importance.” Many had not yet recognized that after Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War, the Arabs’ anti-Israel movements “shifted their emphasis to the political domain,” as Abba Eban, Israel’s foreign minister from 1966 to 1974, understood. Fishman explains that “many members of the Israeli elite [continued to] think only in military terms and displayed little appreciation for the political dimension of the challenge. After the Yom Kippur War (1973), [however,] an uneasy awareness emerged that it was possible to win militarily but lose politically.” Citing the admonitions of the military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, Fishman warns that the military and civilian leaders must “recognize the type of war being fought.” This is not a conflict that can be resolved simply by exchanging land for peace. Fishman knows that “Israel has an important fight on its hands,” and calls for “a decadeslong” “campaign of relegitimization . . . to retake lost ground and take new ground” in an effort “to change the world consensus of opinion.” Israel “must defend its historical claims,” he concludes. “The Jewish State cannot permit others to define its identity or distort its past. It is necessary to discredit the fraudulent claims of Israel’s enemies, including their well-intentioned allies, and expose their lies.” *** The question remains, however, if this will be enough—who will listen? We must consider—as have the authors in this book—why so many scholars, students, journalists, clerics, political figures, and activists have been so receptive to the invective, the falsifications— the updated antisemitic libels—at the core of the relentless attacks on the Jewish state.

xxx

CHAPTER 1

How Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive: The Livingstone Formulation David Hirsh

J

enny Tonge, a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords, said at a fringe meeting of her party’s conference: “The pro-Israeli Lobby has got its grips on the Western World, its financial grips. I think they’ve probably got a certain grip on our party.”1 This seems to be an antisemitic claim because it articulates a mind-set in which a Jewish conspiracy controls the Western world through its financial muscle. It is not a claim about influence or lobbying, but about singular and global financial control. There is often disagreement about what is antisemitic and what is not. Spotting antisemitism requires knowledge, forensic skills, political and moral judgment, a sensitive nose, and a consideration of context.2 But the focus of my study is not how to spot antisemitism.   1 David Hirsh, “Jenny Tonge: ‘The pro-Israeli Lobby has got its grips on the Western World,’” Engage, September 20, 2006, accessed November 18, 2015, https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2006/09/20/jenny-tonge-the-pro-israeli-lobbyhas-got-its-grips-on-the-western-world/.   2 David Hirsh, “Hostility to Israel and Antisemitism: Toward a Sociological Approach,” Journal for the Study of Antisemitism 5 (2013): 1401–22, accessed November 27, 2015, http://eprints.gold.ac.uk/8734/1/hirsh.pdf.

How Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive

CHAPTER 1

Rather it is about a recurrent pattern of refusal even to try. I focus on one common response to an accusation of antisemitism. Tonge is not some kind of fascist or racist, she is a liberal opponent of bigotry and antisemitism. So you would think that if Jewish individuals, Jewish communal bodies, or academic scholars of antisemitism told her that some of what she had said was antisemitic, then it would worry her. You would think that she would stop, reconsider, and seek advice. But that is not what she did. Instead, she responded like this: “I am sick of being accused of anti-Semitism when what I am doing is criticising Israel and the state of Israel.”3 Tonge says that the people who claim she has said antisemitic things do not really believe she has said antisemitic things. She says that these claims are made in bad faith by people whose real concern is to silence her criticisms of Israeli human rights abuses.4 Instead of responding by discussing the content of what she has said, she responds by discussing the allegedly hidden and dishonest motivation of those who accuse her. She writes: “They take vindictive actions against people who oppose and criticise the lobby, getting them removed from positions that they hold and preventing them from speaking—even on unrelated subjects, in my case. I understand their methods. I have many examples. They make constant accusations of antisemitism, when no such sentiment exists, to silence Israel’s critics.”5 Tonge does not say that people who accuse her of antisemitism are mistaken, she says that they know they are wrong and they accuse her in a secretly systematic and methodical way, nevertheless. Her defense against a charge of antisemitic conspiracy theory is to rely on antisemitic conspiracy theory: the claim that there is a hugely powerful singular lobby that mobilizes Jewish victim-power

  3 “Enough Occupation: 40th Anniversary of the Occupation of Large Parts of Palestine,” Innovative Minds, June 9, 2007, accessed November 27, 2015, http:// www.inminds.co.uk/enough.occupation.9.june.2007.php.   4 David Hirsh, “Jenny Tonge Believes in Jewish Conspiracy,” September 7, 2008, accessed November 18, 2015, https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/ jenny-tonge-believes-in-jewish-conspiracy/.   5 Ibid.

3

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

ruthlessly against her and other “critics” in the interests of the State of Israel. Everybody agrees that criticism of Israel can be entirely legitimate, and that it is open to debate, discussion, and the examination of evidence to work out which criticisms are justified and which are not, and which kinds of criticism may be bigoted or antisemitic.6 But the problem with Tonge’s response here is that she characterizes everything she does as “criticism.” She is in favor of a boycott of Israel, which some people say is antisemitic, and some say is likely to bring antisemitic ways of thinking with it; she calls the boycott “criticism.” When she indulges in what appears to be antisemitic conspiracy theory, she calls that “criticism of Israel” too. Tonge’s response to an accusation of antisemitism is to employ the Livingstone Formulation. The key elements of the Livingstone Formulation are as follows: 1. Refuse to discuss the content of the accusation by shifting focus instead onto the hidden motive for the allegation. 2. Make a counter-accusation that the accuser is not mistaken, has not made an error of judgment, but is getting it wrong on purpose. 3. Collapse everything, some of which may be demonization of Israel, support for boycott, or antisemitism, into a legitimate category like “criticism.” 4. Allege that those who raise the issue of antisemitism are doing so as part of a common secret plan to silence such “criticism.” David Ward, Liberal Democrat MP for Bradford East, took the opportunity of Holocaust Memorial Day to announce that he was saddened that “the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of   6 David Hirsh, Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: Cosmopolitan Reflections, Working Paper, Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism (YIISA) Occasional Papers, New Haven, CT, 2007, accessed November 27, 2015, http:// eprints.gold.ac.uk/2061/1/Hirsh_Yale_paper.pdf.

4

How Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive

CHAPTER 1

persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians.”7 Lesley Klaff characterizes this mode of comparison as “Holocaust Inversion”: “inversion of reality (the Israelis are cast as the ‘new’ Nazis and the Palestinians as the ‘new’ Jews), and an inversion of morality (the Holocaust is presented as a moral lesson for, or even a moral indictment of ‘the Jews’).”8 David Ward responded in the Guardian to criticism of his remarks in terms strikingly similar to those of Tonge: There is a huge operation out there, a machine almost, which is designed to protect the State of Israel from criticism. And that comes into play very, very quickly and focuses intensely on anyone who’s seen to criticise the State of Israel. And so I end up looking at what happened to me, whether I should use this word, whether I should use that word—and that is winning for them.9

In the 1980s, a certain kind of antiracism “consciousness raising” was fashionable.10 People would sit in a circle, and the group would begin, like a session of Alcoholics Anonymous, with each person admitting publicly that they were racist. There was a logic to proceeding in this way. We are human beings. We live and are formed within the existing social world; it is complex and contradictory, and so are we. It is impossible simply by an act of will to cleanse oneself completely of all of the unwanted assumptions, feelings, unconscious motivations, and linguistic vocabularies within which we exist. If we begin by admitting that we are not necessarily immune   7 Ben Quinn, “Lib Dem MP David Ward Defends Remarks about Israel,” The Guardian, 25 January 2013, accessed December 4, 2015, http://www.theguardian. com/politics/2013/jan/25/lib-dem-david-ward-israel.   8 Lesley Klaff, “Holocaust Inversion and Contemporary Antisemitism,” Fathom (Winter 2014), accessed December 4, 2015, http://fathomjournal.org/holocaust-­ inversion-and-contemporary-antisemitism/.   9 Aida Edemariam, “The Solid Ground I Stand on Is That I Am Not a Racist,” The Guardian, February 6, 2013, accessed December 4, 2015, http://www.theguardian. com/politics/2013/feb/06/david-ward-not-racist. 10 This analogy was suggested to me by my friend and colleague Ben Gidley.

5

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

from racism simply because we decide to be antiracist, then it enables us to examine ourselves honestly, in a supportive group, without being afraid of denunciation. If we all contain some racist ways of thinking, then we can examine them and deal with them. It is the ones who claim to be pure who we need to worry about. When Labour MP Paul Flynn was criticized for suggesting that it was inappropriate for a Jewish man to be the UK ambassador to Israel, part of his response was interesting: “I do not have an atom of racism or anti-semitism in me.”11 Tonge says that antisemitism is a “sentiment” entirely absent from her own inner life, and Flynn says that he doesn’t have an “atom” of it in him. This subjective self-consciousness of being an opponent of antisemitism, it turns out, is no guarantee against stumbling into antisemitic ways of thinking or supporting antisemitic boycotts. This certainty about one’s own political cleanliness can make one nostalgic for the 1980s consciousness-raisers who remained vigilant about the possibility that racism lurked in their own inner lives, in spite of their conscious and determined wish to eradicate it. Antisemitism is an objective social phenomenon because it does not only reside inside our heads but also in the cultural spaces in between our heads and in the relationships between consciousness, culture, and material reality. Antisemitism has recognizable shapes and tropes; it has been with us for a long time, and its symbols and memes are deep within us and deep within our shared cultures. So there is no contradiction when Tonge tells us that she is unaware of feeling any hostility to Jews, even as she indulges in classic antisemitic conspiracy theory; or when Flynn alleges that a Jew cannot be trusted to hold a sensitive office for the British state, while at the same time he believes that he does not contain an atom of antisemitism.

11 “Paul Flynn MP Apologises for Jewish Ambassador Remarks,” December 7, 2011, accessed November 16, 2013, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-walespolitics-16070880.

6

How Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive

CHAPTER 1

Sometimes it is said that hostility to Israel is a cloak that hides antisemitism. But this seems to suggest that people who are self-­ consciously antisemitic are adopting hostility to Israel as a way of camouflaging their real, underlying Jew-hating motivations. Well, this may be true of David Irving, for example, whose antisemitism precedes his “criticism of Israel.” But it is more of a puzzle when people who are aware of no antisemitic motivations, who think of themselves as implacable opponents of antisemitism, act in antisemitic ways. Whether the hostility to Israel comes first and the antisemitism follows, or whether the antisemitism comes first, causing the hostility to Israel, it is difficult to know. Perhaps it makes sense to understand it as a cycle in which both antisemitism and hostility to Israel feed on each other. But in any case, the key issue here is that the antisemitism remains steadfastly unrecognized and unacknowledged by the person who has stumbled into it. This is important if we are to understand the self-righteous anger and the certainty with which such people reject any suggestion that what they have said or done is antisemitic. The indignation is genuine. People look within themselves and find an absence of Jew-­ hatred. They find it difficult to understand antisemitism as an objective social fact, preferring to see it as an individual mental sentiment. Having found themselves not guilty of antisemitism, they are tempted to move on quickly to angrily counter-attacking the motives of the people who have brought up the issue. The 1980s consciousness-raisers normalized racism, understanding it as something common in our world, that even happens within ourselves. This way of thinking helped them to examine racism, to understand it, and to oppose it. By contrast, contemporary antisemitism is often treated in the opposite way. A colleague from the Netherlands once told me that she had been invited to participate in a panel discussion in Amsterdam about a controversial play. I asked her whether she thought that the play was antisemitic. She replied: “How can I accuse somebody of antisemitism in Holland, in the city of Anna Frank, which was occupied by the Nazis?” 7

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

I thought this answer revealed something important about the difficulty of discussing and understanding contemporary antisemitism. She told me that she thought the play was vulgar, was not a good play, was not nuanced, did not portray Jews fairly or sensitively. But she was hugely reluctant, for reasons that had nothing to do with the play itself, even to consider whether it was antisemitic. For my colleague, the very concept of antisemitism had become unusable in any context other than that of the Nazi genocide or its prehistory. In her mind, to say that this play was antisemitic was to say that the author was like Hitler, and since this playwright was not in any sense a Nazi, then it would have been insulting to call her play antisemitic. In this way, we deprive ourselves of the ability to interrogate our own speech or actions for antisemitism. We need the concept “antisemitism” to help us to understand and to oppose the phenomenon of antisemitism. But what if the term itself, and so the concept, has become unusable? What if it has become a nuclear bomb that cannot be targeted against anti-Jewish bigotry but that, instead, obliterates the whole conversation? For my Dutch colleague, it had become impossible to confront the author of the play and its audience with a reasoned and evidenced case that they had slipped into antisemitic ways of thinking. Her choice was either to dance around the issue of antisemitism using other words or to use the dreaded word, in the fear that the response of the playwright would be howling and self-righteous anger, rather than considered and sober introspection. It suited this anti-Zionist playwright not to have a serious discussion about her play’s antisemitism, just as it suited Tonge not to have to consider the antisemitic nature of her claim that the “lobby” had its financial grips on the Western world. The reason for this is not that they privately admit to producing antisemitic words but that they feel themselves to be so clean that they bitterly resent even having to consider it. Seeing “antisemitism” as a nuclear bomb enables them to respond as victims of those who they think utilize such an evil and destructive weapon. 8

How Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive

CHAPTER 1

The idea that raising the issue of antisemitism is a dirtier trick than antisemitism itself is occurring to more and more people, apparently independently; each seems dazzled by his or her own brilliance in solving the puzzle. The insight is that the debate about contemporary antisemitism itself should really be recognized as a manifestation of Zionist ruthlessness and duplicity. This notion, widely held, does serious damage to the possibility of considering antisemitism in a measured and rational way, either politically or academically.

Ken Livingstone’s Formulation In February 2005, Ken Livingstone, then the mayor of London, became involved in an apparently trivial late-night argument with a reporter after a party at City Hall. Oliver Finegold asked him how the party had been. Livingstone was angry because he felt Finegold was intruding. There was a little banter to and fro, in which the reporter said that he was only trying to do his job. Livingstone fixed on that phrase and retorted by asking him whether he had previously been a “German war criminal.” Finegold replied that he hadn’t, that he was Jewish, and that he was offended by the suggestion. Livingstone went on to insist that Finegold was behaving just like a “German war criminal,” that his newspaper, The Standard, “was a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots” and that it had a record of supporting Fascism.12 Instead of apologizing for his comments in the sober light of day, Livingstone treated the publication of this exchange as a political opportunity rather than a gaffe. He wrote an article criticizing Ariel Sharon, then the prime minister of Israel. In that article, he responded to charges of antisemitism made in relation to the Finegold affair with the following words: “For far too long 12 “Transcript (This is a transcript of the taped exchange between Ken Livingstone and Oliver Finegold outside City Hall last year),” The Guardian, February 25, 2006, accessed November 18, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/ feb/25/localgovernment.politicsandthemedia.

9

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

the accusation of antisemitism has been used against anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government, as I have been.”13 This is the Livingstone Formulation. It is a response to a charge of antisemitism. It is a rhetorical device that enables the user to refuse to engage with the charge made. It is a mirror that bounces back onto an accuser of antisemitism a counter-charge of dishonest Jewish (or “Zionist”) conspiracy. The Livingstone Formulation conflates everything—criticism of Israel but also other things that do not seem to be so legitimate, such as repeatedly insulting a Jewish reporter by comparing him to a Nazi—into the category of legitimate criticism of Israel. The Livingstone Formulation does not simply accuse people who raise the issue of antisemitism of being wrong, it accuses them of being wrong on purpose: “the accusation of antisemitism has been used against anyone who is critical. . . .” (my italics) Not an honest mistake, but a secret, common plan to try to delegitimize criticism by means of the instrumental use of a charge of antisemitism—crying wolf, playing the antisemitism card. This is an allegation of malicious intent made against the (unspecified) people who raise concerns about antisemitism. It is not possible to “use” “the accusation of antisemitism” in order to delegitimize criticism of Israel without dishonest intent; the accusation is an accusation of bad faith. An ad hominem attack is one that responds to an argument by attempting to discredit the maker of the argument. Jon Pike argues that the Livingstone Formulation is an ad hominem attack that leaves the substance of the question at issue unaddressed: Suppose some discussion of a “new antisemitism” is used in an attempt to stifle strong criticism. Well, get over it. The genesis of the discussion and the motivation of the charge [don’t] touch the 13 Ken Livingstone, “An Attack on Voters’ Rights,” The Guardian, March 1, 2006, accessed November 27, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/mar/ 01/society.london.

10

How Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive

CHAPTER 1

truth or falsity of the charge. Deal with the charge, rather than indulging in some genealogical inquiry.14

It is always the case that there are possible reasons for making a claim that lie beyond the truth of the claim. For example, a trade union representing coal miners may want to make the case against nuclear power. It is clear enough that it has an interest in winning the argument against nuclear power. But even if instrumental self-­ interest is one of the reasons for miners arguing against nuclear power, it is still necessary for policy makers to come to a view about the substance of the case itself. Neither does it follow that miners do not themselves believe in the case against nuclear power, nor that they are making the case in bad faith. Often, critics of Israel argue that to raise the issue of antisemitism, to launch the nuclear bomb, in relation to their criticisms of Israel is itself an ad hominem attack. They do this by insisting that a necessary element of antisemitism is antisemitic intent on the part of the “critic” of Israel. In other words, to be guilty of antisemitism a person must be aware of his own antisemitism; to be real, antisemitism must be a conscious motivation. The accusation of antisemitism must therefore be a charge against the person, not only against the speech or the actions of the person. But the Livingstone Formulation is itself an ad hominem response. It is an attempt to rebut this allegedly ad hominem accusation of antisemitism by reference to the malicious intent of the accuser, not by reference to the content of the accusation. So there are charges of ad hominem usage on both sides. On neither side can the mere making of the charge settle the argument; what is needed is an investigation into whether the charges are true. Do the Jews who express worry about antisemitism actually have malicious and duplicitous motives or are there simpler ways to 14 Jon Pike, “Antisemitism and Testimonial Injustice,” Engage, January 31, 2008, accessed November 18, 2015, https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/ jon-pikes-response-to-david-hirshs-paper-last-wednesday-antisemitism-andtestimonial-injustice/.

11

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

account for their expressions of worry? For example, perhaps the antisemitism they worry about is real, and that would account for their worrying. Or perhaps they have misjudged something legitimate to be antisemitic, and that would account for their worrying. Alternatively, is it true that those who denounce Zionists as Nazis or as pro-apartheid, or those who call for singular punishments for Israel, are in fact behaving in a discriminatory way? If it is, then raising the issue of antisemitism is explicable in its own terms without reference to a malicious external motive.

Examples of the Use of the Livingstone Formulation One of the interesting things about the Livingstone Formulation is that it is mobilized both by self-conscious antisemites and also by people who think of themselves as opponents of antisemitism. The former president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pushed Holocaust denial and other antisemitic conspiracy theories. When he was challenged on this, he responded: “As soon as anyone objects to the behavior of the Zionist regime, they’re accused of being anti-Semitic.”15 David Duke, former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, wrote the following in response to an accusation of antisemitism: “It is perfectly acceptable to criticize any nation on the earth for its errors and wrongs, but lo and behold, don’t you dare criticize Israel; for if you do that, you will be accused of the most abominable sin in the modern world, the unforgivable sin of anti-Semitism!”16 Nick Griffin, leader of the fascistic British National Party, wrote: “Those who claim ... that to criticise any Jew ... is a mortal sin against a group singled out by God or Hitler for special treatment and in consequence entitled ever-after to carry a globally valid ‘Get Out of 15 Reuters, “Ahmadinejad: Zionism Has Nothing to Do with the Jewish People,” Ynetnews.com, September 26, 2008, accessed November 27, 2015, http://www. ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3602437,00.html. 16 David Duke, “What Is Antisemitism?” DavidDuke.com, March 24, 2004, accessed February 24, 2007, http://www.davidduke.com/date/2004/03/.

12

How Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive

CHAPTER 1

Jail Free’ card, are clearly in the grip either of PC self-censorship or the last misguided upholders of the late 19th century ‘Master Race’ fantasy.”17 Charles Lindbergh, the famous aviator who campaigned against America’s entry into World War II, said: “The terms ‘fifth columnist,’ ‘traitor,’ ‘Nazi,’ ‘anti-Semitic’ were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war.”18 These four antisemites all respond to an accusation of antisemitism in the same way. Instead of looking at what they said that is allegedly antisemitic, they launch a counter-attack against their accusers. Instead of addressing the substance of the allegation, they seek to smear the motive of the Jewish, Zionist, or antiracist accuser. Soviet antisemitism long predated Israel, but the Stalinists pioneered the strategy of demonizing Israel as “pro-imperialist.” In 1952, Rudolph Slanksy, who was himself the murderous dictator of Communist Czechoslovakia, was faced with an antisemitic purge by his “comrades.” Slansky was removed from power, and the following “confession” was extracted under torture: “I deliberately shielded Zionism by publicly speaking out against the people who pointed to the hostile activities of Zionists and by describing these people as anti-Semites so that these people were in the end prosecuted and persecuted. I thus created an atmosphere in which people were afraid to oppose Zionism.”19 This is identical to Livingstone’s formulation. The Jew confesses to (or is accused of) mobilizing a bad-faith accusation of antisemitism in order to silence opposition to Zionism. The Livingstone Formulation today is commonly used by people who are avowed opponents of antisemitism when something they have said or done is challenged as antisemitic. Instead of a sober 17 Lawrence Auster, “BNP Leader Criticizes Antisemitism,” View from the Right, December 4, 2005, accessed November 27, 2015, http://www.amnation.com/ vfr/archives/004615.html. 18 Charles Lindbergh, “Des Moines Speech,” September 11, 1941, accessed November 27, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54ozdotStW8. 19 Colin Shindler, Israel and the European Left: Between Solidarity and Delegitimization, (London: Continuum, 2011), 145–46.

13

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

review of what was said, what was done, what the criticism was, a common response is an energetic counteraccusation of Jewish or “Zionist” conspiracy. Rev. Steven Sizer, a leading supporter in the Church of England of the campaign for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, wrote a letter to The Independent responding to an argument by the chief rabbi that the campaign for BDS was part of an emerging antisemitic culture in the UK. The Synod of the Church, wrote Sizer, would not be “intimidated by those who . . . cry ‘antisemitism’ whenever Israeli human rights abuses in the occupied territories are mentioned.” He went on: “Why has the Archbishop faced a torrent of criticism over [a vote to divest from Caterpillar]? Simple: the people in the shadows know that Caterpillar is only the first [boycott].”20 Sizer responded to an argument that BDS was antisemitic by alleging that the argument was made in bad faith “by the people in the shadows.” One of the people who leapt to Sizer’s defense against a charge of antisemitism was Jeremy Corbyn, currently the leader of the Labour Party in the UK. Years before he ever imagined becoming leader, Corbyn wrote a letter to the Church of England in support of Sizer, saying that he “was under attack by a pro-Israeli smear campaign.”21 Corbyn employed the Livingstone Formulation. Sizer was later banned by the Church from further participation in social media after he promoted an antisemitic article on his Facebook feed entitled: “9/11: Israel did it.”22 20 Stephen Sizer, “Church’s Share Sale Is Not Anti-Semitic,” The Independent, February 20, 2006, accessed November 18, 2015, http://www.independent. co.uk/voices/letters/letters-black-musicians-and-the-media-5337155.html. 21 Jake Wallis Simons, “Jeremy Corbyn DEFENDS a Controversial Vicar Who Was Banned from Social Media for Sharing ‘clearly anti-Semitic’ Material Blaming Israel for 9/11 Attacks,” Daily Mail, August 10, 2015, accessed November 27, 2015,   http:// www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3191393/Jeremy-Corbyn-defendedcontroversial-vicar-banned-social-media-promoting-clearly-anti-Semitic-­material. html. 22 John Bingham, “Vicar Investigated over ‘9/11 Israel did it’ Posting,” The Telegraph, 29 January 29, 2015, accessed November 27, 2015, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/religion/11378475/Vicar-investigated-over-911-Israel-did-it-posting.html.

14

How Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive

CHAPTER 1

In May 2003, senior Labour MP Tam Dalyell accused Prime Minister Blair of “being unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers.”23 Having made an antisemitic remark, Dalyell then said: “The trouble is that anyone who dares criticize the Zionist operation is immediately labelled anti-Semitic.”24 Journalist and founder of Private Eye, Richard Ingrams, wrote the following in defense of Livingstone during the controversy about the Finegold affair: “The Board [of Deputies of British Jews] ... thinks nothing of branding journalists as racists and anti-Semites if they write disrespectfully of Mr Sharon.”25 The BBC News website greeted David Miliband’s appointment as British foreign secretary in 2007 with the following comment: “[his] Jewish background will be noted particularly in the Middle East. Israel will welcome this—but equally it allows him the freedom to criticize Israel, as he has done, without being accused of anti-Semitism.”26 Norman Finkelstein compresses the Livingstone Formulation into four words, with which he heads a claim on his website that the British Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism was manufactured in order to act as a smokescreen to blot out criticism of Israel’s role in the war against Hezbollah in 2006: “Kill Arabs, Cry Anti-Semitism.”27 Finkelstein has written a whole book on “Israel’s horrendous human

23 Colin Brown & Chris Hastings, “Fury as Dalyell Attacks Blair’s ‘Jewish Cabal,’” Daily Telegraph, May 4, 2003, accessed November 27, 2015, http://www.telegraph. co.uk/news/uknews/1429114/Fury-as-Dalyell-attacks-Blairs-Jewishcabal.html. 24 Chris Marsden, “Britain: Labour Extends Antiwar Witch-hunt to Tam Dalyell,” World Socialist Web Site, May 22, 2003, accessed November 27, 2015, http:// www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/05/lab-m22.html. 25 Richard Ingrams, “A Futile Pursuit,” The Guardian, September 11, 2005, accessed November 16, 2013, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/backbench/comment/ 0,14158,1567455,00.html. 26 Paul Reynolds, “Profile: David Miliband,” BBC News, June 29, 2007, accessed November 27, 2015, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6248508.stm. 27 Norman G. Finkelstein, “Kill Arabs, Cry Anti-Semitism,” NormanFinkelstein. com, September 12, 2006, accessed February 15, 2007, http://normanfinkelstein. com/2006/09/12/kill-arabs-cry-anti-semitism/.

15

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

rights record in the Occupied Territories and the misuse of anti-­ Semitism to delegitimize criticism of it.”28 Tariq Ali, a well-known figure on the British anti-imperialist Left since he was a leader of the protests in the UK against the Vietnam War, wrote: “The campaign against the supposed new ‘anti-semitism’ in Europe today is basically a cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians.”29 Ali transforms everything that worries those who argue that there is a “new antisemitism” in Europe into “criticism of [Israel’s] regular and consistent brutality.” He then states clearly that those who argue that there is a “new antisemitism” are to be thought of as agents of the Israeli government who are engaged in carrying out its cynical ploy. Ali goes on to state, as the conclusion of his article, “To be intimidated by Zionist blackmail is to become an accomplice of war-crimes.” Sociologist Martin Shaw defended Ali’s use of the Livingstone Formulation as follows: “Whether this is a matter of Israeli policy, as Tariq Ali not so unreasonably suggested, I do not know: but it certainly seems to be part of Jewish-nationalist culture.”30 Shaw found it “not unreasonable” of Ali to have suggested that proponents of the “new antisemitism” thesis were cynical agents of the Israeli government. But he offered a more sociologically sophisticated variant, providing a different interpretation of the intent of the “new antisemitism” theorists. Instead of accusing them of being

28 Norman G. Finkelstein, “The Real Issue Is Israel’s Human Rights Record,” August 25, 2005, accessed September 22, 2009, http://www.normanfinkelstein. com/2005/08/26/the-real-issue-is-israels-human-rights-record/. 29 Tariq Ali, “To Be Intimidated Is to Be an Accomplice: Notes on Anti-Semitism, Zionism and Palestine,” Counterpunch, March 4, 2004, accessed November 27, 2015,  http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/03/04/notes-on-anti-semitism-zionismand-palestine/. 30 Martin Shaw, “Antisemitism and the Boycott: An Exchange between Martin Shaw and David Hirsh,” Democratiya (Autumn 2008), accessed September 18, 2015, https://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1389809313d14ShawHirsh1.pdf.

16

How Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive

CHAPTER 1

agents of a foreign government, he accused them of being (perhaps unconsciously) immersed in a Jewish nationalist culture. Yet later on in the same debate, Shaw was drawn back to the authentic intentionalist variant of the Livingstone Formulation when he wrote, in relation to Norman Geras and David Hirsh, that “some Jewish socialists .  .  . use indiscriminate accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ to discredit the outcry against this and other policies of the Israeli state.”31 The Livingstone Formulation variant used by Caroline Lucas, now a Green Party MP, also posited a strong and clear claim about intent: “Israel has been able to act with relative immunity, hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti-Semitic.”32 Note also the term “incendiary,” which implies that the act of making the claim that something is antisemitic is hugely damaging, powerful, and malicious. Johann Hari wrote in his column in The Independent: For months, the opponents of Operation Cast Lead—the assault on Gaza that killed 1,434 Palestinians—have been told we are “dupes for Islamic fundamentalists,” or even anti-Semitic. The defenders of Israel’s war claimed you could only believe the reports that Israeli troops were deliberately firing on civilians, scrawling “death to Arabs” on the walls, and trashing olive groves, or using the chemical weapon white phosphorus that burns to the bone, if you were infected with the old European virus of Jew-hatred.33 31 Martin Shaw, “Yet More on Israel and Antisemitism,” October 5, 2008, accessed November 18, 2015, http://theorypolitics.blogspot.com/2008/10/yet-more-on-­ israel-and-anti-semitism.html. 32 Caroline Lucas, “No Green Light for Occupiers,” Jewish Socialist magazine, Spring 2008; see “Jewish Socialist/Caroline Lucas on Boycott,” accessed November 16, 2013, http://www.socialistunity.com/jewish-socialistcarolinelucas-on-boycott. 33 Johann Hari, “Dupes? No, We Were Telling the Truth,” The Independent, March 20, 2009, accessed November 27, 2015, http://www.independent.co.uk/ opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-dupes-no-we-were-tellingthe-truth-1649528.html.

17

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

A group of anti-Zionist Jews organized a pretend carol service in a London church in December 2008 to protest against Israel. There was criticism of this carol service on the basis that the changed words of the carols mirrored the blood libel and that they made use of images related to the accusation that “the Jews” were responsible for the killing of Christ. Criticism was also made on the basis that using Christian songs and spaces for an attack on the Jewish state was inappropriate, and there was further criticism of other aspects of the content of the songs. Bruce Kent, the former Catholic priest and leader of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, attempted to deflect criticism of the carol service simply by means of the Livingstone Formulation: “Anyone who speaks against Zionist policies is labeled anti-Semitic.”34 In February 2009, Lord Nazir Ahmed, Labour Peer, was sentenced to prison. He had been texting while driving shortly before being involved in a car accident in which somebody died.35 In March 2009, the court of appeal released him and suspended his sentence, saying that keeping him in prison would hinder his work of “building bridges between the Muslim world and others.”36 In 2012, Lord Ahmed gave an interview in Urdu in Pakistan in which he claimed that a secret conspiracy of Jews in the media, the judiciary, and the government had had him imprisoned, ostensibly for texting while driving, but actually because of “his support for Palestinians in Gaza.” The Times published an English translation of Ahmed’s comments. Later in the day, the Labour Party suspended Lord Ahmed’s membership, saying that it “deplores and does not tolerate 34 Ruth Gledhill, “Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor Brands Carol Service AntiSemitic,” The Times, December 10, 2008, accessed September 22, 2008, http:// www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5320449.ece?token= null&offset=12&page=2. 35 Jon Swaine, “Lord Ahmed Freed from Prison after Dangerous Driving Sentence Suspended,” The Telegraph, March 13, 2009, accessed November 18, 2015, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/4982260/Lord-Ahmed-freed-from-prisonafter-dangerous-driving-sentence-suspended.html. 36 Jonny Paul, “British MP Blames Jail Term on Jewish Conspiracy,” Jerusalem Post, March 14, 2013, accessed November 27, 2015, http://www.jpost.com/International/ UK-politician-blames-jail-sentence-on-Jewish-conspiracy.

18

How Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive

CHAPTER 1

any sort of anti-semitism.” Then there was a Twitter exchange between Daniel Finkelstein, executive editor of The Times, and Michael White, assistant editor of The Guardian. Finkelstein expressed surprise that the Lord Ahmed story had not been in the BBC radio news summaries. White responded: “I agree it’s a stinker and typical of double standards. Pity about the illegal settlements though.” To which Finkelstein replies: “What have the settlements got to do with it?” and, “Please, no. A Rotherham man is claiming the Jews helped convict him of a driving offence. What has Israel to do with it?” And White replies with a subtle variant of the Livingstone Formulation: “Danny, you’re a good chap, and I know what you’re doing. But it’s not a healthy or wise reflex, quite the reverse.”37 White’s claim is that Finkelstein is up to something. He is ostensibly raising an issue of antisemitism, but what he is actually doing is something else, trying to deflect attention from the real issue, the “illegal settlements.” White sees through this strategy and he publicly admonishes Finkelstein. Other people commented on it and blogged about it, trying to raise a scandal. They found White’s connection of Finkelstein’s story about Lord Ahmed with Israel to be itself underhanded. White’s implicit charge was that Finkelstein was manufacturing a charge of antisemitism against Ahmed in order to deflect attention from Israeli human rights abuses. Well, Finkelstein’s evident Jewishness was one thing; certainly White knew that Finkelstein was also a selfconfessed “Zionist” and a defender of Israel, but how was this relevant here? Adam Levick38 described it as “a Jew-baiting tweet by the Guardian’s Michael White” on the “UK Mediawatch” website. He said 37 David Hirsh, “Michael White, Guardian Assistant Editor . . .,” Engage, March 14, 2013, accessed November 27, 2015, http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2013/ 03/14/michael-white-guardian-assistant-editor-cries-israel-in-response-toconcern-over-lord-ahmeds-antisemitism/. 38 Adam Levick, “The Antisemitic Reflex: A Jew-baiting Tweet by the Guardian’s Michael White,” March 14, 2013, accessed November 27, 2015, http://ukmediawatch.org/2013/03/14/the-antisemitic-reflex-a-jew-baiting-tweet-by-the-guardiansmichael-white/.

19

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

that Finkelstein is not Israeli and that to raise the issue of Israeli settlements in response to his story about Ahmed was an ad hominem attack relating to his Jewishness. Finkelstein, interestingly, tried to damp down the controversy, saying publicly that there was nothing antisemitic about White’s response. Finkelstein evidently understood what was going on, but he went out of his way to stop the detonation of the nuclear bomb of an accusation of antisemitism against a fellow senior journalist. He preferred to vouch for White’s cleanliness with regard to antisemitism than to follow through the logic of what had happened. It was as though Finkelstein understood that it would make him, not White, look bad if he were seen to go along with these accusations against White. Finkelstein had made the point clearly in his original tweet, but now he drew back from it. To make an accusation of antisemitism explicit is more vulgar than making an antisemitic connection in a tweet.

The University and College Union (UCU) and the Livingstone Formulation Since 2003, there had been an influential campaign within the UCU to boycott Israeli universities as a protest against Israeli human rights abuses, though there had been no similar campaign against the universities of any other nation. Some opponents of the boycott campaign argued that this singling out of Israel was antisemitic in effect or that it brought with it into the UCU antisemitic ways of thinking and antisemitic exclusions.39 Supporters of the campaign, and some opponents, objected strongly to the raising of the issue of antisemitism, arguing that it constituted an ad hominem attack against “critics of Israel.” From the beginning, the boycott campaign sought to protect itself against a charge of antisemitism by including clauses in its 39 David Hirsh, “The American Studies Association Boycott Resolution, Academic Freedom and the Myth of the Institutional Boycott,” Inside Higher Ed, January 7, 2014, accessed November 28, 2015, https://www.insidehighered.com/views/ 2014/01/07/essay-real-meaning-institutional-boycotts.

20

How Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive

CHAPTER 1

boycott motions that defined antisemitism in such a way as to make its supporters not guilty. At the Association of University Teachers (AUT) Council in 2003, Motion 54 was passed: Council deplores the witch-hunting of colleagues, including AUT members, who are participating in the academic boycott of Israel. Council recognises that anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism, and resolves to give all possible support to members of AUT who are unjustly accused of anti-semitism because of their political opposition to Israeli government policy.40

A witch-hunt involves accusing individuals of something that could not possibly be true: witchcraft. To characterize an accusation of antisemitism as a witch-hunt implies that it, similarly, could not possibly be true. The statement that “anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism” is formally true. And nobody could argue against the resolution to support members who are unjustly accused of antisemitism, unless it was a purposely ambiguous way of insisting that all accusations of antisemitism that relate to Israel or to the boycott or to political opposition to Israeli government policy must be unjust. At the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) conference in June 2005, a motion was passed that included this text: “To criticise Israeli policy or institutions is not anti-semitic.”41 This seems oblivious to the fact that some kinds of criticisms of Israeli policy or institutions may be antisemitic, while other kinds may be legitimate—it depends on the content of the criticisms. The first Congress of the new UCU, the result of the merger between NATFHE and the AUT, passed a motion stating that 40 UCU, “Motions,” 2003, accessed November 18, 2015, http://www.ucu.org.uk/ index.cfm?articleid=527; quoted in “In Defence of the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions,” accessed September 30, 2016, http://www.monabaker. com/InDefenceoftheBoycottofIsraeliAcademicInstitutions.htm. 41 Mark Osborne, “Now Mobilise NATFHE for Links, Not Boycott!” Workers’ Liberty, June 5, 2005, accessed November 27, 2015, http://www.workersliberty. org/node/4219.

21

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

“criticism of Israel cannot be construed as anti-semitic.”42 Although the motion supported a boycott, the antisemitism clause referred only to “criticism of Israel,” the implication being that boycott falls within the protection afforded to “criticism.” The “cannot be construed as” element implies that there is somebody who is active in trying to “construe” criticism as antisemitic.  The ambiguity of the motion was not accidental, since Congress explicitly rejected an amendment to clarify the wording so that it would read as follows: “While much criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, criticism of Israeli state policy cannot necessarily be construed as anti-semitic.”43 The way Congress clings to the ambiguous formulation is telling. Congress requires a form of words that subsumes everything that it might want to do into a legitimate category of “criticism.” It steadfastly refuses to concede that any kind of criticism of Israel, or anything that resembles criticism of Israel, can be antisemitic. The UCU Congress in 2008 passed a similar motion that was supportive of a boycott. This time the wording on antisemitism was as follows: “criticism of Israel or Israeli policy are [sic] not, as such, anti-semitic.” This form of words dressed up all sorts of possibilities as “criticism” and reassured us that, “as such,” it is not antisemitic.44 Finally, the UCU Congress adopted a motion to disavow and to discredit the European Union Monitoring Commission (EUMC) working definition of antisemitism, which is a framework for making judgments as to what kinds of hostility to Israel are antisemitic and what kinds are not. 42 David Hirsh, “Boycott Motion Passes at UCU Conference,” Engage, May 30, 2007, accessed November 18, 2015, https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2007/ 05/30/boycott-motion-passes-at-ucu-conference/. 43 UCU, “Events,” 2007, accessed November 18, 2015, http://www.ucu.org.uk/ index.cfm?articleid=2555. 44 Norman Geras, “‘Criticism of Israel or Israeli policy are not, as such, anti-semitic’—­ a commentary by Norman Geras,” Engage, April 28, 2008, accessed November 27, 2015, https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/criticism-of-israel-orisraeli-policy-are-not-as-such-anti-semitic-a-commentary-by-norman-geras/.

22

How Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive

CHAPTER 1

UCU’s long pre-history to the disavowal of the EUMC definition is consistent. Each new form of words refuses the straightforward position that some kinds of hostility to Israel are antisemitic while other kinds are not. Instead, each specifies that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and it implicitly subsumes all kinds of hostility and exclusions under the category of “criticism.” Practically, the result was to open up a loophole in the union’s guarantees against racism and bigotry. The one kind of racism explicitly excluded from the guarantees was any antisemitism that could be seen as taking the form of criticism of Israel.45 Representatives of key institutions of the Jewish community in Britain judged this disavowal to be the last straw, and they said that it was a manifestation of what they called “institutional antisemitism” within the union. Jeremy Newmark, chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, said, “After today’s events, I believe the UCU is institutionally racist.”46 His view was echoed by Jon Benjamin, the chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who said that “the UCU has . . . simply redefined ‘antisemitism’. . . . The truth is apparent: whatever the motivations of its members, we believe the UCU is an institutionally racist organisation.”47 In 2012, Ronnie Fraser, a UCU member, sued the union under the Equality Act (2010).48 He argued that the boycott campaign had imported an antisemitic culture into the union and that the union itself had been complicit in allowing this culture to take hold. 45 David Hirsh, “Defining Antisemitism Down: The EUMC Working Definition and Its Disavowal by the University & College Union,” Fathom, 1, no. 1 (2012): 30–39, accessed November 27, 2015, http://www.fathomjournal.org/policy-­ politics/defining-antisemitism-down/. 46 Martin Bright, “UCU Antisemitism Motion Passes,” The Jewish Chronicle, May 30, 2011, accessed November 16, 2015, http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/ 49660/ucu-antisemitism-motion-passes. 47 Jonny Paul, “UK Academic Union Rejects EU Definition of Anti-Semitism,” Jerusalem Post, January 6, 2011, accessed November 27, 2015, http://www.jpost. com/International/UK-academic-union-rejects-EU-definition-of-anti-Semitism. 48 See Fraser v University and College Union (2013), Employment Tribunal, Case Number 2203290/2011.

23

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

Thirty-four witnesses gave detailed evidence for Fraser: academics, Jewish communal leaders, trades unionists, MPs. Part of the evidence given to the tribunal was that the key mode of intimidation in the union had been the relentless accusation of bad faith directed against those who opposed the boycott culture; these explicit opponents were mostly Jews. It had become normal in the union to accuse Jews of lying if they raised the issue of antisemitism. When people raised the issue of antisemitism they were not to be believed, because really, it was said, they were only trying to silence legitimate criticism of Israel. In January 2010, I myself was asked by the union to speak in Brighton on the topic of “Antisemitism, the Holocaust and Resistance, Yesterday and Today.” I talked about the record of antisemitism within the union.49 Tom Hickey, a union official and academic colleague, in public and in front of the general secretary, said that everything I had said was “a traducement of the truth and . . . a straightforward lie and the author knows it.”50 As a witness in the Fraser case, I explained the significance of the relentless accusation of bad faith to the tribunal. In their description of the event, they wrote in their judgment: “Mr Hickey responded to Mr Hirsh’s remarks. He denounced them as unwarranted and false.”51 The tribunal decided not to consider the point about the relentless bad faith allegation. It just left it out of its description and out of its deliberation. The tribunal found that “at heart” the case represented “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means” 49 David Hirsh, “David Hirsh’s Talk at UCU,” Engage, January 18, 2010, accessed November 27, 2015, http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/david-­ hirshs-talk-at-ucu/. 50 Leon Symons, “UCU Under Fire for ‘Institutional Racism,’” January 21, 2010, accessed November 18, 2015, http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/26284/ucuunder-fire-institutional-racism. 51 Judgment of the Employment Tribunal (2012), Mr R Fraser -v- University & College Union, accessed November 27, 2015, http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/ judgments/2013/fraser-uni-college-union.

24

How Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive

CHAPTER 1

(para. 178). What political end? The tribunal accepted the union’s case that the witnesses who gave evidence of antisemitism were really engaged in a common plan dishonestly to defeat or silence campaigns against Israel. This would certainly be impermissible in an employment tribunal, which is rightly concerned with issues such as antisemitism, racism, and sexism. Of course, the fight against antisemitism is also political. But this cannot be the kind of politics to which the tribunal objected. If it was, then it would find every allegation of racism, sexism, or homophobia to be impermissible. Opposition to antisemitic politics has always been central to campaigns against antisemitism. The tribunal made clear that it meant that Fraser was trying to mobilize a bad-faith allegation of antisemitism in order to silence good-faith critics of Israel when it went on in the next paragraph: “We are also troubled by the implications of the claim. Underlying it we sense a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.” The tribunal judged that Fraser was trying to fool it into outlawing and branding criticism of Israel as antisemitic. Of course, every racist claims that anti-racists disregard their right to free speech. True, sometimes the tribunal appeared to veer towards the view that those who complained of antisemitism were simply oversensitive and lacking in objective judgment. But the central findings, that this was politics dressed up as litigation and that this was an attempt to disallow free criticism, were allegations of bad faith. Fraser said that the key mode of intimidation in the UCU was the relentless allegation of bad faith, the allegation that Jews who said they experienced antisemitism were actually lying for Israel. The tribunal replied that the Jews who said they experienced antisemitism were indeed actually lying for Israel—they were dressing up a political end as a problem of racist exclusion. The tribunal stated that the culture in the union that characterized those who complained of antisemitism as dishonest dissemblers was in fact entirely appropriate. The tribunal’s written

25

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

judgment itself constituted a judicial instance of the Livingstone Formulation.

Conclusion The Livingstone Formulation is a refusal to regard antisemitism as an objective social phenomenon, and it is a refusal to enter into reasoned discussion about what constitutes antisemitism. It is a counter-accusation of bad faith. Although concern about racism in general is regarded with a presumption of seriousness, concern about antisemitism has to clear the hurdle of a presumption of Zionist bad faith. The Livingstone Formulation is a discursively coercive response, which bundles the person who raises the issue of antisemitism over the boundary of legitimate discourse52 and outside of the community of the progressive, or the community of the good. It is coercive in the sense that it refuses reasoned examination, it refuses to debate the claim, it refuses to try to persuade. Instead, it constructs and enforces the boundaries of the community of the good by other means: the ad hominem attack, the collapse of everything into “criticism,” and the refusal even to consider the possibility of antisemitism within the community of the progressive. By its accusation of silencing, it silences; by its accusation of bad faith, it refuses a hearing. Alain Badiou, the celebrated philosopher, defines antisemitism as being unthinkable within the progressive community: there “could be no such thing as a far-left anti-Semitism”; the very idea is an “absurd oxymoron,” he writes.53 Antisemitism occurs there on the Right, it does not occur here on the Left, among anti-racists or among 52 David Hirsh, “Accusations of Malicious Intent in Debates about the PalestineIsrael Conflict and about Antisemitism: The Livingstone Formulation, ‘Playing the Antisemitism Card’ and Contesting the Boundaries of Antiracist Discourse,” Transversal 1 (2010): 47–77, accessed November 27, 2015, http://eprints.gold. ac.uk/7144/1/hirsh_transversal_2010.pdf. 53 Alain Badiou, Eric Hazan, and Ivan Segré, Reflections on Antisemitism (London: Verso, 2013).

26

How Raising the Issue of Antisemitism Puts You Outside the Community of the Progressive

CHAPTER 1

scholars. Even though some facilitators of this culture do concede in general terms the possibility of left-wing antisemitism, they tend to find that any particular case is a bad-faith Zionist smear. The Livingstone Formulation is in fact a specific instance of a wider phenomenon. Preferring to define opponents as not belonging, rather than seeking to win them over, is an increasingly mainstream characteristic of left-wing culture. Opponents are construed as being outside of the community of the good, or the progressive. This licenses their treatment as “other,” impermeable to political argument, reason, and evidence. The Livingstone Formulation is a key element in the ascendency of the politics of position over the politics of reason and persuasion.54 Hostility to Israel is becoming more and more a marker of belonging on the contemporary Left. The Livingstone Formulation clears the way for this kind of hostility and it inoculates the progressive movement: not against antisemitism itself, but against having to take the issue of antisemitism seriously. Young antiracists, both activists and scholars, are inducted into a culture where those who raise the issue of antisemitism are recognized as being reactionary, while those who are accused of being antisemitic are recognized as defenders of the oppressed and courageous opponents of imperialism. Two things follow from this. First, in this culture, young anti-racists are no longer educated to recognize or to avoid antisemitism, and they are no longer given the knowledge or the conceptual tools with which to do so. They are not taught what the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are, what blood libel is, or how to recognize conspiracy theory; they are no longer educated in the antisemitic history of some currents of their own movement. They are taught to understand the Holocaust as a universal lesson against racism but not as a catastrophe relating to Jewish history, to antisemitism in particular, and to Zionism. 54 David Hirsh, “The Corbyn Left: The Politics of Position and the Politics of Reason,” Fathom (Autumn 2015), accessed November 28, 2015, http://fathomjournal.org/the-corbyn-left-the-politics-of-position-and-the-politics-of-reason/.

27

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

The second thing that follows is that expulsion from the community of the good is normalized as a way of dealing with dissent. Expulsion does not stop with raisers of the issue of antisemitism but also comes to seem appropriate for people who raise other kinds of disagreement too. And the story of dissenters being dealt with coercively is another part of the history of the progressive movement that is not taught as thoroughly as it might be nowadays.

28

CHAPTER 2

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community: The Neglect of Muslim Antisemitism in English-Language Courses, Textbooks, and Research Neil J. Kressel

Opposition to anti-Semitism is currently not “politically correct,” and most likely never will be. (Anti-Semitism has a way of staying in fashion.) For this reason, an individual’s, or a profession’s, response to it is truly a test of its moral commitment and courage.1 —Nora Gold, 1996

S

ome Western experts believe that ISIS—the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham—reflects genuine elements of Islamic religious faith. Other experts disagree. However, speaking in February 2015 on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television station, Syrian commentator Hussam Shoei’b expressed an altogether different take on the   1 The author would like to thank Samantha Mercado and Sara Williams of William Paterson University, and Samuel Kressel of Brandeis University, for their assistance in data collection and analysis. Nora Gold, “Putting Antisemitism on the Anti-Racism Agenda in North American Schools of Social Work,” Journal of Social Work Education 32, no. 1 (1996): 77.

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

religious foundations of ISIS. The organization is Jewish, he explains, it “cannot even be labeled ‘Israeli.’ It is downright Talmudic. The immolation of the Jordanian pilot [carried out by ISIS] is a clear demonstration of the barbarity of the Zionist entity, and of the Talmud throughout history.” Shoei’b continues, “One of their ­principles is that God can only be satiated by blood. In the past, they used to knead [Passover] matzos with human blood and eat them.”2 Hussam Shoei’b’s embrace of the Christian medieval blood libel is not unique; the same accusation can be found in numerous sources in many parts of the contemporary Muslim world. Indeed, in the summer of 2014, a high-ranking Hamas official, Osama Hamdan, declared on television that “we all remember how the Jews used to slaughter Christians, in order to mix their blood in their holy matzos.”3 Around the same time, Abd Al-Mun’im Abu Zant—a former member of the Jordanian parliament—went a bit further, saying, “They allow cannibalism and the eating of human flesh. Check their Talmud and religious sources. On their religious holidays, if they cannot find a Muslim to slaughter, and use drops of his blood to knead the matzos they eat, they slaughter a Christian.”4 Similarly, official Jordanian television showed Sheikh Bassam Ammoush explaining: “The matzos that they bake on their holidays must be kneaded with blood . . . . They believe that the killing of any human being is a form of worship and a means to draw near their god.”5 The sheikh, a former Jordanian ambassador to Iran, was   2 Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), “Syrian Commentator Hussam Shoei’b: Zionists Burned Jordanian Pilot, Just Like They Knead Passover Matzos with Blood,” MEMRI TV, clip 4775, accessed May 5, 2015, http://www.memritv. org/clip/en/4775.htm. Originally aired on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV on February 6, 2015. Translated by MEMRI.   3 MEMRI, “Top Hamas Official Osama Hamdan: Jews Use Blood for Passover Matzos,” MEMRI TV, clip 4384, accessed May 5, 2015, http://www.memritv.org/ clip/en/4384.htm. Originally aired on Al-Quds TV (Lebanon) on July 28, 2014. Translated by MEMRI.   4 MEMRI, “Former Jordanian MP Abd Al-Mun’im Abu Zant: Jews Permit Cannibalism, Use Human Blood in Passover Matzos,” MEMRI TV, clip 4384, accessed May 5, 2015, http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4498.htm. Originally aired on Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas/Gaza) on September 7, 2014. Translated by MEMRI.   5 MEMRI, “Friday Sermon by Former Jordanian Minister: Jews Use Children’s Blood For Their Holiday Matzos,” MEMRI TV, Clip 4454, accessed May 5, 2015,

30

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

appointed to the Jordanian senate by King Abdullah, one of the most moderate and reasonable leaders in the Arab Middle East. And in Pakistan, far from the Arab world, a daily Urdu newspaper asked: “Will the group of 32 Jews hovering around the American President [Obama] keep filling his ears [urging him] to attack every country of the Islamic world?”6 None of these conspiratorial references should startle those who study the region, because anti-Jewish sentiments dominate the media in many Muslim-majority countries. What is jolting, however, is that this storm of Jew-hatred appears to have taken place beneath the radar of the mainstream anti-racist community in the United States and throughout the West, or if the bigotry has been detected, it has not aroused much of a response from those groups p ­ urportedly most dedicated to fighting for human rights and an end to racism. I have three goals in this chapter: first, to review evidence suggesting that a massive amount of virulent antisemitism currently exists in much of the Muslim world; second, to document the failure of the so-called anti-racist intellectual community—those in the English-speaking world who focus professionally on the study of prejudice—to attend to this hatred; and third, to analyze the reasons for this failure. Even among those anti-racists who detect a recent rise in global antisemitism, there is—I argue—a preference for focusing on non-Muslim manifestations or for speaking in general terms about antisemitism, without noticing its disproportionate presence in Muslim-majority countries and among Muslims in other parts of the world. Moreover, even among those who understand the frequency of anti-Jewish beliefs in Muslim populations, there is a desire, only partly justifiable, to attribute this bigotry to sources remote from Islam per se. To be clear, I do not believe that Islam is http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4454.htm. Originally aired on Jordanian TV on August 22, 2014. Translated by MEMRI.   6 MEMRI, “Pakistani Urdu Weekly: ‘Will the Group of 32 Jews Hovering around the American President Keep Filling His Ears to Attack Every Country of the Islamic World?’” MEMRI Antisemitism Documentation Project, special dispatch 6040, accessed May 5, 2015, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8543. htm. Originally published in Zarb-e-Momin (Pakistan), February 6, 2015. Translated by MEMRI.

31

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

necessarily an anti-Jewish faith any more than I believe Christianity is necessarily antisemitic. All religions, including Judaism, have sources that can be used without too much stretching to justify hatred; the key is for believers and interpreters of the faith to develop a method for handling sacred sources that encourages tolerance and peaceful coexistence. In addition, the tendency to downplay the Islamic roots of antisemitism appears to be somewhat related to a more general tendency to downplay all antisemitism (and possibly all bigotry) that comes from groups that have themselves been the targets of prejudice and discrimination, for example, African Americans and Hispanics in the United States. Let me be clear about one more thing. Some have argued that hostility toward Israel under certain conditions constitutes a form of antisemitism. The official definition of antisemitism that is used by the U.S. Department of State was developed in 2004 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). This ­definition says that, under certain circumstances, requiring Israel to adhere to standards not expected of other democratic nations can count as antisemitism—but it is necessary to consider the overall context of the relevant attitudes and behaviors.7 In addition to the practice of subjecting Israel to double standards, the famous 3D tests of Natan Sharansky (formerly the Soviet dissident Anatoly Sharansky) classify as antisemitism those criticisms of Israel that are based on demonization—for example, those that equate Israel with Nazi Germany. Sharansky also sees delegitimization as a form of antisemitism, “when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied—alone among the peoples in the world.” There are reasonable arguments for

  7 See European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism,” European Forum on Antisemitism, 2004, accessed May 5, 2015, http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/ working-definition-of-antisemitism/. See also U.S. Department of State, Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism: A Report Provided to the United States Congress (Washington, DC), March 13, 2008, 6–7, accessed August 10, 2010, http://www. state.gov/g/drl/rls/102406.htm.

32

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

Sharansky’s position and the State Department’s definition.8 Another arguable position, however, is that it is valuable—­ analytically and politically—to preserve anti-Israel hostility as a separate category. However, here I am talking about none of the forms of hatred dealing principally with Israel, however distasteful they may be. Instead, I limit my argument to old-fashioned bigotry, the type of ­antisemitism that only an indisputable, card-carrying bigot would care to defend.

Documentation of Antisemitism in the Muslim World For those who are willing to look—as it turns out, a much smaller group than some might initially imagine—abundant evidence ­documents the existence of a percolating cauldron of antisemitic hatred in much of the Muslim world. Although there are important differences by region, country, politics, and religious orientation, overall the movement is widespread, intense, deeply ingrained, dangerous, and growing. Most parts of the Western anti-racist community and most Western Middle East Studies scholars have— as we will see—been negligent in studying antisemitism in Muslim and Arab countries, but a small group of journalists, activists, and scholars—mainly from the United States, Canada, Israel, and Europe—have produced a valuable body of work. The problem is that this work does not appear to have reached social scientists and the anti-racist intellectual community beyond a specialized cadre of antisemitism and Jewish Studies experts. In his 2004 examination of the resurgence of antisemitism, Gabriel Schoenfeld designated the Muslim world “the necessary starting point for our inquiry,” and he argued that “there the ancient and modern strands of anti-Semitism have been most successfully fused today, and from there the hatred of Jews receives its main

  8 Natan Sharansky, “3D Test of Anti-Semitism: Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization,” Jewish Political Studies Review 16 (Fall 2004): 3–4, accessed May 8, 2015, http://jcpa.org/article/3d-test-of-anti-semitism-demonizationdouble-standards-­delegitimization/.

33

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

propulsion outward.”9 Noted historian Bernard Lewis was one of the first to detect the growth in Jew-hatred in the Arab and Muslim world, even though his insightful 1986 volume, Semites and Anti-Semites, was a bit too early to capture the full dimensions of the contemporary phenomenon.10 In 1999, political analyst Yossef Bodansky also provided an early warning of expanding Islamic antisemitism and its potential as a political instrument.11 More recently, books discussing aspects of Jew-hatred in the Islamic and Arab world have been penned by philosopher Bernard Harrison, American feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler, Italian journalist Fiamma Nirenstein, British politician Denis MacShane, French political scientist Pierre-André Taguieff, German political scientist Matthias Küntzel, Israeli historian Robert Wistrich, American journalist Ben Cohen, Jewish affairs scholar Mitchell Bard, and former U.S. Department of State special envoy Gregg Rickman. Charles Small, director of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) and the former head of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism (YIISA), edited a five-volume anthology on contemporary global ­antisemitism that included one volume on Islamism and the Arab world with pieces by several notable scholars. Most recently, European scholar Günther Jikeli has written a book focusing on Jew-hatred among Muslims living in Europe.12 Some of these books focus on the “new   9 Gabriel Schoenfeld, The Return of Anti-Semitism (San Francisco: Encounter, 2004), 7. 10 Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites (New York: Norton, 1986). 11 Yossef Bodansky, Islamic Anti-Semitism as a Political Instrument (Houston: Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, 1999). 12 Bernard Harrison, The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006); Phyllis Chesler, The New AntiSemitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do about It (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003); Fiamma Nirenstein, Terror: The New Anti-Semitism and the War against the West, trans. Anne Milano Appel (Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus, 2005); Denis MacShane, Globalising Hatred: The New Antisemitism (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2008); Pierre-André Taguieff, Rising from the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe, trans. Patrick Camiller (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2004); Matthias Küntzel, Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11, trans. Colin Meade (New York: Telos, 2007); Ben Cohen, Some of My Best Friends: A Journey Through Twenty-First Century Antisemitism (Berlin: Edition Critic/Verlag

34

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

antisemitism”—that is, antisemitism based on unjustifiable hostility to Israel—but all include abundant evidence of the old-fashioned strand as well. The renowned historian and Churchill biographer Martin Gilbert devoted one of his last efforts to writing a balanced history of Jews in Muslim lands, one that debunks popular myths of general good will and tolerance, documents mistreatment over the ­centuries, and details the twentieth-century pathway to extinction or near-­ extinction of almost all Jewish communities in the Arab world.13 More controversially, Brown University medical professor—and, since 9/11, also historian of Islam—Andrew G. Bostom has provided translations of many historical and religious sources documenting abundant historical Jew-hatred in the Muslim world; he has

Clemens Heni, 2014); Mitchell Bard, Death to the Infidels: Radical Islam’s War against the Jews (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); Gregg Rickman, Hating the Jews: The Rise of Antisemitism in the 21st Century (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2012); Charles Asher Small, ed., Islamism and the Arab World, Vol. 4, Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity (New York: Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, 2013); Günther Jikeli, European Muslim Antisemitism: Why Young Urban Males Say They Don’t Like Jews (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2015). Two recent histories of antisemitism over the millennia have also devoted significant attention to contemporary Muslim antisemitism: Robert S. Wistrich, A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad (New York: Random House, 2010), and Marvin Perry and Frederick M. Schweitzer, Antisemitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the Present (New York: Palgrave, 2002). In addition, several other good books have touched on Muslim antisemitism from a variety of perspectives: Nick Cohen, What’s Left? How the Left Lost Its Way (New York: Harper, 2007); Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within (New York: Doubleday, 2006); Paul Berman, The Flight of the Intellectuals (Brooklyn: Melville House, 2010); Stephen H. Norwood, Antisemitism and the American Far Left (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013); Michael Berenbaum, ed., Not Your Father’s Antisemitism: Hatred of the Jews in the 21st Century (St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2008); Ron Rosenbaum, Those Who Forget the Past: The Question of Anti-Semitism (New York: Random House, 2004); Manfred Gerstenfeld, ed., Academics against Israel and the Jews, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2008); Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History, updated ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007); Paul Iganski and Barry Kosmin, eds., A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st-Century Britain (London: Profile, 2003). 13 Martin Gilbert, In Ishmael’s House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands (New Haven, CT: Yale, 2010).

35

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

supplemented these sources with a passionately argued essay suggesting that the roots of Jew-hatred in the Muslim religion run deep.14 It is worth pointing out that several of those who have ­documented antisemitism in the Muslim world do not have Jewish roots. Canadian progressive Muslim Tarek Fatah has many strong disagreements with Israeli policies, but he emphatically does not question Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state; his book The Jew Is Not My Enemy15 probes Islamic antisemitism with intelligence and honesty. He provides evidence, for example, to sustain an argument that “over the centuries, the incessant Hadith-inspired attacks on the very nature . . . of the Jew have left Muslims indoctrinated to the belief that a Jew cannot be trusted to be straightforward or ­truthful.”16 Khaleel Mohammed—a practicing Muslim and professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies in California—similarly has been forthright in his condemnation of what he perceives to be widespread antisemitism among his coreligionists.17 The Canadian feminist ­ Muslim writer Irshad Manji has been at least as bold in identifying and condemning anti-Jewish tendencies in large parts of the Muslim world.18 British social psychologist Rusi Jaspal has become a leader in conducting theoretically informed and methodologically innovative ­ documentations of antisemitism in Muslim populations.19 Nonie Darwish—the daughter of an Egyptian martyr in the fight against Israel and now a Christian critic of Islamic extremism—has attested to massive Jew-hatred in the world of her origin. Along similar lines, 14 Andrew G. Bostom, ed., The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2008). 15 Tarek Fatah, The Jew Is Not My Enemy: Unveiling the Myths That Fuel Muslim AntiSemitism (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 2010). 16 Ibid., xxiii. 17 Khaleel Mohammed, interviewed by Jamie Glazov, “The Koran and the Jews,” Front Page Magazine, June 3, 2004, accessed July 1, 2011, http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=12825. 18 Irshad Manji, The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim’s Call for Reform of Her Faith (New York: St. Martin’s, 2003). 19 Rusi Jaspal, Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism: Representation, Cognition and Everyday Talk (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014).

36

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

the ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Somalia has written of the pervasiveness of anti-Jewish mythology in those parts of the Muslim world where she has lived.20 Recalling his days as a Muslim extremist student in London, Ed Husain reports that “without question we despised the Jews.”21 Along with these writers, Bassam Tibi, Rachid Kaci, Morad El-Hattab El-Ibrahimi, Irfan Khawaja, Wafa Sultan, and others have written intelligently about the prevalence of Jew-hatred in Muslim cultures.22 It is not possible to review here all of the evidence these and other authors have compiled. My own book, “The Sons of Pigs and Apes”: Muslim Antisemitism and the Conspiracy of Silence, reviews and summarizes much of this evidence.23 One can divide the documentation of Jew-hatred in the Muslim world into twelve categories:  1. Antisemitic assertions by heads of state, political leaders, former political leaders, government officials, religious figures, and scholars;   2. Lack of general outrage or even significant, well-publicized challenges in response to these antisemitic assertions; 20 Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel (New York: Free Press, 2008), 47. 21 Ed Husain, The Islamist (New York: Penguin, 2007), 54. 22 Bassam Tibi, From Sayyid Qutb to Hamas: The Middle East Conflict and the Islamization of Antisemitism (New York: ISGAP Working Paper, 2010), accessed May 10, 2015, http://isgap.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Tibi.pdf; Rachid Kaci, “Antisemitism Is the Legitimate Child of Islamism: The Real Cancer of Islam,” in Antisemitism: The Generic Hatred, ed. Mark Fineberg, Shimon Samuels, and Mark Weitzman (Portland, OR: Vallentine Mitchell, 2007), 212; Morad El-Hattab El-Ibrahimi, “The Absurdity of Antisemitism in the Arab World,” in Antisemitism: The Generic Hatred, 218; Wafa Sultan, A God Who Hates (New York: St. Martin’s, 2009), 194; Irfan Khawaja, “The Problem of Muslim AntiSemitism,” Pakistan Today, January 22, 2003, http://www.centerforinquiry.net/ isis/articles_and_books/the_problem_of_muslim_anti_semitism/ (July 1, 2011); Irfan Khawaja, “Muslim Anti-Semitism, Zionist Orientalism, and Practical Identity,” Proteus: A Journal of Ideas 23, no. 2 (2006): 47–54. 23 Neil J. Kressel, “The Sons of Pigs and Apes:” Muslim Antisemitism and the Conspiracy of Silence (Washington, DC: Potomac, 2012). This review of evidence bearing on the severity of antisemitism in the Muslim and Arab world is also drawn from Neil J. Kressel and Samuel W. Kressel, “Trends in the Psychological Study of Contemporary Antisemitism: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Evidence,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 38, no. 2 (2016): 111–26.

37

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

  3. Antisemitic articles and images in newspapers, magazines, broadcast media, and the Internet;   4. Antisemitic textbooks and other instruments for socialization of the young;   5. Public opinion data showing highly prevalent negative and stereotypical attitudes toward Jews;   6. Video documentation of bigotry in very young children;   7. Terrorist targeting of Jews and Jewish institutions;   8. Vicious denunciations of Muslims who defend Jews;   9. Denunciations of all sorts of political, personal, and t­ heological opponents as Jews, or as friends of the Jews; 10. Excerpts from religious texts—the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, and others—that plausibly appear to sustain or r­einforce hostility toward Jews, coupled with anti-Jewish i­ nterpretations by contemporary religious leaders and t­ heologians (in contrast to more moderate or tolerant interpretations); 11. Laws and organizational policies that discriminate against Jews; and 12. Reports by Jews that they feel uncomfortable or unsafe ­practicing Judaism or displaying signs of Jewish identity in Muslim countries or regions with high percentages of Muslim residents. Several times in recent years the Pew Global Attitudes Project, an organization without any clearly discernible position on the Arab–Israeli conflict or Judaism, asked representative samples from countries around the world whether they had a very ­unfavorable, somewhat unfavorable, somewhat favorable, or very favorable opinion concerning the Jews. The good news is that in the United States only 2 percent of respondents said they held a very ­unfavorable opinion about the Jews. In Egypt, the comparable figure was 92 percent and in Jordan it was 94 percent.24 In 2014, 24 Pew Global Attitudes Project, “Unfavorable Views of Jews and Muslims on the Increase in Europe” (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center), September 17, 2008, accessed January 24, 2013, http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2008/09/

38

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) conducted one of the bestfunded and largest multinational surveys dealing with antisemitism: it included more than 53,000 respondents from 100 countries and the Palestinian Territories. Interviews were conducted in ninety-six languages. An instrument to measure antisemitism was developed on the basis of questions used in many past studies. On the basis of this ­methodology, the ADL classified 1.09 billion people ­worldwide as antisemites. As in the Pew studies, the United States and some other Western c­ ountries fared reasonably well, suggesting that the measurement tool itself was not strongly tilted toward ­over classification of r­espondents as Jew-haters. But Middle Eastern and Muslim-­­majority countries showed very high percentages of their people classifiable as antisemites—for example, 92 percent of Iraqis and 69 percent of Turks. (It is worth noting, however, that some non-Muslim countries also had many antisemites by ADL’s measure, notably Greece, 69%, Poland, 45%, South Korea, 53%, and others.)25 Within Europe, numerous surveys have documented the disproportionate presence of antisemitism among Muslim ­ Europeans. A 2015 review of these studies concluded that this bigotry could not be readily explained away by reference to ­demographic and socioeconomic variables. According to Günther Jikeli, the author of the review: educational level, age, gender, social disadvantage, ­discrimination, and legal restrictions of Islamic practice—cannot explain the differences between Muslims and non-Muslims. This refutes the widespread assumption that Muslim antisemitism is a reaction to discrimination or suppression. The surveys considered are strong Pew-2008-Pew-Global-Attitudes-Report-3-September-17-2pm.pdf. See also Pew Global Attitudes Project, “Muslim–Western Tensions Persist” (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center), July 21, 2011, accessed January 24, 2013, http:// www.pewglobal.org/files/2011/07/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Muslim-WesternRelations-FINAL-FOR-PRINT-July-21-2011.pdf. 25 Anti-Defamation League, ADL Global 100 (New York: 2014), accessed January 30, 2015, http://global100.adl.org/about.

39

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

evidence that current interpretations of Muslim identity and belief are major sources for hatred against Jews . . . . A distinction between Islamism and Islam is surely important, but might be insufficient: although antisemitism is particularly strong among fundamentalist as well as believing and practicing Muslims, the level of antisemitism among less religious Muslims is still higher than in the general population.26

In Egypt, Syria, Iran, and other parts of the Muslim world, viewers in recent years have watched multipart television series based on the blood libel and on the antisemitic classic, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Years ago, scholars and courts determined this document to be a forgery, almost certainly penned by agents of the czarist secret police.27 Yet, for many in the Muslim world, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion displays the facts of the past and present. In many places, the epithet “sons of pigs and apes” is widely understood by Muslims to mean “Jews” (though, on occasion, it is extended to include Christians). The phrase comes from the Koran, though its use in reference to contemporary Jews (or Christians) requires some stretching; this stretching may not be theologically justified, but there has been no shortage of Muslim clerics eager to argue that the nasty appellation is wholly appropriate.28 Finally, as the January 2015 attack by Muslim extremists on the Hyper Cacher (kosher) market in Paris and other recent violent attacks on Jews and Jewish

26 Günther Jikeli, Antisemitic Attitudes among Muslims in Europe: A Survey Review (New York: ISGAP, 2015), accessed May 14, 2015, http://isgap.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/05/Jikeli_Antisemitic_Attitudes_among_Muslims_in_Europe1. pdf . 27 See, for example, Hadassa Ben-Itto, The Lie That Wouldn’t Die (Portland, OR: Vallentine Mitchell, 2005). 28 Kressel, “The Sons of Pigs and Apes,” 26. For arguments that it is theologically inappropriate to call contemporary Jews “pigs and apes,” see Suhaib Webb, “Does the Qur’an Call Jews Pigs and Apes? And Is It Allowed for Muslims to Do So?” Suhaib Webb Blog, April 27, 2008 (accessed July 1, 2010); Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood, “Apes and Pigs?,” website of Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood, accessed July 1, 2010, http://www.ruqaiyyah.karoo.n et/articles/apes.htm.

40

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

institutions suggest, the consequences of antisemitic defamation can be bloody.29 It is, of course, possible to question the methodologies of the studies cited above. That is what academics should do. However, it is hard to question the prima facie case that antisemitism in the Muslim world is a problem worthy of serious consideration. And some serious studies have been produced. The problem, again, is that the mainstream community of scholars who claim to study and oppose bigotry in all its forms have not been paying attention to the findings of the relatively small band of activists, journalists, and scholars cited above. It is not that mainstream social scientists have refuted their findings; it is, instead, that they have ignored them.

Documentation of Neglect of Muslim Antisemitism by the Anti-Racist Community One might quite reasonably imagine that the global antisemitic movement—centered, as it is, in a political region of unquestioned strategic importance—would have attracted much attention from scholars of racism and prejudice, and from those who deal with human rights and the Middle East. When one adds that this ­movement is merely the latest manifestation of what has been aptly dubbed a “lethal obsession” and “the longest hatred”—a poisoner of diverse cultures for millennia and the driver of genocide—one might expect expansive coverage by those who focus professionally on racism and prejudice.30 Then, when one considers that the social sciences in the United States and, indeed, throughout the world have no shortage of Jewish scholars, especially scholars who study prejudice, an alien visitor to the planet might be forgiven for predicting that coverage of Muslim antisemitism would be 29 See, for example, Leon Wieseltier, “We Are Hyper Cacher,” Atlantic, January 20, 2015, accessed May 10, 2015, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/ archive/2015/01/jews-france-israel-hyper-cacher/384649/. 30 Wistrich, A Lethal Obsession; Robert S. Wistrich, Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred (New York: Schocken, 1984).

41

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

­ verwhelming and unending. There are other arguments as well. o Yet, almost unbelievably, though not inexplicably, the opposite has occurred. The social sciences, which once built major theoretical advances upon research into the origins of Jew-hatred, have all but abandoned the topic.31 Consider research, textbooks, and course syllabi. In 2003, a search of the PSYCHINFO database—the major index of psychological and related research articles—turned up 458 entries since 1940 on antisemitism; 99 of these had been published during the 10 years prior to the study. Not a single entry dealt directly with Jew-hatred in the Muslim or Arab world. In 2003, one could conclude that: “At best, a few psychologically-oriented authors. . . . [had] touched tan­ gentially on Muslim antisemitism in studies focusing on Jew-hatred in other contexts and a few political writers on the topic. . . . [had] offered psychological speculation.”32 A 2003 analysis of titles from Sociological Abstracts—the comparable index for ­ sociologists— showed 130 entries since 1963 on antisemitism. Again, not a single one had focused on Jew-hatred in the Middle East or among Arabs or Muslims.33 Partly as a consequence of this research, in 2004, I wrote an opinion piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education suggesting an “urgent need to study Islamic anti-Semitism.”34 During the past decade, as I noted above, quite a few books and articles on antisemitism have been written by journalists, activists, and scholars—primarily coming from outside mainstream social 31 See, for example, Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper and Row, 1950); Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (New York: Harper-Colophon, 1974); Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (New York: Addison-Wesley, 1954). 32 Neil J. Kressel, “Antisemitism, Social Science, and the Muslim and Arab World,” Judaism 52, no. 3–4 (2003): 227. See also Kressel, “Mass Hatred in the Muslim and Arab World: The Neglected Problem of Anti-Semitism,” International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies 4, no. 3 (2007): 197. 33 Kressel, “Antisemitism, Social Science, and the Muslim and Arab World,” 228. 34 Neil J. Kressel, “The Urgent Need to Study Islamic Anti-Semitism,” Chronicle of Higher Education, March 12, 2004, B14.

42

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

science. It is plausible that this work has started to seep into psychology, sociology, political science, and other social sciences. To address this and other questions, a quantitative content analysis is currently underway examining treatment of Jew-hatred by social scientists during the past half century. Preliminary results from that research are available.35 One part of the study covers titles and abstracts in four important research databases in the social sciences: PSYCHINFO, Sociological Abstracts, ProQuest Social Science Journals, and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts. Searches were done in all four databases covering entries from various starting dates in the mid-twentieth century through the end of 2014. (For PSYCHINFO, Samuel Kressel and I went back to 1940; for Sociological Abstracts to 1950; for ProQuest Social Science Journals to 1990; and for Worldwide Political Science Abstracts to 1970.) We first searched for all references to “antisemitism” and “antisemite,” using numerous spellings and supplemented by the terms “Jew-hatred,” “prejudice against Jews,” and “anti-Jewish.” We then conducted the searches again, adding the term “Holocaust.” Finally, we conducted the searches a third time, adding the terms “Nazi,” “Hitler,” and “Nazism.” Next, to locate items addressing Islamic and Arab antisemitism, we took the results of the first antisemitism search, the one that did not use the terms dealing specifically with the Holocaust or Nazism, and searched those results for mentions of the terms “Muslim,” “Islam,” “Islamic,” or “Arab.” A more complete analysis of the social science database research will appear elsewhere, along with results from another quantitative study of the content of recent psychological investigations of antisemitism. However, a preliminary analysis of the data indicates, among other things, that social scientists have devoted relatively little attention to antisemitism in recent years. For example, one calculation concerned the huge PSYCHINFO database: out of every 35 See Neil J. Kressel and Samuel W. Kressel, “Trends in the Psychological Study of Contemporary Antisemitism.”

43

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

1,000 items that examined racism, prejudice, or discrimination from 1990 to 2009, about 28 items focused on antisemitism. Further analysis showed that most of those items were included because they dealt with the Holocaust. Only about three to five items out of every thousand on racism, prejudice, or discrimination specifically mentioned antisemitism or prejudice against Jews in the title. More generally, the study shows that an overwhelming percentage of social scientific research on antisemitism since 1990 seems to cover only the Holocaust. Interestingly, this focus on the Holocaust as opposed to other forms of antisemitism has been increasing as we move further away from the event itself. The findings regarding the study of Muslim antisemitism are crystal clear. As Table 1 shows, until 2000, there was virtually no interest in the topic at all in any database. As we have seen, some journalists and academics—mainly in the years following the turn of the twenty-first century—have argued that there has been a major epidemic of Jew-hatred in the Muslim world. The databases for the years following 2000, however, show very small increases in the number of items on the topic. The growth in coverage is even less than it appears to be. An analysis of items found in the initial abstract field searches shows that many, in fact, do not deal with ­contemporary Muslim antisemitism.36 One, for example, covered ancient Egyptian attitudes toward the Jews; another looked at antisemitism as a factor leading some Jews to go to Palestine in the pre-independence era. Some articles included in the count between 2000 and 2009 argue that there is no problem of Muslim antisemitism. The International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies sponsored a special issue in 2007 on antisemitism in Muslim cultures that accounted for many of the citations; several of these articles were simply short comments 36 A few obviously misclassified items were removed outright. When there was any doubt at all about whether the item addressed an aspect of Muslim or Arab attitudes towards Jews, or antisemitism in Muslim or Arab countries or communities, the item was left in the sample. In my view, only about one-third of those items classified by the coding procedure as addressing Muslim or Arab antisemitism actually did so. And some of these claimed that the phenomenon did not exist, except in the politically motivated imaginations of the pro-Israel community.

44

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

on one central piece. Similarly, that same year, there was a special issue of the journal Current Psychology, but the most influential ­journals in virtually every field have ignored the topic. A number of the articles on Muslim antisemitism were reviews of a few recent books. Thus, the minuscule number of entries that the study located on Muslim antisemitism actually overstates, rather than understates, interest in the topic. In sum, contemporary social scientific research on antisemitism still focuses overwhelmingly on manifestations outside of the world of Islam. The number of entries that focus each year on the topic can be counted on one’s fingers. However, the databases show a d ­ etectable, if modest, increase in interest in Muslim and Arab antisemitism since 2000. Virtually no studies on the topic appeared in the databases between 1970 and 2000. In some ways, textbook content may be more valid than research trends as an indicator of what concerns scholars and social ­scientists. For one thing, a few researchers may produce studies that are largely ignored except by a few likeminded scholars. Moreover, textbooks may, through the selection of case material and examples, reflect interests and judgments of social scientists about what matters— even when research is, for a variety of reasons, unavailable. In any case, it is mainly through textbooks that a field conveys its ­knowledge, values, and concerns to the outside world and to the next generation of experts. In their study of bias in pre-college textbooks, Gary A. Tobin and Dennis R. Ybarra have argued that “history, geography, and social studies textbooks are especially vulnerable to influence, because of the broad opportunities for subjectivity in the telling of historical narratives about the origins of civilizations, the births of nations, and the character of their people.” Tobin and Ybarra’s analysis of 28 such textbooks found more than 500 “specific and notable problematic entries about Jews, Judaism, and Israel” in the areas that they studied.37 Needless to say, not everyone would agree with their conclusions and 37 Gary A. Tobin and Dennis R. Ybarra, The Trouble with Textbooks: Distorting History and Religion (Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2008), 16.

45

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

the standards for identifying objective coverage do not get any less controversial for university-level texts in the social sciences. It is, however, possible to examine what texts deem worthy of coverage and what they consider less notable. Courses dealing with racism, prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination go by many names and are found in various disciplines in the social sciences and humanities. Sometimes, such courses are developed and named with an intention to focus on a particular type of prejudice or discrimination; other times, their goals are more general. As a rule, courses and texts that define their purview using expressions like “racism and sexism” or “race, class, and gender” seem less apt to consider antisemitism than those defined by broader notions, such as “bigotry,” “discrimination,” and/or “prejudice.” A comprehensive and systematic quantitative content analysis of textbooks would be useful to determine the level of attention to various kinds of ­antisemitism and, indeed, to other forms of prejudice. To gain some preliminary insight into the specific coverage of Muslim antisemitism, I have selected three standard textbooks that deal with racism and prejudice. The three were chosen because (1) they seem typical, (2) they were published by leading textbook companies, (3) they have gone through more than one edition, and (4) they do not show any obvious or strong upfront orientation toward Jewish matters or the Arab–Israeli conflict. The first book is The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination, second edition, a 692-page book by Bernard E. Whitley and Mary E. Kite. These authors intend their book to be a comprehensive and mainstream text. Early on, they note: “The Holocaust, in which German Nazis killed some 6 million Jews, made anti-Semitism salient following World War II, leading Gordon Allport (1954) to make it a major theme in his book The Nature of Prejudice.”38 Although Whitley and Kite cite Allport many times and clearly acknowledge 38 Bernard E. Whitley and Mary E. Kite, The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination, 2nd ed. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010), 22. (Note that it was, in fact, German Nazis and their numerous collaborators who murdered “some six million Jews.”)

46

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

his seminal importance, their text does not appear to share his strong interest in antisemitism. Their reference list covers 66 pages and approximately 1,700 sources. By my count, based on titles, one source deals specifically with antisemitism; five others refer to the Holocaust, though not specifically to its anti-Jewish character. Three of the five Holocaust sources, plus the one article that did focus on antisemitism, are all found in a single book.39 Two other articles in the huge source list refer to Jews in a list of target groups mentioned in their titles.40 There are two sources that mention Israel, both assessing prejudice in Israeli society.41 There is not a single reference to any of the books published in the last two decades that focus on recent antisemitism. In addition, there is not a single reference to antisemitism coming from Muslims, Arabs, or the Muslim world.42 Neither the very detailed table of contents nor the index contains any references to antisemitism or Jews, but the book does make several scattered references to antisemitism. There is one mention of an important 2007 finding that most Americans (my emphasis) have favorable attitudes toward Catholics and Jews, more favorable than their attitudes toward Mormons. Elsewhere, a table shows that most American college students do not approve of prejudice against Jews. There is another brief discussion of a 1990 study in which Christian students—under some conditions—will rate a Jewish student less favorably than a Christian one. There is also some coverage of the classic authoritarian personality study, but without reference to its 39 Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber, eds., Understanding Genocide: The Social Psychology of the Holocaust (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). 40 For example, see Thomas C. Wilson, “Cohort and Prejudice: Whites’ Attitudes toward Blacks, Hispanics, Jews and Asians,” Public Opinion Quarterly 53 (1996): 174. 41 For example, W. G. Stephan, O. Ybarra, C. M. Martinez, J. Schwarzwald, and M. Tur-Kaspa, “Prejudice toward Immigrants to Spain and Israel: An Integrated Threat Theory Analysis,” Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 29 (1998): 559. 42 The post–9/11 situation of Arabs and Muslims is discussed in several places but exclusively with regard to their victimization. For example, there is a reference to a “tenfold increase in the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes and dramatic increases in violence against mosques after 9/11.” This controversial statistic, by the way, is sourced to a 2002 Human Rights Watch Report —without any other book or journal reference.

47

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

roots in the effort to understand antisemitism. At one point, the authors consider a purported link between political conservatism and prejudice; that section includes no references to charges that the Far Left—in the past and present—has contained an antisemitic strain. Peter Glick’s useful work on ideology and scapegoating in Nazi Germany is covered.43 Finally, another table shows that more hate crimes in the United States are directed against Jews than any other group. Hate crimes are then discussed on many subsequent pages—with allusions to many motives—but no reference to antisemitism. Finally, in passing, the words “Jewish conspiracies” are mentioned as part of the belief system associated with racist ­religion—but, again, without further analysis. A publication by the ADL, 101 Ways to Combat Prejudice, is recommended on the final page of the book;44 there are, however, no references anywhere in the text to the ADL’s many publications and reports on contemporary antisemitism. The second text is Understanding the Psychology of Diversity, second edition, a 303-page volume by Bruce Evan Blaine.45 This brief, twelvechapter book includes separate chapters on racism, sexism, weightism, and ageism—as well as a shared chapter on homosexism and classism. Although there is no reference to ­antisemitism in the index, there are nine references to Jews, some of which relate to stereotyping. The most direct treatment of a­ ntisemitism is a one-­ paragraph discussion in the chapter on race. It is noted that stereotypes of Jews include positive and negative features, and that the salience of the positive aspects of the s­tereotype has been increasing in recent years. This, the author cautions, is not n ­ ecessarily proof that prejudice and discrimination against Jews will decline. The problem, however, is that even a lengthy paragraph can hardly convey nuance. There is absolutely no reference to group 43 Peter Glick, “Sacrificial Lambs Dressed in Wolves’ Clothing: Envious Prejudice, Ideology, and the Scapegoating of the Jews,” in Understanding Genocide, 113. 44 Anti-Defamation League, 101 Ways to Combat Prejudice, accessed May 12, 2015, http://archive.adl.org/prejudice/closethebook.pdf. 45 Bruce Evan Blaine, Understanding the Psychology of Diversity, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Sage, 2013).

48

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

variation—domestic or international—in the prevalence or intensity of a­ ntisemitism. And even though the author purports to discuss ­contemporary trends, he cites no references after 1996. The entire body of research on recent antisemitism has not influenced this general ­textbook in the least. There is no discussion of Muslim antisemitism.46 Blaine does include in his references a few studies on ­anti­semitism, but his source list of approximately 730 references includes none on the Holocaust. Also, although the book focuses on prejudice in the United States, in the globally interconnected world of today, it is still hard to justify ignoring the international context of Jew-hatred a­ ltogether. Moreover, the book does cover “coping with prejudice” fairly well for some other groups, but there is no treatment of how the historical and contemporary global ­stigmatization of Jews and Israel might have consequences for Jewish identity and sociopolitical behavior. The third textbook is Race, Ethnicity, Gender, & Class: The Sociology of Group Conflict and Change, seventh edition, a 412-page book by Joseph F. Healey and Eileen O’Brien.47 A promotional brochure for the book says that it “conveys much of the richness and varieties of experience within minority groups, instead of treating them as single undifferentiated entities.”48 Still, the detailed table of contents—ten pages of small print—shows no headings that focus on Jews or antisemitism. There are, however, some subsections that include ­relevant references. One part on religion mentions that Jews, Catholics, and Protestants had different experiences coming to America, and another part on assimilation discusses the Jewish experience in a bit of detail, about two pages. There is an excerpt from a Jewish ­immigrant’s writings—Mary Antin’s The Promised Land (1912).49 46 Oddly, the Blaine text notes that “the stereotypes of Jews’ ambitiousness and achievement are potentially threatening to many non-Jewish Whites” (99). Why would Blaine specifically identify non-Jewish whites as more susceptible to this stereotype, especially in light of consistent survey evidence that—in the United States—whites are less antisemitic than African Americans? 47 Joseph F. Healey and Eileen O’Brien, Race, Ethnicity, Gender, & Class: The Sociology of Group Conflict and Change, 7th ed. (Washington, DC: Sage, 2015). 48 Promotional mailer received by the author. 49 Mary Antin, The Promised Land (New York: Modern Library, [1912], 2001).

49

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

The only specific coverage of antisemitism is a brief, five-­ paragraph section. There is a line stating: “For nearly two millennia, European Jews have been chastised and persecuted as the ‘killers of Christ’ and stereotyped as materialistic moneylenders and crafty businessmen.”50 The authors also remark: “The ultimate episode in the long history of European anti-Semitism was, of course, the Nazi Holocaust, in which six million Jews died. European anti-Semitism did not end with the demise of the Nazi regime, however, and it remains a prominent concern throughout Europe and Russia.”51 The reader is then referred to chapter 13 of the text for elaboration. Later in this brief section, the reader is told that antisemitism “remains a part of U.S. society.”52 More specifically, antisemitism is said to exist among a variety of extremist American groups, including the ­“skinheads” and contemporary incarnations of the Ku Klux Klan. The reader is now referred to chapter 3, which—in a general ­discussion of prejudice and discrimination—includes a few passing references to stereotypes of Jews in the United States; there is also a brief ­reference to scapegoating as an explanation of the psychology of Hitler’s appeal in Nazi Germany.53 Chapter 13 cites an ADL survey showing fairly high levels of antisemitism in parts of Europe, including Hungary and Germany. Hate crimes, neo-Nazis, and antisemitism—generally, in Europe, the United States, and across the globe—are attributed to strong ­traditions of racism and intolerance, and “high rates of immigration combined with economic uncertainty for working-class, less educated males.”54 There are no references to Muslim antisemitism or to the religious roots of antisemitism in any faith. There is also no attempt to examine the social or demographic loci of the hatred. And there is no attempt to distinguish the situation in Europe from 50 Healey and O’Brien, Race, Ethnicity, Gender, & Class, 48. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 53 Psychologists and sociologists, incidentally, have much more to say on this topic. See, for example, Neil J. Kressel, Mass Hate: The Global Rise of Genocide and Terror, rev. ed. (New York: Perseus/Westview, 2002). 54 Healey and O’Brien, Race, Ethnicity, Gender, & Class, 386.

50

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

that in the United States; in particular, there is no comment on America’s relative benevolence, past and present, vis–à–vis the Jews. The last place where this text discusses Jews is in a section on the Middle East. Again, there is no mention of antisemitism in Islamic history, theology, or tradition. The following paragraph is offered as perspective on the Arab–Israeli conflict: As with many of the situations considered in this chapter, ­present-day conflicts in the Middle East have their origins in ­military conquest. Following World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust, European Jews pushed for the establishment of a Jewish state in their traditional homeland. This cause was strongly supported by the United Nations and the United States, and Israel was founded in 1948. Unfortunately, the Jewish homeland was established on land occupied by Arabs (Palestinians), who also regarded it as their rightful homeland. Thus began the ­dominant-­ minority (Israeli-Palestinian) situation that continues today and is further complicated by relations between Israel and the other nations of the Middle East.55

A bit later, the authors opine: “There are some indications that a solution to the enmities in the Middle East is possible.”56 Putting aside the matter of whether such optimism is justified, there is room for debate regarding the brief recounting of the conflict. Among other things, the push for a Jewish state dates from well before the Holocaust, and, notably, about one-third of Israelis at the time of independence were Sabras (native-born). Moreover, the United Nations passed a partition plan establishing two states—one Jewish and one Arab. The Soviet Union supported the plan, which the Jews accepted and the Arabs did not. Finally, when one speaks about the Arab–Israeli conflict in the context of the entire Middle East or the world, it is by no means clear who is dominant and who is minority. 55 Ibid., 390. 56 Ibid., 391.

51

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

There is again no reference to the literature on antisemitism in the Muslim world—past or present—or to survey data showing that hostility toward Jews in Muslim-majority countries is far more ­widespread and intense than in the United States and Europe, both of which were deemed worthy of consideration. I have no reason to suspect that the authors of the three sampled textbooks made a conscious decision to omit coverage of Muslim antisemitism or to downplay coverage of other forms of contemporary hostility to Jews. Nonetheless, a student could read every sentence in these three typical textbooks on prejudice, retain every word, and yet have no clue that widespread and virulent hostility toward Jews exists in many parts of the Muslim world. They certainly would not have acquired any insights into the origins, implications, and potential dangers associated with this bigotry. They would not even begin to have the knowledge base necessary for considering whether Muslim attitudes toward Jews played any role in the genesis or maintenance of the Arab–Israeli dispute—or vice versa. More generally, students would also leave their courses with very little sense of how or why ­antisemitism became mankind’s longest hatred. They would be ill-equipped to discuss contemporary antisemitism anywhere in the world, let alone to understand its sources and potential remedies. Student abilities to assess antisemitism’s likely course in the future would be seriously in question. All of this concerns me. Some might argue that racism and sexism courses do address contemporary antisemitism, including its presence among Muslims and in the Muslim world, despite the lack of coverage in mainstream textbooks. Instructors could assign supplementary texts, websites, and newspaper articles. Or they could lecture and lead discussions about contemporary antisemitism. To examine this possibility, a sample of college and university syllabi available on the Internet was drawn in 2014.57 Using Google, we first searched for the word “syllabus.” Then, within the results, we searched for “race,” “­ prejudice,” “bias,” “hatred,” “bigotry,” “discrimination,” “­ stereotyping,” “injustice,” “racial,” “hate crimes,” “antisemitism,” “anti-Semitism,” “genocide,” “Holocaust,” 57 I thank Samantha Mercado and Sara Williams for their help with the syllabus study.

52

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

“hate,” and “ethnicity.” Syllabi appearing in the first five pages of results for each of these searches were printed in order to assemble a ­preliminary list of courses. The list was then narrowed by selecting only complete syllabi that had a course number, an affiliation with a college or ­university in the United States, a department name, and a recent date. The final sample of seventy-seven courses was then divided into three categories: twenty-two psychology courses, twenty-two courses that focused on genocide, the Holocaust, and/or antisemitism (from history, religious studies, and other departments), and thirty-three remaining courses on prejudice, racism, or diversity (from sociology, government, and other departments). Although there may be some differences between courses posted on the Internet and courses where the instructor does not post the syllabus, the sample included a r­easonable mix of public and private institutions, elite and nonelite, from across the United States. The psychology courses in the sample had many names, but they most commonly used some variant of “the psychology of” coupled with “prejudice,” “diversity,” “racism,” or “stereotyping.” Eighteen of the twenty-two psychology syllabi made no references whatsoever to antisemitism in any era or context—not in the course description, not in the course objectives, not in the week-by-week class schedule, not in the textbook titles, not in any of the listed supplementary readings. Four psychology courses did specifically mention antisemitism in the syllabus; three of these dealt with the topic as part of one class session. One course devoted two sessions to antisemitism-related topics and also asked students to attend an evening film on the Holocaust; one of the two sessions was a discussion of Jewish and Arab identity; the other dealt in part with the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. None of the psychology courses included any clearly ­identifiable reference to contemporary antisemitism anywhere. None referred to antisemitism in the Muslim world, or among Arabs or Muslims living in the West. One might partly explain the lack of references to antisemitism in general and Muslim antisemitism in particular as a consequence 53

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

of psychologists’ tendency to speak of prejudice and discrimination as general phenomena. Still, most of the syllabi did refer—­sometimes at length—to particular types of bigotry—for example, anti-black racism, anti-Hispanic racism, homophobia, sexism, ageism, ­anti-Arab prejudice, and classism. References to prejudice against white ethnic groups were less common. To those who object that not all prejudices can fit into a single text, a reasonable argument might be made that antisemitism deserves coverage disproportionate to its current intensity in the United States because of its history, its global nature, its link to several American religions, its historic and contemporary mobility across borders, its association with world affairs, in which the United states plays a major role, its presence in some American subgroups, and its historical importance to the social sciences. It is possible that some assigned sources on prejudice in general included references to studies of antisemitism that cannot be detected in the syllabi. In this regard, however, it is worth noting that the most popular text in the sample, the one by Whitley and Kite, as noted above, mentioned antisemitism but did not devote much space to the topic. Even if antisemitism is mentioned, it is highly probable—given time allocations—that the topic is not considered with much ­historical context. Yet it is precisely the recurrent, nonlinear, cross-cultural, cross-epochal aspects of Jew-hatred that are central to understanding it. The typical psychological approach to studying psychosocial phenomena, relying as it does on general theory, ­population surveys, and experimental research, is particularly likely to run into trouble when applied to the analysis of antisemitism. When studies are based on American student samples, as they so frequently are, it is hard to imagine learning much about the essence of a hatred that is not very intensely or widely experienced in the United States.58 The belief that one can understand the intensity and dangers associated with antisemitism via methods and theories e­ xtrapolated 58 At the simplest level, studies based on college student samples in the United States are unlikely to reveal much about the nature of Jew-hatred where it is most virulent. The wrong people are being studied and the wrong questions are being asked.

54

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

from the study of other prejudices is not limited to psychology. Thirty-three other courses dealing with racism, discrimination, and diversity came from sociology, political science, anthropology, philosophy, and other departments. Syllabi from these courses covered many types of bigotry, including, commonly, anti-black racism, anti-Hispanic racism, anti-Asian racism, anti–Native American racism, homophobia, ageism, sexism, and classism. Again, there was less coverage of prejudice against white ethnics. Only six of the thirty-three syllabi made any reference to the Jews, antisemitism, or the Holocaust. Of these, one spent two weeks discussing Jewish ethnicity, but the closest reference to antisemitism here was the assignment of the article “How the Jews Became White” by Karen Brodkin Sacks. This 1994 article argued against the “myth” that “Jews pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps.”59 One course included fairly extensive coverage of the Holocaust—five weeks. Another—which devoted a week to anti-Arab prejudice— devoted a shared week to prejudice against Jews, Irish, Italians, and other European ethnics. One dealt with Jews by assigning Joe Wood’s 1994 article entitled “What I Learned about Jews,” a controversial and somewhat ambiguous essay on black–Jewish relations.60 Another included a week on genocides and “final solutions” that seemed to indicate some coverage of the Holocaust. Finally, one course description mentions Jews in a list of potential victims of hate crimes; however, no further reference to anti-Jewish hate crimes appears in the list of class sessions. In addition to these six courses, one course, which did not mention antisemitism or Jews, did include journalist Kenneth Timmerman’s book Preachers of Hate among a list of books that students could review.61 This book includes some coverage of Muslim antisemitism. All in all, however, none of the syllabi made

59 Karen Brodkin Sacks, “How Jews Became White,” in Race, Class, and Gender in the United States, 4th ed., ed. Paula S. Rothenberg (New York: St. Martin’s, 1998), 100. 60 Joe Wood, “What I Learned about Jews,” in Rothenberg, ed., Race, Class, and Gender in the United States, 319. 61 Kenneth R. Timmerman, Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America (New York: Crown Forum, 2003).

55

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

any clear reference to contemporary antisemitism, and none even mentioned Muslim antisemitism. Finally, there were twenty-two courses from history, religious studies, and other departments that focused on genocide, the Holocaust, and/or antisemitism. Needless to say, all devoted some time, usually much time, to discussions of the Nazi destruction of European Jewry. Some covered the Holocaust exclusively or primarily; most devoted time to coverage of Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia, and/or other recent mass atrocities. A number of the courses on the Holocaust were purely historical, but most included some coverage of post-Holocaust issues—mainly Holocaust denial, trials of perpetrators, or Jewish life after the Holocaust. A few connected the Holocaust to the founding of the State of Israel. Five of the course titles included the word “antisemitism” and all of these (but no other courses in the sample) dedicated a class session to some aspect of contemporary antisemitism. Three ­specifically mentioned Muslim antisemitism and/or antisemitism associated with anti-Zionism. One course permitted students to choose Muslim antisemitism as a project topic. One—at Liberty University—devoted multiple sessions to the topic. Finally, a class at the University of Pennsylvania included a discussion of the ­association between antisemitism and anti-Zionism and explored whether there is a “new” antisemitism. Possibly, discussions about the persistence of antisemitism into the present take place in some courses on the Holocaust and h ­ istorical antisemitism without any indication in the syllabi. On the other hand, historians sometimes resist drawing out the c­ontemporary implications of their work and, even when they do not, discussions might focus on other recent genocides as opposed to present-day antisemitism. All in all, it appears safe to conclude that Muslim antisemitism is nearly absent from the seventy-seven examined syllabi and from the three textbooks. Other forms of contemporary antisemitism are also nearly absent. And yet the ADL estimates that there are more than 1.09 billion antisemites in the world today. It is possible that 56

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

the ADL is wrong about this number and that the spate of recent books has exaggerated the scope of the problem. But it is hard to see why we should have much confidence in judgments about the magnitude and significance of contemporary antisemitism if they come from academics who study racism, prejudice, discrimination, and diversity. After all, the topic is essentially absent from their teaching and textbooks. It is no simple matter to understand how this odd and disturbing situation came to be.

Explaining the Neglect There are those in the social science community and elsewhere, perhaps quite a few, who believe that all bigotry and prejudice are alike in ­essentials, springing from the same depths of the human psyche and building upon the same sociopolitical, ideological, and economic foundations. Yet, there are powerful historical reasons why a­ ntisemitism requires a unique analysis and not merely ­extrapolations from general theories of prejudice and racism. First, Jews have been charged with deicide in the Christian tradition and have been accused of perpetual treachery in the Islamic tradition. These accusations have tremendous staying power. Second, Jews were o ­ fficially approved targets of expulsion and mass murder (i.e., the Banu Qurayza Jews) in the founding tradition of Islam; also, many admired saints and leaders in the Christian tradition have reinforced for millennia the doctrinal importance of keeping the Jews down. Thus, Jew-hatred is a­ ccompanied by indelible e­ndorsements by sacred figures. Third, as adherents to a pre-existing, non-­ ­ universalizing faith, Jews have frequently been portrayed as evil or ignorant by those seeking to establish or ­reinforce the raison d’être of a new religious tradition committed to universal conversion. Fourth, the very longevity and cross-cultural p ­ ervasiveness of Jew-hatred seems to add to its perceived legitimacy in the eyes of bigots. How, the antisemite asks in every generation, could so many people with so many different outlooks have been wrong for so long about opposing the Jews? So much smoke must mean fire. Fifth, unlike 57

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

many other targets of prejudice, Jews have typically been hated not because of their perceived inferiority but because of their perceived potency and cleverness. Thus, envy has often been more important than disdain in the genesis and perpetuation of Jew hatred. All told, psychologists, sociologists, and others who attempt to extrapolate from more general models of prejudice and bigotry are likely to miss important aspects of the phenomenon of Jew-hatred. The disciplines that study racism and prejudice need to be convinced of the ­importance of studying antisemitism—and especially Muslim antisemitism—as a peculiar and unique form of hatred. Lack of familiarity with existing evidence about Muslim ­antisemitism may also explain a big part of the problem. Textbooks and course content generally reflect trends in the research literature. Professors and authors may additionally be influenced by news media reports, especially those concerning dramatic and salient events. But if journals and news media do not cover topics adequately—as is the case, for a variety of reasons, with Muslim antisemitism—textbook authors will not likely feel the need to deviate from the emphases they detect in the research literature. Professors and textbook authors may also make judgments about the relative importance of topics based upon their values and their “instincts” about what matters. However, research has shown that the instincts of experts in many fields are not reliable guides to very much, except when they are data-based. What’s more, the instincts of academics in the racism and sexism field may originate as much in ideology as in a clear and objective analysis. Even those well-informed and well-intentioned social scientists seeking to conduct empirical studies of contemporary Muslim ­antisemitism face formidable, though not insurmountable, ­obstacles.62 For starters, few Muslim-majority countries welcome Western or local researchers asking probing and pesky questions about social problems. Those researchers most likely to study antisemitism, possibly Israelis, Jews, and those with a pro-Jewish or pro-Israeli orientation, would probably encounter problems ranging from discomfort to the inability to obtain credentials—or worse. Those who might wish to research 62 See Kressel, “Urgent Need,” B14; Kressel, “Antisemitism, Social Science,” 227.

58

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

antisemitism in places where it is most intense may be deterred by the “Daniel Pearl effect.” As I have explained elsewhere, probing questions directed to the wrong people can be dangerous, and one or two salient attacks can discourage vast numbers of future researchers.63 There remain additional problems, starting with the fact that few researchers who might be inclined to study Muslim ­antisemitism possess the requisite linguistic skills in Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, or other relevant languages. The preferred mode of research in academic social psychology, one of the fields where much racism research occurs, is the experiment. Researchers are inclined toward selection of local subjects, frequently American college students.64 Funding agencies and other powers-that-be are not likely to support projects on ­politically incorrect and controversial topics like Muslim ­antisemitism, especially when such work is—as we shall see—frequently misinterpreted as Islamophobic or defamatory. (Consider, for example, the probability of someone being granted a Fulbright to study the topic overseas, given the political objectives of the Fulbright program.) So part of the reason social scientists who study prejudice have neglected Muslim antisemitism is because they have not seen the existing evidence. Part of the reason courses and texts neglect the issue is because researchers have neglected it. And part of the reason potentially interested researchers have neglected the matter is because there are many barriers standing in the path of research. Yet another explanation has to do with the sometimes declared, sometimes undeclared focus on prejudice in the United States and—to a lesser extent—in other Western environments. Antisemitism is much weaker in the United States than elsewhere, and it would not be unreasonable to describe the country as more philosemitic than antisemitic.65 Thus, if one focuses exclusively on bigotry in the United States, one might indeed feel justified in devoting more 63 Kressel, “Urgent Need,” B14. 64 Neil J. Kressel, “Systemic Barriers to Progress in Academic Social Psychology,” Journal of Social Psychology 130, no. 1 (1990): 5. 65 See, for example, data on attitudes toward Judaism in Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 505.

59

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

attention to other matters. However, doing so would, first of all, leave one with a warped perspective on domestic bigotry. The United States, in fact, deserves credit for how it has handled antisemitism, compared with the record of most other countries. To omit this part of the story and to speak only of the nation’s failures in intergroup relations does not seem fair. More important, in a globally interconnected world, it is hard to justify a social scientific approach to the study of bigotry that stops arbitrarily at one country’s borders. In most areas of research, a cross-cultural perspective is deemed essential, especially when the phenomenon under study obviously differs from one place to another. The most important reasons for the neglect of Muslim ­antisemitism have their roots in an active reluctance or resistance to thinking about Muslim Jew-hatred and to an unwillingness to ­classify it as a form of bigotry worthy of serious concern. Whenever one calls a­ ttention to Muslim or Arab antisemitism in any forum, one can be sure to encounter many varieties of this resistance. The desire to ignore, minimize, downplay or explain away the Muslim strand of antisemitism is buttressed by a highly developed, ­multidimensional, and—ultimately—flawed logic. This logic includes the following: • Definitional arguments, holding that what most Jews say is antisemitism is not really antisemitism; • Political spillover arguments, suggesting that whatever antisemitism does exist in the Muslim and Arab world is understandable spillover from the Arab–Israeli conflict; • Charges of bad history, arguing that Muslims and Islam have always treated the Jews well, so what we are now witnessing cannot reflect deep-seated animosity; • Disagreements about commonality and intensity, claiming that only a handful of Muslims and Arabs actually exhibit anti-Jewish bigotry and that this unfortunate prejudice is not really dangerous for Jews or the West; • Arguments from civility, counseling that nice people do not criticize other ethnic groups or their religious beliefs; 60

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

• Charges of Islamophobia, maintaining that bigotry against Muslims and Arabs is the most significant bigotry of our day and that accusations of Muslim antisemitism actually constitute part of that bigotry; and • Arguments based on benign neglect, acknowledging the reality of Muslim and Arab antisemitism but contending that it is unwise to call attention to the problem. Writers on the Left and the Right are vulnerable to aspects of this logic, all of which are demonstrably flawed.66 For those devoted to the study of racism and sexism, several of these traps are most prominent. Perhaps the first stems from a legitimate desire not to contribute to one prejudice in the process of trying to oppose another. But the fight against Muslim antisemitism does not in itself imply anti-Arab or anti-Muslim discrimination of any sort, and it is, in fact, entirely consistent with the fight against such forms of bigotry. The main group dedicated to the fight against ­antisemitism, the ADL (along with similar Jewish organizations) has—after all—taken a lead in fighting against anti-Muslim prejudice. A few academics, when asked to think about Muslim a­ ntisemitism, have responded almost reflexively by ascribing to the Jewish ­community parallel and equally extensive levels of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice. Although there is anti-Islamic bigotry in the Jewish ­community, a facile declaration of equivalence is no way to deal ­effectively with this bigotry or antisemitism.67 In this instance, the mindless and unsupportable leap to statements of false ­equivalence and generalities about all prejudice being wrong (without identifying the bigots) has too often led to avoidance and ignorance of the facts. Moreover, anti-Islamic bigotry and anti-Arab bigotry are covered more heavily in the racism and sexism literature. One part of the problem is that non-Western and nonwhite groups that are themselves the victims of bigotry have, to some extent, 66 Kressel, “Sons of Pigs and Apes,” 99–151, documents these flaws in considerable detail. 67 See, for example, arguments made by Clemens Heni, Antisemitism: A Specific Phenomenon (Berlin: Edition Critic, 2013), 177.

61

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

been excused from blame for their own prejudices. There is, for example, in the racism and sexism literature relatively little notice taken of the fact that antisemitism in the United States has been more intense in parts of the African-American and Latin-American c­ommunities— even though the data regularly support this c­ on­clusion.68 There is a sometimes expressed, and perhaps more often felt, sentiment that the important bigotries to study come from the dominant (white) (male) groups and are directed against nonwhite minorities. And—as one essay puts it—Jews have become “white.”69 The racism and sexism community disproportionately includes people on the political Left; though the Left in the United States and the West is politically and ideologically diverse, there are some ­troubling beliefs on the extreme Left that have begun to work their way into the mainstream Left. Back in 1991, Edward Alexander, an English professor at the University of Washington, wrote an important article on “Multiculturalism’s Jewish Problem.” He noted that ­multiculturalists—at least, some multiculturalists—did not “­ recognize antisemitism as a form of racism.” He argued: “After all, their wise men have decreed that only ‘people of color’ can be the targets of racism and that these same ‘people of color’ are, no matter how consumed with hatred they may be, protected, by virtue of their pigmentation, from being racists themselves.”70 Although Alexander and others discussed many instances where racism by protected groups had been tolerated, many multiculturalists and most racism 68 See, for example, ADL Poll: Anti-Semitic Attitudes in America Decline 3 Percent, ADL Press Release, October 28, 2013, accessed June 8, 2015, http://www.adl. org/press-center/press-releases/anti-semitism-usa/adl-poll-anti-semitic-attitudes-america-decline-3-percent.html. See too Eunice G. Pollack, Racializing Antisemitism: Black Militants, Jews, and Israel, 1950—Present (Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2013); Eunice G. Pollack, “African Americans and the Legitimization of Antisemitism on the Campus,” in Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present, ed. Eunice G. Pollack (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2011), 216–33. 69 See, for example, Sacks, “How Jews Became White.” 70 Edward Alexander, “Multiculturalism’s Jewish Problem,” Academic Questions (Fall 1992): 65. See also Edward Alexander, “Multiculturalists and Anti-Semitism,” Society 31, no. 6 (1994): 58.

62

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

and sexism scholars, in my view, probably would oppose the most egregious manifestations of antisemitism, regardless of source, when forced to confront them. But clearly there is a tendency to focus on bigotry that comes from those associated with the “dominant power structure,” notably whites, males, Christians, and the political Right. At the radical end of the spectrum, the role of ideology may be to downplay and discount prejudices against those aligned with the dominant power structure of the West. Jews are seen, perhaps even correctly, to fall into this group. Also, in an effort to forge bonds with the undeveloped world, including the Arab world, there is a ­willingness to oppose Israel as the enemy. Because the forces of antisemitism and anti-Americanism are often aligned, there is a further tendency for those leftists who are hostile to the United States to overlook ­antisemitism—perhaps on the principle that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.”71 There can be no question about the Jewish stake in m ­ ulti­culturalism or, in principle, about Jews’ natural alliance with those who oppose racism, sexism, and bigotry. Still, as far back as the early 1990s, possibly earlier, one could observe that “the typical failure of white multiculturalists on today’s campuses to denounce Black, leftist, or Third World antisemitism may stem . . . from the remains of political radicalism from the 1960s. This radicalism has complex origins, perhaps fueled partly by free-floating white guilt, partly by 71 For some perspectives on the origins of this relationship, see Ernest Sternberg, “A Revivified Corpse: Left-Fascism in the Twenty-First Century,” Telosscope (blog), January 7, 2009, accessed May 21, 2015, http://www.telospress.com/author/sternberg/; Robert Fine, “New Antisemitism Theory and Its Critics,” unpublished paper prepared for Racism and Antisemitism Mid-Term Conference, European Sociological Association, Belfast, September 2010; Robert Fine, “Fighting with Phantoms: A Contribution to the Debate on Antisemitism in Europe,” Patterns of Prejudice 43, no. 5 (2009): 459–79; Norwood, Antisemitism and the American Far Left; see Manfred Gerstenfeld, “European Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism: Similarities and Differences—An Interview with Andrei S. Markovits,” PostHolocaust and Anti-Semitism 16 (2004), accessed April 25, 2012, http://www.jcpa. org/phas/phas-16.htm; Barry Rubin, “The Two Great Hatreds,” Covenant 1, no. 1 (November 2006), accessed April 12, 2011, http://www.­ covenant.idc.ac.il/en/ vol1/issue1/rubin.html.

63

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

i­dentification with the traditional academic role of radical critic, and partly by a sense that society has denied intellectuals their due. It should come as no surprise that strains of antisemitism tend to crop up willy-nilly among the ranks of those who oppose American and Western traditions the most.”72 In any event, it was already clear in the early 1990s that “the existence of officially sanctioned enemies leads multiculturalists to misunderstand antisemitism and, on occasion, to give comfort and cover to antisemites.”73 Although most people involved in studying, teaching, and writing about racism and bigotry are not antisemites themselves, their ideology—to varying degrees— may have led some to provide comfort and cover to Muslim antisemites in recent years. A particularly important part of this problem stems from the current nature of the field of Middle East Studies. In theory, American scholars who specialize in the Middle East ought to possess expertise on languages, governments, cultures, and religions of the region. They ought to use this foundation to analyze U.S. policy and global issues from a variety of political perspectives. Their analyses should be scholarly, relevant, balanced, and fair. They should, for example, be the leading source of information about Muslim antisemitism because they possess the requisite linguistic skills and cultural insights—but this ideal situation is very, very far from the reality of the field. In a recent report entitled “The Morass of Middle East Studies,” the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law concluded that many U.S. government–funded Middle East Studies programs were “ideologically politicized institutions notorious for one-sided approaches hostile to the United States, the West, and Israel.” According to the report, “Some programs were reportedly so hostile towards Israel that they would not even remotely entertain views that contradicted their unrelentingly anti-Israel perspective. In short, there was no academic freedom for scholars who deviated 72 Neil J. Kressel and Adam Brodsky, “Multiculturalism and Sensitivity on Campus,” Midstream 38, no. 9 (December 1992): 29. 73 Ibid., 28.

64

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

from these programs’ entrenched ideologies.”74 The Brandeis Center report reaffirmed other diagnoses of Middle East Studies, and ­consequently it is no surprise that mainstream scholars in the field have been virtually silent on Muslim antisemitism and on ­apologists for many Muslim and Arab leaders tainted by Jew-hatred.75 Surprisingly, one final problem has to do with the field of antisemitism studies. Even here, there has been a tendency to focus on the antisemitism of the past, partly because such studies are remote from day-to-day politics and therefore more readily acquire an aura of academic respectability. Studying the Holocaust, of course, requires no defense; it is arguably the preeminent disaster of the past century and—despite libraries of research—it remains a key topic for research—not only because of the legions of deniers afoot. However, the present-day should not be neglected. When Yale University shuttered its vital YIISA, it offered a pile of excuses and a new institute called the Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism.76 This new institute has done good work, but it is not a replacement for the important approach taken by YIISA, with its clear willingness to tackle controversial and contemporary matters head on.77 74 Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, The Morass of Middle East Studies (Washington, DC: Louis D. Brandeis Center, 2014), accessed May 20, 2015, http://www.brandeiscenter.com/images/uploads/practices/ antisemitism_­whitepaper.pdf. 75 See, for example, Martin Kramer, Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America (Washington, DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2001); Kressel, “Sons of Pigs and Apes,” 88, on “The Default of the Experts.” 76 Much has been written on the closing of YIISA. See the position of the former director, Charles Asher Small, “Introduction,” in Conceptual Approaches, Vol. 1, Global Antisemitism, 1. See too Heni, Antisemitism, 461. 77 A further problem within antisemitism studies has been the tendency to ­evaluate the merit of teaching various topics by estimating the likely impact upon students. Thus, instructors and curriculum designers ask: “Will studying the Holocaust or some other aspect of antisemitism turn students into the right kind of people?” See, for example, Paula Cowan and Henry Maitles, “Does Addressing Prejudice and Discrimination through Holocaust Education Produce Better Citizens?” Educational Review 59, no, 2 (2007): 115; Geoffrey Short, “Holocaust Education in Ontario High Schools: An Antidote to Racism?” Cambridge Journal of Education 30, no. 2 (2000): 291; Patricia Bromley and Susan Garnett Russell, “The Holocaust as History and Human Rights: A

65

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

What Can Be Done? For instructors whose approach to the field is not dictated by a radical ideology, some improvement may be possible through a practical campaign of education. An effort to publish research on Muslim antisemitism in mainstream journals would be one step. Research in journals like the recently created Journal for the Study of Antisemitism and the few other outlets dedicated to such studies can certainly be valuable. But if, despite likely resistance by reviewers, research on Muslim antisemitism were published in mainstream journals of sociology, social psychology, political psychology, p ­ olitical science, psychology, history, and Middle East Studies, it would have greater impact. Of course, part of the problem is the politicized nature of the social sciences. Nonetheless, there is—I believe—­sufficient integrity in these fields and associated racism and sexism studies to break through on the matter of Muslim antisemitism. Lobbying is not the way of academics. But perhaps it is time to call on racism and sexism scholars to examine the research and to examine their consciences. Back in 1996, Nora Gold wrote an article for the Journal of Social Work Education advocating, “Putting Antisemitism on the Anti-Racism Agenda in North American Schools of Social Work.”78 She argued cogently: “The exclusion of Jews from the anti-racism agenda in schools of social work in North America represents a denial of the historical and current oppression of Jews and, as such, can be seen as a form of antisemitism.”79 The challenge that she put to the social work profession must be put to all those

Cross-National Analysis of Holocaust Education in Social Science Textbooks, 1970–2008,” Prospects 40 (2010): 153. Such studies are interesting and important, but it would be a mistake to determine what should be taught on the basis of how well such instruction fares in shaping a particular type of student. 78 Nora Gold, “Putting Antisemitism on the Anti-Racism Agenda in North American Schools of Social Work,” Journal of Social Work Education 32, no. 1 (1996): 77. 79 Ibid.

66

The Great Failure of the Anti-Racist Community

CHAPTER 2

who claim to be scholars, journalists, or activists concerned about racism and bigotry. Perhaps a useful step would be the development of recommended curricula for various courses and recommended guidelines for the writers of textbooks. It might also be sensible to publicize critiques of existing instructional materials. A cottage industry is devoted to influencing the writers of precollege texts. Such attempts to influence content also take place at the level of college texts, though they are sometimes more hidden. Biases show up in many places: decisions about what to publish, what to assign, which studies to sponsor, which professors to hire, which programs to launch, and which speakers to invite. It would be useful to create a balanced, empirically supported segment on contemporary antisemitism that could be used by professors who teach courses. Owing to the nature of current academic practices, some would certainly object, but it is worth a try. Another possibility is to create a new textbook that incorporates antisemitism into the mix. It would be important that such a text not deviate too far from the prevailing politics in the field—or it will not be used. Finally, efforts to critique and repair Middle East Studies are critical. What is at stake is the integrity of racism and sexism studies, the education of a future generation of scholars, and the future of genuine intercommunal cooperation around the world.

67

PART 1

Denying Antisemitism

Appendix For purposes of comparison with earlier decades, the number shown in the 2010s column is a heuristic projection calculated by doubling the actual number of entries obtained in database searches covering the five-year period from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014. Table 1  References to Antisemitism in the Islamic and Arab World in Titles and Abstracts in Four Social Science Research Databases* 1940s PI  Title  Abs SA  Title  Abs PSSJ  Title  Abs

0 1

Number of Entries Per Decade 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

2000s

2010s

0 1

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

7 29

6 20

0 0

0 5

0 5

0 1

1 5

2 27

8 24

0 3

1 34

6 50

WPSA  Title 0 1 0 8 12  Abs 2 5 5 49 50 *PI (PSYCHINFO), SA (Sociological Abstracts), PSSJ (PROQUEST Social Science Journals), WPSA (Worldwide Political Science Abstracts).

68

CHAPTER 3

Antisemitism in the White House Rafael Medoff

I

 n modern-day America, expressions of antisemitism are most often encountered in gritty urban settings and among the coarser elements of society. In past decades, it was not surprising for antiJewish ­prejudice to be expressed in more sophisticated settings, such as corporate board rooms, country clubs, restricted neighborhoods, and college admissions offices. But it was never publicly acceptable in government, local or national. Never in the White House. The concept of “to bigotry, no sanction; to persecution, no assistance” was first articulated by George Washington and thereupon firmly established by common consensus as one of the foundation stones of American society.1 The principle of rejecting bigotry has been the social norm in the United States since the late 1960s (even if implementation at the grassroots level has not yet been fully achieved). Every president has pledged fealty to this standard. The possibility that a president, or someone very close to him, might secretly harbor antisemitic ­feelings would strike at one of the nation’s core ideals and, of course, ­ potentially threaten the well-being of the American Jewish ­community. Hence the Jewish community’s close scrutiny of every presidential candidate’s personal background and circle of advisers, and the justified expressions of alarm if red flags appear. A candidate   1 Washington’s statement is from 1790.

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

who openly espouses religious or racial prejudice would stand no chance of being elected. A candidate who failed to dismiss an openly bigoted senior staff member likely would fare no better. Yet when antisemitic sentiment is harbored privately by a president or those closest to him, dealing with it is a more complicated matter. Four twentieth-century American presidents have had close relatives who were known to be antisemitic. Three presidents themselves have been reliably reported to have harbored antisemitic views. And, in one instance, such prejudice appears to have played a significant role in shaping an important aspect of U.S. government policy.

I. Kennedy’s Father Reports about the antisemitic sentiments of Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of John F. Kennedy, first surfaced shortly after World War II, more than a decade after they were allegedly expressed. In 1949, German documents captured by the Allies quoted conversations in 1938 between Kennedy, who was then U.S. ambassador to England, and his German counterpart, Herbert von Dirksen. Kennedy was said to have spoken to von Dirksen of the “strong influence” of Jews on the American media, and expressed “understanding” for German policy toward Jews, mentioning the exclusion of Jews from country clubs in his native Boston. Because the source of the statements was a Nazi official, Joseph Kennedy was able to plausibly dismiss the report as “poppycock.” The allegation was a case of a diplomat telling his superiors “what he thought they would like to hear about me,” he insisted. Leaflets citing newspaper reports about the ­documents reportedly were distributed in Boston’s heavily Jewish 14th Ward during JFK’s 1952 campaign for the U.S. Senate. Their impact appears to have been negligible.2   2 “Captured German Documents Reveal Anti-Jewish Views of Former Ambassador Kennedy,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency [hereafter JTA], July 17, 1949; “Ex-ambassador Kennedy Ridicules Nazi Diplomat’s Report on His Views of Jews,” JTA, July 18, 1949; Victor Lasky, J.F.K.: The Man and the Myth (New York: Macmillan, 1963), 143–44.

71

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

Reports of antisemitic remarks by the elder Kennedy multiplied in the years to follow. The diaries of Interior Secretary Harold Ickes, published in 1954, included a July 1939 entry citing reports of Ambassador Kennedy telling friends in England that “the Jews were running the United States” and that U.S. government policy was “a Jewish production.” An early JFK biographer, Victor Lasky, reported in his 1963 book that Joseph Kennedy’s “occasional anti-Semitic outbursts were no secret.” Naomi W. Cohen, in her 1972 history of the American Jewish Committee, quoted Kennedy as privately accusing Jews of trying to push America into a conflict with Hitler, and asserting (“on the authority of no less a person than Franklin Delano Roosevelt”) that “if the United States is dragged into war with Germany there might even be a pogrom in the U.S.A. itself.” The best that Hank Searls, a sympathetic Kennedy family historian, could muster in defense of the elder Kennedy was the fact that he was friendly with Jewish financier Bernard Baruch and with Arthur Krock, a Jewish editor at the New York Times. Searls also quoted “an Irish Catholic squadron mate who knew [Joseph Kennedy] very well” as explaining: “He was just like me. He didn’t like kikes but some of his best friends were Jews.”3 Taken together, such statements add up to credible indications of antisemitism, but published separately over a number of years, as they were, Kennedy’s reported remarks attracted no serious public attention. In any event, all of them appeared long after they would have been relevant to any concerns about his influence on JFK as president.

II. Carter’s Brother By contrast, Billy Carter made a series of untoward remarks about Jews when his older brother, Jimmy Carter, was president. The controversy began in late 1978 at a public roast of Atlanta Braves   3 Harold L. Ickes, The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes, Vol. 2, The Inside Struggle, 1936– 1939 (New York: 1954), 676, entry for July 2, 1939; Lasky, J.F.K., 143; Naomi W. Cohen, Not Free to Desist: The American Jewish Committee, 1906–1966 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1972), 184; Hank Searls, The Lost Prince: Young Joe, The Forgotten Kennedy (New York: World Publishing, 1969), 123.

72

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

pitcher Phil Niekro, at which Billy said he was unaware that Niekro, a Polish American, was a “Polack,” thinking that he was, in fact, a “bastardized Jew.” The comical nature of the event enabled White House aides to brush it off as a bad joke or, as the Jewish Telegraphic Agency ­charitably characterized it, an example of “Billy’s frequent habit of putting words before thought.” Soon, however, the younger Carter’s inappropriate remarks multiplied, and pressure increased on the president to respond. In January 1979, Billy brought a Libyan delegation to Georgia. The mayor of Atlanta declined to meet them; Billy claimed the mayor had succumbed to “the pressure of Jews.” The president’s brother also asserted that the “Jewish media [tore] up the Arab c­ ountries fulltime,” and explained his decision to undertake a ­ business relationship with the Gaddafi regime on the grounds that “there is a hell of a lot more Arabians than there is Jews.”4 The repeated public controversies over Billy’s remarks t­ hreatened to turn the matter into a political problem for the president. The previous year had been replete with tense moments between the Carter administration and the American Jewish community, as U.S. officials criticized Israeli counter-terror actions in southern Lebanon, announced new arms sales to Arab states, and blamed Israel for the faltering of Israeli–Egyptian peace talks. Although nobody in the Jewish community suggested any connection between Billy Carter and U.S. Mideast policy, Billy’s statements nonetheless added fuel to the fire and made it politically risky for the president to remain silent with regard to his brother’s statements.5 Finally, in an interview with NBC-TV’s John Chancellor, President Carter addressed the issue. He refrained from explicitly condemning Billy’s statements or acknowledging that they were antisemitic. To do so, he said, would be “counterproductive,” because “any criticism I might make publicly of Billy would cause,   4 “Billy Carter Reprimanded for Use of Term ‘bastardized Jew,’” JTA, December 26, 1978.   5 Pranay Gupte, “Jewish Groups Charge Carter Has Abandoned Role of Mediator,” New York Times (hereafter NYT), December 17, 1978.

73

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

I think, him to react very strongly and to exert his independence.” He said he hoped “the people of the United States realize I have no control” over his brother. But Billy soon forced his brother’s hand. Asked by a reporter about American Jewish criticism of his previous remarks, Billy replied: “They can kiss my ass as far as I am concerned now.” The president replied publicly, saying that he “disassociated” himself from Billy’s comments, while at the same time insisting that Billy had “never made [any] serious critical remarks” about Jews, and “I know for a fact that he is not anti-Semitic.” He emphasized that Billy was “seriously ill.” The president’s mother offered a similar defense; when asked about the matter, she replied: “Billy is friendly but he drinks too much.”6 Billy Carter’s reputation as a buffoonish alcoholic no doubt ameliorated the public’s assessment of his antisemitism. Billy was widely perceived as a foul-mouthed drunk, not a source of serious political influence on the president. The family loyalty expressed both by the president for his brother and the president’s mother for her son were widely understood as the appropriate extension of a helping hand to a wayward family member. Moreover, the references to Billy’s illness (alcoholism) introduced mitigating circumstances: they moved his statements into the category of utterances that were provoked, or at least substantially aggravated, by a medical ­condition, that is, beyond his control. As for the political impact of Billy’s ­statements, they may have caused some damage to President Carter in the Jewish community, but ultimately it was Carter’s policies toward Israel that were the central factor in undermining that relationship and causing about 60 percent of Jewish voters to ­ support either Ronald Reagan or John Anderson, rather than Carter, in the 1980 presidential election.   6 “President Repudiates His Brother,” JTA, February 26, 1979; “Billy Carter Hosts Libyan Delegation to Georgia, Takes a Slap at Jews,” JTA, January 11, 1979; “ADL Urges President to Dissociate Himself from Brother’s Remarks,” JTA, January 12, 1979; “Furor over Billy Carter’s Remarks,” January 15, 1979; “New Slur by Billy Carter,” JTA, February 16, 1979; “Jimmy: Billy Is Not Anti-Semitic but I Disassociate Myself from Billy,” JTA, February 28, 1979; “Lillian Carter Visits Yad Vashem,” JTA, April 24, 1980.

74

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

III. Truman’s Mother-in-Law As was the case with Joseph Kennedy, the antisemitism of President Harry S Truman’s mother-in-law, Madge Gates Wallace, was first reported only after Truman’s death. The source was Merle Miller’s 1974 oral biography of Truman, Plain Speaking, which included an interview with Bluma Jacobson, the widow of Truman’s friend and one-time business partner, Eddie Jacobson. She said that during the period 1919– 34, when Harry and Bess Truman lived with Mrs. Wallace, the Jacobsons were never invited to the house, because “the Wallaces were aristocracy in these parts, and under the circumstances the Trumans couldn’t afford to have Jews at their house.” The t­ elevision producer and talk show host David Susskind made the same point, based on his own experience, to former White House ghostwriter James Humes. It seems that in the late 1960s, Susskind was working with the former president on a documentary, and he was puzzled by the fact that when he arrived at Truman’s house each day, Mrs. Truman never invited him in, even in the cold of winter. The former president explained: “You’re a Jew, David, and no Jew has ever been in the house.” Susskind protested, “I am amazed that you who recognized Israel and championed the integration of the army would say such a thing!” Truman responded: “David, this is not the White House—it’s the Wallace house. Bess runs it, and there’s never been a Jew inside the house in her or her mother’s lifetime.” Humes published the Susskind–Truman exchange in his 1997 memoir.7 These episodes did not become a source of serious public interest. Part of the reason was timing: when the incidents became known, they already were old news. In addition, they were published almost twenty-five years apart, meaning that many people who heard about the second instance did not remember the first. Moreover, there were no other published reports about their alleged antisemitism, so even to those who were paying attention it may have seemed that these were isolated incidents rather than   7 Merle Miller, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S Truman (New York: G.P: Putnam’s Sons, 1974), 90–91; James Humes, Confessions of a White House Ghostwriter (Chicago: Regnery, 1997), 35.

75

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

r­epresentative of a broad attitude of hostility toward Jews. Most of all, President Truman has long enjoyed near-heroic status in the Jewish community because of his de facto recognition of the newborn State of Israel just minutes after its establishment. That sense of appreciation undoubtedly blunted the possibility of ­significant Jewish criticism of Truman’s wife or mother-in-law.

IV. Harry Truman The question of Truman and the Jews was complicated, however, by scholars’ gradual discovery of multiple instances, both prior to and during his presidency, in which Truman himself made indisputably antisemitic remarks. The first public allegation that Truman had made a bigoted comment about Jews actually arose while he was president. On March 10, 1948, syndicated columnist Drew Pearson, a highly regarded investigative journalist based in Washington, reported what he said were statements made in a recent conversation about Palestine between Truman and “a New York publisher.” (He was referring to New York Post publisher Ted Thackery.) Pearson wrote: “Pounding his desk, [Truman] used words that can’t be repeated about ‘the (blank) New York Jews.’ ‘They’re disloyal to their country. Disloyal!,’ he cried.” Truman denounced the story as “a lie out of whole cloth.” Pearson stood his ground. The controversy did not escalate, however. No additional evidence emerged at the time, thus effectively reducing the matter to a he said/she said dispute that could not be definitively proven or disproven. In any event, within days, the allegation was swamped by a much larger controversy over the announcement by the U.S. ambassador at the United Nations favoring an international trusteeship for Palestine instead of Jewish statehood. As a consequence, the Pearson allegation was quickly forgotten by the Jewish community, and has been overlooked by historians ever since.8   8 “Truman Says ‘Lie’; Reporter Says ‘No’: President Denies Remark on Jews,” UP dispatch in Pittsburgh Post Gazette, March 12, 1948, 2; “Truman Denies Angrily Press Report That He Said New York Jews Were Disloyal to U.S.,” JTA, March 12, 1948.

76

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

Several decades later, however, evidence emerged of a similar comment by Truman. The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, George Wadsworth, visiting Washington in February 1948, reported to a colleague that Truman said to him that a British proposal (known as the Morrison–Grady plan) could have brought peace to the region, but “it had failed because of British bullheadedness and the fanaticism of our New York Jews.” Truman also complained to ­ Wadsworth that “the British were still being bullheaded and American Jews were still being fanatic about it.” The Wadsworth memo was published (in 1975) only in Foreign Relations of the United States, a series of U.S. government reference volumes that is consulted by scholars but seldom attracts public attention.9 Harsher expressions by Truman about Jews were revealed in the years to follow. A 1973 biography of the president by his daughter, Margaret, mentioned that Truman’s mother once forwarded to him a note “from a Jewish friend of a friend” urging U.S. support of Jewish statehood. Truman’s hostile response used an obvious code word for “Jews”: “These people are the usual European conspirators and they try to approach the President from every angle.”10 Another troubling remark came to light that same year, in published excerpts from the diary of Henry Wallace. Wallace, who served as vice ­president in Franklin Roosevelt’s third term and then in Truman’s cabinet as secretary of agriculture, noted an abrasive comment made by Truman during a July 30, 1946 cabinet discussion. Referring to Jewish dissatisfaction over the Morrison–Grady plan, Truman declared: “Jesus Christ couldn’t please them when he was here on earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck?” Along the same lines, a 1979 book by Israeli scholar Zvi Ganin reported that in a meeting with Zionist advocate James G. McDonald in 1946, Truman groused: “Well, you can’t satisfy these people. . . . The Jews aren’t going to write the history of the United States or my   9 Wadsworth to Henderson, February 4, 1948, in U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948: The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, vol. V, pt. 1 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975), 593; courtesy of Monty N. Penkower. 10 Margaret Truman, Harry S Truman (New York: HarperCollins, 1973), 299.

77

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

history.” A later study also quoted McDonald as remarking that, in discussing Palestine with Truman, the president “referred only to the Jews generally and not to the Zionists. I don’t think he ­distinguishes very much.”11 With each new revelation, it became more difficult to chalk up such statements to the pressures of the frustrating Palestine ­situation, the president’s well-known temper, or his straightforward style of speaking. The publication, in 1983, of Truman’s letters to his wife, Bess, shed a whole new and unflattering light on his private ­prejudices. In addition to unfriendly remarks about African Americans, Italian Americans, and other minorities, Dear Bess revealed numerous antisemitic comments. In letters written while serving in the m ­ ilitary in 1918, Truman characterized New York City as a “kike” town, referred to his success at turning a profit in running the army canteen as his “Jewish ability,” and described Eddie Jacobson, his new Jewish employee at the canteen, as his “Jew clerk.” Some later letters also contained pejorative statements about Jews. In one 1935 letter, he reported to Bess that a participant in a poker game “screamed like a Jewish merchant.”12 Michael Cohen’s book Truman and Israel (1990) brought together the previously published antisemitic remarks and revealed another one: in a 1945 memo, President Truman wrote: “The Jews claim God Almighty picked ‘em out for special privilege. Well I’m sure he had better judgement. Fact is I never thought God picked any favorites. It is my studied opinion that any race, creed or color can be God’s favorites if they act the part—and very few of ’em do that.”13 Nonetheless, the question of Truman’s antisemitism did not stir significant public interest until 2003, when a staff member at the Truman presidential library in Independence, Missouri, discovered a 11 John Morton Blum, ed., The Price of Vision: The Diary of Henry A. Wallace, 1942– 1946 (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1973), 607; Zvi Ganin, Truman, American Jewry, and Israel, 1945–1948 (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1979), 81; Michael Cohen, Truman and Israel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 133. 12 Robert H. Ferrell, ed., Dear Bess: The Letters from Harry to Bess Truman, 1910– 1959 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1983), 242, 248, 254, 366. 13 Cohen, Truman and Israel, 7, 133.

78

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

previously unknown diary of Truman’s. In an entry dated July 21, 1947, Truman commented bitterly on a phone call he had received from Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. concerning the British decision to prevent the refugee ship Exodus from reaching Palestine. “He’d no business, whatever to call me,” the president wrote. “The Jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgment on world affairs. . . . The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog.” Evidently, none of the comments recorded earlier in the Wallace diary, the Truman letters, or the Cohen book had managed to seep into the wider public consciousness, because when the 1947 diary entry surfaced in 2003, it made front-page news and was greeted by widespread shock, as if no similar evidence had preceded it. “Wow! It did surprise me because of what I know about Truman’s record,” Sara Bloomfield, director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, told the Washington Post. “Here was another hero who crumbled,” commented Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League. “Now we learn . . . that he, too, was capable of the most sordid antisemitic attitudes.”14 JTA compared the shock in the Jewish community over the Truman diary to children “coming to grips with the news that their parents aren’t infallible.” Deborah Dwork predicted that many Jews would be “upset to hear it because it’s so much easier to hold the view of him as the great defender [of Israel]. It was comforting to hold that view, and now that view is challenged.” 14 “President Harry S. Truman’s 1947 Diary Book, 1947 Diary and Manual of the Real Estate Board of New York, Inc.,” Harry S. Truman Library & Museum, http://www.trumanlibrary.org/diary/transcript.htm; Rebecca Dana and Peter Carlson, “Harry Truman’s Forgotten Diary,” Washington Post, July 11, 2003, 1; “Release of Diary Entries Harms Jews’ Fondness for Truman,” JTA, July 16, 2003; Abraham Foxman, “Harry Truman, My Flawed Hero,” The Forward, July 18, 2003, 15.

79

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

Florida rabbi and former newspaper publisher Bruce S. Warshal was one of the most discomfited. Writing in the journal of the Central Conference of American (Reform) Rabbis, Warshal argued that Truman had a right to be “livid,” because “Jewish pressure” on him regarding the future of Palestine had been “heavy-handed.” In any event, Warshal contended, the president’s characterization of Jews was “probably correct,” and anyone who regarded Truman’s words as antisemitic suffers from “Jewish victim mentality syndrome, which declares that you can’t trust anyone [and] thrives on outing anti-Semites among supposed friends.”15 Perhaps the public would not have been quite so shocked, and Truman’s defenders a bit less dogmatic, if a noted historian had been more forthcoming about a similar statement by Truman that he found in the president’s correspondence with Eleanor Roosevelt. In his 1972 book, Eleanor: The Years Alone, Joseph Lash mentioned that the former First Lady wrote to Truman in the summer of 1947 concerning the British policy of intercepting boatloads of Holocaust survivors sailing for Palestine. Lash quoted two of Eleanor’s appeals to the president. In regard to Truman’s response, Lash reported only that “Truman called attention to the Jewish capacity to commit outrageous acts.” What Truman actually wrote was considerably more jarring than Lash allowed: “The action of some of our United 15 “Release of Diary Entries Harms Jews’ Fondness for Truman;” Bruce Warshal, “Rabbi Bruce Warshal: ‘I’m voting for Crist and Sink,’” Florida Sun-Sentinel, October 12, 2010, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-10-12/opinion/ fl-jjps-warshal-1013-20101012_1_early-voting-crist-and-sink-kendrick-meek; Bruce S. Warshal, “Truman’s ‘Anti-Semitic’ Diary Entry,” CCAR Journal, Summer 2007, 60–67. The second volume of Truman’s two-volume postpresidential memoir, published in 1955, included a statement that, though not quite crossing over into antisemitism, exhibited more than a little unfriendliness. “I think I can say that I kept my faith in the rightness of my policy in spite of some of the Jews,” the former president wrote. “When I say ‘the Jews,’ I mean, of course, the extreme Zionists,” he added with more than a hint of condescension. “I know that most Americans of Jewish faith, while they hoped for the restoration of Jewish homeland [sic], are and always have been Americans first and foremost.” The implication was that Jews who criticized his Palestine policy were not Americans first and foremost; see Harry S Truman, Memoirs, Vol. 2, Years of Trial and Hope (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1955), 160.

80

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

States Zionists will eventually prejudice everyone against what they are trying to get done. I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs—when they get on top they are just as intolerant and as cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath.”16 Another prominent historian, John Morton Blum (1921–2011), also once chose to withhold evidence of Truman’s antisemitism. Blum revealed this episode in a private interview in 1984 with Henry Morgenthau III, the son of Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. The interview was one of many that Morgenthau III conducted while working on his family history, Mostly Morgenthaus. He interviewed Blum about his role as editor of From the Morgenthau Diaries, a threevolume collection of material from Morgenthau Jr.’s papers. In the interview, Blum noted that in addition to using materials that appeared in Morgenthau Jr.’s diaries, he added explanatory notes based on the correspondence and diaries of individuals with whom the treasury secretary interacted. One of those individuals was Henry Stimson, secretary of war under both Roosevelt and Truman, who disagreed strongly with the positions Morgenthau Jr. was urging Truman to take at the upcoming Potsdam conference in 1945. In their interview, Blum described to Morgenthau III an entry he discovered in Stimson’s diary. According to Blum, the entry described a conversation Stimson had with President Truman in the early summer of 1945, in which Stimson threatened that he would refuse to accompany Truman to Potsdam if Morgenthau Jr. was part of the U.S. delegation. Blum recalled: “According to Stimson’s diary, Truman then said to Stimson: ‘Don’t worry, neither Morgenthau nor [Bernard] Baruch nor any of the Jew boys will be going to Pottsdam’ [sic].” Blum continued (to Morgenthau III): “So I quoted that. When I read it to [Morgenthau Jr., he] asked would I be willing to take that out. And I said sure, but why? He said, well I’m sure if Mr. Stimson put it down, President Truman said it—but I don’t like the phrase ‘Jew boy’ in the mouth of any President of the United States. And since it’s not in 16 Joseph P. Lash, Eleanor: The Years Alone (New York: W. W. Norton, 1972), 121. Truman to Eleanor Roosevelt, August 23, 1947, President’s Personal File, Truman Library; courtesy of Ronald Radosh and Monty N. Penkower.

81

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

my diary, couldn’t we keep it out of our book? I said, OK, I’ll take it out—and you won’t find it [in From the Morgenthau Diaries].” To judge by Blum’s description, Morgenthau Jr. evidently was motivated not by a desire to protect Truman’s name or reputation per se, but rather a concern that an expression of antisemitism coming from “the mouth of the president” would give a certain legitimacy to anti-Jewish bigotry. Regardless of Morgenthau’s motive, the practical impact of Blum’s decision to suppress the Stimson diary entry was to hide from public view an important instance of Truman’s private expressions about Jews.17 There has been at least one additional instance of a cover-up of Truman’s antisemitism. William Hillman, a journalist, was hired to assist Truman in preparing his memoirs and other papers for ­publication. The first volume, Mr. President, appeared in 1953. Among the materials it included was the aforementioned June 1945 memo by Truman, which in its original version included the passage about Jews claiming that God “picked ’em out for special privilege.” But the version that appeared in Mr. President omitted the section about Jews. In Hillman’s version, the relevant paragraph read simply, “I never thought God picked any favorites. It is my studied opinion that any race, creed or color can be God’s favorites if they act the part—and very few of ’em do that.” Michael Cohen, in his 1990 book, Truman and Israel, was the first to publish the full text. Whether the omission was Hillman’s idea, or undertaken at the insistence of Truman, is not clear.18

V. Richard Nixon The second president whose unflattering remarks about Jews have become known is Richard M. Nixon. Accusations of antisemitism 17 Transcript of Henry Morgenthau III interview with John M. Blum, New Haven, CT, March 15, 1984, 5, copy in the possession of the author. Morgenthau III quoted on page 435 of Mostly Morgenthaus. 18 William Hillman, ed., Mr. President: The First Publication from the Personal Diaries, Private Letters, Papers, and Revealing Interviews of Harry S. Truman, Thirty-second President of the United States of America (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1952), 118; Cohen, Truman and Israel, 284n19.

82

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

against Nixon first surfaced in 1974, during his final months in office. The New York Times and CBS-TV reported that in taped Oval Office conversations related to the Watergate investigation, Nixon referred to some of his critics as “Jew boys,” complained about “those Jews” in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and charged that damaging information about him was being leaked by Jews in the government to “Jewish liberals” in the news media. Nixon’s aides denied that he made the alleged remarks. Later that year, in transcripts of ­conversations released by the White House, Nixon commented that his daughters’ 1972 campaign appearances should be hosted by “Middle America-type of people. . . . The arts, you know—they’re Jews, they’re left-wing—in other words, stay away.”19 In the following years, such reports multiplied and the depth of Nixon’s antisemitism became obvious. In 1977, newly released tapes revealed Nixon blaming Jews for White House leaks. In a tape made public in 1991, Nixon quizzed aides about which anti-war activists were Jewish. In another, he asked an adviser to draw up a list of Jewish employees of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, suspecting they were part of a “Jewish cabal” that was reporting inflated unemployment statistics in order to harm him. The diaries of ­ Nixon’s chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, published in 1994, included a reference to Nixon’s belief in the “total Jewish domination of the media.” In one entry, Haldeman reported that Nixon had “really raged against United States Jews,” and had ordered Haldeman “not to let any Jews see him about the Middle East.”20 19 “Nixon Wanted His Daughters to Stay Away from ‘the Arts’ Because ‘They’re Jews, They’re Left-wing,’” JTA, August 7, 1974. 20 “Times, CBS-TV Claim Nixon Used Epithet ‘Jew Boy’ Several Times in Taped Conversations with Dean,” JTA, May 13, 1974; “Tapes Reveal Nixon Complained That He Was Surrounded by Jews,” JTA, May 2, 1977; Nixon Blamed Jews for Anti-war Activity,” JTA, June 7, 1991; “Haldeman Diaries Attribute Anti-Semitic Comments to Nixon,” JTA, May 19, 1994. A kind of precursor to Truman defender Bruce Warshal, Nixon’s most vociferous Jewish supporter, Massachusetts rabbi Baruch Korff, did not blame the president’s Truman-like “rage” on any fist-pounding Jewish leaders, but he did continue defending Nixon long after he had resigned in disgrace, and long after the first evidence of Nixon’s antisemitic remarks; see Joy Sterling, “Nixon’s Rabbi Still Loyal,” Bergen Record, July 25, 1976, B3.

83

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

Oval Office tapes released in 1996 included Nixon telling Haldeman to “get me the names of the Jews. You know, the big Jewish contributors to the Democrats. Could we please investigate some of the [expletive deleted]?” Nixon also instructed domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman: “John, we have the power. Are we using it to i­ nvestigate contributors to Hubert Humphrey, ­contributors to Muskie—the Jews, you know, that are stealing in every direction? Are we going after their tax returns? You know what I mean? There’s a lot of gold in them thar hills. I can only hope that we are, frankly, doing a little persecuting.” In a follow-up conversation, Nixon said to Haldeman, “What about the rich Jews? The IRS is full of Jews, Bob.” Veteran Democratic Party official Robert Strauss called Nixon’s remarks “sickening . . . this language coming out of the mouth of a president of the United States is more than I can really comprehend.”21 Tapes that came to light in 1999 included Nixon calling an immigration official in California a “kike,” blaming “the Jews” for all his problems, and complaining that “Jews are all over the government.” In tapes released in 2002, Nixon could be heard charging that Jews had too much influence in the government, calling them “untrustworthy,” and vowing to appoint fewer Jews to positions in his second term; in a later discussion about appointments, Nixon told an aide, “No Jews. We are adamant when I say no Jews.” Between 2009 and 2013, the Richard Nixon Presidential Library released the final three batches of White House tapes. In one, Nixon offered this historical perspective on antisemitism: “It happened in Spain, it happened in Germany, it’s happening—and now it’s going to happen in America if these people don’t start behaving. . . . It may be they have a death wish. You know that’s been the problem with our Jewish friends for centuries.” In another, he characterized Jews as “aggressive, abrasive and obnoxious.” 21 “Tapes: Nixon Targeted Jews in His Anti-Democrat Campaign,” JTA, December 10, 1996.

84

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

Angry at his attorney, Leonard Garment, Nixon shouted, “Goddamn his Jewish soul!”22 Nixon was especially livid about American Jews urging him to press the Soviet Union on Jewish emigration. Referring to the possibility of Jewish demonstrations in connection with a ­ ­forthcoming U.S.–Soviet summit, Nixon railed (to Henry Kissinger): “Let me say, Henry, it’s gonna be the worst thing that happened to Jews in American history.” He added, “If they torpedo this summit— and it might go down for other reasons—I’m gonna put the blame on them, and I’m going to do it publicly at 9 o’clock at night before 80 million people. They put the Jewish interest above America’s interest, and it’s about goddamn time that the Jew in America ­realizes he’s an American first and a Jew second. . . . [They are holding America] hostage to Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union . . . the American people are not going to let them destroy our foreign policy—never!”23 What impact did these antisemitic remarks by presidents or their relatives have in terms of White House policy decisions? There is no evidence that Joseph Kennedy’s antisemitism rubbed off on his son. There is no basis for suspecting that Billy Carter’s views were shared by his brother. There is no reason to think that the attitudes of Kennedy’s father or Carter’s brother played any role in shaping the policies of the Kennedy ­administration or the Carter administration toward Israel. Truman’s private feelings about Jews did not prevent him from having a close ­relationship with Eddie Jacobson, seeking the counsel of Jewish advisers, or recognizing the State of Israel in 1948. Nixon’s well-documented antisemitism did not deter him from elevating 22 “News Brief,” JTA, March 10, 1999; “News Brief,” JTA, October 7, 1999; “News Brief,” JTA, March 4, 2002; Eric Fingerhut, “Nixon, Graham Talk on Tape of American Anti-Semitism,” JTA, June 24, 2009. 23 Ron Kampeas, “Kissinger: Gassing Jews Would Not Be a U.S. Problem,” JTA, December 12, 2010; “New Nixon Tapes Show More Anti-Semitism,” JTA, August 22, 2013.

85

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

Henry Kissinger—a foreign-born Jew with a pronounced accent— to the most influential position in U.S. foreign policymaking; nor did it stop the massive American airlift of arms to Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. U.S. policy under Truman and Nixon was determined by other interests—electoral, strategic, or both.

VI. The Roosevelts In the case of Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, there is evidence of a connection between the private feelings of the president regarding Jews and an important policy related to Jews. The fact that FDR’s mother, Sara Delano Roosevelt, harbored prejudice against Jews has been mentioned in passing in some Roosevelt family histories. Given the prevalence of anti-Jewish ­prejudice in the upper strata of New York society in the late 1800s and early 1900s, perhaps it would be surprising had she not subscribed to common stereotypes about Jews and other minorities. Ted Morgan, in his book FDR: A Biography, wrote that “there lingered in [FDR] a residue of the social anti-Semitism he had inherited from his mother and other relatives such as his half brother Rosy and his uncle Fred Delano, all three of them anti-Semites.” Morgan mentioned an incident in 1928 in which Sara Roosevelt objected to having FDR adviser Belle Moskowitz join the family for lunch because she did not want “that fat Jewess,” as she called her, in the Roosevelt home. Joseph Lash, in his book Eleanor and Franklin, reported that Sara Roosevelt once wrote of Elinor Morgenthau: “The wife is very Jewish but appeared very well.”24 Roosevelt’s relatives were not mentioned at all in the classic 1960s and 1970s studies of America’s response to the Holocaust, by David S. Wyman, Henry L. Feingold, Saul S. Friedman, and Monty N. Penkower. They saw the president’s response to the Holocaust as being ­determined entirely on the basis of political and military considerations ­(especially the former), without any reference to FDR’s personal views concerning 24 Ted Morgan, FDR: A Biography (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), 298; Joseph Lash, Eleanor and Franklin (New York: W. W. Norton, 1971), 295.

86

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

Jews. At that point in time, there was scant evidence of anything ­noteworthy regarding Roosevelt’s private attitudes toward Jews. Sara Roosevelt first appeared in a book in this field only much later—in the 1987 volume American Refugee Policy and European Jewry, 1933– 1945, by Richard Breitman and Alan M. Kraut.25 Breitman and Kraut presented Sara’s influence not as a part of the explanation for Roosevelt’s lethargic response to the plight of the Jews, but rather as a rationalization for it. “The president’s mother was anti-Semitic, his brother even more so,” they stated. And: “Some of FDR’s best friends were anti-Semites.” Their point was not that Roosevelt’s relatives and friends influenced him to be antisemitic; on the contrary, although “the young Franklin Roosevelt absorbed some of this sentiment,” he “gradually grew out of it.” Rather, they speculated, it was because of this milieu that FDR was “aware of the influence of anti-Semitism in the United States” and consequently became so sensitive —”overly insensitive,” they wrote— “to the danger of anti-Semitic reaction to American policies.” In other words, President Roosevelt was reluctant to aid Europe’s Jews only because he was so committed to heading off a surge of antisemitism in America.26 Surprisingly, Breitman chose to push Sara Roosevelt to the front and center of his 2013 book, FDR and the Jews (coauthored with Allan Lichtman)—and he did so in order to argue that Sara ­influenced her son to reject antisemitism. The opening scene of the book 25 David S. Wyman, Paper Walls: America and the Refugee Crisis, 1938–1941 (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1968); Henry L. Feingold, The Politics of Rescue: The Roosevelt Administration and the Holocaust, 1938–1945 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1970); Saul S. Friedman, No Haven for the Oppressed: United States Policy toward Refugees, 1938–1945 (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1973); Monty N. Penkower, The Jews Were Expendable: Free World Diplomacy and the Holocaust (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983); Richard Breitman and Alan M. Kraut, American Refugee Policy and European Jewry, 1933–1945 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987). Although Penkower’s first book on the subject, The Jews Were Expendable, was published in 1983, it incorporates a number of essays that he published during the 1970s; hence it is included here among the first wave of research on America and the Holocaust, which appeared between 1968 and 1979. 26 Breitman and Kraut, American Refugee Policy and European Jewry, 245.

87

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

dramatically presented the elderly Sara, just “four months before her death,” addressing a Jewish women’s group. Breitman and Lichtman also emphasized that a Jewish organization once gave her an award for “service to the Jewish people.” This was presented as evidence that “Franklin’s parents instilled in him religious t­ olerance” and imparted to him “the wise counsel needed to escape the anti-Semitism that was so common among upper-class Protestants.”27 Breitman and Lichtman called the award “the Einstein Medal for lifetime humanitarian service to the Jewish people,” but the sources they cited said otherwise. One source, a book of ­correspondence between Sara and Eleanor, stated that the award was “the Einstein Medal for Humanitarianism,” given in honor of her “broad sympathy and activities in elevating the conditions of all people throughout the world who suffer from poverty, oppression, and hatred.” Breitman and Lichtman’s other source, a news article in the New York Times in 1938, reported that the award was given “in recognition of ‘a lifetime of devoted service to every communal cause in the country.’” Neither source mentioned anything about her service “to the Jewish people.” Breitman has not explained what additional evidence he uncovered that led him to reverse his earlier judgment (in his 1987 book) that Sara Roosevelt “was anti-Semitic.”28 27 Richard Breitman and Allan J. Lichtman, FDR and the Jews (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), 8, and caption for photo between pages 210 and 211. 28 Ibid., 8; Jan Pottker, Sara and Eleanor: The Story of Sara Delano Roosevelt and Her Daughter-in-Law, Eleanor Roosevelt (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2004), 309; “Mrs. J. Roosevelt Cited,” New York Times, March 21, 1938, 8; “Einstein Medal for Humanitarianism Is Awarded to Mother of the President,” New York Times, April 4, 1938, 19. Breitman did not respond to this author’s e-mail on November 11, 2013, requesting clarification. Lichtman replied on November 18, 2013, that he would not respond because my review of their book in Ha’aretz was, in his view, “disrespectful.” In a peculiar footnote to this episode, Breitman and Lichtman, in their book, thanked one Richard J. Garfunkel as the source for their information about Sara Roosevelt. Garfunkel is not a historian; he is the host of an obscure weekly radio show in New Rochelle, NY, and describes himself as “a collector of FDR memorabilia for over 50 years,” who owns “over 5000 pieces, that include buttons, books, pictures, campaign literature and ephemera of every imaginable type.” He has even “developed a lecture called ‘FDR the Collector, and Collecting FDR’”; see Breitman and Lichtman, FDR and

88

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

By contrast, some of Sara Roosevelt’s other defenders have acknowledged problems in the presentation of the president’s mother as a philosemite. Until mid-2013, the website of Roosevelt House—a wing of Hunter College, located in Sara’s former residence in Manhattan—showcased an essay depicting Mrs. Roosevelt as a major benefactor of Jewish immigrants in America and a champion of Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis. The sources cited by the authors of the essay, Deborah Gardner and graduate research associate Ben Hellwege, did not hold up well. Many of the sources cited Mrs. Roosevelt’s involvement with Jewish-sponsored but nonsectarian charities. The New York Times articles they cited as evidence of her concern for Jewish refugees reported that Mrs. Roosevelt served as honorary chair of the American Committee for Christian German Refugees, and assisted Friendship House, a Catholic religious institution involved in general civic work.29 In response to ­ complaints, Gardner in July 2013 removed the article from the Roosevelt House website because of the inaccuracies in the text.30

VII. Like Mother, Like Son? The real significance of Sara Roosevelt’s opinions about Jews is whether there was any continuity of views from mother to son.31 the Jews, 332n1; for Garfunkel’s self-description, see http://www.richardjgarfunkel.com/2005/05/15/warm-springs-and-fdr-the-televisionproduction-2005/. 29 “President’s Mother Takes Refugee Post,” NYT, April 3, 1939, 17; “To Give Tea and Musicale,” NYT, February 27, 1941, 16. 30 Gardner to Medoff, July 31, 2013, and December 17, 2013. 31 Eleanor Roosevelt, too, made antisemitic remarks in her early years, but evidently she shed that prejudice under the impact of later experiences. See Joseph P. Lash, Eleanor and Franklin, 53, 198, 295, 379, 750; Blanche Wiesen Cook, Eleanor Roosevelt, Vol. 1, 1884–1933 (New York: Viking, 1998), 299, 388; Peter Collier with David Horowitz, The Roosevelts: An American Saga (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 281; Blanche Wiesen Cook, Eleanor Roosevelt, Vol. 2, 1933–1938, The Defining Years (New York: Viking, 2000), 316–17 (quoting Sarah Gertrude Millin, The Night Is Long [London: Faber & Faber, 1941], 249–55, 571); Monty Noam Penkower, The Holocaust and Israel Reborn: From Catastrophe to Sovereignty (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 271–72.

89

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

Franklin Roosevelt’s biographers agree that he was very close to, and strongly influenced by, his mother. FDR’s views on race and religion were nurtured in a certain milieu, of which his parents and other relatives were a part. Still, FDR was his own man and undoubtedly there were subjects on which he formed opinions that were different from those of his mother, based on his own experiences or e­ ducation. Is there credible evidence that FDR shared the views Sara privately expressed about Jews (for example, when referring to Belle Moskowitz and Elinor Morgenthau)? More important, if he did share such ­prejudice, was it a deeply held conviction that actually influenced his worldview and even aspects of his policymaking? The answer to these questions is related to the central mystery of Franklin Roosevelt’s response to the Holocaust. During FDR’s years in office, 1933–45, immigration to the United States was governed by a quota system that severely limited the admission of refugees in general, and impacted European Jewish refugees in particular. Yet despite these legal limitations, many more could have entered under the existing law than actually did. That was because the Roosevelt administration did not merely obey the existing immigration law— it quietly went far above and beyond the law, with the president’s approval. The State Department, which implemented the president’s immigration policy, severely reduced the number of refugees admitted by imposing additional requirements on would-be ­immigrants and looking for any possible reason, no matter how trivial, to disqualify applicants. Assistant Secretary of State Wilbur Carr, who was in charge of immigration visas during FDR’s first term, was unabashedly hostile to Jews and bitterly opposed to immigration. The president refused repeated requests by Labor ­ Secretary Frances Perkins and refugee advocates to compel Carr to administer the immigration laws less harshly. Breckinridge Long, whom FDR later appointed to fill Carr’s position, was likewise antisemitic and ­antiforeigner, and he initiated additional ­restrictions on the granting of immigration visas. In his diary, Long recorded a conversation he had with FDR in October 1940 that sheds light on the president’s perspective. Long wrote that Roosevelt assured him 90

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

“that he was 100% in accord with my ideas [on restricting ­immigration]. The President expressed himself as in entire accord with the policy which would exclude persons about whom there was any suspicion that they would be inimical to the welfare of the United States no matter who had vouchsafed for them. I left him with the satisfactory thought that he was wholeheartedly in support of the policy which would resolve in favor of the United States any doubts about a­ dmissibility of any individual.”32 The consequences of the administration’s policy were dramatic. The law permitted a maximum of 25,957 German citizens to enter each year (it increased to 27,370 when the German and Austrian quotas were combined following Hitler’s annexation of Austria in 1938). The actual number admitted, however, was just 1,375 in 1933, meaning that the quota was almost 95 percent unfilled. In 1934, 3,556 entered; the quota was 86 percent unfilled. The following year, it was 80 percent unfilled. Unused quota places did not roll over into the next year; if not filled, they expired. For the entire period of the Nazi regime, 1933 to 1945, more than 190,000 quota spaces from Germany and Axisoccupied countries sat unused. Why would Roosevelt adopt an approach that would produce such a harsh result? Even when special circumstances might have moved the president to permit greater immigration—within the existing ­ laws—he preferred to take the most rigid approach. In 1934, for example, Labor Secretary Perkins devised a way, within the existing law, to facilitate increased Jewish refugee immigration through the posting of bonds by friends or relatives. The State Department, which administered the ­immigration system, opposed the plan; FDR sided with State.33 In the spring of 1939, the 930 refugees aboard the ship St. Louis could have been saved by allowing them 32 Bat-Ami Zucker, “Frances Perkins and the German Jewish Refugees, 1933– 1940,” American Jewish History 89 (March 2001): 35–60; diary of Breckinridge Long, entries for October 3, 1940, and October 10, 1940, Breckinridge Long Papers (hereafter BLP), Library of Congress (hereafter LOC), Washington, DC. 33 Bat-Ami Zucker, In Search of Refuge: Jews and U.S. Consuls in Nazi Germany, 1933–1941 (New York: Vallentine Mitchell, 2001), 81–82, 93.

91

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

to stay temporarily, as tourists, in the Virgin Islands, a U.S. ­territory. Instead, the administration found a technicality to disqualify them from receiving tourist visas. At about the same time, members of Congress introduced legislation, known as the Wagner–Rogers bill, to permit the non-quota admission of 20,000 refugee children. Because of their age, they would have posed no competition to America’s labor force and would have been supported entirely by private sources. The president nonetheless declined to support the measure; the following year, however, FDR supported bringing British children to the United States to escape the German bombing of London. Why the double standard? Defenders of FDR’s response to the Holocaust argue that any proposal to liberalize the immigration system would have provoked significant congressional and public opposition. That is no doubt true, but it is a red herring. Roosevelt could have quietly instructed the State Department to permit the existing quotas to be filled. No public controversy or battle with Congress was required. Conforming to existing law would have sufficed. So why didn’t he?

VIII. Just Joking Roosevelt’s private opinions regarding Jews, which have gradually come to light over the years, help answer the question about the motives behind his immigration policy. The ways in which some historians have treated the evidence of his opinions, however, raise new and troubling questions about the standards and r­ esponsibilities of scholars. The first inkling that FDR’s private attitude toward Jews was less than amiable came during the mid-1950s debate over the p ­ ublication of the transcripts of Roosevelt’s February 1945 conference with Josef Stalin and Winston Churchill at Yalta. In 1953, Republican senators began pressing for publication of the full transcripts of the ­conference. The State Department opposed publishing the records, on the grounds that they contained sensitive information that might be harmful to the United States or its allies. Eventually, in March 1955, 92

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

the Yalta transcripts were released as part of the Foreign Relations of the United States series. Two passages that appeared in the original Yalta minutes were deleted from the published version. One had to do with a conversation between U.S. and Soviet military commanders. The other pertained to an exchange between FDR and Stalin concerning Jews. Had the State Department simply left in the passage about Jews, it might have attracted less notice. Instead, the obvious omission intrigued observers. The New York Times reported that Roosevelt and Stalin discussed Soviet Jewry, Zionism, and the Soviet attempt to establish a Jewish “homeland” in the Siberian region of Birobidzhan. The New York Times correspondent then added: “It is not entirely clear from the text why Stalin began talking about the Jewish problem. A line of asterisks preceding Stalin’s statement seems to raise the possibility that one of Stalin’s high-level colleagues may have initiated the discussion of Jews with a statement that has been censored from the published text.” As it would turn out, it was a statement by Roosevelt, not one of Stalin’s aides, that had been censored. The mystery deepened two days later, when the Washington Post published an editorial criticizing the deletions as “pernicious” and an attempt to “doctor history.” It noted that among the deletions were “some remarks by President Roosevelt about the Jews,” but it did not spell them out. “In historical perspective, President Roosevelt will have to be judged as a whole man, indiscretions and all,” the Post argued. Three days later, the text of FDR’s censored statement was published, by U.S. News and World Report. It reported that when Roosevelt mentioned he would soon be seeing Saudi Arabian leader Ibn Saud, Stalin asked if he intended to make any concessions to the king; “The President replied that there was only one concession he thought he might offer and that was to give him the six million Jews in the United States.” The JTA poured cold water on the report, citing “political quarters in Washington” as pointing out “that U.S. News and World Report is a leading anti-New Deal organ which has frequently 93

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

printed allegations against the Democratic Administration and Presidents Roosevelt and Truman.”34 The following year, an inquiry from a Brooklyn businessman ­triggered a discussion within the State Department as to whether or not to formally acknowledge that Roosevelt made the remark. After nearly two months, Deputy Assistant Secretary Burke Wilkinson replied to the letter writer that FDR did make “an off-hand comment . . . concerning the Jews,” but Wilkinson did not say what the comment was. Wilkinson explained that it had been omitted “for the reason that it would give needless offense, while contributing nothing to policy.”35 Finally, in 1973, the U.S. News account was confirmed in the autobiography of Charles E. Bohlen, a senior State Department ­official who was part of the U.S. delegation to Yalta and served as FDR’s chief translator and minute-taker. But by then, the 1955 c­ ontroversy had been long forgotten. Eventually, the identity of the censor was revealed: documents that were declassified in 2010, and publicized in a 2011 essay by Joshua Botts of the State Department’s Office of the Historian, identified Assistant Secretary of State Walter Bedell Smith as having crossed out the controversial lines. Smith wrote in the transcript’s margin: “Delete this—it is not pertinent history.”36

34 Harry Schwartz, “Stalin Called Himself a Zionist but Cited Soviet Jewish ‘Problem,’” NYT, March 17, 1955, 79; “Doctored History Again,” Washington Post and Times-Herald (editorial), March 19, 1955, 10; “Roosevelt’s Alleged Yalta Remarks on Jews Doubted in Washington,” JTA, March 23, 1955. According to the American Jewish Year Book 1946–1947, there were actually only about 5 million, not 6 million, Jews in the United States in 1945; see “Statistics of Jews,” The American Jewish Year Book 5707 [1946–1947] (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1946), 599. 35 Franklin to Noble, September 12, 1956; Wilkinson to Messing, October 17, 1956; and undated memo, “Confidential: Data on Point 3 of the Secretary’s Memorandum,” 2; all located at the Office of the Historian, Department of State, Washington, DC. (Documents courtesy of Joshua Botts of the Office of the Historian.) 36 Charles E. Bohlen, Witness to History, 1929–1969 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1973), 203; “‘Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire’: The Politics of the Yalta FRUS,” remarks by Joshua Botts, Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State, delivered at the June 2011 conference of the Society of Historians of American Foreign Relations, in Alexandria, VA, and posted at https://history.state.

94

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

What was the ultimate significance of Roosevelt’s little joke at Yalta about Jews? For FDR’s most ardent defenders, his comment was not merely innocuous but actually a good thing: Breitman and Lichtman contended that Roosevelt “was using anti-Semitism as an ice-breaker with Stalin.” Who could object to breaking the ice and thereby, perhaps, advancing the cause of world peace? The problem is that an “ice-breaker” is, by definition, something that is done at the beginning of a conversation, in order to facilitate a more open discussion. Yet Roosevelt did not make his joke about Jews until the next-to-last day of the week-long Yalta conference. Breitman and Lichtman did not explain this inconsistency.37 Humor sometimes reflects the speaker’s genuine feelings of disdain or prejudice toward the target of the joke. FDR is known to have made jokes about Jews on more than one occasion. In a letter that he wrote to Eleanor in about 1908, for example, Roosevelt poked fun at her for donating funds to organizations involved in settlement-house work in mostly Jewish neighborhoods of New York City. He wrote: “You can pat your little back about fifty times and with eyes raised Heavenward exclaim in accents of deep content ‘Yea! I have saved the lives of a score of blessed little ones of the Chosen Race!’” After the Roosevelts’ fifth child was born, FDR joked that family members opposed his idea of naming the child Isaac (after one of his great-great-grandfathers) because, as he put it, “the gov/historicaldocuments/frus-history/research/politics-of-the-yalta-frus; transcript page for February 10, 1945, with Smith’s handwriting. Smith, incidentally, was a general who had served on the staff of Dwight D. Eisenhower during World War II. After a visit to postwar Poland with Eisenhower’s adviser on Jewish affairs, Rabbi Judah Nadich, Smith remarked to Nadich: “I can’t understand it. In Germany—alright, at least the Jews here were wealthy; they were in positions of power; they were in journalism and banking, and so I can understand it a little bit a least. But why in Poland? The Jews there were poor, and the Jews there had no power. Why was there such hatred of them by the Poles?” Nadich was troubled to realize that Smith, with whom he was friendly, “felt that there could be some justification for anti-Semitism because of the fact that Jews were wealthy in Germany and had positions of power.”; see Joseph W. Bendersky, The “Jewish Threat”: Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army (New York: Basic Books, 2000), 308. 37 Breitman and Lichtman, FDR and the Jews, 301.

95

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

baby’s nose is slightly Hebraic & the family have visions of Ikey Rosenvelt, though I insist it is very good New Amsterdam Dutch.”38 Evidently such utterances were not merely youthful ­indiscretions; Roosevelt’s fondness for distasteful humor about Jews seems to have continued throughout his adult life. FDR biographer Geoffrey Ward described (in 1989) Roosevelt’s 1923 fishing trip off the coast of Florida, during which his friend Lewis Ledyard Jr. “hooked and landed a 42-pound Jewfish. . . . ‘I thought we left New York to get away from the Jews,’ his wife said, and Franklin thought the remark so good he included it in his log.” Elsewhere in that log, FDR added a little Jewish joke of his own: “The tip end of Florida is where Jonah had his trying experience—he was a Hebrew and hence cast up.” Roosevelt’s friend and closest political adviser, Louis Howe, later presented FDR with an album of anecdotes, photos, and ­illustrations from the trip, including one of “a Jewfish with a prominent nose and a sort of crest from which hung the triple balls of a pawnbroker’s sign.” More recently, former New York Times executive editor Joseph Lelyveld, in His Final Battle, revealed a startling anecdote from an unpublished draft of Charles Bohlen’s memoir. After Roosevelt’s meeting with the king of Saudi Arabia, Bohlen said to the president: “If you put any more kikes in Palestine, he is going to kill them.” According to Bohlen, “Roosevelt laughed” at his statement.39 FDR did not merely laugh at others’ remarks about Jews; he himself indulged in antisemitic humor. In an interview with Ward, Curtis Roosevelt, one of the president’s grandchildren, said that he “recalled hearing the President tell mildly anti-Semitic stories in the White House.” Curtis excused his grandfather’s choice of jokes on the grounds that Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., himself a Jew, “laughed as hard as anyone in the room.” Ward alluded to the reason for Morgenthau’s behavior: “The protagonists [in FDR’s 38 The “Chosen Race” remark first appeared in Blanche Wiesen Cook, Eleanor Roosevelt, 1:192; Frank Freidel, Franklin D. Roosevelt: Launching the New Deal (Boston: Little Brown, 1973), 390–95. 39 Geoffrey C. Ward, A First-Class Temperament: The Emergence of Franklin Roosevelt (New York: Harper and Row, 1989), 661, 676; Joseph Lelyveld, His Final Battle: The Last Months of Franklin Roosevelt (New York: Knopf, 2016), 292.

96

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

jokes] were always Lower East Side Jews with heavy accents, men of quite another class from Franklin Roosevelt and his Duchess County neighbor [Morgenthau].” Whether Morgenthau genuinely felt comfortable ridiculing unassimilated Jews, or did so to ingratiate himself with the Roosevelts, does not change the fact that FDR voiced such unpleasant sentiments.40

IX. “Spread the Jews thin” In 1961, the State Department released a volume in its series Foreign Relations of the United States featuring documents about U.S. ­diplomatic affairs involving Europe during 1942. It included the minutes of a conversation at the White House on May 29, 1942, between President Roosevelt, his adviser Harry Hopkins, and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov. At one point, Hopkins remarked that the American public’s view of Soviet Communists had been damaged by the presence in the American Communist Party of “largely disgruntled, frustrated, ineffectual, and vociferous people—including a comparatively high proportion of distinctly unsympathetic Jews.” According to the translator at the meeting, Harvard University professor Samuel H. Cross, “On this the President commented that he was far from anti-Semitic, as everyone knew, but there was a good deal in this point of view.” Molotov, Roosevelt, and Hopkins then apparently agreed that “there were Communists and Communists,” which they compared to what they called “the distinction between ‘Jews’ and ‘Kikes,’” all of which was “something that created inevitable difficulties.”41 Once again, a disturbing remark by the president failed to attract attention, perhaps because it appeared in a source that only scholars, 40 Ward, A First-Class Temperament, 253n45. Breitman and Lichtman, FDR and the Jews, 9n4, cite Ward’s book as their source for a point about Roosevelt’s adolescence, but make no mention of Ward’s revelation concerning the president’s jokes about Jews—an odd omission, considering the title and subject of their book. 41 Foreign Relations of the United States—Diplomatic Papers 1942, Vol. III, Europe (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961), 570–71.

97

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

not the general public, were likely to consult. Except when there is some surrounding controversy (as in the case of the Yalta papers), Foreign Relations of the United States is virtually unknown to the wider public. Although the White House meeting with Molotov is described in almost every biography of FDR, and in books about U.S.–Soviet relations and World War II diplomacy, the antisemitic exchange is almost never mentioned. It did finally make it into print in Frank Costigliola’s 2012 book, Roosevelt’s Lost Alliances, which did not cause a public stir but did force FDR partisans to address it. Hence in FDR and the Jews, Breitman and Lichtman acknowledge the Molotov exchange (citing Costigliola), but explain it away as another example of Roosevelt using antisemitism as an “ice-breaker.” Once again, however, the “ice-breaker” theory was contradicted by the timeline of events. The Foreign Relations transcript described a ­discussion about various topics that was held when Molotov arrived at the White House; another detailed conversation that took place before dinner; yet another during dinner; and then a final one after dinner, in the president’s study. It was only in that very last segment (and just before the conclusion of that segment) that the exchange about Jews took place. Far from serving as an “ice-breaker,” the antisemitic remarks were uttered many hours after the ice was broken.42 Seven years later, another unnoticed bombshell made its way into Foreign Relations of the United States. In 1968, the State Department released a Foreign Relations volume covering Roosevelt’s January 1943 conference in Casablanca with French officials following the Allied conquest of North Africa. The transcript reported a discussion regarding the postwar status of the approximately 300,000 Jews living in Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia. FDR said, “the number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions (law, medicine, etc.) should be definitely limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population. Such a plan would therefore permit the Jews to engage in the professions, at the same time would not permit 42 Frank Costigliola, Roosevelt’s Lost Alliances (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012), 168–69; Breitman and Lichtman, FDR and the Jews, 301.

98

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

them to overcrowd the professions. . . . The President stated that his plan would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a small part of the population, over fifty percent of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors, etc, in Germany, were Jews.”43 Roosevelt’s statement in effect rationalized German a­ ntisemitism as an “understandable” response to Jewish behavior. The president masked his recommendation as an act of benevolence: he was just trying to help the Jews, by restricting their domineering behavior so people would not hate them for it. Several later defenders of FDR employed a similar spin. Robert Rosen argues that Roosevelt’s noble intention in taking that position was “to meliorate, in a ‘fair’ way, local discrimination against Jews.”44 Breitman and Lichtman contend that FDR’s “loose comments” about Jews at Casablanca really were simply an attempt “to provide opportunities for Jews, without unduly antagonizing Moslems.”45 Despite these efforts to recast Roosevelt’s position as something resembling affirmative action, the plain meaning of the president’s words was a r­ecommendation to ­discriminate 43 Foreign Relations of the United States—The Conferences at Washington, 1941–1942 and Casablanca Conference, 1943 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968), 608; Robert N. Rosen, Saving the Jews: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Holocaust (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2006), 259; Breitman and Lichtman, FDR and the Jews, 249. Although the Casablanca statement about Jews did not garner attention when it was first published in 1968, it did gain some additional circulation in 1979, when Bernard Wasserstein included it in his book Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939–1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 207, and in 1984, when David S. Wyman included it in The Abandonment of the Jews (New York: New Press), 313. Wasserstein participated in a 1993 conference on “FDR and the Holocaust” held at Hyde Park, sponsored by the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute. The overwhelming majority of the speakers were scholars, from various fields, who defended, minimized, or excused Roosevelt’s response to the Holocaust. At one point, Wasserstein quoted FDR’s Casablanca remarks about Jews. According to the published ­transcript of the proceedings, none of the other participants commented on Wasserstein’s point; see Verne W. Newton, ed., FDR and the Holocaust (New York: St. Martin’s, 1996), 12. 44 Robert Rosen, Saving the Jews, 259. 45 Breitman and Lichtman, FDR and the Jews, 249.

99

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

against North African Jews in order to prevent them from becoming too prominent in the local economy. The next published slur by Roosevelt about Jews likewise eluded significant public notice. Selections from the diary of Vice President Henry Wallace, published in 1973, included Wallace’s account of a conversation at the White House on May 22, 1943, between Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt. When the conversation reached the subject of the status of the Jews after the war, FDR told Churchill about proposals drawn up by his adviser on refugee matters, the renowned geographer and Johns Hopkins University president Isaiah Bowman. The president had commissioned Bowman to study “the problem of working out the best way to settle the Jewish question.” According to Wallace, FDR approvingly described Bowman’s plan, which “essentially is to spread the Jews thin all over the world. The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [which Roosevelt often visited in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that.” Once again, a remarkable comment appeared in a volume of interest primarily to scholars and thus escaped public controversy. Almost all later Roosevelt scholars simply ignored the statement, with the exception of Breitman and Lichtman, who minimize it as “a pithy anecdote.”46

X. A “Jewish Problem” at Harvard As additional unflattering statements by Roosevelt about Jews trickled out in the years to follow, they continued to reflect one of several specific notions: that the concentration of too many Jews in any single profession, institution, or geographic locale is ­undesirable; that America is by nature, and should remain, an overwhelmingly 46 Blum, The Price of Vision, 210–11; Breitman and Lichtman, FDR and the Jews, 249. Wallace actually wrote “Marietta County,” but there is no such county in Georgia; the president must have meant Meriwether County, where Warm Springs was located.

100

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

white, Protestant country; and that Jews have certain innate ­characteristics that are undesirable. In 1989, for example, FDR biographer Geoffrey Ward revealed a startling entry in the diary of Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. On January 21, 1942, Leo Crowley, the president’s wartime alien property custodian, lunched with the president. Three days later, Crowley relayed to Secretary Morgenthau a portion of their ­conversation. Morgenthau wrote in his diary: Then Leo said that for no apparent reason whatsoever the President proceeded to give him the following lecture. He said, “Leo, you know this is a Protestant country, and the Catholics and Jews are here on sufferance,” and he said, “It is up to both of you to go along with anything that I want at this time.” Leo said he never was so shocked in his life. So I said, “Leo, what are we fighting for? What am I killing myself for at this desk if we are just here by sufferance?” and Leo said, “That’s what I want to know.” So I said, “About a month ago I had something similar happen[,] but not nearly as bad[,] at Cabinet. I talked to the President about it afterwards, and he proceeded to give me a lecture and cited as an example how there were two Catholic judges in Nebraska, and he had refused to appoint a third.”

The diary entry concluded: “I told Leo that what he was telling me about the President was far more disturbing to me than all the Alien Property Custodian [sic] in the world [the issue that Crowley went to discuss with FDR], and he said that he agreed with me and that he had not discussed it with another living soul because he did not feel that he dared do so.”47 Another unpleasant anecdote from the Morgenthau Diaries appeared the following year in Frank Freidel’s Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Rendezvous with Destiny. According to Morgenthau, FDR remarked 47 Ward, A First-Class Temperament, 255n48 (quoting an abbreviated version); Morgenthau Diaries, January 27, 1942, 1061, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, NY (FDRL).

101

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

during a November 1941 cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. Morgenthau subsequently asked FDR, in private, if that statement “wasn’t giving the cabinet officers the impression that he did not want too many Jews in government.” The president’s response confirmed Morgenthau’s fear. Roosevelt cited an incident in 1923, when he was a member of Harvard University’s Board of Overseers: “Some years ago a third of the entering class at Harvard were Jews and the question came up as to how it should be handled,” FDR told Morgenthau. “I asked [a fellow board member] whether we should discuss it with the Board of Overseers and it was decided that we should. . . . It was decided that over a period of years the number of Jews should be reduced one or two per cent a year until it was down to 15%. . . . I treat the Catholic situation just the same. . . . I appointed three men in Nebraska—all Catholics—and they wanted me to appoint another Catholic, and I said that I wouldn’t do it. . . . You can’t get a ­disproportionate amount of any one religion.”48 Roosevelt supporters tried to put the best face on the Harvard quota ugliness. Breitman and Lichtman belittled it as evidence that FDR merely “did not subscribe to a strict meritocracy” (as if he did subscribe to, say, a slightly relaxed meritocracy). They wrote that Roosevelt “supported” the Jewish quota, not explaining that he helped initiate the proposal and was a member of the board that authorized it. Rosen actually portrays FDR’s role in regard to the quota as a positive: “Roosevelt was, above all, a practical man. He could look a problem in the eye and address it.” It seems that in Rosen’s eyes, as in FDR’s, the presence of too many Jewish students at Harvard constituted a “problem.”49 In 1999, Susan E. Tifft and Alex S. Jones authored a history of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, the owners of the New York Times. Tifft and Jones described President Roosevelt’s dissatisfaction with the Times, especially because of the newspaper’s strong opposition to 48 Frank Freidel, Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Rendezvous with Destiny (Boston: Little, Brown, 1990), 295–96; Morgenthau Diaries, November 26, 1941, FDRL. 49 Breitman and Lichtman, FDR and the Jews, 11; Rosen, Saving the Jews, 10–11.

102

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

his plan to revamp the Supreme Court. When Times owner Adolph Ochs passed away in 1937, FDR noted with satisfaction that in order to pay the inheritance tax and retain some control of the newspaper, the Sulzbergers apparently would have to sell a significant portion of their stock, thus reducing their influence over the Times’s editorial positions. The Sulzbergers, however, found a legal loophole that enabled them to pay the taxes without having to sell any of their stock. According to Tifft and Jones, an infuriated Roosevelt commented to U.S. Senator Pat Harrison of Mississippi: “It’s a dirty Jewish trick.” In Roosevelt’s mind, the ability to dishonestly maneuver out of a difficult legal or financial dilemma was a Jewish characteristic.50 The most recent revelation about Roosevelt’s private views appeared in my book, FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith (2013). A previously unpublished memorandum by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, the most prominent American Jewish leader of that era, described a meeting he had with President Roosevelt in Washington on January 22, 1938. After Wise made reference to the mistreatment of Jews in East European countries, Roosevelt relayed an anecdote from the Polish ambassador to Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki. Wise noted that FDR “quoted Potocki as though he assented to every word [that Potocki] said”: Then F.D.R. said something that was very painful to SSW [Wise composed his account in the third person], showing how much he is, alas, under the impact of the Ambassadors who have access to him. . . . F.D.R. gave a long explanation straight out of the mouth of Potocki, namely that, while forty and fifty years ago, [Potocki’s] father and grandfather got all their products from the Jewish grain dealer and the Jewish shoe dealer and the Jewish shopkeeper and the little Jewish villagers surrounding their castle, in recent years the Poles have been turning to him and to the people in the castle and saying—“Why don’t you 50 Susan E. Tifft and Alex S. Jones, The Trust: The Private and Powerful Family behind the New York Times (Boston: Little, Brown, 1999), 171.

103

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

buy things from us and not from the Jews”; and Potocki added—“We gave them a chance but we found they could not deliver the same goods at the same price, so they lost out in the competition with the Jewish shopkeepers. Then the next step was that the Christian s­hopkeepers complained—why must the Jews do all the business with the estate; and after that—the Jew should go.”

Once again, in FDR’s eyes the essential problem was Jewish ­prominence and domination. The alleged Jewish control of the local economy in Potocki’s village was to blame for Christian shopkeepers demanding that “the Jew should go.” Wise protested, “But, Chief, this is pure Fascist talk. They must find scapegoats to whom to point in order to satisfy the landless and unfed peasantry, and the Jew is the convenient and traditional and historical scapegoat.” Wise’s plea was to no avail; FDR evidently “assented to every word” Potocki had said, according to Wise. “It was,” Wise wrote, “like a blow in the face to have F.D.R. swallow and regurgitate this stuff of Potocki, himself of the landed gentry.”51 Another part of Wise’s memo described his discussion with Roosevelt about the potential for development of Palestine. Oddly, Breitman and Lichtman quote the Palestine portion of the Wise memo but omit the anecdote about Jews controlling the Polish economy.52

51 “Report of Meeting of S.S.W. with F.D.R., Saturday morning, Jan. 22, 1938,” A243/83, SSW-CZA, Jerusalem, 4. The historian Henry Feingold has recounted an uncorroborated incident in which “a German delegation came to see [President Roosevelt] in 1937 to complain that German culture was being transmitted to the German people through Jewish hands and Jewish eyes, that the four redactors of Goethe were Jewish, so were too many symphony orchestra conductors, and so on. Roosevelt shook his head in understanding and advised that a quota system was in order.”; see “FDR and the Holocaust: Did the President Do All He Could to Save European Jewry?” Harvard Club, NYC, May 1997, Leo Baeck Institute Occasional Paper No. 2, pp. 18–19. 52 Breitman and Lichtman, FDR and the Jews, 100. In an e-mail on November 11, 2013, I asked Breitman why he and his coauthor withheld the unflattering part from publication. He did not respond.

104

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

As noted above, Roosevelt made at least four statements, over a period of five years, complaining about Jewish overrepresentation in North Africa, Oregon, Harvard, and Poland. He made four ­additional unflattering statements about Jews’ characteristics or the need to “spread the Jews out thin.” He also made multiple disparaging jokes about Jews. Taken by themselves, these remarks are deeply troubling. They assume greater significance when viewed in the context of FDR’s statements in the 1920s about immigration, race, and assimilation. Those 1920s statements received their first ­ ­comprehensive analysis in Greg Robinson’s 2001 book, By Order of the President.53 To understand Roosevelt’s motives in approving the mass internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, Robinson takes a close look at a long-forgotten newspaper interview FDR gave when he was the 1920 Democratic vice presidential ­candidate, and a series of articles that Roosevelt wrote for the Macon Daily Telegraph in the mid-1920s, when he was living part-time in Warm Springs, Georgia. In the interview, published in the Brooklyn Eagle on July 18, 1920, Roosevelt said he accepted the principle of some ­immigration— provided that the newcomers were dispersed and quickly assimilated: Our main trouble in the past has been that we have permitted the foreign elements to segregate in colonies. They have crowded into one district and they have brought congestion and racial p ­ rejudices to our large cities. The result is that they do not easily conform to the manners and the customs and the requirements of their new home. Now, the remedy for this should be the ­distribution of aliens in various parts of the country. If we had the greater part of the foreign population of the City of New York distributed to different localities upstate we should have a far better condition. Of course, this could not be done by ­legislative enactment. It could only be done by inducement—if better financial conditions

53 Greg Robinson, By Order of the President: FDR and the Internment of Japanese Americans (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001).

105

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

and better living conditions could be offered to the alien dwellers in the cities.54

In a 1923 essay for Asia magazine, focusing on the hot-button issue of Asian immigration to the United States, FDR expressed sympathy for what he said was the widespread view “that the mingling of white with oriental blood on an extensive scale is harmful to our future citizenship.” He added: “As a corollary of this conviction, Americans object to the holding of large amounts of real property, of land, by aliens or those descended from mixed marriages. Frankly, they do not want non-assimilable immigrants as citizens, nor do they desire any extensive proprietorship of land without citizenship.”55 It is evident from the articles he wrote for Asia magazine and the Macon Daily Telegraph that Roosevelt was endorsing the views he cited in his Asia article, rather than merely reporting on trends in public opinion. In his April 21, 1925, column, for example, FDR explained that he did not oppose all immigration; he favored the admission of some Europeans, so long as they had “blood of the right sort.” He endorsed the need to restrict immigration for “a good many years to come” so the United States would have time to “digest” those who had already been admitted. He also proposed limiting subsequent immigration to those who could be most quickly and easily assimilated, including through dispersal around the country. He argued: “If, twenty-five years ago, the United States had adopted a policy of this kind we would not have the huge foreign sections which exist in so many of our cities.”56 In his April 30, 1925, column for the Macon newspaper, Roosevelt wrote: “Californians have properly objected [to Japanese immigration to their state] on the sound basic ground that Japanese immigrants are not capable of assimilation into the American ­population. . . . Anyone who has traveled in the Far East knows that 54 Ibid., 35. 55 Ibid., 38. 56 Ibid.

106

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results.”57

XI. “No Jewish blood” FDR’s references to blood—that is, innate racial or biological ­differences between the races—dovetail with another remark he made about Jews. Published in my FDR and the Holocaust (2013), it derives from a conversation in 1939 between President Roosevelt and Senator Burton Wheeler (D-MT), concerning possible Democratic candidates for president and vice president in 1940. (Roosevelt had not yet declared his intention to seek reelection.) Towards the end of the meeting, the president expressed doubt that a ticket composed of Secretary of State Cordell Hull for president and Democratic National Committee chairman Jim Farley for vice president could be elected. Wheeler responded (according to a memorandum he composed following the meeting): I said to the President someone told me that Mrs. Hull was a Jewess, and I said that the Jewish-Catholic issue would be raised [if Hull was nominated for president, and Farley, a Catholic, was his running mate]. He said, “Mrs. Hull is about one quarter Jewish.” He said, “You and I Burt are old English and Dutch stock. We know who our ancestors are. We know there is no Jewish blood in our veins, but a lot of these people do not know whether there is Jewish blood in their veins or not.”58 57 Ibid., 40. 58 “Confidential—Memo on conference at the White House with the President— August 4, 1939,” Burton K. Wheeler Papers, Box 11: File 18, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. The document was first brought to my attention by my colleague, the late Burton Appleton. As it happens, Wheeler and Roosevelt were both mistaken about Hull’s wife, Rosetta Frances Witz Whitney. She was neither Jewish nor “one quarter Jewish.” Her father, Isaac Witz, was a Jewish immigrant from Austria; her mother was Christian. In the common parlance of those who believed that Jewishness could be numerically quantified, Mrs. Hull would have been considered “half Jewish,” even though she was raised as an Episcopalian; see Irwin F.

107

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

FDR’s concern about bloodlines was an interest that he shared with his mother. “His mother could recite pedigrees from a repertoire that seemed to include half the aristocracy of Europe and all that of the Hudson River Valley,” FDR biographer Frank Freidel wrote. “At least a dozen lines of Mayflower descent converged in Franklin, and Sara could name every one of them. There were times when she thoroughly irritated her daughter-in-law [Eleanor] with her genealogical talk.” Franklin “had effortlessly acquired the ­knowledge from his mother, [and] could as a matter of course plunge into similar recitations,” according to Freidel. “One of the main bodies of knowledge he mastered at Harvard—if one were to judge only by his letters to his mother—was genealogy. He unearthed several Puritan Pomeroys to add to the family records, and wrote an essay on the most famous of his forebears, the rebellious Anne Hutchinson. In 1901, when he was writing a history thesis on the ‘Roosevelts in New Amsterdam,’ he asked his mother to copy for him ‘all the extracts in our old Dutch Bible.’” Even decades later, FDR made much of his ancestors, “whose exploits he recounted frequently in his presidential small talk.” Eleanor Roosevelt’s biographer, Blanche Wiesen Cook, likewise noted: “The Delanos were very proud of their lineage, which Sara could—and did, repeatedly, recite, back to William the Conqueror. The first American de la Noye [Delano], a Huguenot, settled in Plymouth in 1621. . . . She hated, with ­considerable verve and in no particular order, ostentation, vulgarity, shabby politicians, the new resorts of the new rich, and virtually all races, nationalities, and families other than her own.”59 FDR’s disturbing remark about “Jewish blood” would have come to light much sooner had it not been suppressed by a noted pro-Roosevelt historian. The file in the Montana State University archives that contains the Wheeler memorandum also includes two letters to Gellman, Secret Affairs: Franklin Roosevelt, Cordell Hull, and Sumner Welles (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), 25. 59 Frank Freidel, Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Apprenticeship (Boston: Little, Brown, 1952), 5–6; Cook, Eleanor Roosevelt, 1:144–45.

108

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

Wheeler, dated November 30 and December 22, 1959, written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. At the time, Schlesinger was working on The Politics of Upheaval, the final installment of his three-volume history of the New Deal. According to the letters, Sen. Wheeler sent Schlesinger a copy of his 1939 memorandum on the “Jewish blood” conversation with FDR. Schlesinger, after reviewing the memo, commented to Wheeler that the document “offer[s] valuable ­sidelights on history.” Nevertheless, Schlesinger did not quote FDR’s remarks about “Jewish blood” in any of the many books and articles he subsequently wrote about Roosevelt and his era. Remarkably, in one of those articles (published in Newsweek in 1994), Schlesinger specifically defended FDR against any suspicion that he was ­unsympathetic to Jews, and approvingly quoted Trude Lash, the widow of historian Joseph Lash, as saying, “FDR did not have an anti-Semitic bone in his body.” In an exchange of correspondence with me in 2005, Schlesinger insisted that he had done nothing wrong in withholding the “Jewish blood” document from ­publication, since, in his view, Roosevelt’s statement was not a­ ntisemitic. “FDR’s allusion to ‘Jewish blood’ does not seem to me incompatible with Trude Lash’s statement,” he wrote. “It appears to me a neutral comment about people of mixed ancestry.”60 As with Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt’s feelings did not preclude him from having individual Jews as friends, advisers, or cabinet members. (Nor did Sara Roosevelt’s opinions prevent her from speaking at some Jewish-sponsored charity events, and on one occasion attending a synagogue service out of curiosity.) Although several Jews were part of his innermost circle of advisers, Roosevelt’s record on Jewish appointments in general was not especially i­ mpressive. Leonard Dinnerstein has pointed out: “The number of Jews employed [by FDR] in policymaking positions in 60 Schlesinger to Wheeler, November 30, 1959, and December 22, 1959, Burton K. Wheeler Papers, Box 11, File 18, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT; Arthur Schlesinger Jr., “Did FDR Betray the Jews?” Newsweek, April 18, 1994, 14; Schlesinger to Medoff, September 4, 2005, copy in the possession of the author.

109

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

the Departments of State, War, Navy, and Commerce, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Tariff Commission, and the Board of Tax Appeals could probably be counted on one’s fingers and toes.” There was only one Jew in Roosevelt’s cabinet, and only one who reached the level of undersecretary or assistant ­secretary. Only 7 of 192 judicial appointees in FDR’s twelve years in office were Jewish, which was slightly less than the comparable figure for the twelve years of his three Republican predecessors in the White House. The fate of Benjamin V. Cohen illustrates the limits to which Roosevelt’s Jewish advisers were subject. Cohen was useful to FDR as one of the ­architects of New Deal legislation. But the president rejected a suggestion to give Cohen a seat on the Securities and Exchange Commission, and later turned down a proposal to name Cohen assistant secretary of the ­treasury, because of his concern that it would constitute too much Jewish representation there. He did approve a Jewish lawyer, Abe Fortas, as an ­ undersecretary to work under the non-Jewish secretary of the interior, Harold Ickes; but having Cohen alongside the Jewish secretary of the treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr., would be going too far, in Roosevelt’s eyes. FDR’s personal friendship with Morgenthau Jr. seemed genuine, but it too had limits. According to Henry Morgenthau III, the Roosevelts always maintained “a certain distance”; as an example, he noted that “in those days I could not have gone nor would [my parents] even have thought of my going to the same schools that the Roosevelt children went to.”61 As we have seen, FDR’s writings in the 1920s demonstrate that he regarded Asians as having innate racial characteristics that made them untrustworthy. This provided the fundamental justification, 61 Leonard Dinnerstein, “Jews and the New Deal,” American Jewish History 72 (June 1983): 475; Joseph P. Lash, Dealers and Dreamers: A New Look at the New Deal (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), 173–74, 338; William Lasser, Benjamin V. Cohen: Architect of the New Deal (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002), 105–7, 182, 201; Cook, Eleanor Roosevelt, 2:317.

110

Antisemitism in the White House

CHAPTER 3

in his mind, for the mass wartime internment of Japanese Americans, even though actual cases of treason had not been uncovered. Likewise, Roosevelt’s statements over the years about Jewish ­influence and overrepresentation indicate that he looked unfavorably upon what he saw as the innate character traits of Jews. In his mind, Jews were potentially “tricky” and domineering. They tended to “­ overcrowd” many professions and exercise undue influence. They needed to be “spread out thin” so as to keep them in check. His private sentiments shaped his overall vision of what America should look like. The United States should be overwhelmingly white and Protestant, with only a modest number of Catholics and Jews included “on sufferance.” Admitting significant numbers of ­ “non-­ assimilable” Jewish or Asian immigrants did not fit ­comfortably in that vision. A joke about “giving away” millions of American Jews was only a joke; but perhaps the reason it occurred to him at all was that he regarded Jews as somehow extraneous to the true American society. Despite his occasional expressions of sympathy for the Jewish victims of Nazism, President Roosevelt subscribed to a vision of America that had room for only a very small number of them. Permitting any significant increase in Jewish immigration, even within existing laws and even if it would not have attracted public notice, was anathema to FDR because it would have conflicted with his concept of the ideal America. Imposing cumbersome visa requirements that disqualified large numbers of would-be Jewish immigrants during the 1930s and 1940s advanced his vision of America. Although he presented himself to the public as the ­champion of the “little guy,” a man of liberal and humane values who cared about the downtrodden, FDR in fact privately embraced a vision of America that was far from inclusive or welcoming. Unlike Truman and Nixon, whose personal views about Jews do not seem to have adversely affected policy decisions that impacted Jews, Roosevelt’s views on race, assimilation, and Jewish

111

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

c­ haracteristics ultimately played a significant role in bringing about his otherwise inexplicable policy of suppressing Jewish immigration far below the legal limits. Unfortunately, some historians have chosen to withhold documents, or portions of documents, that reflect unfavorably on FDR’s private views. Such actions amount to censorship of portions of the historical record, contravene accepted standards of scholarly research, and have impeded the public’s understanding of the Roosevelt administration’s response to the Holocaust.

112

CHAPTER 4

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955 Stephen H. Norwood

F

 or nearly two decades, from the late 1930s to the mid-1950s, the vitriolic antisemitic propaganda of the Christian Front, a ­ ­predominantly Catholic movement inspired by the radio priest Charles Coughlin, sparked repeated outbreaks of violence against Jews in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Christian Front antisemitism combined ­centuries-old Catholic theological hatred of Jews as deicides with Nazi racial venom. The Christian Front’s ­organized campaign of antisemitic terror included physical violence, desecration of ­synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, damage to Jewish stores and homes, and sexual battery against Jewish girls. Irish-American gangs raided Jewish ­neighborhoods, attacking Jews they encountered with their fists, brass knuckles, stones and bricks, lead pipes, and knives. Before beating their victims, the perpetrators frequently taunted them: “The Jews killed Christ; we’re going to kill you.”1 A non-Jewish ­seventeen-year-old resident of the Bronx in May 1944 informed the New York tabloid PM that the ­antisemitic gangs “beat the [Jewish] boys up bloody,” and “when they catch a Jew-girl they’ll rip her clothes off.”2   1 “Parochial School Anti-Semitism Found,” Countercurrent, September 1944, box 44, I-123, Boston Jewish Community Relations Council [hereafter BJCRC] Papers, American Jewish Historical Society [hereafter AJHS], Boston, MA.   2 PM, May 15, 1944.

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

Coughlin’s virulently antisemitic nationwide weekly radio broadcasts from Royal Oak, Michigan, and his newspaper, Social Justice, helped precipitate such violence, drawing on a hostility toward Jews deeply entrenched in the Irish-American masses. Social Justice was sold in large quantities outside churches, on the streets, and in subway stations in many American cities, until the spring of 1942 when the U.S. attorney general ruled that it was seditious and the postmaster general revoked its second-class mailing privileges. Coughlin ceased publication shortly afterward. His radio program reached several million listeners every week in the late 1930s, over forty-seven stations. Coughlin’s antisemitic fulminations after the Nazis’ Kristallnacht pogroms in November 1938 caused many radio stations to deny him airtime unless he submitted his scripts in advance, which he refused to do. The persistence of Coughlin’s strong grassroots support was reflected in the massive picket lines at radio stations in New York and Philadelphia protesting their refusal to broadcast his program. Despite Coughlin’s departure from public political activity on his archbishop’s directive in 1942, the Christian Front remained an influential force throughout World War II and for a decade after it ended. Formed in 1938 and modeled on Nazi Germany’s storm troopers, the Christian Front aggressively disseminated Axis ­propaganda strongly tinged with antisemitism, before, during, and after World War II. The Front waged an intensive campaign to prevent the United States from supplying economic or military assistance to Britain prior to American entry into the war. Coughlin and the Christian Front portrayed Britain as the world’s most dangerous and tyrannical nation, controlled or strongly influenced by predatory Jews. After the United States joined the Allied war effort, the Christian Front promoted defeatism and disrupted national unity by spreading Nazi-inspired antisemitic propaganda. Wartime commentators drew clear parallels between the Christian Front and Germany’s Nazis. Speaking at a symposium on American fascist movements held at Harvard University in late March 1942, Frances Sweeney, an Irish Catholic who was one of 114

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

Boston’s most vocal and energetic opponents of antisemitism, charged that the Christian Front used “the same language as the Nazis.” Sweeney stated that because the Christian Front commanded so much influence in Boston politics, she had found “great difficulty in finding anyone of importance to oppose it in public.”3 Two months before, a Boston Herald editorial similarly called much of the Christian Front’s propaganda “almost identical to that [of] the Nazis.”4 Radio news commentator Lisa Sergio, a refugee from Mussolini’s Italy “who knew fascism first-hand,” addressing a Brooklyn meeting of the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League in May 1944, urged the audience of 400 women to organize “democratic forces in their neighborhoods” to combat the Christian Front. Sergio compared the Christian Front’s massive support and spreading influence throughout the borough to Germany’s military ­occupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, which had opened the way for Hitler’s invasion of Western Europe.5 She made this analogy to warn that the Front might pave the way for fascism in this country. Other journalists compared the nightly antisemitic harangues that Christian Front activists delivered over loudspeakers on New York City street corners during the late 1930s and World War II to Nazi rants. Alson J. Smith, a Protestant minister who opposed the Christian Front, described most of these speeches as “plain, ­unadulterated incitements to murder.” One speaker urged the killing of all European Jewish refugees entering the United States. Smith noted that Jews in New York who had fled Nazi terror in Europe now heard, behind locked doors, the same ominous threats recently hurled at them in Berlin and Vienna. He reported that after Christian Front street rallies ended, many of those who had attended crowded the subways and ran “up and down the aisles in true hoodlum   3 Harvard Crimson, March 26, 1942.   4 “Community Tension Survey for Dorchester South, Dorchester North, Roxbury and Jamaica Plain,” conducted by the New England Regional Office, AntiDefamation League of B’nai B’rith for the Jewish Community Council of Metropolitan Boston,” Julius Bernstein Papers, Tamiment Library [hereafter TL], New York University [hereafter NYU].   5 New York Post, May 3, 1944.

115

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

fashion, insulting everyone who looks Jewish.” Smith warned that this was “exactly what happened on the Berlin subways before Hitler came into power.”6 The New York Post reported in February 1944 that the city’s subway stations and buses were covered with “vile and abusive” antisemitic graffiti, much of it identical to what Nazi storm troopers painted on walls in Germany. The Post noted that when m ­ aintenance workers removed the antisemitic graffiti, it invariably reappeared within twenty-four hours. The Post quoted a woman who stated that every time she arrived at the 96th Street IND subway station she was “nauseated” by genocidal statements directed against Jews, such as “Destroy the Jews!” and “Kill the kike vermin—Wake up Christians!”7 Nazi influence on the Christian Front was also reflected in its campaign to boycott Jewish stores. On April 1, 1933, shortly after they assumed power in Germany, the Nazis launched a well-­ coordinated one-day national boycott of Jewish stores and offices to demonstrate that they could economically strangle Germany’s Jews. Afterwards, the Nazis enforced boycotts of Jewish businesses in many sections of Germany. Imitating the Nazis’ example, the Christian Front in New York and Boston compiled a “Christian Index” for shoppers that identified “acceptable” stores, not owned by Jews. The Index carried the statement that “Christ Himself” ­sponsored it. Followers of the Christian Front pasted stickers on shop windows, car windshields, and envelopes urging people to boycott Jewish-owned stores. Persons attending Christian Front meetings were asked to sign a pledge to “Buy Christian.”8

  6 Alson J. Smith, The Case against the “Christian” Front: Coughlin’s Storm Troopers (New York: American League for Peace and Democracy, 1939), 3–13. The size of crowds at New York’s nightly Christian Front street corner rallies, staged at numerous locations in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens, ranged from 100 to 600. Nathan Frankel and Byrnes MacDonald to the Mayor. Subject: Activities of Anti-Semitic Groups in New York City, box 1, Simon Gerson Papers, TL, NYU.   7 New York Post, February 5, 1944.   8 Theodore Irwin, “Inside the ‘Christian Front,’” Forum and Century, March 1940, 102, 108.

116

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

Francis Moran, leader of Boston’s Christian Front, devoted portions of his meetings to identifying that city’s Jewish-owned stores so audience members could boycott them. Moran ­recommended that people patronize a Boston store called Raymond’s because it would not hire Jews. Moran praised the owner of Raymond’s because he had included in his will a provision that the store was not to be sold or rented to Jews.9 He urged shoppers to carefully investigate even businesses with a Christian name, because Jewish owners could be using that name as a front. Moran also recommended to anyone forced to buy from a Jew that he or she “weigh all loose materials bought—watch for short weights and complain to the proper authorities.”10 Jews in both Boston and New York complained vociferously about the police’s unwillingness to protect them from antisemitic assault and vandalism. The police forces in both cities were largely composed of Irish Catholics. Even Massachusetts attorney general Robert Bushnell declared in November 1943 that the Boston Police Department had shown no great concern about anti-Jewish violence.11 The previous month, Max Belsky, who published the Dorchester Record in one of Boston’s most heavily Jewish districts, had accused Boston’s police not only of “doing nothing” to stop the antisemitic outrages, but of encouraging them.12 Samuel Margoshes, editor of one of New York’s leading Yiddish newspapers, Der Tog (The Day), stated that the police left Jewish children and the elderly “to fight their own battles the best way they know how against organized gangs inspired and directed by the Christian Front.”13 At a November 1943 mass meeting in Boston called to promote inter-group amity in the city, attended by 2,500 people, the president of the Boston   9 “Christian Front Meeting, July 1, 1940, Hibernian House, Roxbury, Mass.,” box 44, I-123, BJCRC Papers, AJHS. 10 “Report of Christian Front Meeting, Wed. January 13, 1941,” box 44, I-123, BJCRC Papers, AJHS. 11 Robert Bushnell to Governor Leverett Saltonstall, November 23, 1943, carton 9, Leverett Saltonstall Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, MA. 12 PM, October 18, 1943. 13 Der Tog (The Day), October 22, 1943.

117

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

Rabbinical Association, Rabbi Herman Rubenovitz, condemned Police Commissioner Thomas Sullivan’s dismissal of the antisemitic assaults and destruction of Jewish property as “kid stuff,” ordinary juvenile delinquency unrelated to antisemitism.14 New York Post columnist Victor Riesel reported in January 1944 that his newspaper’s “exposure of antisemitic violence throughout the city” had “stirred wide demands for an investigation of the Police Department.” Riesel added that several years before, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover had presented to Mayor Fiorello La Guardia the names of 1,500 city patrolmen who had applied for membership in the Christian Front, but none of them had been discharged. He noted that hundreds of these policemen remained on the force “patrolling the very areas in which the [antisemitic] violence occurred.” Riesel reported that in 1941, Jewish merchants, “accompanied by prominent citizens,” protested to Mayor La Guardia and Police Commissioner Lewis Valentine, a Catholic, about the Christian Front’s picketing their stores as part of the anti-Jewish boycott campaign, but were told that there was nothing they could do. When the merchants complained that the Christian Front pickets and “the thousands of young thugs hawking Coughlin’s Social Justice in heavily populated Jewish areas were inciting to riot with their taunting of Jewish ­passersby,” Valentine “became furious.” The meeting then broke up, “with nothing accomplished.”15 Journalist James Wechsler charged that the NYPD displayed a “fraternal” ­attitude toward the Christian Front, while tolerating beatings of salesmen of the anti-Coughlinite magazine Equality.16 Wallace Stegner reported in the Atlantic Monthly that a truck driver in Boston, transporting Social Justice to a news dealer after the U.S. attorney general had declared it seditious, smashed the camera of a Boston Traveler photographer attempting to take a picture of the delivery. A “helpful policeman” assisted the truck driver by pinioning the photographer’s arms.17 14 Jewish Telegraphic Agency Report, November 29, 1943, Jewish Labor Committee Papers, reel 34, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC. 15 New York Post, January 10, 1944. 16 James Wechsler, “The Coughlin Terror,” Nation, July 22, 1939, 96. 17 Wallace Stegner, “Who Persecutes Boston?” Atlantic Monthly, July 1944, 49.

118

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

Jewish families felt especially vulnerable during the war, when men in the household were often engaged in military service abroad, unable to protect them. In Brooklyn’s East New York section in early 1944, a Jewish woman, deeply upset that her nine-year-old son was beaten by a gang on his way to a Cub Scout meeting because he was a Jew, told the New York Post that her husband, a captain in the U.S. Army Air Forces stationed in England, was fighting “to prevent just such a thing from happening here.”18

Merging Theological and Racial Antisemitism Coughlin began his public anti-Jewish tirades in 1934, combining traditional Christian theological antisemitism with Nazi racial themes. Using the major mass communications media of the 1930s and 1940s, the radio and the press, Coughlin built a cohesive ­grassroots antisemitic movement around the Christian Front, which gained the support and cooperation of other major Jew-hating ­movements, such as the German-American Bund and the antiwar Mothers’ groups. Coughlin also had a significant following within the Catholic Church hierarchy, and among priests and teachers in both parochial and public schools, who transmitted his views to vast numbers of American Catholics. The newspaper of the Catholic diocese of Brooklyn, The Tablet, and leading Irish-American ­newspapers like New York’s Gaelic-American also disseminated Coughlin’s views about Jews and the conflict between the Allies and the Axis. The Tablet was sold at Christian Front meetings in Boston as well as New York, along with Social Justice. The bishop of Brooklyn, Thomas E. Molloy, was called the “Bishop of the Christian Front.” One of Coughlin’s top lieutenants, the Rev. Edward Lodge Curran of Brooklyn, known as the “Father Coughlin of the East,” wrote r­egularly for The Tablet and the Gaelic-American, as well as for Social Justice. In the spring of 1934, Coughlin’s vicious antisemitism drew condemnation from the American Jewish press when he mixed images from the Christian Bible of Jewish deicide, fearsome 18 New York Post, January 5, 1944.

119

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

power, criminality, disloyalty, and unbridled greed in a radio rant against U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr., a Jew. Coughlin identified Jewish bankers (Rothschilds) with Jewish leaders he alleged had ordered Jesus’s crucifixion (Caiaphases) and America’s most notorious bank robber (John Dillinger). The radio priest denounced “the financial Caiaphases of today who follow the prescription of the elder Rothschild— when he said, ‘Give me the gold and I will control the world.’” Coughlin referred to the p ­ rominent Jewish banking families, the “European Warburgs [and] the Rothschilds” and “the rest of that group,” as “financial Dillingers” and “internationalists,” a term antisemites used to claim that Jews were not loyal to the nations in which they lived.19 The Detroit Jewish Chronicle on May 18, 1934, detected “the evil odor of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’” in Coughlin’s diatribes, which it compared to “Nazi Jew-baiting.” The Jewish Chronicle predicted that he would soon be “broadcasting to his radio audience stories of gigantic secret plots of world Jewry to destroy Christendom and to dominate the world.”20 Indeed, in the summer of 1938 Coughlin began devoting his columns in Social Justice, begun in 1936, to presenting one or two of the Protocols every week. Forged by the Russian czarist secret police at the turn of the twentieth century, the Protocols were purported by antisemites to be transcripts of conversations by Jewish leaders at the first Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897, in which they laid plans for taking over the world. Germany’s Nazis embraced the Protocols and distributed them widely. Coughlin and other Social Justice contributors, in a lengthy series of articles, claimed that the plans of the Elders of Zion had been largely or entirely fulfilled, with Jews having achieved control of world capitalism and the Communist movement, the press, and the radio and film industries.21 19 Jewish Chronicle (Detroit), May 4 and 18, 1934. 20 Ibid., May 18, 1934. 21 See Social Justice issues of July 18 and 25, August 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29, September 12 and 19, and October 3, 1938.

120

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

Coughlin and Christian Front leaders drew heavily on ­traditional Christian theology to justify the persecution of the Jews, arguing that it was deserved because they were deicides. In a 1939 Social Justice two-part article, “Ben Marcin,” a pseudonym used by Coughlin and other members of the magazine’s staff, stated that the Jews were cursed because they had rejected Jesus as the Messiah. The Jews had insulted Jesus, calling him “malefactor, liar . . . consorter with sinners.” They chose a “thief,” Barabbas, over Jesus when Pontius Pilate asked them to choose between the two, and then had Jesus crucified. Contemporary Jews’ immorality, including their leadership of Communist movements and revolutions in Russia and Hungary, usury, and making salacious movies provided additional reasons for persecution.22 Another Social Justice article published earlier that year claimed that “the majority of the first century Jews took the side of Satan against Christ.”23 In a pamphlet entitled The Christian Front, written to familiarize Americans with the organization’s outlook, the Rev. Edward F. Brophy, a Coughlinite priest at Precious Blood church in New York, e­ mphasized that the Jews’ deicide justified antisemitism. He quoted St. John the Evangelist: “Jesus walked in Galilee, for He would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.” Brophy explained that the Gospels assigned responsibility for Jesus’s murder to the Jews. The high priests determined to “apprehend Jesus and put Him to death,” sending “a great multitude of Jews with swords and clubs” to bring Jesus to Caiaphas. The Jews forced the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, to carry out the crucifixion. When Pilate announced that he was “innocent of the blood of this just man,” the Jews “hurled back” the reply: “His Blood be upon us and on our c­ hildren,” meaning that all Jews down through the centuries were Christ-killers. Brophy emphasized that because the Jews had rejected “God’s plan” that they “submit” to Jesus, and instead committed deicide, they no longer had legitimacy as a people. Yet they remain tribalistic and selfish, unassimilable in the United States, “a Christian nation.” 22 Social Justice, August 28 and October 2, 1939. 23 Ibid., February 13, 1939.

121

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

The Jews used their enormous influence in almost every sphere of American life to advance “their own separate interests.” Their control of finance and advertising allowed them to shape the editorial ­policies of the newspapers and radio.24 Coughlin and the Christian Front maintained that Jews’ ­rejection of Jesus and their commitment to the Talmud revealed their moral deficiency. They claimed that Jews believed that moral standards did not govern their relations with non-Jews, allowing them to exploit Christians and treat them with disdain. In a 1936 speech in Cleveland, Coughlin declared that unless they learned to feel compassion, Jews could never appreciate the “principles of social justice.” They must abandon their vengeful demand for “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” and accept [Jesus’s] doctrine of “love your neighbor as thyself”—which, unbeknownst to Coughlin, Rabbi Hillel had taught a century before Jesus.25 Social Justice instructed that the Talmud encouraged Jews to mistreat Christians, which further justified their persecution. It explained that the French King Louis IX (later St. Louis) had ­“determined to ascertain for himself the cause of the complaints and bitter animosities against the Jews.” In 1240, he presided over an examination of the Talmud, translated by a converted Jew. Louis IX invited four rabbis to participate, and gave them “every ­opportunity” to defend the Talmud. But after prolonged debate, the rabbis “were forced to admit . . . that the Talmud contained precepts, not only contrary to the good of Christian society, but of every civilized society.” He thereupon ordered all copies of the Talmud burned.26 Francis Moran, addressing a largely Irish-American audience, estimated by an undercover Jewish observer as numbering 550 to 600, on July 1, 1940, declared that “Talmudic Jews’ sole aim and purpose is to do away with all Christians” and make Judaism the only religion.27 At a Christian Front meeting in Medford, Massachusetts, 24 Rev. Edward F. Brophy, The Christian Front [no publisher, no date], 14, 19, 27, 41, 44–46. 25 Social Justice, August 31, 1936. 26 Ibid., February 12, 1940, 9. 27 “Christian Front Meeting, July 1, 1940.”

122

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

that year, Moran declared that 90 percent of American Jews were traitors because they adhered to “Talmudic doctrines,” which meant they felt no connection to Christian citizens, viewing them only as targets for exploitation.28 Many Irish-American Catholics who violently assaulted Jews and desecrated synagogues had heard the same fulminations against deicidal Jews that Coughlin presented on the radio and in Social Justice in their parochial schools and churches. During World War II, the Textbook Commission to Eliminate Anti-Semitic Statements in American Textbooks, based in New York City, compiled a list of antisemitic passages in American parochial school Bible history textbooks and catechisms. The Textbook Commission was established in late 1942 by liberal Protestants, including Paul Tillich, anti-Nazi journalists Pierre van Paassen and Lisa Sergio, and Adam Clayton Powell. The commission declared that World War II “differs from all other wars in that anti-Semitism is an integral part of it.” It emphasized that rapidly spreading antisemitism, “the ‘flamethrower of antidemocracy,’” threatened to undermine the American war effort. The Textbook Commission took out large ads in major metropolitan newspapers, headlined “Smash Anti-Semitism,” which reproduced a letter from the Rev. W. Ellis Davies: “The Jewish ­children of Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan have lived through a veritable terror. Young hoodlums from [Irish-American] South Boston vented their violent hatred of Jews by waylaying little ­children and frightened youths and subjecting them to brutal beatings. The police not only were uncooperative in efforts to halt this incipient pogrom, but actually safeguarded the young gangsters against ­apprehension.” 29 The commission highlighted how many parochial school ­textbooks and catechisms instilled intense hatred toward Jews by depicting them as cursed by God to wander the earth in misery until the end of time for committing the most horrific crime in history, 28 “Is Frank Moran a Fifth Columnist?” box 56, I-123, BJCRC Papers, AJHS, Boston. 29 Washington Post, December 1, 1942, and December 29, 1943.

123

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

the murder of Jesus. For example, Bible History by the Right Rev. Richard Gilmour, D.D., bishop of Cleveland, last copyrighted in 1936, instructed: “The murdered Abel is a figure of Jesus Christ, while Cain is a figure of the traitor Judas and the Jewish people, who put our Saviour to death.” And, “For eighteen hundred years has the blood of Christ been upon the Jews. Driven from Judea . . . hated, yet feared . . . they have wandered from Nation to Nation, bearing with them the visible sign of God’s curse. Like Cain, marked with a mysterious sign, they shall continue to wander till the end of the world.” The Illustrated Bible History of the Old and New Testaments for the Use of Catholic Schools (1932) similarly explained that “the ­innocent Abel slain by his envious brother is a figure of Christ, who was put to death through the malice of the Jews.” The Compendium of Church History: Compiled for Use in Catholic Schools (1911) by the Sisters of Notre Dame, the nuns’ order with primary responsibility for teaching parochial school girls, described Jews as “rejected by God.” It explained that God used the Romans to destroy the Temple and exile the “guilty nation” from their land forever. By inflicting this punishment, God “avenged the blood of the Prophets” slain by the Jews, “as well as that of the world’s Redeemer and of His saints.” The Catholic Catechism by “His Eminence Cardinal Gasparri” stated that God broke his Covenant with the “ungrateful” Jews because “they rejected and cruelly put to death the Redeemer of all mankind.”30 Jews’ alleged efforts to undermine American society’s moral fabric in order to achieve national and world domination was a central theme in Christian Front propaganda, as in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Francis Moran, presenting a “history of the Jewish people” to a Boston Christian Front meeting in November 1940, declared that the allegedly Jewish-controlled magazine-publishing and movie industries provided an example of low Jewish morals. He also identified loan sharks who charged exorbitant rates of interest

30 Research Department, Textbook Commission to Eliminate Anti-Semitic Statements in American Textbooks, “A Root of Intolerance,” box 70, I-123, BJCRC Papers, AJHS.

124

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

as Jewish.31 The Rev. Edward Brophy, addressing the Boston Christian Front the previous month, denounced the entertainment at New York’s 1939–40 World’s Fair as “of a lurid and salacious nature,” and explained that it “undoubtedly was put on by Jews.”32 Christian Front leaders and activists, like the Nazis, not only drew on millennia-old Christian theological accusations to defame the Jews, but also denigrated them as physically grotesque racial inferiors. Francis Moran, presiding at a Christian Front meeting in Boston on December 1, 1941, displayed a cartoon showing several people in a government office lobby, which a young man in the audience had given him. Above the cartoon the man had written, “How many Christian faces do you see here?” After reading the caption, Moran declared: “No Christian faces; and the noses are so big that you can’t see the faces behind them.”33 In October 1938, a Christian Front member was arrested in New York for pasting to a subway pillar a caricature of the Statue of Liberty with a big nose, and the words: “Clean Up America! Break the Red Plague! Boycott the Jew!” When arrested, the man had 150 of the caricatures with him, obtained at a Christian Front meeting.34

Coughlinite Anti-Zionism Coughlin and the Christian Front were aggressively anti-Zionist, consistently backing Arab efforts to block Jewish immigration into Palestine. Zionism, according to Social Justice, was part of the Jewish scheme to achieve world domination described in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. A Jewish state in Palestine would solidify the parasitic Rothschilds’ control of the Suez Canal, allowing them to impose heavier tolls on shipping and bleed the world’s commerce. (Coughlin claimed that the Rothschilds masked their ownership of the canal 31 “Report on Christian Front Meeting, November 25, 1940, Hibernian Hall, Roxbury,” box 44, I-123, BJCRC Papers, AJHS. 32 “Christian Front Report—October 28, 1940, Hibernian Hall, Roxbury,” box 44, I-123, BJCRC Papers, AJHS. 33 “Christian Front Meeting, December 1, 1941.” 34 New York Times, October 30, 1938.

125

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

behind a French corporation.) Social Justice reported that Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, had predicted in 1897, at the First Zionist Congress in Basel, the coming of the World War and the resulting collapse of the Ottoman Empire, with Palestine falling under the control of a Jewish-dominated Britain. As the Chosen People, the Jews were determined, after securing Palestine, to “sweep away all other forms of belief,” as they would wherever they ruled. Moran informed a Christian Front meeting in 1940 that Herzl had intended to establish a Jewish nation in Palestine with a “Jewish papacy,” telling the audience, “you know what that means”— the abolition of the Vatican and Catholicism. Moran offered $1,000 to any rabbi who would debate this with him.35 Jewish control of the British government explained what Coughlin described as its willingness to allow Palestine to be ­inundated with Jewish immigrants “collected from the four corners of the globe.” Coughlin charged that Herzl had in 1895 embraced a plan to expropriate the English aristocracy by imposing excessive taxes on land, in order to undermine its ability to protect the English people against the Jews’ “usurious domination.” He noted that “the same idea is found in the Sixth Protocol.” By the 1930s, the British House of Commons had come to resemble “a Yiddish assembly.” It allowed Jews to appropriate massive quantities of Arab land and to deprive Arabs in Palestine of any rights.36

Justifying Nazi Barbarism The Christian Front assumed a leading role in the campaign to prevent American entry in World War II, and after the United States intervened, spread defeatist propaganda laced with antisemitism, much of it imported from Nazi Germany. It helped the Axis present its case to Americans before U.S. entry into the war, not only trivializing, but often justifying, Nazi persecution of Jews and ­ 35 Social Justice, April 4, September 12, October 3, November 14, 1938; “Christian Front Meeting, July 1, 1940.” 36 Social Justice, July 18 and November 14 and 28, 1938.

126

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

defending Hitler’s foreign policy, as well as Mussolini’s and Japan’s. After the United States joined the Allied war effort, the Christian Front sharply criticized the sending of American troops to the European theater, and pressed for a negotiated peace with Germany. From the time it was established, the Christian Front ­cooperated closely with the German-American Bund, which had been ­championing Nazi Germany’s cause in the United States for several years. German-American Bund “Fuehrer” Fritz Kuhn stated that Social Justice was “standard reading” in the Bund’s many youth camps.37 The Bund had an especially large following in New York City, Long Island, and northern New Jersey, and was also significant in Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles. It assaulted Jews and harassed Jewish merchants. The Friends of the New Germany, the pro-Nazi organization from which the Bund evolved, had originated the boycott of Jewish stores in the United States in 1934, establishing a group called the Deutsch-Americakanischer Wirtshafts-Ausschuss (DAWA), or German-American Business League, to promote and enforce it. The DAWA published a predecessor of the Christian Front’s “Christian Index”: a guide listing Christian-owned stores that refused to purchase merchandise from firms that boycotted German goods. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that in Yorkville, New York’s largely German-American district, Jewish stores “are boycotted quite as thoroughly as in Germany.” The Bund’s boycott and threats of violence drove many of the Jewish merchants in Yorkville out of business.38 The Christian Front denounced the boycott of German goods and services by Jewish and other anti-Nazi groups that began in 1933 in supersessionary terms, celebrating Christian compassion and forgiveness over Judaism’s cruelty and vindictiveness. The Tablet, which printed Coughlin’s Sunday radio broadcasts in full every week, in 1939 claimed that the boycott against Hitler’s Germany was based on the concept “hate your neighbor” instead of what Jesus 37 Boston Globe, January 24, 1940. 38 New York Times, May 9, 1934; “Jewish Merchants in Yorkville Ruined as DAWA Presses War,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 13, 1934.

127

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

taught, “love your neighbor.” The Tablet accused Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, honorary president of the American Jewish Congress and a leader of the anti-Nazi boycott movement, of condemning to starvation “80 million innocent German people through the ­ boycott.” In 1942, Social Justice blamed the Jews for starting World War II by launching the boycott of German goods and services in 1933, a “sacred war” against “not only Hitler and his two million Nazis but against the more than 40 million [German] Catholics and Protestants . . . whose very existence” depended on trade with the rest of the world.39 From the time Coughlin began publishing Social Justice in 1936, he expressed support for Nazi Germany’s foreign and domestic ­policies in often flagrantly antisemitic language, as did the Christian Front. Social Justice praised Hitler’s attack on the West’s “Shylock diplomacy” at Versailles, which had “robbed Germany of her ­colonies and thus of her means for healthy commercial and racial expansion.” Hitler’s rearmament program was justified because Germany needed protection against the predatory British and French. In 1936, Social Justice denounced “Jewish propaganda” for misleading Americans about Hitler, “Europe’s bitterest foe of Communism,” who had restored German unity and greatness. It credited the Führer with ending unemployment, reducing taxes, and taking measures to increase Germany’s fertility rate.40 At a Boston Christian Front meeting on July 1, 1940, after Germany’s conquest of Western Europe, Moran justified Hitler’s aggression as designed not only to recover German territory stripped away at Versailles but “to break the back bone of these international [Jewish-controlled] bankers.” Expecting Germany to quickly conquer England, Moran declared: “The last stronghold of these ­international bankers is right here in this country, and that too will be broken.”41 Social Justice emphasized that the Rome–Berlin Axis was “serving Christendom in a peculiarly important manner,” whereas the 39 The Tablet, May 20, 1939; Social Justice, March 16, 1942. 40 Social Justice, April 3 and December 7, 1936, and April 24, 1939. 41 “Christian Front Meeting, July 1, 1940.”

128

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

Western democracies were controlled by Jews. It declared that “Germany is a more Christian nation than the United States.”42 The Gaelic-American in November 1940 approvingly quoted the Spanish Fascist newspaper Alazar’s boast that “in the Third Reich all the Catholic churches are open the entire day”—there were sixty of them in Berlin alone. Alazar appreciated that in occupied France, German military authorities had placed posters on the church doors “announcing the hours of Masses for the soldiers.” The Wehrmacht made sure that soldiers regularly attended church. The reporter provided “further proof” of Nazi Germany’s “respect for the Church,” explaining that “in the entire section of French occupied territory through which we passed, we did not see a single destroyed church.”43 Social Justice praised Italy’s Fascist revolution for liberating the pope, whom republican governments had made “a prisoner in the Vatican,” and restoring Catholicism to the schools. It credited Benito Mussolini for his effort to end miscegenation in the conquered land of Ethiopia. He had, it noted, accomplished this over strong opposition from Italy’s Jews, many of them refugees from Nazi Germany.44 By contrast, France’s democratic Popular Front government under Prime Minster Léon Blum, a Jew, treated the Church with contempt and encouraged the “pagan practice of Birth Control,” which “sapped the virility of the French nation,” leaving it unable to withstand invasion by more populous Germany in 1940. The GaelicAmerican labeled Blum a “moral degenerate.” Denouncing Blum in 1936, Social Justice declared: “Behold the eldest daughter of the Church, prostrate and victimized by the youngest son of hell!”45 The Christian Front claimed that Britain was far more ­oppressive than Nazi Germany, largely because of Jewish control of its ­government and aristocracy. The Gaelic-American declared that England had by 42 Social Justice, April 10, 1939. 43 Gaelic-American, November 9, 1940. 44 Social Justice, March 27 and April 3, 1939. Moran, in a lecture on Italy at a Boston Christian Front meeting, praised Mussolini as “the greatest benefactor of Italy since Julius Caesar” (“Christian Front Meeting, December 1, 1941”). 45 The Tablet, October 26, 1940; Gaelic-American, July 6, 1940; Social Justice, March 27, 1939; July 13, 1936.

129

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

“bloodshed and rapine . . . fasten[ed] its tentacles on one-quarter of the earth’s surface,” and therefore was in no position to criticize Germany’s military actions. The paper favorably quoted U.S. Sen. Worth Clark, who in October 1939, after the German conquest of Poland, denounced the “mighty empires,” Britain and France, for refusing to negotiate with Germany. In December 1940, the GaelicAmerican called the war between the Allies and the Axis “England’s War of Aggression.” In August 1940, during the Battle of Britain, when England’s plight was desperate, it declared that “for centuries England’s crimes have cried to heaven for vengeance.” The GaelicAmerican now hoped for England’s “utter defeat,” which would give “downtrodden peoples” justice and “usher in world peace.”46 Moran explained at a Boston Christian Front meeting on January 13, 1941, that the war in Europe was “being fought by Christians against Christians for the benefit of non-Christians [meaning Jews] who control England” and were “running and ruining the U.S. government.” In July 1940, Moran claimed to have evidence “to prove that no statements can be made from the pulpit in all of England unless first approved by a certain committee in Parliament,” which had been established by Jews in high places. The non-Christians ruling England appointed Lord Halifax to be Britain’s ambassador to the United States, rather than the pro-Nazi Duke of Windsor, because Halifax’s secretary was related to the Rothschilds. Members of the British nobility were either Jews or related to Jews by marriage. According to Moran, even Prime Minister Churchill was one-quarter Jewish. He was certain that Jews high in the British government made sure that Jews were not sent to fight at the front.47

46 Gaelic-American, October 21, 1939, and January 6, August 17, and December 7, 1940. 47 “Christian Front Meeting, July 1, 1940”; “Report of Christian Front Meeting, January 13, 1941”; “The Christian Front of America to the American Congress (Open Letter), October 21, 1940”; “Report on Christian Front Meeting at Colonial Hall, Medford Square, May 24, 1940,” box 44, I-123, BJCRC Papers, AJHS.

130

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

Moran denounced President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he referred to as “Rosenfeld,” as a Jew, and in 1941 demanded his impeachment for overriding the popular will and pushing the United States into the European war and an alliance with the Soviet Union. He denied that the United States was a democracy by deriding Roosevelt as “His Dictatorial Excellency.” Nazi propaganda broadcasts to the United States from Germany often charged that Roosevelt was Jewish or of Jewish ancestry. The Christian Front joined the America First Committee in aggressively lobbying against Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease legislation.48 The Coughlinite press trivialized Nazi Germany’s antisemitic persecution, claiming that until the Kristallnacht pogroms (unleashed across Germany by the Nazis on the night of November 9/10, 1938), it was directed mostly against foreign-born Jews, and was not appreciably different from that suffered by German Catholics and Protestants. Shortly after Kristallnacht, The Tablet published an article claiming that “the Catholic persecution [in Germany] far outruns the Jewish.” But Jewish control of the American media ensured that they would blow Nazi measures against Jews out of all proportion. Coughlin insisted that the Hitler government’s forcing Germany’s Jews to pay a $400 million fine as compensation for the damage the Nazis caused in destroying all of Germany’s synagogues and thousands of Jewish-owned stores during Kristallnacht was mild punishment compared to the $40 billion (a grossly exaggerated figure) that the “Jewish” government of the Soviet Union had extracted from Russia’s Christians.49 48 Francis P. Moran to Every Christian American, June 30, 1941, box 62, I-123, BJCRC Papers; “Report on Christian Front Meeting Held November 8, 1939,” and “Christian Front Meeting, January 27, 1941,” box 44, I-123, BJCRC Papers, AJHS; “Is Frank Moran a Fifth Columnist?”; Donald Warren, Radio Priest: Charles Coughlin, The Father of Hate Radio (New York: Free Press, 1996), 141. Moran also declared that the real name of Roosevelt’s secretary of labor, Frances Perkins, was Borofsky. “Is Frank Moran a Fifth Columnist?” On February 27, 1939, Social Justice printed a letter to the editor from a reader who praised Nazi leader Hermann Göring’s wisecrack that Roosevelt was “the Charlie McCarthy of the Jews.” 49 The Tablet, November 26 and December 17, 1938; Rev. Charles Coughlin, “Am I an Anti-Semite?” (Detroit: Condon, 1939), 36, 42, box 22, Anti-Semitic

131

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

Coughlin justified the Hitler government’s antisemitism by calling Nazism “a political defense mechanism against Communism,” which he identified as a Jewish-dominated movement. He asserted that “of the 25 quasi-cabinet members of the Soviet republic in 1917, 24 . . . were atheistic Jews” and that “the Jewish bankers, Kuhn, Loeb” helped finance the Bolshevik Revolution. Between 1917 and 1938, the “Jewish-dominated” Soviet regime murdered “more than twenty million Christians.” Coughlin conceded only that Jews had been expelled from Nazi Germany, but added that “since the time of Christ, Jewish persecution only followed after Christians first were persecuted.”50 Shortly after Kristallnacht, the Hitler government praised Coughlin for characterizing Nazism as a necessary “defensive front” against Communism. It accused the radio stations that removed Coughlin’s program of “Jewish terrorism of American public opinion.”51 Moran, speaking on “the Jewish question” to a standing-roomonly crowd of 500 to 600 in Boston on July 1, 1940, declared that “all the stories about the murders and attacks” on Germany’s Jews were “lies and mere propaganda.” He allowed that the Nazis had confiscated some Jewish property, but explained that was justified because Jews owned “sixty percent” of Germany’s wealth: “There had to be a reckoning [with the Jews]—a restoration of balance.”52 Coughlin and the Christian Front justified Hitler’s e­ xpansionism, endorsing his argument that the Versailles Treaty had unfairly turned Germany into a “have-not” nation with insufficient land and resources. They praised Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement; Social Justice hailed him as an outstanding statesman. It mocked the “crowd of . . . Reds, predominantly Jewish,” at the London airport who Literature Collection, P-701, American Jewish Historical Society, Center for Jewish History, New York. 50 Coughlin, “Am I an Anti-Semite?” 37, 40–41. 51 Louis W. Bondy, Racketeers of Hatred: Julius Streicher and the Jew-Baiters International (London: Newman Wolsey, 1946), 236; New York Times, November 27, 1938. 52 “Christian Front Meeting, July 1, 1940.”

132

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

shouted “Stand by Czechoslovakia!” at Chamberlain as he flew off to Munich to meet with Hitler about Germany’s demand for the Sude­ tenland. Coughlin’s magazine praised Hitler for reviving the hopes of Czechoslovakia’s “dispirited minorities,” living under the Czech “yoke.” Czechoslovakia, an “entirely artificial country,” was another of Versailles’s mistakes. Moran told a Boston Christian Front meeting in 1941 that by taking over Czechoslovakia, Germany had freed it from being a British vassal. He said the Czechs had tortured the Sudeten Germans. Moran supported Hitler’s invasion of Poland as necessary to provide Germany with a buffer against Soviet attack.53 In September 1939, after Germany’s invasion of Poland, the Rev. Edward Lodge Curran, of Brooklyn, one of Coughlin’s closest associates, launched a “nationwide anti-war crusade” under the auspices of his International Catholic Truth Society. Curran urged a boycott of any newspaper that advocated U.S. intervention in the war in Europe and demanded that a national plebiscite be conducted before any declaration of war.54 In November and December 1939, the Christian Front set up mass picket lines in Boston and Brooklyn denouncing lectures by Alfred Duff Cooper, former First Lord of the British Admiralty, who resigned from Chamberlain’s government in protest of the Munich Agreement. Duff Cooper explained to his American audiences that Britain had gone to war against the Nazis to “preserve her own liberty [and] that of suppressed nations and minorities.” The Christian Front pickets carried signs and distributed handbills reviling him as a “war propagandist” and telling England “to fight her own wars.”55 The Boston Christian Front screened Nazi Germany’s propaganda film Sieg im Westen (Victory in the West), celebrating the Wehrmacht’s 1940 conquest of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, at least three times during 1941, to largely Irish-American audiences 53 Social Justice, September 26 and October 3, 1938; “Christian Front Meeting, August 4, 1941,” box 44, I-123, BJCRC Papers. 54 The Tablet, September 9, 1939, and March 22, 1941. 55 Boston Globe, November 29, 1939, and New York Times, December 14, 1939.

133

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

of 500 to 800 in Hibernian Hall, Roxbury. The Boston Globe noted that the Hitler government had shown Sieg im Westen abroad to intimidate the Norwegian, Danish, and Yugoslav governments before invasion by presenting the Wehrmacht as unbeatable. An undercover Jewish observer who attended a showing reported that Moran provided a running commentary “on the decadence of the democracies and the invincibility of the Nazis.” Moran urged the audience to describe the film “to their friends in the U.S. army to impress upon them the impossibility of any nation defeating the German army.” He explained the war in antisemitic terms, as “a racket” for the “Roosevelt-Rothschild-Lehman families.” Another Jewish observer at an August 1941 showing of Sieg im Westen noted that whenever Adolf Hitler appeared on screen, “there was an immediate round of applause,” and when the film ended with the French surrender at Compiègne, with the Führer declaring that Germany’s victory was for the common people, the audience cheered. By contrast, whenever Winston Churchill appeared on screen, the audience booed.56 Moran endorsed Sieg im Westen’s portrayal of Wehrmacht troops as warriors for Christianity. When German soldiers were shown in a church, Moran told the audience, “These people are supposed to be barbarians—but look at this!” He proceeded to read from the English translation of the script: “Due to the valiant efforts of the German soldiers this cathedral was saved from utter ruin and destruction.”57 The Coughlinite Gaelic-American also celebrated the Nazi ­blitzkrieg in the West. It recommended the Hitler government’s propaganda film Blitzkrieg im Westen, which showed the fall of Rotterdam and the Wehrmacht outflanking the “supposedly ­impregnable Maginot line,” rolling into northern France, sweeping away all opposition. The Gaelic-American ridiculed “Churchill’s cream puffs,” who “took to their boats” at Dunkirk “so fast they left 56 “Christian Front Meeting, August 4, 1941”; Boston Globe, June 3, 1941; Francis P. Moran, “An Open Letter to the Public,” June 6, 1941, box 44, I-123, BJCRC Papers. 57 “Christian Front Meeting, August 4, 1941.”

134

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

their playthings behind.” Given the British troops’ “poor showing at Dunkirk,” it made no sense for poorly prepared America to enter the war and “fight their battle for them” against the formidable Germans.58 The Christian Front celebrated Hitler’s conquest of France and the fascist puppet government at Vichy headed by Marshal Philippe Pétain, who had made “an honorable peace” and restored stable government, lacking since 1789. Under the Third Republic, France, “the eldest daughter of the Church,” had become “atheistic,” ­dominated by “international intrigue” (a euphemism for Jewish financiers), facing the “constant threat of Communism.” France had “need[ed] a house cleaning.” The Free French in London, under Charles de Gaulle, were “the worst enemies of the Catholic Church.”59 In early June 1941, the Boston Christian Front issued a flier expressing outrage that allegedly Jewish-controlled American radio stations refused to broadcast a Hitler speech presenting Nazi Germany’s “side of the story,” which was “decent and fair in comparison with the blood-thirsty ravings of Churchill.” The ­ Christian Front would not allow “Christian-haters” to force ­“censorship down our throats.”60 Moran responded to Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, by declaring, “To the one national leader who had the courage to challenge” the Soviet Union “to a fight to the death, we say: HEIL HITLER!” By contrast, President Roosevelt and his “stooges” were preparing to “aid the Red foes of Christ.”61 The Christian Front vociferously denounced conscription, which the United States introduced in early 1941, claiming that an Allied victory in the European war would result in a Communist takeover of this country. This was the scenario that Social Justice presented. On July 1, 1940, Moran declared: “The Jews start the war, 58 Gaelic-American, January 18, 1941 and October 19, 1940. 59 The Tablet, July 20, 1940, and February 15, 1941; Social Justice, June 17 and July 22, 1940; Gaelic-American, July 13, 1940. 60 Christian Front, “To Conscript Americans,” June 9, 1941, box 44, I-123, BJCRC Papers. 61 Francis P. Moran to Every Christian American.

135

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

propose conscription of our boys, wanting us to fight their battles for them.” In June 1941, the Christian Front addressed a flier to “Conscript Americans,” informing them that while they “died on foreign battlefields” Jewish refugees, the “scum of Europe,” would take their jobs. The Christian Front called for a ban on the ­admission of Jewish refugees to the United States. The flier claimed the Central Conference of American Rabbis had recently presented to the U.S. Congress a resolution to exempt “all Jews from military service in event of war.”62 After the United States entered World War II in December 1941, the Christian Front disparaged America’s allies, continued to ­disseminate vicious antisemitic propaganda, much of it supplied by Nazi Germany, and spread defeatism. The U.S. attorney general, Francis Biddle, in April 1942 denounced Social Justice for “its systematic and unscrupulous attack upon the war effort of our ­ nation.” The government presented evidence that Social Justice had “repeated the propaganda line of the Axis” both before and after U.S. entry into the war. Biddle charged Social Justice with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, citing sixteen specific seditious ­statements from recent issues. The U.S. postmaster general withdrew the ­magazine’s second-class mailing privileges, citing its endorsement of “enemy propaganda themes,” including the claim that “­ international bankers” (a e­ uphemism for Jews) had caused the war and controlled the U.S. and British governments. As a result, Social Justice ceased publication in May 1942.63 In February 1942, the Boston police commissioner announced that his force had seized from Moran a vast assortment of subversive material, including 8,000 books published by Flanders Hall, Nazi Germany’s publishing outlet in the United States. Moran’s files contained publications of the German Library of Information, an 62 Social Justice, November 13, 1939; “Christian Front Meeting, July 1, 1940”; Christian Front, “To Conscript Americans”; “Report of Christian Front Meeting, January 13, 1941.” 63 New York Times, April 15, 19, and 26, and May 5, 1942; Washington Post, April 15, 1942.

136

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

arm of the Hitler government that distributed Nazi propaganda in this country, the German-American Bund, the French and Spanish Fascists, and the Japanese government. Correspondence in the files revealed Moran’s close collaboration with Coughlin.64 Frances Sweeney, monitoring a speech of Rev. Curran before 3,000 people in Boston on March 3, 1942, emphasized that the audience shared the Brooklyn priest’s disdain for the Allied cause. The speech was sponsored by the Central Council of Irish County Clubs. Curran denied that the Allies were fighting for democracy. He urged the United States to focus on defending its own shores and to keep its navy at home. Curran denounced “750 years of totalitarian British government,” and accused England of persecuting Catholics in Northern Ireland with the “most brutal, most horrible penal code of any country in the world.” Ridiculing Anglo-American claims of moral superiority over the Axis, after every three or four sentences the priest sneered: “and they talk of the four freedoms.” Sweeney highlighted Curran’s antisemitism, citing his warning that a “racial or religious minority”—meaning the Jews—could exploit the war to advance its own interests at the nation’s expense. Such “wedgedriving” benefited the Axis by disrupting national unity. Sweeney pointed out that prominent Boston political, business, and religious leaders legitimized Curran’s rant. She reported that the acting mayor, Thomas Linnehan, president of the city council, who spoke briefly before Curran, proclaimed his support for Irish neutrality. Sweeney expressed disgust that “an Acting Mayor, leading industrialists and clergy sat silent through [Curran’s] attack” on America’s closest ally. PM stated that the mayor of Cambridge, the district attorney of Suffolk County (Boston), and the president of the New England division of the A & P Company joined Boston’s acting mayor on the platform applauding Curran’s remarks.65 Although Coughlin was forced to withdraw from political activity in 1942, the Christian Front continued to meet in private 64 “Report by Donald Grant,” February 1942, box 44, I-123, BJCRC Papers. 65 Frances Sweeney, “Report of Address Delivered by Rev. Edward Lodge Curran of Brooklyn, March 3, 1942,” box 46, I-123, BJCRC Papers; PM, March 5, 1942.

137

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

homes for the duration of the war, and carried on his work. It disseminated antisemitic and defeatist propaganda in workplaces, including defense plants and shipyards, on the streets and subways, and in barrooms and beauty parlors. The New England Regional Office of the Anti-Defamation League characterized the propaganda campaign as “an attempt to spread the Nazi line that Jews are ­responsible for the war; that Jews are shirking their patriotic duty; and that the Jews are profiteering on war-created shortages.”66 During World War II, the Christian Front continued to spread charges that Jews were evading military service by bribing draft boards and having Jewish physicians provide false evidence of medical disabilities. To counter these rumors, which many ­mainstream Americans accepted as fact, in 1942 Jewish ­organizations pressured the U.S. War Department “to release statistics showing the high rate of Jewish service in the armed forces,” but they were refused.67 Gordon Allport, professor of psychology at Harvard University and one of the nation’s leading scholars of prejudice, called the antisemitic propaganda circulating in Boston and other cities “enemy-inspired.” He concluded that it went “beyond the limits of free speech” and constituted “racial libel.” Allport warned that such propaganda would lead not only to physical assaults, but ultimately to pogroms.68 The Irish-American writer Selden Menefee in 1943 stated that significant Christian Front activity continued in largely Irish-Catholic Boston, where “anti-Semitism and pro-appeasement sentiment” were “more rampant” than in any other American city. Antisemitic fliers were routinely placed on the seats of Boston’s subways, elevated trains, and streetcars. These helped precipitate the repeated wartime beatings of Jews on the streets, in subway stations, at schools, and in front of libraries. Menefee maintained that the numerous assaults on air-raid 66 “Community Tension Survey”; Christian Science Monitor, November 23, 1943. 67 Boston American Jewish Committee representative to Morris Waldman, July 28, 1942, box 207, I-123, BJCRC Papers, AJHS. 68 Christian Science Monitor, November 6, 1943.

138

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

wardens and the “dismal failure of a surprise air raid test in Greater Boston in May 1943” reflected a widespread lack of public e­ nthusiasm for the war effort there. During the air-raid drill, ­motorists failed to pull over to the curb and most people refused to seek shelter.69 In 1942 and 1943, the Boston city government financed Evacuation Day ceremonies featuring Curran, whose speeches were harshly critical of America’s ally Britain. Sweeney’s American Irish Defense Association, the only Irish-American organization that denounced Ireland’s refusal to permit the British navy to use Irish ports, fiercely opposed inviting Curran to speak because he was an antisemite and strong critic of the war effort. The Christian Science Monitor noted that Curran had shared a platform with the leader of the pro-Nazi German-American Bund, Fritz Kuhn. High-profile ­celebrations during wartime of the March 17 holiday c­ ommemorating the British withdrawal from Boston during the Revolutionary War undermined support for a key American war ally. On March 15, 1942, when the event organizers ejected Sweeney from the ­auditorium, the audience of 2,000 rose to cheer. Curran devoted much of his address to comparing the Tory “enemies within the gates” during the American Revolution to “the Communists today.” This was consistent with the Axis propaganda line that the American public’s primary enemy was Communism, not Nazism.70 For Evacuation Day in 1943, the Brooklyn priest was joined on the podium by isolationist U.S. Rep. Hamilton Fish (R-NY), who called on the Allies not to take “one foot of territory” from the Axis. Sweeney charged that Fish’s purpose was “to soften the minds of Americans for the Nazi peace offensive,” and prepare it for a ­negotiated peace. She called the Curran/Fish appearance “A Day of Sedition.” Upon arriving in Boston for his 1943 Evacuation Day address, Curran “fondly greeted” Moran.71 69 Selden Menefee, Assignment: U.S.A. (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1943), 11–16. 70 Christian Science Monitor, March 10, 1942; Boston Herald, March 16, 1942; The Tablet, March 21, 1942. 71 Frances Sweeney, “March 17—A Day of Sedition?” Boston City Reporter, March 1943, Francis X. Moloney Papers, Boston Public Library.

139

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

Boston’s mainstream press refrained from reporting the bloody physical assaults on the city’s Jews, in part because the Christian Front commanded widespread grassroots support. Leading state and city politicians dismissed them as ordinary juvenile delinquency. On October 18, 1943, Arnold Beichman provided the first coverage of the antisemitic violence in a carefully documented article in PM about the Christian Front’s “organized campaign of terrorism.” The previous month, Beichman had written the first in-depth report on the Warsaw ghetto uprising published in the United States, also in PM. The Massachusetts governor, Leverett Saltonstall, spotting Beichman at his press conference at the State House the day after PM published his report on the beatings of Boston’s Jews, angrily denounced the “stinking” article and ordered his bodyguard to physically remove Beichman from the building.72

Persistent Antisemitic Violence, 1945–1955 After World War II ended, the Christian Front began staging mass open-air rallies again, at which it circulated inflammatory a­ ntisemitic propaganda indistinguishable from that of the defeated Nazis. At its first postwar open-air gathering in New York City, held in Queens on October 6, 1945, the Christian Front passed out a flier headed “Stop Jewish Barbarism: Protest Against Kosher Slaughter,” which accused kosher butchers of torturing to death thousands of “defenseless animals.” Free copies of a pamphlet entitled “Jewish Ritual Murder,” by British fascist Arnold Leese, were also distributed, repeating the centuries-old libel that Jews kidnapped Christian children and extracted their blood to mix with matzo at Passover. Leo Lowenthal, a Frankfurt School scholar and Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany who observed the rally, emphasized to his colleague Max Horkheimer that the pamphlet and leaflet reflected the Christian Front’s “fascist” and “pogromist” orientation. They “sow[ed] the psychological seeds 72 Stephen H. Norwood, “Marauding Youth and the Christian Front: Antisemitic Violence in Boston and New York during World War II,” American Jewish History 91 (June 2003): 233–67.

140

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

of extermination in a very direct way.” Lowenthal reported that the rally speeches were a “rehash of everything that [the Christian Front] said previous to Pearl Harbor.” Christian Front hostility to the Allied cause remained unchanged after the war.73 Antisemitic assaults in Boston persisted for at least a decade into the postwar period, causing serious alarm in the Jewish community. Irish-American youth were now joined in “Jew-hunting” by d ­ emobilized World War II veterans, often unemployed, who banded together in roving gangs and ambushed their victims “commando-style.” The AntiDefamation League (ADL) sharply criticized the police as “unwilling to provide adequate protection” for the Jews, even though many were severely beaten with baseball bats and tire chains and required ­hospitalization. As during the war years, police officials refused to view the assaults as expressions of antisemitism, claiming they were just “hoodlumism.” It was chilling that only a short time after the Holocaust, the victims of the beatings included Jews who had suffered brutal ­treatment from the Nazis and Jewish combat veterans of World War II. One of those beaten in a street attack on five Jewish youths in Boston’s Dorchester section was a displaced person (DP), whose parents had died in a Nazi concentration camp. A disabled World War II veteran was among three Jewish men whom antisemites assaulted on August 7, 1950, in Malden, just outside Boston. In the Boston suburb of Revere, a marker honoring a Jewish soldier killed in action was desecrated.74 The ADL emphasized in November 1950 that a persistent “Christian Front mentality” was responsible for most of the postwar antisemitic violence. It reported that “deep-seated anti-Semitic ­attitudes” were still widespread in Boston, and not only among the lower and working classes. The ADL noted that every year from 1943 onward a Boston group calling itself “The Friends of Father 73 New York Times, October 7, 1945; Daily Worker, October 21, 1945; “Jewish Ritual Murder Pamphlet Distributed,” New Leader, January 26, 1946; Leo Lowenthal to Max Horkheimer, October 9, 1945, American Jewish Committee Archives. 74 “Community Tension Survey,” Bernstein Papers, TL, NYU; “The Boston Scene: Anti-Semitic Incidents,” The Facts [ADL, New York], November 1950, box 62, I-123. BJCRC Papers, AJHS.

141

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

Coughlin” had sponsored a birthday banquet to honor the radio priest. Among the 400 in attendance every year were prominent and “substantial” citizens. The ADL found that the hostility toward Jews in the Boston area had been exacerbated by an influx of non-Jewish DPs, mostly from the Baltic states, many of whom had collaborated with the Nazis during World War II in hunting down and murdering Jews. In New York City, Ukrainian DPs committed numerous violent acts against Jews during the early 1950s, particularly on the Lower East Side.75 Postwar antisemitic violence often provoked fierce reprisals from Jewish youth. During wartime, Jews had formed self-defense units in Boston and New York, tasked particularly with escorting the elderly to synagogue services and protecting Jewish children and stores. During the fall of 1950, twenty-five Dorchester youth, all but two of them Jewish, determined to “even the score” with “Jew­hunting” gangs from adjoining Irish-American Hyde Park. On October 26, Christian youths shouting antisemitic epithets invaded Hecht House, a Dorchester settlement house with a mostly Jewish clientele, and started a fight. Five nights later, Irish-American youths prepared ambushes in the darkness along roads leading to Hecht House, which was staging a Halloween party. One group seized a non-Jewish boy known to have Jewish friends, beating him with a baseball bat, sending him to the hospital. Shortly afterward, fifteen Christian youths attacked two Jewish boys, striking one across the face with a tire chain. The victim suffered a broken nose and severe facial lacerations. Hearing of these assaults on the way to Hecht House, two other Jewish boys removed their belts so that they could defend themselves in case they were attacked. The ADL reported that

75 “Boston Scene,” The Facts, box 62, I-123, BJCRC Papers; Christian Science Monitor, October 25, 1943; Jewish Advocate, November 4, 1948; Stephen H. Norwood, Antisemitism and the American Far Left (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 92–93. The legal counsel of the Jewish War Veterans post on New York’s Lower East Side declared in 1953 that many Jewish youths were “afraid to wear skull caps on the street for fear of being singled out for attack” (New York Times, January 26, 1953).

142

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

policemen “guarding” the Hecht House grounds seized and handcuffed one of the Jews because he was “armed with a weapon.” The police continued to ignore, trivialize, and conceal the antisemitic assaults. Newspapers that telephoned the Boston Police Department division with jurisdiction over the Hecht House area were informed that no beatings had been reported. The ADL stated that an examination of the police blotter revealed no record of these incidents. The youth hammered with a baseball bat was listed as having fallen from an embankment. The assault with the tire chain did not appear on the blotter.76 On November 2, 1950, a large, overwhelmingly Jewish group, searching Hyde Park in automobiles, located and confronted the Irish Americans responsible for the recent beatings. Many of the Jews were armed with axes, razors, sticks, and brass knuckles. Having sent “reconnaissance parties” into Dorchester, the Irish Americans were “braced” for the attack when policemen arrived and allowed them to escape. The police proceeded to arrest twenty-five of the Jewish group and booked eighteen, including a uniformed Jewish sailor, even though, unlike the Irish Americans, they had committed no violent acts.77 Although stopping short of endorsing armed retaliation, a Dorchester rabbi defended the arrested Jewish youths, explaining that the antisemitic attacks “follow on pattern; they are not sporadic.” The rabbi declared that Boston was “known throughout the country” for antisemitic violence, but, incredibly, the police did nothing. Understandably, therefore, Jewish youth had “lost confidence in the fair-mindedness of the police” and decided to “take the law in their 76 “Boston Scene,” The Facts. 77 Ibid. In May 1947, an Irish-American gang of more than twenty youths had similarly beaten Jews leaving Hecht House, hurling antisemitic taunts as they did so. The gang pushed teenaged Jewish girls into the bushes and tried to force some into a car. The same evening, a “Jew-hunting” group severely injured a teenaged Jewish boy returning home from the YMHA and left him lying on the ground. Discovered by a passing motorist, the boy was hospitalized for five days. Boston’s Jewish Advocate warned at the time that the antisemitic beatings were often so savage that there was always a danger of a fatality (Jewish Advocate, May 29, 1947).

143

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

own hands to make the streets of Dorchester safe.”78 The antisemitic beatings in Boston did not subside until the mid-1950s. In 1950, an epidemic of antisemitic assaults similar to Boston’s broke out in Philadelphia, lasting several years. Philadelphia’s Jewish newspaper, Jewish Exponent, in 1954 called the attacks “fullscale warfare” against the city’s Jews. Emil Goldhaber, who headed the Philadelphia Jewish Community Relations Council’s Investi­ gations Committee, identified the beatings in the city’s Olney section as “a planned effort on an extensive scale to get Jews ­wherever they could be found.” As in Boston, however, Philadelphia’s police dismissed the attacks as “ordinary hoodlumism,” even though the Jews’ assailants invariably shouted antisemitic epithets as they beat them.79 Established in 1939, Philadelphia’s Christian Front, although smaller than Boston’s and New York’s, had disseminated antisemitic propaganda for several years, and its lingering influence helped stimulate much of the anti-Jewish violence in the 1950s. In early 1940, Forum and Century magazine reported that Christian Front– initiated street beatings of Jews in Philadelphia were “not un­com­mon,” and that “synagogue windows were smashed.” West Philadelphia and the Kensington section in particular were ­“terrorized.” The Philadelphia Christian Front, unlike New York’s, did not conduct nightly or weekly street corner meetings, but it had in the last year held three “huge” rallies. The Front picketed Philadelphia’s radio station WDAS for more than a year because it would not broadcast Coughlin’s program.80 Antisemitic gangs repeatedly invaded Philadelphia’s Jewish neighborhoods during the period from 1950 through 1955, just as they had in Boston. During the postwar era, the marauders ­increasingly made use of automobiles, which allowed them to travel 78 Boston Globe, November 25, 1950. 79 Jewish Exponent, May 5, 1950, and April 23, 1954. 80 By early 1940, Christian Front branches had also been formed near Philadelphia in Mount Airy, Germantown, the Chesters, and Camden, New Jersey (Irwin, “Inside the ‘Christian Front,’” 103–4).

144

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

longer distances and more easily evade apprehension. In April 1954, a gang of fifteen Gentile teenagers surrounded two Jewish youths, whom they taunted and then “severely pummeled.” When one of the Jews asked why he and his friend were being attacked, a Gentile shouted: “All we want is to get our hands on Jews and beat them up.” Both Jewish boys “suffered numerous injuries.” In May 1950, a youth who was among eight Gentiles arrested for physically assaulting two sixteen-year-old Jewish girls declared that the gang had been “out to get the Jews.” The gang members shoved the Jewish girls against a wall, placed a rope around the neck of one, and lifted up her skirt. They then proceeded to beat up both girls. One of the arrested youths confessed that his gang had beaten five other Jewish girls that evening.81 Goldhaber stated in 1954 that any Philadelphia Jew was a potential target for physical attack. He reported that in the city’s Wynnefield section, antisemitic marauders had beaten and ridiculed four bearded Orthodox Jews as they emerged from Friday-night synagogue services. In the Strawberry Mansion neighborhood, which Goldhaber noted had once been an “impregnable fortress” for Jews, a Jewish shopkeeper was beaten “to the accompaniment of anti-Semitic insults.” Thirty juveniles from Philadelphia’s Olney section arrived in the “mushrooming” Castor Avenue section and “set upon unsuspecting Jewish boys . . . walking alone.” Two young Jewish couples, strolling together in that area were accosted by Gentiles who menaced them with switchblade knives while hurling antisemitic insults. In March 1955, police failed to apprehend antisemites who assaulted several Jewish boys in Overbrook Park. One of the boys was beaten so badly that it was initially feared that his eyesight would be impaired.82 Nazi sympathizers in Philadelphia in 1952 attempted to firebomb a synagogue where a Jewish Girl Scout troop was meeting. A troop leader discovered the gasoline-filled bomb, marked with a swastika, the wick ablaze, and had it extinguished. Police stated that 81 Jewish Exponent, May 5, 1950, and April 9, 1954. 82 Ibid., September 24, 1954, and March 11, 1955.

145

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

the bomb would have exploded in a few minutes, “causing serious damage and possible injuries” to the girls. The previous week, members of a high school Hitler youth group, one of whom was the son of a German-American Bundist, placed gasoline-filled milk bottles at a Philadelphia high school.83

Conclusion The Christian Front’s Nazi-inspired antisemitic propaganda campaign inspired nearly two decades of street assaults against Jews in northeastern metropolises and provided a model for recent antisemitic demagogues like Louis Farrakhan and other Nation of Islam (NOI) leaders. Christian Front recruits initiated street brawls like Hitler’s storm troopers, which police often tolerated, as they did in Germany. Imitating the Nazis, the Christian Front launched and vigorously enforced a boycott of Jewish stores and caricatured Jews as physically grotesque. Like the Nazis, the Christian Front alleged that kosher slaughtering of animals reflected Jews’ delight in torturing the defenseless. It encouraged Nazi genocide by justifying Germany’s aggressive rearmament and expansionism, which placed European Jewry in mortal danger, and by spreading defeatism during World War II, undermining the Allied war effort. The NOI, the largest antisemitic movement in the United States since the Christian Front, today recycles many of its libels about Jews, having been exposed to them when it first emerged during the 1930s. The NOI was influenced by Harlem’s “Black Fuehrers” during World War II, West Indian pro-Axis demagogues, such as Robert Jordan and Carlos Cooks, who, like the Christian Front, claimed that Jews controlled the British Empire.84 The NOI shared the Christian Front’s hostility to the Allied cause in World War II, along with its militant anti-Zionism. 83 Evening Bulletin (Philadelphia), February 8 and 12, 1952; Jewish Exponent, February 15, 1952; Amsterdam News (New York), February 16, 1952; New York Times, March 5, 1952. 84 Stephen H. Norwood, “American Anti-Semitism During World War II,” in A Companion to World War II, ed. Thomas W. Zeiler (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 920.

146

Antisemitic Terror, Defeatism, and Anti-Zionism: Coughlinism and the Christian Front, 1934–1955

CHAPTER 4

Like the Nazis and the Christian Front, the NOI circulates the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and embraces its fantasies of Jewish conspiracy—for example, the claim that the Jews control America’s banking system and the mass media and encourage sexual debauchery to undermine “Christian civilization.” The NOI parrots the Christian Front accusation that Jewish merchants are duplicitous in dealing with Gentiles, drawing on the medieval Catholic stereotype of the Jew as parasite and usurer that Coughlin aggressively promoted. Both groups, like the Nazis, invoked the vicious medieval blood libel by calling Jews “bloodsuckers.” Farrakhan’s lieutenant, Khalid Abdul Muhammad, mocked “hooked-nosed” Jews, just as Francis Moran ridiculed Jews as “big-nosed.” The Christian Front charge that during World War II the Allies committed worse atrocities than the Axis foreshadowed the claims of contemporary Holocaust deniers. Coughlinite propaganda thus continues to shape American antisemitic discourse decades after the Christian Front’s demise.

147

CHAPTER 5

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936 Stephen H. Norwood

German Rearmament and the Threat to Jewish Existence

W

 inston Churchill, in assessing the West’s disastrous ­appeasement policies of the 1930s in his memoirs, condemned British lack of wisdom and French “weakness,” but he also noted that “the United States cannot escape the censure of history.” Churchill emphasized that if the U.S. government had exerted its influence to discourage Nazi Germany’s rearmament and expansionism, it might have ­“galvanized the French and British politicians into action.”1 From the earliest months of Nazi rule, journalists well informed about German affairs expressed alarm about Germany’s m ­ ilitarization and the increasing belligerence of the population. On June 28, 1933, the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, German schools suspended regular classes so pupils could spend the entire day listening to “teachers’ diatribes against France and the Entente Powers” and singing the Nazi anthem, the “Horst Wessel Lied.” By August 1933, several German universities had established chairs in

  1 Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948), 77–78.

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

military science.2 Manchester Guardian foreign correspondent Robert Dell wrote to his editor from Berlin on October 3, 1933, that the German capital was preparing for war. Dell noted that “even the toy-shop windows are full of nothing but soldiers, tanks, guns, etc. and the dolls are in uniform.” He concluded: “The young people are all lapping it up like milk.”3 In early February 1934, Manchester Guardian Paris ­correspondent Frederic Voigt, who had earlier been based in Berlin, stated that the Western powers had allowed the Nazi regime during its first year of power “to rearm without any hindrance save the hindrance imposed by discretion.” Germany already had nearly enough m ­ ilitary strength to make it dangerous for France or any other League of Nations power to apply sanctions against it. Germany could soon proceed with “full-blown rearmament.” Voigt was certain that once ­sufficiently armed, Germany would go to war. The Western powers were not willing to confront Germany; all that stood in its way was “insufficient armament,” an obstacle it was working speedily to overcome.4 A year later, Voigt reported over the BBC that the Germans had built “a vast number” of new armament factories, many of which were “concealed in the forest depths.” They were swiftly erecting barracks, fortifications, and coastal defenses.5 In March 1934, Dell argued that France should have launched a “preventive war” against Germany the previous May when the Germans “could have made no effective resistance.” The Germans were in “revolt against western civilization,” determined to “return to … the 10th century at [the] latest.” Dell believed that “at least half the German nation had gone mad.” Ferdnand Caussy, Berlin ­correspondent for the Paris daily Le Temps, and H. R. Knickerbocker,   2 Manchester Guardian, August 21, 1933.   3 Robert Dell to [W. P.] Crozier, October 3, 1933, 210/1-86, GDN Foreign Correspondence, Manchester Guardian [hereafter MG] Archives, John Rylands Library, Manchester, UK.   4 [Frederic] Voigt to Crozier, February 9, 1934, 211/1-85, GDN Foreign Corres­ pondence, MG Archives.   5 F. A. Voigt, BBC commentator, “Arms Factories Hidden in Forests,” March 18, 1935, 213/112–189, MG Archives.

149

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

European correspondent of the New York Evening Post, shared this view. Dell believed that it was now too late for preventive war. German rearmament and expansionist designs, and the British government’s unwillingness to stand up to the Germans, made a general European war inevitable within a few years.6 The Nazi government signaled its intention to expand its military forces almost immediately upon assuming power by ­ appointing military and naval attachés to serve in its embassies abroad. The German embassy in Washington, DC received its first military attaché since World War I in April 1933, and its first naval attaché in September 1933. German embassy officials explained that there had been no need for military and naval attachés before, because of the small size of Germany’s army and navy.7 Although they have acknowledged the proliferation of pro-­ fascist groups in the United States during the 1930s, scholars have devoted insufficient attention to the extent of mainstream sympathy for several Hitler foreign policy objectives. During the 1930s, much of the public shared the “revisionist” view that the Allied powers were as, or more, responsible than Germany for causing World War I. Many influenced by World War I revisionism became convinced that German rearmament and expansionism were at least partially justified. The most prestigious U.S. foreign policy symposium in the 1930s, sponsored by the University of Virginia Institute of Public Affairs, invited German government o ­ fficials to speak in defense of Hitler’s policies and gave them a respectful hearing.8 Antisemitism and appeasement sentiment pervaded the upper echelons of the State

  6 Dell to Crozier, March 8, 1934, 211/137-205, and October 3, 1933, 210/1-86, GDN Foreign Correspondence, MG Archives.   7 Jacob W. S. Wuest, U.S. Military Attaché, Berlin, “Germany (Military). Subject: Newly Appointed German Military Attachés,” February 10, 1933, G-2 Report, box 3665, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39 [hereafter CDF], Department of State General Records [hereafter DS], Record Group [hereafter RG] 59, National Archives [hereafter NA], College Park, MD [hereafter CP]; Washington Post, September 22, 1933.   8 Stephen H. Norwood, The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower: Complicity and Conflict on American Campuses (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 133–57.

150

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

Department and U.S. Army.9 The strikingly friendly reception that American state and local officials and business leaders accorded the visiting German warships demonstrates considerable mainstream sympathy for appeasing Hitler at a critical time. Germany’s rearmament, however, greatly alarmed many of the American and British journalists most conversant with that nation’s affairs, who warned from the beginning of Hitler’s rule of the threat the Nazis posed to German and European Jewry’s survival. As early as February 7, 1933, a week after Hitler became chancellor, the Manchester Guardian’s Berlin correspondent, Alexander Werth, wrote that the antisemitism of Nazi leaders such as Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels “would not have been tolerated by public opinion even in tsarist Russia.”10 The Nazis depicted Jews as a contaminant, like lepers or garbage, indicating that they should be discarded or destroyed. In April 1933, the New York Herald Tribune, along with many other American newspapers, published a photograph of grinning storm troopers in Chemnitz, Germany, surrounding a ­ refuse cart in which they had placed a Jewish man, Bernard Kuhnt, whom they were parading through the streets. The caption stated that Kuhnt had refused to obey the storm troopers’ command to Chemnitz’s Jews that they scrub the town’s walls and clean the streets. American journalist Mary Heaton Vorse wrote in the New Republic in July 1933 that “the Jew in the minds of Hitler and his followers is a cancer . . . to be treated as such and to be got rid of.”11 In the spring of 1933, the Nazis unleashed what the American press called a “cold pogrom,” designed to reduce German Jewry to starvation within a generation. The Nazis were well aware that most Jews lacked the means to emigrate, and that few places in the world would admit them. German Jewry’s destruction would be   9 Martin Weil, A Pretty Good Club: The Founding Fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service (New York: W. W. Norton, 1978); Joseph Bendersky, The “Jewish Threat”: Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army (New York: Basic Books, 2000). 10 Alexander Werth to Crozier, February 7, 1933, 207/45-108, GDN Foreign Correspondence, MG Archives. 11 New York Herald Tribune, April 12, 1933; Mary Heaton Vorse, “Getting the Jews out of Germany,” New Republic, July 19, 1933, 256.

151

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

a­ ccomplished by expulsion from the professions, strangulation of Jewish-owned businesses by boycott, confiscation, or damage to their premises and inventories, and severe restriction of educational opportunity. Many American newspapers provided detailed ­information about Nazi antisemitic policies and violence throughout 1933 and 1934. Journalists who had talked with Jews in Nazi Germany during 1933 and in refugee centers in France reported that they were in mortal danger. Dorothy Thompson, who had visited Germany several times immediately before and after the Nazis assumed power, declared that the cold pogrom “aimed at nothing short of German Jewry’s destruction.” Pierre van Paassen, whose column was widely syndicated in American newspapers, asserted in March 1933 that Nazi brutality against Jews and political opponents was ­unprecedented in history. In November of that year, he endorsed Rabbi Stephen Wise’s call to bring 150,000 German Jews to Palestine, but warned that if this were not done i­ mmediately, “there would be no 150,000 Jews left” to send there.12 Alexander Brin, editor of the Boston Jewish Advocate, who spent several weeks in the Third Reich during the summer and fall of 1933, stated that the Nazis’ ­antisemitic policies, “implemented with cold Prussian discipline and precision . . . aim[ed] to e­ xterminate and expel the whole [German] Jewish population.” He emphasized that Jews “who survive[d] physical pogroms breaking out in Germany” confronted a future so bleak “that they wish they were dead.” American Jews looked on in horror as desperate German Jews, most of them destitute, fled into Poland, one of the world’s most antisemitic

12 Dorothy Thompson, Jewish Telegraph Agency, May 14, 1933; Van Paassen’s article was entitled “Nazi Reign of Terror Eclipses Massacres of Medieval Times,” clipping in unidentified newspaper, March 1933, 4Zg42, Walter Winchell ­ Papers, Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX; “Silence is Criminal,” Opinion, November 1933, 8–9.

152

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

nations. The Board of Deputies of British Jews called this a “frightful comment” on the collapse of German civilization.13 American Jews at the grassroots were so outraged by Nazi antisemitic policies and violence that they began spontaneous ­ boycotts of German goods almost immediately after Hitler became chancellor. The Jewish War Veterans initiated the first call for an organized boycott of German products and services in March 1933, less than two months after he assumed power. The American League for the Defense of Jewish Rights was formed to promote the boycott in May 1933, and in August the American Jewish Congress (AJCongress) formally endorsed it. The American Federation of Labor (AFL) gave its backing in October 1933. The AJCongress in March 1933, responding to fierce pressure from the Jewish grassroots, organized a national day of protest against Nazi antisemitism, with coordinated mass street ­demon­­strations and rallies in eleven large U.S. cities. Twenty t­housand people packed Madison Square Garden to hear speakers, including former New York governor and 1928 Democratic ­presidential candidate Al Smith, Rabbi Wise, and U.S. senator Robert Wagner, denounce Nazi persecution of Jews. An additional 35,000 crammed the surrounding streets, listening to the speeches over loudspeakers. One million Jews across the United States joined in the protests that day. On May 10, 1933, the AJCongress sponsored similar coordinated protests in such cities as New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh to denounce the Nazis’ mass burnings of Jewish and other “un-German” books. Both national days of protest received worldwide press coverage.14 In June 1933, the American Jewish Committee, the most ­conservative American Jewish organization, released a White Book, which the New York Herald Tribune endorsed as “a heavily ­documented 13 Jewish Advocate, November 1933; New York Times, March 16, 1933; Manchester Guardian, May 29, 1933; The Persecution of Jews in Germany (London: Joint Foreign Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the AngloJewish Association, 1933), 5, 19, 21. 14 Norwood, Third Reich in the Ivory Tower, 12–15, 20–22.

153

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

review” demonstrating “the Nazi effort to convert German Jews into a pariah caste.” The Herald Tribune declared that the White Book “deserves close reading by all Americans who are still in doubt about either the reality or injustice of such an effort.”15 In March 1934, the AJCongress, the AFL, and about fifty Jewish and liberal groups sponsored a mock trial of “Hitler and Hitlerism” for “a crime against civilization” at Madison Square Garden, attended by 20,000 people. The trial received front-page coverage in such newspapers as the New York Times and Herald Tribune. Al Smith, New York mayor Fiorello La Guardia, Rabbi Wise, AFL vice president Matthew Woll, and U.S. senator Millard Tydings were among those presenting the prosecution case. The Times reported that when former U.S. secretary of state Bainbridge Colby, presiding over the trial, asked the audience to signify who favored a conviction, “a great roar of approval came from all over the hall,” and Colby proclaimed that Hitler and the Nazis had been found guilty by unanimous vote.16

Carrying the Nazi Spirit to American Shores: The German Navy’s Propaganda Mission From the time he became chancellor, Hitler made a rapid naval buildup an important priority of his rearmament program. A strong navy would not only guarantee German supremacy in the Baltic and reduce the effectiveness of a British blockade of German ports in the next war, but it would help the Nazis achieve political and economic domination outside Europe. A U.S. naval intelligence officer, Commander H. D. Bode, stated on May 29, 1933, that the Germans believed “the ultimate decisions between nations in world affairs lie upon the seas. World power follows sea power.”17 German naval strength could also disrupt French and British transport of colonial 15 New York Herald Tribune, June 19, 1933. 16 Norwood, Third Reich in the Ivory Tower, 41. 17 H. D. Bode, Commander, U.S. Navy, “Naval Attaché’s Report: Further Manifestations of Re-Awakened Interest in Naval Affairs—Germany,” May 29, 1933, Naval Attaché Reports, 1886-1939 [hereafter NAR], box 1191, Office of Naval Intelligence Records [hereafter ONI], RG 38, NA, Washington DC [hereafter DC].

154

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

troops and supplies from Africa for use against German forces in Europe. The Hitler regime also considered a powerful navy an important propaganda instrument. Between 1934 and 1936, it sent the cruisers Karlsruhe and Emden on round-the-world goodwill tours, with U.S. ports as the major stops. These voyages were designed to promote “the New Germany” in the United States, and they provided an opportunity for German diplomats and naval officers to spread ­ antisemitism among Americans. Another objective was to encourage German Americans to identify with a German “Volk” that transcended national boundaries. The U.S. Navy high command formed friendly ties with its German counterpart during these tours. Governors and mayors warmly welcomed German vessels displaying the swastika. The widespread public fraternization of American naval personnel, business and society leaders, and members of veterans’ groups with German naval officers, cadets, and crewmen during the German vessels’ visits generated support for appeasing Hitler. Hitler was intent on preventing U.S. involvement in the next European war. Having served in the German army during World War I, he was well aware that U.S. military and naval intervention in that conflict had proved significant in causing the Central Powers’ defeat. Hitler also perceived the United States as a formidable industrial and agricultural producer that could provide the British and French with vital war matériel and foodstuffs in the next war. Almost immediately after Hitler became chancellor, U.S. naval intelligence and the American press noticed that his regime had embarked upon significant naval construction. Only two months after the Nazis assumed power, Germany launched the cruiser Admiral Scheer, described by the New York Times as “more heavily armed than any other cruiser of its size.”18 At the launching, Hitler’s defense minister, General Werner von Blomberg, flanked by highranking navy and army officers, complained about Versailles Treaty “dictates” that restricted German rearmament and claimed that Nazi 18 New York Times, April 2, 1933.

155

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

Germany and “her peace-loving people” had “no other aim than to regain [on] land and sea the same security that every honor-loving sovereign nation claims as a matter of course.” Six weeks later, Commander Bode reported that Hitler, accompanied by Minister of Prussia Hermann Göring, Propaganda Minister Goebbels, General von Blomberg, and navy head Admiral Erich Raeder, was visiting Kiel to observe the German naval war games between “blue” and “yellow” fleets. These war games were timed to coincide with British naval war games in the North Sea. The German fleets engaged in maneuvers that “demonstrate[d] every kind of naval warfare, including defense against airplane attacks.”19 On May 15, 1933, Commander Bode reported that the Karlsruhe’s captain, Erwin Wassner, had delivered a series of public lectures in Germany in which he emphasized “the new enthusiasm in the German navy under the stimulus of the present [Nazi] regime” and “the hope in the restoration of Germany to the German conception of its rightful position of power and honor among nations.” Bode noted “an impassioned appeal” after one of Wassner’s lectures by the president of the Association of Germans in Foreign Lands, about the importance of stimulating pride in the Third Reich among Germans and persons of German descent living abroad. He stated that visits of German vessels to foreign ports would arouse such pride.20 On October 14, 1933, as the Karlsruhe prepared to begin its round-the-world voyage from Kiel, its new captain, Freiherr Harsdorf von Enderndorf, speaking at a farewell banquet for the ship’s personnel, emphasized that the warship would “carry into the outside world something of the spirit of the New Germany.” In visiting foreign ports, the Karlsruhe would “end once [and] for all the rumors and propaganda which had been spread abroad,” meaning

19 H. D. Bode, Naval Attaché’s Report, May 15, 1933, NAR, box 1191, ONI, RG38, NA, DC; New York Times, May 24, 1933. 20 H. D. Bode, Naval Attaché’s Report, May 15, 1933.

156

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

the accusations in the Western press and by Jewish and labor groups about Nazi persecution of Jews and political dissidents.21 The Karlsruhe provided a showpiece for the modern navy Nazi Germany was building. It was the third of the 6,000-ton cruisers Germany was allowed under the Versailles Treaty. According to the Los Angeles Times, the Karlsruhe, because of “German engineering genius,” was “comparable in fighting strength to 8,000-ton cruisers of other powers.”22 Many naval experts considered the cruiser the warship of the future, destined to replace the battleship as the most important fighting vessel. U.S. Navy rear admiral Yates Stirling, in a February 1934 New York Times article, asserted that naval warfare would no longer culminate in a “decisive sea battle of concentrated fleets” centered around battleships. Instead, navies would focus on destroying the enemy’s “life blood,” its merchant marine, and disrupting its communications lines. They would rely on cruisers, swift and able to travel vast distances without refueling, to seek out and sink enemy cargo ships. Aerial bombardment and submarines’ torpedoes rendered the ponderous, highly expensive battleship obsolete.23 The Karlsruhe’s 1933–34 round-the-world voyage brought it to four U.S. ports—Honolulu, Tacoma, San Diego, and Boston. It carried almost 600 men, including 119 naval cadets, the equivalent of U.S. Naval Academy midshipmen, for whom the voyage was a training cruise.24 The Karlsruhe’s officers forged friendly ties with the U.S. Navy high command, which were solidified during the 1935 and 1936 voyages. The American press and business and civic ­organizations provided opportunities for the Karlsruhe’s officers to propagandize for Nazism and for American civilians to fraternize with the Germans. The U.S. and German navy high commands shared some ­similarities that help explain the Americans’ friendliness toward the 21 London Times, October 16, 1933. 22 Los Angeles Times, February 27, 1935. 23 New York Times, February 11, 1934. 24 Boston Herald, May 13, 1934.

157

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

Germans and willingness to assist them in carrying out naval ­exercises. The ship’s insularity reinforced awareness of rank. Navies traditionally emphasized “discipline and blind obedience.” The U.S. Navy officer corps was more socially exclusive than the U.S. Army’s. It had always been overwhelmingly Protestant at the highest levels, where antisemitism was pervasive. Jews were almost never given command of ships of any kind.25 During the 1930s, the U.S. Naval War College, whose purpose was to prepare officers for high command, helped to legitimize racial antisemitism and ­appeasement of Hitler by sponsoring several lectures by Lothrop Stoddard, ­“arguably America’s foremost racist intellectual,” on “The Racial Factor as a Determinant in National Policies.” In his writings, Stoddard argued that Eastern European Jews were biologically ­inferior, a partly “Mongolian” and “negroid” race that threatened to mongrelize the allegedly superior “Nordics.” During the interwar period, his works “exercised continuous influence on the thinking of American ­military officers.” Stoddard endorsed Nazi efforts to “weed out the unfit” and sympathized with Hitler’s expansionist aims in Central Europe.26 In contrast to the army, nearly all the top officers—admirals, vice admirals, and rear admirals—were graduates of the service academy, which admitted very few Jews and left its students ignorant of, and unprepared to grasp, political issues. In 1936, a recent U.S. Naval Academy graduate published a magazine article charging that the school was academically inferior. Its curriculum offered only “the most elementary courses in English literature, history, economics, and government.” Midshipmen rarely used the library, and few read newspapers.27

25 Robert O’Connell, Sacred Vessels: The Cult of the Battleship and the Rise of the U.S. Navy (New York: Oxford, 1991), 18–19; Ira Berkow, Maxwell Street: Survival in a Bazaar (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 289. 26 Bendersky, The “Jewish Threat,” 260–62. 27 Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier (New York: Free Press, 1971), 58, 81, 97, 100, 138. As late as 1950, 100 percent of admirals and vice admirals and 95.5 percent of rear admirals were Annapolis graduates (ibid., 59); James Oliver

158

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

Germany’s press portrayed the Karlsruhe’s visit to Honolulu, lasting from February 17 to March 5, 1934, as a public relations triumph for the Third Reich. It highlighted the “hospitality” and “courtesy” that Americans in Honolulu extended toward the Karlsruhe’s officers, cadets, and crewmen. The German press also emphasized the “freedom with which the German officers were shown the various Army posts and Navy stations” near the port.28 German newspapers covering the warship’s visit considered it an excellent opportunity for its officers, cadets, and crew “to meet many of their ‘comrades’ of the American Army and Navy” at the largest U.S. military base in the Pacific Ocean.29 The U.S. naval c­ ommandant at Honolulu detailed U.S. officers to give Karlsruhe officers and cadets tours of the “U.S. Navy Yard, the Fleet Air Base, and the Submarine Base.” The U.S. Navy used its District Communications Service to set up target practice in the ocean for the Karlsruhe.30 When the Karlsruhe steamed into port at Honolulu, shore batteries at Fort Armstrong fired a salute, which the German vessel returned. In an editorial entitled “Willkommen, Karlsruhe,” Honolulu’s major daily newspaper, the Advertiser, joined “the entire community” in greeting “the gallant vessel and her gallant company.” It condemned “the present agitation in certain quarters” against providing a friendly welcome to “the representatives of the great Nazi republic beyond the seas.”31 Honolulu’s Karlsruhe entertainment committee, which included appointees of the territorial governor and mayor, arranged a daily program of dances, parties, and concerts. Honolulu’s mayor and board of supervisors sponsored a lavish hotel ball attended by 3,000 Brown, “Annapolis—Stronghold of Mediocrity,” Forum and Century, October 1936, 153–57. 28 C. H. J. Keppler, Captain, USN, Naval Attaché’s Report, April 9, 1934, box 884, NAR, ONI, RG 38, NA, DC. 29 H. D. Bode, Naval Attaché’s Report, March 16, 1934, box 884, NAR, ONI, RG 38, NA, DC. 30 T. M. Leovy, Lt. Commander, USN, Naval Attaché’s Report, March 17, 1934, box 884, NAR, ONI, RG 38, NA, DC. 31 Honolulu Advertiser, February 16 and 17, 1934.

159

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

in the Karlsruhe’s honor. Immediately prior to the ball, a socially prominent couple staged a special dinner in the hotel’s Gold Room for Captain von Enderndorf and three of his officers. U.S. Navy rear admiral Harry Yarnell and Honolulu’s mayor joined them at the table. The Honolulu Chamber of Commerce hosted von Enderndorf and fifteen of his officers at a luncheon earlier that day.32 Captain von Enderndorf, in entertaining prominent Honolulu residents on board the Karlsruhe, expressed hope that his vessel’s visit had “clear[ed] away misunderstandings” about the Third Reich. He assured his guests that “the German Government and its leaders don’t wish anything except to give work and bread to the German people and to live on peaceful conditions and with equality of rights with every other nation.”33 When the Karlsruhe departed for Tacoma, Washington, on March 5, thousands of Honolulans “lined the waterfront to cheer aloha.” The Honolulu Advertiser commented that “it seemed that all Honolulu was present to bid godspeed to the popular Karlsruhe ‘boys.’”34 The Karlsruhe received as enthusiastic a welcome in Tacoma from Washington’s governor, city officials, and business leaders, as it had in Honolulu. Tacoma’s mayor and Chamber of Commerce president personally greeted Captain von Enderndorf when the ­ Karlsruhe came into port for its week’s visit (March 15–22). The city’s American Legion members openly fraternized with the German warship’s crewmen. The American Legion’s drum and bugle corps joined the Karlsruhe’s band in a military parade.35 The Tacoma Chamber of Commerce and the Young Men’s Business Club feted the Karlsruhe’s officers at a hotel luncheon open to the public, in a packed ballroom. Promoting fraternity between the United States and the Third Reich, the Karlsruhe band played the German and American national anthems. All in attendance stood for both, and the German officers gave the Nazi salute. German national colors and 32 Ibid., February 24, 1934. 33 Ibid., March 2, 1934. 34 Ibid., March 6, 1934. 35 Tacoma Daily Ledger, March 16, 1934.

160

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

the Nazi swastika flag were placed next to the Stars and Stripes. The Chamber of Commerce president welcomed the German officers “on a mission of peace,” and then introduced the major guest speaker, the German consul for the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, Walther Reinhardt. Reinhardt criticized “the false conception and interpretations” of the Third Reich that he claimed prevailed in the United States.36 The Karlsruhe’s officers reciprocated by hosting a reception and dance aboard their warship to honor Americans who had e­ ntertained them and their crew, including U.S. naval officers. The governor of Washington and his wife were the captain’s luncheon guests on the ship and stayed for “the gay afternoon festivities.” The Tacoma Daily Ledger reported that “German national banners and symbols of the Nazi movement served as screens and decorations for those portions of the ship reserved for dancing.”37 The Karlsruhe’s appearance in Tacoma did precipitate a mass Communist-led street demonstration in Seattle. The Karlsruhe’s 1933–34 voyage took place during the Communists’ ultra-militant “Third Period,” when they believed that world capitalism was close to collapse and proletarian revolution imminent. To stimulate a revolutionary consciousness, the American Communist Party (CP) organized or joined in militant street protests against the Hitler regime’s emissaries in the United States, which often involved confrontation with the police. Although sometimes denouncing Nazi persecution of Jews, the CP in the Third Period usually e­ mphasized Hitler’s imprisonment of German Communists and trade unionists. Because the CP considered all groups to their right counter-revolutionary, including socialists, they refrained from cooperating in protests with mainstream Jewish groups, who shunned them in any event.38 As early as 36 Ibid., March 17, 1934. 37 Ibid., March 21, 1934. 38 The Jewish War Veterans (JWV), which sponsored the first mass anti-Nazi street march, staged in New York on March 23, 1933, barred the CP’s Workers Ex-Servicemen’s League from carrying any placards or banners. The CP was not involved in the national mass protests against Nazi antisemitism coordinated by the AJCongress on March 27 and May 10, 1933. It angered much of the Jewish community by opposing the JWV’s call to boycott German goods and

161

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

March 25, 1933, 2,500 Communists had marched to the German consulate and the offices of Germany’s North Lloyd Shipping Line in New York to protest Nazi outrages against Communists and workers. In May 1933, Communists sparked a confrontation at the Brooklyn docks to protest the arrival of Hans Weidemann, sent by Propaganda Minister Goebbels to represent him at Chicago’s Century of Progress Exhibition. The Associated Press described a “pitched battle” that ended only when policemen drew their pistols and pointed them at the crowd.39 Boston Communists had also organized a street ­demonstration in November 1933 against Hitler’s emissary, Friedrich Schoenemann, who delivered an invited lecture at Ford Hall Forum defending Nazi policies that was intensely antisemitic. The ­demon­stration resulted in a running battle down Beacon Hill between protestors and mounted policemen.40 Fierce clashes between the police and anti-Nazi protestors in Seattle foreshadowed an even larger-scale confrontation two months later in Boston. Hundreds of demonstrators gathered around Seattle’s Masonic temple during a dance there for visiting Karlsruhe officers and seamen. When protestors pressed against the temple’s doors, policemen arrived with submachine guns and tear gas and dispersed the crowd.41 When the Karlsruhe docked at its next port, San Diego, it exchanged twenty-one-gun salutes with U.S. shore batteries at Fort Rosecrans in another display of American–German fraternity. The Los Angeles Times noted that the Karlsruhe was “the first Nazi vessel” to enter port in San Diego. The U.S. 11th Naval District headquarters break diplomatic relations with the Hitler government, on the grounds that they were “reactionary chauvinistic demands that would provoke a war situation” (Daily Worker, March 24, 1933). On CP policy toward Jews and Nazism, see Stephen H. Norwood, Antisemitism and the American Far Left (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 33–37. 39 New York Evening Post, May 25 and 26, 1933; New York Times, May 18 and 26, 1933; Daily Worker, May 19, 1933. The Associated Press report appeared in the Boston Herald, May 26, 1933. 40 Boston Herald, November 27, 1933; Boston Post, November 27, 1933; Boston Globe, November 27, 1933; Norwood, Third Reich in the Ivory Tower, 27–28. 41 Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 20, 1934; Centralia Daily Chronicle, March 20, 1934.

162

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

announced that because of “fear of Communistic activities” the Karlsruhe would dock “away from harbor piers.”42 Rear Admiral William Tarrant, commandant of the 11th Naval District; San Diego’s mayor; the president of the city’s Chamber of Commerce; and Georg Gyssling, German consul at Los Angeles, all met Captain von Enderndorf to pay their respects. Karlsruhe officers informed the San Diego Union that “Nazism has given Germany a new hope and new lease on life.”43 A U.S. naval intelligence report revealed that the Karlsruhe displayed Nazi expansionist propaganda. Swastika emblems had been installed on either side of the stern. In addition, a large colored chart was mounted in the warship’s main deck passageway that showed Germany and the countries surrounding it. Germany’s preand post-war boundaries were marked. Superimposed over each neighboring country were sketches of aircraft in “V” formation headed toward Germany. The intelligence report concluded that “the apparent defenselessness of Germany from an aerial standpoint under present treaty limitations was thus forcibly . . . indicated.”44 San Diego’s Chamber of Commerce hosted Captain von Enderndorf and forty of his officers at a dinner dance. Seated with von Enderndorf were San Diego’s mayor, Rear Admiral Tarrant, and Consul Gyssling. The Karlsruhe captain later reciprocated by staging a small luncheon on board the warship to honor U.S. rear admiral Alfred Johnson and U.S. captain N. H. White. They were joined by Consul Gyssling and Robert Witthoeft, German naval attaché in Washington, DC, “a feted visitor” in San Diego during the previous few days. On Easter Sunday, San Diego German Americans gave a dance for the Karlsruhe men.45 A hundred officers, cadets, and crewmen from the Karlsruhe spent two days in Los Angeles to take part in several gala social events in honor of Captain von Enderndorf, including a “brilliant” 42 Los Angeles Times, March 27 and 28, 1934. 43 San Diego Union, March 28, 1934. 44 W. G. Child, Commanding Officer, to ONI, April 5, 1934, box 1190, NAR, ONI, RG 38, NA, DC. 45 San Diego Union, March 28, 29, and 31, 1934.

163

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

formal afternoon reception at Consul Gyssling’s home. Germany’s consul in San Francisco and his wife attended, along with “200 socially prominent Angelenos.” A Los Angeles Times society ­columnist noted that “everyone seemed to be there,” including “bankers, university professors, doctors, [and] judges … together with their ladies.” She reported that at a naval ball held for the Karlsruhe ­officers and cadets that evening in a private home, the American “maidens” ignored the local boys and danced instead with “the visiting Karlsruhe Adonises.”46 On March 30 in Los Angeles, a riot broke out when more than 100 anti-Nazi protestors, whom the San Diego Union described as Communists, allegedly “attempted to storm” the building in which the Karlsruhe’s men were dining. A street battle with the police lasted nearly an hour and resulted in several injuries.47 The Karlsruhe met its fiercest opposition in Boston, which it reached on May 12, 1934, after steaming through the Panama Canal and the West Indies and up the Atlantic Coast. The official welcome that Boston mayor Frederick Mansfield and Massachusetts governor Joseph Ely’s secretary extended to the Karlsruhe ­precipitated a “storm of protest” from leaders of Boston’s Jewish community, who called it “an insult to every Jewish citizen in Boston and the commonwealth.” Jennie Loitman Barron, director of the Women’s Division of the Boston American Jewish Congress, expressed shock that public officials would endorse Nazi ­“persecution and barbarism” by greeting the German warship displaying the swastika, officered by men who wore the swastika on their caps. Another Jewish leader, attorney Samuel Finkel, voiced his disgust that city officials would permit the Karlsruhe, “a symbol of oppression,” to dock in Boston.48 The Boston Jewish protest had only a limited effect. Mayor Mansfield received the Karlsruhe’s officers at Boston City Hall and boarded the German warship to return their call. The front page of 46 Los Angeles Times, April 1 and 3, 1934. 47 San Diego Union, March 31, 1934. 48 Boston Herald, May 12, 1934; Boston Post, May 12, 1934.

164

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

the Boston Herald on May 13 showed Mansfield walking on the Karlsruhe’s deck as the German sailors stood at attention. The Herald did comment that “perhaps because of the protests of Jewish leaders” neither the governor nor lieutenant governor was present at the State House when the Karlsruhe’s officers called. The governor’s secretary and a U.S. Army brigadier general received them instead. The Boston Evening American revealed a few days later, however, that Governor Ely planned “to ­ appropriate $400 for the entertainment of the Karlsruhe’s complement.”49 The U.S. Army and Navy commands in Boston gave what the Herald called “their distinguished visitors . . . their full due of welcome.” When the Karlsruhe steamed into Boston harbor, it fired a twenty-one-gun salute, to which Fort Banks responded with its own. Captain von Enderndorf visited the Boston Navy Yard soon after his arrival to pay his respects to U.S. rear admiral Charles Hough.50 There was an outpouring of enthusiasm for the Karlsruhe’s arrival from Boston’s Germans and German Americans. Soon after the warship docked, a “sizeable crowd” of them boarded it. When Captain von Enderndorf appeared, the German and German-American v­ isitors “rose to their feet as if a single man and s­ pontaneously raised their right hands in the Nazi salute.” Captain von Enderndorf returned the Nazi salute.51 Captain von Enderndorf traveled from Boston for two days to attend a luncheon at the German embassy in Washington, DC. The German naval attaché, Captain Witthoeft, who hosted the luncheon, was joined there by U.S. rear admiral Hayne Ellis. The next day Witthoeft entertained von Enderndorf, German naval officers, and members of Washington society at a tea, where the guests gathered around a buffet table with a swastika centerpiece.52 The Associated German Societies of Massachusetts and the German and Austrian War Veterans sponsored a banquet on May 17 49 Boston Herald, May 13, 1934; Boston Evening American, May 16, 1934, box 901, NAR, ONI, RG 38, NA, DC. 50 Boston Herald, May 13, 1934; Boston Post, May 12, 1934. 51 Boston Herald, May 13, 1934. 52 Washington Post, May 13 and 16, 1934.

165

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

to honor the Karlsruhe’s personnel at Boston’s luxurious Copley Plaza Hotel at which 1,000 people, according to the Boston Post, “rose to their feet and paid tumultuous acclaim to Adolf Hitler.” The acting chairman of the Steuben Society of America, a leading German-American organization, received an ovation “when he issued a clarion call to German sympathizers” in the United States “to get together and oppose what he termed the vicious propaganda being promoted throughout the country against Germany,” and mobilize against the boycott of German goods. The Boston Post reported that “excitement reached its highest pitch” during Captain von Enderndorf’s speech “when he called upon the 1000 men and women present for a salute to Hitler, and issued a stirring defense of the Nazi government.” The Stars and Stripes hung between the Nazi swastika and German imperial flags, and a band played both the “Star-Spangled Banner” and the Nazi anthem, the “Horst Wessel Lied.” Mayor Mansfield sent a personal representative to the dinner, and American veterans’ organizations extended friendly greetings to the German officers and seamen. The commander of the Massachusetts department of the Veterans of Foreign Wars was seated at the head table.53 That afternoon, several hundred anti-Nazi demonstrators clashed with what the Boston Herald described as “one of the most formidable police forces ever concentrated in the city,” which blocked their attempt to reach the Navy Yard in Charlestown where the Karlsruhe was docked. Many participants were associated with the Communist-inclined National Student League chapters at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Communist-affiliated Marine Industrial Workers Union. The ­protestors carried banners marked “Drive Out the Hitler Warship” and “No Welcome for the Persecutors of the Jews.” The policemen confronted the demonstrators before they had even begun to march and drove them back “in a wild slugfest.” The Herald reported that “police orders to give no quarter to the communists were followed 53 Boston Post, May 18, 1934; Boston Globe, May 18, 1934.

166

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

to the letter.” Policemen, some of whom were mounted, charged repeatedly into the crowd, using their clubs “freely.” They arrested twenty-one demonstrators. Twenty of them were arraigned on charges of inciting to riot, violating a city ordinance by distributing handbills, and disturbing the peace. Several defendants and witnesses claimed the arrests were indiscriminate.54 The Boston court took a very harsh view of the anti-Nazi ­demonstration and sentenced seventeen of the twenty defendants to prison terms of six months or more. The judge barred photographs of police violence that defense attorneys attempted to introduce as evidence, and their references to Nazi persecution, on the grounds that neither the police nor Hitler was on trial. U.S. naval intelligence was equally unsympathetic, claiming that the demonstration’s “true objective” had been “to magnify the importance of Communism and to exaggerate the number of its adherents.” It claimed that “stories of police ‘brutality’ are mere … publicity stunts on the part of Communists and affiliates.”55 Nazi Germany’s ambassador to the United States, Hans Luther, made an official visit to the Karlsruhe, giving the Nazi salute from its deck. The next day he gave what the Boston Post called “a stirring speech” to the German Educational Societies, praising Hitler’s efforts “to regain for Germany her old dignity among nations.” He denounced the boycott of German goods. Many of the 500 people in attendance gave the Nazi salute when they rose to cheer the speech.56 When the Karlsruhe returned to Kiel from Boston after a voyage of eight months, German defense minister von Blomberg and Admiral Raeder were on hand to welcome it. Speaking on Hitler’s behalf, von Blomberg made clear the regime’s appreciation for the Karlsruhe’s propaganda mission. He thanked the warship’s officers, cadets, and crewmen for “aid[ing] the cause of the new Germany 54 Boston Herald, May 18, 1934; Boston Post, May 18, 1934; Boston Globe, May 18, 1934; Boston Transcript, May 18, 1934; Harvard Crimson, May 19 and 22, 1934. 55 Boston Herald, May 30, 1934; The Tech, June 5, 1934; Harvard Crimson, June 6, 1934; Daily Worker, June 9, 1934; H. L. de Rivera, Lieutenant, USN, to the Intelligence Officer, 1st Naval District, June 8, 1934, box 901, NAR, ONI, RG 38, NA, DC. 56 Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 21, 1934; Boston Post, May 22, 1934.

167

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

throughout the world.”57 U.S. Naval Intelligence reported five months later that the Karlsruhe’s engineering officer, Lt. Commander Schreiner, had delivered a lecture to the Society of German Naval Architects convention about its round-the-world cruise. One of his themes was how the Karlsruhe’s visits to foreign ports had stimulated enthusiasm for the Third Reich in Germans and persons of German ancestry living abroad. He lamented that the Karlsruhe’s personnel had arrived in the mainland U.S. ports “at the height of an antiGerman Press campaign by which they were greatly surprised and not a little hurt.” Schreiner insisted, however, that this was more than offset by the “graciousness of their reception by various federal and local officials and by the friendship manifested by . . . Americans of all stations.” He concluded that it was very important for the German government to send warships abroad on “good-will” tours so that foreigners “could see for themselves what type of German was being developed by the Third Reich.”58 The Karlsruhe received as warm a welcome from the U.S. Navy high command, city officials, business leaders, and GermanAmerican organizations when it returned to the United States on another round-the-world voyage in 1935. During this second extended Nazi propaganda campaign, it made stops of a week or more in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Oakland on the Pacific Coast, Houston off the Gulf of Mexico, and Charleston, South Carolina on the Atlantic Coast. As in Boston in 1934, the Karlsruhe’s arrival precipitated anti-Nazi street protests in San Francisco. The U.S. Navy, with U.S. State Department cooperation, again eagerly assisted the German warship to improve its combat readiness. The U.S. Navy high command also sponsored and participated in gala social events to honor the German officers and cadets. As the Karlsruhe approached Los Angeles in late February for a three-day visit, the Los Angeles Times reported that U.S. Navy vessels would assist it in day-and-night “battle practice firing.” The State 57 New York Times, June 19, 1934; H. D. Bode, June 25, 1934, box 1191, NAR, ONI, RG 38, NA, DC. 58 H. D. Bode, November 26, 1934, box 884, NAR, ONI, RG 38, NA, DC.

168

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

Department arranged for the U.S. Navy to provide vessels, personnel, and equipment to assist the Karlsruhe in these exercises. In what the Los Angeles Times called an “extraordinary example of international naval courtesy,” U.S. Navy mine sweepers and tugboats towed target rafts to the navy’s San Clemente Island drill grounds for gunnery practice. It noted that this collaboration between the U.S. and German navies was “unique in international naval annals.”59 Admiral Joseph Reeves, commander in chief of the U.S. fleet, and captains Wilbur van Auken and George Baum of the battleships Oklahoma and Arizona, respectively, received the Karlsruhe’s new captain, Guenther Luetjens, in formal calls. The Oklahoma was paired with the Karlsruhe “for social contacts.” Captain Baum of the Arizona, formerly U.S. naval attaché in Berlin, was an old friend of Captain Luetjens. Luetjens also made a formal visit to Los Angeles’s acting mayor at city hall.60 A society columnist reported that a Los Angeles socialite had invited sixteen young Karlsruhe officers, “very tall, very blond, and very handsome,” to her salon to meet a group of young American women for tea. The young women were “all eyes” for the German officers’ “gold braid.”61 The Karlsruhe next stopped for ten days in the San Francisco Bay area, where local longshoremen staged a protest against it that received national press coverage. International Longshoremen’s Association members announced they would strike for half an hour when the German warship arrived, in “protest against the visit of Hitler’s armed forces to San Francisco.” In response to the strike call, U.S. undersecretary of state William Phillips authorized the Karlsruhe’s personnel to wear sidearms while visiting the Bay area.62 Violence broke out almost immediately after the Karlsruhe arrived in San Francisco, as the crowd at the pier booed a U.S. naval officer descending its gangplank. When a woman bystander objected 59 Los Angeles Times, February 26 and March 1, 1935. 60 Ibid., February 27 and March 1, 1935. 61 Ibid., February 28, 1935. 62 New York Times, March 3, 1935; San Francisco Examiner, March 2, 1935.

169

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

to booing an American officer, a female anti-Nazi protestor slapped her. Policemen arrested an anti-Nazi longshoreman for allegedly knocking down the slapped woman’s husband and brother when they came to her defense, and dispersed the crowd.63 The Bakersfield Californian in an editorial condemned the crowd’s jeering the Karlsruhe as it docked and even condemned anti-Nazi protest in the United States. It maintained that “the place to show . . . resentment to Nazism … is in Germany, and not from the safe vantage ground of another country, which maintains friendly ­relations with it.” The Californian insisted that if “the disturbers” were refugees from Nazi Germany, they were “abusing the privilege of residence in the United States.”64 San Francisco welcomed the Karlsruhe with “full naval and civic honors.” The city government, high U.S. Navy, Army, and Marine Corps officers, and local business leaders honored the cruiser’s ­officers, cadets, and crewmen at city hall. The city hall rotunda was decorated with the Nazi swastika, German imperial, and American flags for the occasion. Participating were San Francisco’s mayor, who gave a welcoming speech; Admiral Thomas Senn, commanding the U.S. 12th Naval District; a U.S. Marine Corps general; Nazi Germany’s consul for San Francisco, Gustav Heuser; and a Chamber of Commerce representative.65 In yet another public display of American–German military friendship, San Francisco’s Army and Navy Club hosted the Karlsruhe’s officers at a reception, at which the Nazi swastika, German imperial, and American flags again hung side by side. German consul Heuser and leaders of San Francisco German organizations were also honored at the reception.66 The Stanford University newspaper, the Daily, interviewed Captain Luetjens’s public relations officer, Lt. Karald Grosse, who 63 New York Times, March 2, 1935; Oakland Tribune, March 2, 1935. 64 Bakersfield Californian, March 4, 1935. 65 Oakland Tribune, March 2, 1935; New York Times, March 2, 1935; San Francisco Chronicle, March 3, 1935; San Francisco Examiner, March 3, 1935. 66 San Francisco Chronicle, March 5, 1935.

170

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

enthusiastically praised Hitler for ending political chaos in Germany and uniting the people behind a great ideal. He claimed that Hitler’s goal was “peace” and “a respected place in the family of nations.”67 Karlsruhe personnel spent two days in Oakland, where a band composed of members of the Friends of the New Germany, a pro-Nazi organization in the United States, bearing swastikas, led them in a parade to city hall. As in San Francisco, the mayor and high-ranking U.S. Army and Navy officers welcomed the German warship’s officers, cadets, and crewmen.68 In Oakland, Consul Heuser, speaking for Captain Luetjens and the Karlsruhe’s personnel, maintained that Chancellor Hitler was a peacemaker who had “sent the Karlsruhe to America on a mission of goodwill and friendship.” Peacemaking, he claimed, was “the essence of [Hitler’s] foreign policy.” Heuser emphasized that “any statements to the contrary are malicious propaganda.”69 A week’s stop in Vancouver provided the Karlsruhe’s officers and Germany’s consul for western Canada, Dr. H. Seelheim, with an opportunity to disseminate Nazi antisemitic propaganda, which received favorable comment from the city’s leading newspaper. Local rabbis forcefully challenged Seelheim’s defamation of German Jewry. The enthusiasm Canadians displayed in greeting the Karlsruhe resembled that of Americans in the West Coast ports. As in the United States, non-Jewish veterans’ organizations joined in welcoming Nazi Germany’s warship. Four days before the Karlsruhe docked in Vancouver, the Vancouver Sun published an interview with Consul Seelheim, which amounted to an antisemitic rant. Seelheim had traveled from Winnipeg, where he was stationed, to greet the Karlsruhe and ­propagandize for Hitler. The Sun’s interviewer, Pat Terry, framing Seelheim’s remarks, stated that the Nazi consul had provided “a picture of Hitler and modern Germany which I find it difficult to disbelieve.” 67 Stanford Daily, March 4, 1935. 68 Oakland Tribune, March 8 and 9, 1935. 69 Ibid., March 9, 1935.

171

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

Seelheim depicted Hitler as Germany’s savior, rescuing a nation where Jews were poised to assume control of vital i­nstitutions—“the schools, the hospitals [and] the legal profession.” Weimar’s republican government had produced chaos. Germans “wanted a pure-blooded Germany, with opportunity for Germans.” Jews, because they were racially different, could not be true Germans. When Jews obtained administrative positions, they only hired other Jews. The Jews ­concentrated in the “higher professions,” propagating “anti-German sentiment,” and showed no interest in agriculture. Seelheim claimed that Jews were largely responsible for Communism in Germany and for the white slave trade.70 In a letter to the editor in the Sun, two Vancouver rabbis expressed profound disappointment that “one of the leading ­newspapers in Canada” had given approval to “the vilest ­accusations hurled against [the Jews] by the official representative of the Hitler government.” The rabbis felt it was beneath their dignity to respond to Seelheim’s ­“insidious and base allegations,” but they noted that Jews, who had lived on German soil for more than 1,500 years, had earned for both Germans and Jews “world renown for culture and enlightenment.”71 After the Karlsruhe arrived in Vancouver, the Sun interviewed public relations officer Lt. Grosse, whose celebration of the Nazi regime was similar to Seelheim’s. The Sun’s interviewer, Bob Bouchette, was impressed with Grosse’s account of Hitler’s achieve­ ­ ments, including the Führer’s instilling “love of the Fatherland” and restoring order. Grosse emphasized that Hitler had “crystallized our idea. . . . of a Germany reborn and standing on its own feet. Every cadet on this ship feels it.” Bouchette believed that there was good reason, therefore, why “Germany and Mr. Grosse and all its people that Mr. Grosse represents, love Hitler.”72 Vancouver’s acting mayor officially greeted Luetjens and assured him of “the public’s esteem,” and military dignitaries, business 70 Vancouver Sun, March 11, 1935, NAR, clipping in box 884, ONI Records, RG 38, NA, DC. 71 Vancouver Sun, March 13, 1935. 72 Ibid., March 15, 1935.

172

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

­ rganizations, and churches joined in welcoming the Karlsruhe’s o personnel. The Canadian Army and Navy Veterans arranged smokers to promote fraternization with the seamen from the Third Reich. The Naval Officers Association and Navy League of Canada ­sponsored a naval ball for the German warship’s men. The Vancouver Board of Trade Council hosted a luncheon for Luetjens and several of his officers. Vancouver’s Lutheran and Catholic churches invited the Karlsruhe’s officers and men to their Sunday church parades.73 Vancouver’s Canadian Club invited Consul Seelheim to address “a huge meeting,” where he praised the Führer for defeating Communism and saving Christianity. Seelheim explained that before Hitler assumed power, “Godlessness was rampant and the church was in the discard.” He claimed that “school boys and girls had burned straw effigies of the members of the Trinity.” Nazism had drawn the German people “back to the churches.”74 The German warship received very friendly receptions in the final two U.S. cities it visited, Houston, Texas (April 26 to May 4), and Charleston, South Carolina (May 10 to May 18). In Houston, the officers of a U.S. destroyer that was serving as a training vessel for the local U.S. naval reserves unit took “a prominent part” in ­“entertaining the Karlsruhe’s personnel and honoring its officers.” Captain Luetjens made a side trip to San Antonio, where the com­ mander of Fort Sam Houston received him.75 The mayors of Houston and the nearby port of Galveston, the president of Galveston’s Chamber of Commerce, German naval attaché Witthoeft, and the German consuls in New Orleans and Galveston were all on hand to welcome the Karlsruhe when it arrived in Houston. Houston’s mayor announced that he was particularly pleased that the German government had chosen Houston as one of the U.S. ports the Karlsruhe would visit. The warship received German–American delegations on board to celebrate the German national holiday of May Day.76 73 Ibid., March 15, 16, 18, and 19, 1935. 74 Ibid., March 19, 1935. 75 Houston Post, April 26 and 30, 1935. 76 Ibid., April 25 and 26, and May 1, 1935.

173

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

At the Texas state legislature’s invitation, Captain Luetjens ­delivered an address to it in Austin, in which he claimed that Nazi Germany and the United States shared the same ideals. He expressed the hope that the Karlsruhe’s visit would strengthen American ­understanding of German aspirations. In Austin, Luetjens also made an official call on Gov. James Allred.77 The Karlsruhe’s final stop in the United States on this voyage was Charleston, South Carolina, where it received twenty-one-gun salutes from Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie. The Karlsruhe followed with a thirteen-gun salute to U.S. rear admiral Edward Fenner, commandant of the U.S. 6th Naval District and of the Charleston Navy Yard, which responded with its own thirteen-gun salute. U.S. military endorsement of the Karlsruhe’s visit was evident in the composition of Charleston’s welcoming committee, which included two U.S. Navy officers, a U.S. Army officer, a U.S. Coast Guard officer, and a representative of the German consulate in Charleston. The U.S. Navy high command again communicated its desire to forge bonds of friendship with Nazi Germany’s naval ­officers when Rear Admiral Fenner hosted a dance at Charleston Navy Yard to honor Captain Luetjens and members of his staff. Charleston’s mayor welcomed Captain Luetjens and members of his staff at city hall, and staged an official luncheon for them.78 In March 1935, about the time the Karlsruhe was visiting California, Hitler signaled the navy’s growing importance as a ­propaganda instrument by establishing a National Socialist Navy League (Nationalsozialistischer Deutscher Marinebund) to instill the Nazi outlook within the German fleet. Its membership included all former German naval officers and seamen. About the same time, Hitler introduced a People’s Navy Week to stimulate interest in the German navy among citizens of the Reich and persons of German descent in foreign countries. Vice Adm. Conrad Albrecht, chief of 77 Ibid., April 30, and May 1, 1935. 78 “Visit of the German Cruiser Karlsruhe to Charleston, SC, April 10th–18th as submitted by J. A. Von Dohlen,” NAR, box 884, ONI, RG 38, NA, DC; Charleston News and Courier, May 9, 1935.

174

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

the Baltic naval station, stated that the purpose of People’s Navy Week was “to impress upon all our racial comrades” that the navy “like other parts of our armed forces is a visible symbol of our National Socialist Third Reich.”79 The Hitler regime achieved a major diplomatic and military triumph in June 1935 when it persuaded the British government to sign the Anglo–German Naval Agreement, which allowed it to significantly escalate the pace of naval construction and divide Britain from its wartime ally France. The historian Martin Gilbert called the agreement “appeasement’s most dramatic success” and a herald of the Munich pact to come. The British made the agreement with the Germans without consulting the French, who opposed it. It swept aside the Versailles Treaty limitations on German naval construction, permitting Germany to build a navy with 35 percent the tonnage of Britain’s. The agreement also allowed the Germans to begin submarine construction, forbidden under the Versailles Treaty, so long as they promised not to use U-boats to attack merchant ships. Winston Churchill noted in his memoirs that the agreement set Germany’s navy yards “to work at maximum activity” for years.80 The Anglo–German Naval Agreement, which the U.S. ­government favored, greatly enhanced the German navy’s potential impact in a future war. It significantly reduced the Royal Navy’s advantage, because Britain required many more vessels to defend its far-flung colonial empire, stretched across several oceans. Moreover, many Royal Navy ships were antiquated. The agreement not only weakened British prospects for successfully blockading Germany’s Baltic and North Sea

79 [William] Dodd, “Regarding Naval Affairs—Germany. Formation of a New National Socialist German Navy League, Plans for,” March 26, 1935, box 6779, CDF, DS, RG 59, NA, CP; New York Times, June 12, 1935. 80 Martin Gilbert, The Roots of Appeasement (New York: New American Library, 1966), 150; Churchill, Gathering Storm, 137–38. William Shirer wrote that the British government accepted Hitler’s offer of the agreement “with incredible naiveté and speed.” Shirer believed that the agreement gave Hitler “free rein to build up a navy as fast as was physically possible”; see Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1960), 288–89.

175

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

ports in a future war, but it also gave the German navy the capability to seriously threaten British and American shipping in the Atlantic.81 Lord Lloyd, denouncing the Anglo–German Naval Agreement in the British House of Lords, called it “a tremendous stimulus of German militarism,” and warned that Hitler would adhere to neither the 35 percent provision limiting German naval construction nor the promise not to use submarines against merchant shipping. He added: “Anyone who has read Mein Kampf . . . and the absolutely frank avowal therein of the Nazi attitude toward treaties will find it very hard to believe … that [the Germans] will consider themselves nailed down.”82 By the time the Karlsruhe and Emden made their goodwill visits to U.S. ports in 1936, U.S. naval intelligence had recognized that “there is growing as fast as [German] naval construction will permit, a powerful and important navy,” which already controlled the Baltic. Sigrid Schultz, the Chicago Tribune’s Berlin correspondent, reported in March 1936 that German navy yards were “working night and day” building naval vessels. She noted that the Hitler regime was strongly encouraging naval recruitment: “newspapers and billboards call upon the nation’s youth to serve in the navy.” The Washington Post had reported in March 1935 that the Germans had already set up fortifications that made their coasts “virtually invulnerable.”83 The Karlsruhe and the Emden visited U.S. ports after horrific pogroms in Berlin in July 1935, and following passage in September of the long-awaited Nuremberg race laws, which deprived Germany’s Jews of their citizenship. The Nuremberg laws also made marriages and sexual relations between Jews and “Aryans” illegal. Violators were subject to prison terms. Nazis in the Reichstag had been c­ lamoring for such prohibitions before their party came to power. The American 81 J. C. White, counselor of [U.S.] Embassy to Hon. Secretary of State, Subject: Anglo-German Naval Agreement, June 26, 1935, and Lord Lloyd, “Naval and Military Situation,” June 26, 1935, box 36, Norman Davis Papers, Library of Congress. 82 Lord Lloyd, “Naval and Military Situation,” June 26, 1935. 83 NAR, “Subject: Germany’s Naval Position at the End of the Third Year of the Third Reich,” February 7, 1936, box 1191, ONI, RG 38, NA, DC; Washington Post, March 23, 1935; Chicago Tribune, March 29, 1936.

176

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

chargé d’affaires at the U.S. embassy in Berlin in July 1933, George Gordon, noted that German schools and universities “placed particular emphasis . . . on the evils of miscegenation.”84 Rabbi Wise characterized the new race laws as “the crime of Nuremberg, a crime that was to be expected.” The London Observer asserted that they “will intensify the efforts to place German Jews in a national ghetto.”85 American Jews’ bitter resentment of the swastika flag displayed on German ships precipitated a major diplomatic crisis in September 1935, when a Jewish judge, Louis Brodsky, dismissed charges against five anti-Nazi seamen who had stormed the German passenger liner Bremen on July 26, 1935, when it was docked in New York, tore its swastika flag from the mast, and threw it into the Hudson River. In releasing the defendants, Judge Brodsky called the Third Reich a criminal regime. He explained that the Bremen’s “prominent display” of the Nazi emblem carried “the same sinister implications as a pirate ship, sailing defiantly into the harbor of a nation, one of whose ships it had just scuttled, with the black flag of piracy proudly flying aloft.” The judge compared the anti-Nazi seamen to the patriots in the Boston Tea Party.86 The Hitler government demanded that the U.S. State Department formally apologize for the seamen’s and Judge Brodsky’s actions, and the German press unleashed a torrent of antisemitic invective aimed at the judge. Sigrid Schultz reported in the Chicago Tribune that “the entire German press denounced Judge Brodsky as “either a hyphenated American, an eastern [Jewish] immigrant or a ‘Jew who is a tool of dark Jewish Bolshevik powers.’” The Berlin Tageblatt declared that Brodsky “belongs in the category of wandering East Europeans” who could not be expected to respect the American or foreign flags. Hans Frank, president of the German Academy of Law, mobilized its 84 Chicago Tribune, September 16, 1935; The Brown Book of the Hitler Terror and the Burning of the Reichstag (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1933), 278; George A. Gordon to Assistant Secretary of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1933, Vol. II, The British Commonwealth, Europe, Near East and Africa (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949), 356. 85 Jewish Telegraphic Agency, September 18, 1935; London Observer, September 22, 1935. 86 New York Times, July 27 and September 7, 1935.

177

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

members in “a vitriolic protest” of Judge Brodsky’s statement about the swastika flag. Dr. Frank declared: “Judge Brodsky is a Jew. Jews can insult neither our flag nor new Germany.” He stated that it was “most deplorable and also a most dangerous p ­ recedent when a Jew . . . is permitted to debase the robe of a judge to the extent of venting the undying hatred of his race on this ­ nationally resurgent people.” Secretary of State Hull apologized to the Hitler government for what he called Judge Brodsky’s “­ offensive” remarks about a “government with which we have official relations.”87 The Nazi warships arrived on American coasts shortly after the German seizure of the demilitarized Rhineland on March 7, 1936, in violation of the Versailles Treaty and the Locarno Pact, which Germany’s republican government signed in 1925. William Shirer noted that the French and British unwillingness to drive back the German forces “was a disaster for the West from which sprang all the later ones of even greater magnitude.” Otto Tolischus, Berlin correspondent for the New York Times, reported that Germany’s ­ march into the Rhineland “was made to look like a dress rehearsal for more serious business.” By taking the Rhineland, Hitler ­positioned his army to invade Western Europe. The U.S. government remained silent. Secretary of State Hull declined to discuss “any phase” of the Rhineland situation with the press, saying only that the United States was “not involved in any way.”88 In April 1936, the Karlsruhe received the same enthusiastic reception in San Diego from U.S. military, civic, business, and society leaders as it had on its previous two Nazi-era trips to the United States. U.S. vice admiral H. V. Butler hosted a luncheon on a U.S. naval vessel for the Karlsruhe’s new captain Leopold Siemens and German naval attaché Witthoeft. U.S. rear admiral C. H. Woodward (Commander of Destroyers, Battle Force) held still another luncheon for them on board ship. The commandant of the U.S. 11th Naval District and Captain Siemens exchanged official calls. Witthoeft visited the U.S. 87 Chicago Tribune, September 8, 1935; Washington Post, September 8, 1935; New York Times, September 15, 1935. 88 Shirer, Rise and Fall, 295; Chicago Tribune, March 8, 1936; Los Angeles Times, March 8, 1936; Washington Post, March 8, 1936.

178

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

Naval Training Station, where he was received “with full honors,” and made an official call at the local U.S. Marine Corps base. The city and county of San Diego and the Chamber of Commerce sponsored a dinner for Captain Siemens and his officers and a dance for the Karlsruhe’s crew. At a Chamber of Commerce luncheon, San Diego’s mayor and the county supervisor extended “felicitations” to Witthoeft and the Karlsruhe’s officers, cadets, and crew. U.S. rear admiral Tarrant did the same for the navy.89 Captain Siemens, several of his officers and cadets, and Witthoeft made a side trip to Los Angeles, where society leaders and ­prominent German residents entertained them at lavish social functions, including a dinner, a tea, a luncheon, and a cocktail party. Consul Gyssling hosted a garden party for the Karlsruhe contingent at his home, attended by Los Angeles debutantes.90 The Hitler government sent a second 6,000-ton cruiser, the Emden, flying the swastika flag from bow and stern, on an eightmonth goodwill and training tour in 1936 that included stops in Honolulu (February 8–17) and Baltimore (April 21–May 2). American military, political, and business leaders gave the Emden an enthusiastic welcome. The U.S. Navy Department in Washington, DC, U.S. Navy admirals, state and municipal officials, and chambers of commerce used the visit to proclaim their determination to forge even friendlier relations between the United States and the Third Reich. The U.S. Naval Academy underscored its strong commitment to this goal by inviting the Emden’s officers and cadets to its campus in Annapolis as honored guests. They were joined there by Nazi Germany’s ambassador, Hans Luther, whom the Naval Academy received with “full military honors.” Maryland’s governor and Baltimore’s mayor exchanged official calls with the Emden’s captain.91 By contrast, Baltimore Jewish and civil rights organizations, garment workers’ unions, and Communist groups vigorously protested 89 Commandant, 11th Naval District, San Diego, to Chief of Naval Operations (Director of Naval Intelligence), April 22, 1936, box 884, NAR, ONI, RG 38, NA, DC; San Diego Union, April 7 and 10, 1936. 90 Los Angeles Times, April 4 and 19, 1936. 91 Baltimore Sun, April 18, 19, and 30, 1936.

179

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

the Emden’s presence, in part through a mass demonstration near the waterfront. Baltimore rabbi Edward Israel denounced the governor and mayor for welcoming the swastika-bedecked warship rather than taking “a stand in behalf of humanity and democracy.”92 When the Emden docked in Honolulu, the city’s military and civilian dignitaries made clear their desire for friendly ties with the nation it represented. Hawaii’s territorial governor’s aides, Honolulu’s mayor, U.S. Navy rear admiral Yarnell, and U.S. major general Hugh Drum, commander at Fort Shafter, exchanged official calls with Captain Bachmann. General Drum accorded Captain Bachmann an honor guard when he visited the fort. Drum had 1,200 U.S. troops parade for the German warship’s captain, who was joined on the reviewing stand by the governor, the mayor, and Rear Admiral Yarnell. Honolulu’s extensive entertainment program included a Chamber of Commerce luncheon for twenty of the Emden’s officers and cadets, which the governor, mayor, and the German consul in Honolulu also attended.93 As the Emden arrived in Baltimore, Captain Bachmann gave an address on board to celebrate Hitler’s birthday. When he finished, the warship’s personnel gave the Nazi salute and shouted “Heil Hitler!” three times.94 While the Emden was in Baltimore, the U.S. Navy Department hosted a reception in Washington for Captain Bachmann and his officers and cadets. Adm. William Standley, chief of U.S. Naval Operations, also held a luncheon there to honor Bachmann.95 U.S. Secretary of State Hull ignored the plea of Emanuel Gorfine, speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, and four other House members to rescind the permission he had granted for the Emden to dock in Baltimore. The Baltimore Sun reported that “thousands of [their] constituents had expressed deep resentment” that Secretary Hull had allowed the German warship to visit the city.96 92 Baltimore Sun, April 19 and 20, 1936; Washington Post, April 23, 1936. 93 Honolulu Advertiser, February 8, 9, and 11, 1936. 94 Baltimore Sun, April 21, 1936. 95 “German Vessel Visits Baltimore,” Army and Navy Journal, April 25, 1936, 746. 96 Baltimore Sun, April 21, 1936.

180

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

In Baltimore, German consul Frederick Schneider hosted a dinner for Captain Bachmann and the Emden’s officers, attended by the ­ presidents of the city’s German-American organizations, at which the mayor made an appearance. The pastor of Baltimore’s Zion Lutheran Church gave the invocation, and Adolf Hitler was toasted.97 Captain Bachmann, several of his officers, and 150 Emden cadets visited the U.S. Naval Academy as guests of its superintendent, Rear Adm. David Sellers. Sellers had been Nazi ambassador Luther’s dinner guest in Washington a few days earlier. Sellers hosted a luncheon at the Naval Academy for the Emden officers, at which they were joined by Luther and Witthoeft. The Naval Academy greeted Luther’s arrival with a nineteen-gun salute.98 In July, Sellers embarked on a trip of nearly two months in Europe that included more than two weeks in Nazi Germany. He visited thirteen cities in the Reich between July 27 and August 13.99 On April 29, an Emergency Committee for an Anti-Nazi Protest that had been established to protest the Emden’s visit to Baltimore sponsored a public meeting at which Gerhart Seger, former Social Democratic Reichstag deputy and anti-Nazi refugee, spoke on “Hitler, a Menace to World-Wide Civilization.” Seger had escaped from the Oranienburg concentration camp in December 1933. The committee announced that it was sponsoring Seger’s lecture to “counteract Nazi propaganda” circulating through Baltimore as a result of the Emden’s visit. Its members included Rabbi Israel and the president of the Baltimore Federation of Labor. Five hundred persons attended Seger’s lecture.100

  97 Ibid., April 22, 1936.   98 Ibid., April 18, 1936; Washington Post, April 26, 1936; New York Times, April 26, 1936; Hans Luther to David Foote Sellers, “To Meet the Captain of the Cruiser ‘Emden,’” April 23, 1936, box 19, David Foote Sellers Papers, Library of Congress.   99 “Itinerary of Rear Admiral D. F. Sellers, U.S. Navy—1936,” box 4, Sellers Papers, Library of Congress. 100 Baltimore Sun, April 29 and 30, 1936.

181

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

The German cruisers were diverted from goodwill missions to the United States for service in the Spanish Civil War after Hitler’s military intervention in July 1936. After that conflict ended in 1939, the ships were redeployed for service in World War II. Both sides in the Spanish Civil War relied heavily on shipping to import necessary war matériel, food, and foreign troops. By June 1937, 60 percent of Germany’s newer naval vessels were in Spanish waters, including the Karlsruhe and Emden. Both patrolled the Spanish coast, and the Karlsruhe participated in the blockade of Loyalist-held Bilbao, which helped force its capitulation to the Fascists.101

Conclusion By sending modern, well-equipped cruisers on goodwill trips to U.S. ports, the Hitler regime intended to project an image of respectability and military strength. It hoped to ensure U.S. neutrality in the next European war by convincing Americans that Germany was unfairly victimized by the Western powers and had legitimate reasons to expand. The cruisers’ round-the-world voyages reminded Americans that Germany was potentially a world, not just a European, military power. During 1934, Hitler signaled that he would repudiate the military provisions of the Versailles Treaty by reintroducing conscription and expanding the size of Germany’s army well above the treaty limit. In March 1935, Hitler announced that a German air force existed. Later that year, the U.S. ambassador to France submitted to Secretary of State Hull a report, from a U.S. naval attaché for aviation who had inspected German air bases, which emphasized Germany’s “firm determination to maintain an air force equal to that of any of Germany’s possible enemies.”102

101 New York Times, December 31, 1936, and April 14 and 20, and June 24, 1937; Chicago Tribune, April 20, 1937. 102 Shirer, Rise and Fall, 281; Lt. Commander Wyatt, “General Comments on German Aviation Following a Two-weeks Inspection of Aviation Activities in Germany,” attached to Jesse Isidor Strauss, U.S. Embassy, Paris, to Hon. Secretary of State, December 18, 1935, box 6779, CDF, DS, RG 59, NA.

182

Entertaining Nazi Warriors in America, 1934–1936

CHAPTER 5

The goodwill voyages helped to legitimize Hitler’s rearmament program in the United States at a time when it was still possible to block it. The U.S. Navy, with the cooperation of the State Department, even assisted German cruisers in carrying out target practice and maneuvers. The navy was especially important in Germany’s war plans as the instrument to prevent its enemies from securing war matériel and food. The German cruisers sent to U.S. ports were modern, well-equipped long-distance raiders designed to devastate the merchant marines of Germany’s enemies. German naval visits to the United States were part of a concerted strategy to achieve respectability in the West that included student exchange programs with American universities. Many American universities participated in the student exchange programs, which ­ brought to American campuses German students trained by the Hitler regime as Nazi propagandists. American students who enrolled in junior year and summer programs at German ­universities resided with German families selected by the regime for their Nazi beliefs, and they attended classes taught by Nazi professors. Many of these students returned to the United States as partisans of the “New Germany.”103 Officers on the visiting German cruisers and German consular ­officials similarly promoted the Nazis’ virulently antisemitic ideology and policies in press interviews, conversations with U.S. naval officers, and in speeches to business and civic groups. On its 1935 world tour, the Karlsruhe carried with it 2,000 copies of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, mostly for distribution in the United States.104 American newspapers were full of praise for the German navy’s efforts to forge friendly ties between the United States and the Third Reich. American veterans’ groups, many of whose members had fought the Germans in World War I, joined in hailing the officers and men of the s­wastika-bedecked warships. U.S. navy and army officers had no qualms about fraternizing with the ­officers of these warships, even after the American press reported in December 1935 that the German government was systematically

103 Norwood, Third Reich in the Ivory Tower, 59–60, 105–15, 124–25, 174–75. 104 Manchester Guardian, October 28, 1935.

183

PART 2

Antisemitism in America Before—and After—the Founding of the Jewish State

evicting Jewish widows of German soldiers killed in the World War from low-rent municipal ­apartments built specifically for war widows.105 American Jews were largely on their own in challenging the German navy’s visits to U.S. shores. Jewish anti-Nazi protestors were joined on occasion by non-Jewish trade unionists, and Communists sometimes staged their own demonstrations, but few mainstream Americans publicly denounced the Nazi vessels’ presence in their country’s ports. When German warships came to the United States, between 1934 and 1936, the Hitler regime’s objective was clear: to destroy German Jewry within a generation through economic strangulation, violent terror, and continuous humiliation and verbal abuse. Wealthier Jews might leave Germany, losing most or all of their property and assets; the rest of German Jewry would starve to death. Shortly after the Karlsruhe’s 1934 visit to Boston, Rabbi Joseph Shubow, a prominent local Jewish leader and activist, confronted Hitler’s foreign press chief, Ernst Hanfstaengl, in Harvard Yard, where the Nazi official was attending his twenty-fifth college reunion. In the presence of many newspaper reporters, Rabbi Shubow, “trembling violently,” demanded that Hanfstaengl tell him whether the Nazi plan for the Jews was “extermination.”106 The consistently friendly reception accorded the German warships visiting U.S. ports to promote American goodwill toward the Third Reich during the mid-1930s reflected widespread insensitivity toward Jews among mainstream Americans; U.S. navy and army officers, including those at the highest levels; and many federal, state, and local officials. This foreshadowed what David Wyman has called America’s “abandonment of the Jews” during the Holocaust: its unwillingness to undertake serious rescue efforts to save European Jews.107

105 Chicago Tribune, December 31, 1935; Washington Post, January 5, 1936. 106 Boston Globe, June 19, 1934; Boston Post, June 19, 1934. 107 David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941– 1945 (New York: New Press, 2007 [1984]).

184

CHAPTER 6

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad Richard Landes

I

n the 1990s, some observers noted the rise in apocalyptic discourse within the Muslim community and its links to the phenomenon of global Jihad, which in its current avatar, dates back to the year 1979 (=1400 AH), when Khomeini took over Iran.1 Apocalyptic Jihad constituted a peculiar kind of urgent millennial ambition: to bring about a world caliphate—global Dar al-Islam—in our days. Those of us alerted to such a phenomenon generally found it risible, wildly out of touch with reality. “They may want the Queen to wear a burqa and the green flag of Islam to fly from the White House, but that’s not going to happen,” we all thought. After all, if in asymmetric wars the weak side might succeed in chasing a more powerful invader out, what chance could an extremely weak side have in invading a far more powerful enemy? Triumphalist Muslims take over the West? Pure nonsense! I wanted to laugh like everyone else, but as a scholar of the massive wreckage that millennial movements have left in their   1 See Richard Landes, Heaven on Earth: The Varieties of the Millennial Experience (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 445–50.

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad

CHAPTER 6

wake as they plunged to their certain failure, I know that “wrong” does not mean “inconsequential.”2 In the mid-1990s, however, when I tried to project apocalyptic Jihad forward several decades in the future, it never occurred to me to factor in the extraordinary degree to which the West would show so little resistance to this barbaric invasion. Even though I knew, for example, that Muslim roosters (apocalyptic prophets) were targeting 2000,3 I hardly expected, as did they, that an apocalyptic war between Islam and the West would break out in that year. And I certainly did not imagine that they, and their particularly dangerous brand of “active-cataclysmic” a­ pocalyptic millennialism, would so spectacularly benefit from the passage of that date. In none of my 1990s scenarios would the opening years and decades of the twenty-first century witness the exceptional success of apocalyptic Jihad in going from the margins to the center of both Muslim cultures and the West. In the lands of Muslim majorities, apocalyptic Jihad has grown and spread, dominating much of public discourse, tearing asunder governments, and creating one of the worst refugee crises in a long century of such crises. In the West, it has made steady and stealthy progress in penetrating democratic institutions— from journalism, academia, and “human rights” NGOs, to intelligence services and policy circles. It has managed to turn many of these public and official voices to the service of their cognitive war against the very democracies they supposedly r­ epresent and defend. Indeed, as a sober and informed backward glance would reveal, the democratic West’s cultural Maginot Line of democratic principles and practices (ethics of information professionals, ­ schools as ­incubators of civil polities, public debate) collapsed across a wide range of fronts under the weight of the Jihadi assault.4   2 Ibid., especially chaps. 7, 11, 12.   3 David Cook, “Muslim Fears of the Year 2000,” Middle East Quarterly 5, no. 2 (1998): 51–62, http://www.meforum.org/article/397.   4 Emmanuel Brenner, ed., Les territoires perdus de la République: Milieu scolaire, antisémitisme, sexism (Paris: Mille et une nuits, 2002); English title: The Lost

187

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

The ability of Jihadis to introduce their war propaganda into the West in the twenty-first century, their ability to use human rights and democratic values to corrupt and destroy the very values and institutions that upheld a civil polity, constitutes one (if not the) most significant topic to which anyone committed to democratic and egalitarian principles can pay attention today. It is the subject of this chapter.

From Lethal Journalism to Own-Goal War Journalism One of the most remarkable aspects of the still-young twenty-first century is the way in which the Western press, led by Britain’s two major news outlets, the BBC and The Guardian, has engaged in a form of journalism seriously damaging to the Western public sphere, the very world that makes professional, free journalism possible. In the history of the phenomenon, war journalism is usually patriotic. The players, unethical to be sure, run their own side’s war ­propaganda as news, whether true, exaggerated, or false. They are, sometimes at the cost of professional commitments, part of their side’s war effort. And yet, future generations will look back on the behavior of the current Western press around the world and consider its most ­stunning trait to be its persistent, systematic, and pervasive practice of running enemy war propaganda as news. This own-goal war journalism has taken two forms, both strongly supportive of Jihadi war aims against the West. On the one hand, it has presented Jihadi war propaganda as news to Western audiences. Since that war propaganda is intended to incite Muslim sense of victimization, to inspire hatred of infidels and a desire for revenge, the affirmation of their claims by the Territories of the Republic, trans. Chodos and Joanis (New York: AJC Press, 2006), http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42d75369-d582-4380-8395-d25925b85eaf%7D/ LOST%20TERRITORIES.PDF.

188

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad

CHAPTER 6

Western media has proven a remarkable boon to the Jihadis recruiting Muslims who want to avenge their people’s suffering.5 On the other hand, even as they incited Jihadi violence in reality, they systematically downplayed, even denied, that very violence, and attacked anyone who tried to draw attention to it. In so doing they provided extensive cover for Jihadi operations in the West, and prevented Western infidels from mobilizing in defense of their civil polity. Were one to characterize the effect of this press in medical terms, one could say they inflicted a combination of CIPA and AIDS on the Western body politic. On the one hand, by not reporting the pain and the source of the pain to the brain of the body politic—that is, the public sphere—the media have played a dominant a role in prolonging the damage. Just as people with CIPA can burn their hands and not remove them from the flame for lack of pain messages, so, as in the case of not reporting systematic rape, Muslim men can groom tens of thousands of British girls, some as young as eleven, for systematic rape and get away with it for more than a decade. At the same time, this behavior manifests as an aggressive form of AIDS, in which not only are foreign bodies hostile to the body politic welcomed and encouraged, but any defensive (white blood) cells, mobilized to defend against such an invasion, are attacked. Accusations of Islamophobia leveled at any one depicting Jihad as a Muslim threat combine with depictions of radical Muslim o ­ peratives as “moderates” to present the public with an inverted image of reality: the Westerners concerned with protecting civil polities are labeled right-wing extremists, while those who plan to use ­democracy to destroy democracy are labeled friendly and benign.6   5 For the role of TV images in radicalizing Jihadis, see Farhad Khosrokhavar, Quand Al-Qaïda parle: Témoignages derrière les barreaux (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 2006); John Rosenthal, “The French Path to Jihad,” Policy Review, October 1, 2006, http://www.hoover.org/research/french-path-jihad.   6 Peter McLoughlin, Easy Meat: Inside Britain’s Grooming Gang Scandal (Nashville, TN: New English Review, 2016). For a good analysis of the situation, already deplorable, in the mid-aughts, see Bruce Bawer, Surrender: Appeasing Islam,

189

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Generally, people who are aware of the problem—and given the role of the press in suppressing awareness, that is a relatively small number—have three major explanations for this self-destructive behavior: · Underdogma: the power of a politically correct, post-colonial ideology that favors “marginalized and underrepresented minority voices” (their side, right or wrong). · The fear of offending Muslims, especially of saying anything that might seem “Islamophobic.” · The role of animosity towards Jews among Western ­intelligentsia, both gentile and Jewish. I will explore the dynamics among these three phenomena in an effort to understand the remarkably self-destructive behavior of Western information professionals—journalists, academics, NGOs— in the twenty-first century.

Own-Goal War Journalism: Western Media and the Conflict between Israel and its Neighbors in the Twenty-First Century The last item on this list—ambiguously called “animosity towards Jews” rather than the more common “antisemitism”—may seem too specific for this otherwise very general list. For some Jews, ­antisemitism is the main reason the Western media behave as they do; for most non-Jews, it’s not even a factor. And yet it may well be that, in a less virulent form than antisemitism (which I reserve for the kind of genocidal paranoia that moved the Nazis and now moves the Jihadis), animosity towards Jews is the means by which the Western body politic became infected with the aggressive ­combination of cultural AIDS and CIPA from which it now suffers. It certainly explains how, for at least fifteen years now, the news Sacrificing Freedom (New York: Doubleday, 2006), especially part II: “Censors and Self-Censors.”

190

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad

CHAPTER 6

media have engaged in own-goal war journalism, unaware that they were actually shooting the society that makes “free journalism” possible (and hence shooting themselves). The media have long shown a tendency to take sides in this conflict. When it was called the Arab–Israeli conflict, the Western media, especially in the United States, tended to view it as an “Israeli David versus Arab Goliath” frame. Dissenters from this, advocates of reversing that frame, call it the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and as far back as the war in Lebanon in 1982, have shown themselves eager to both report accusations against the Israelis from Arab sources and to be drawn towards comparisons of Israel with the Nazis, as in comparing the siege of Beirut with the Warsaw Ghetto.7 The media response to the Christian Phalange’s massacre of Palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatila, which was to focus on Israel’s indirect role in the events, both illustrated and reinforced the growing tendency among journalists to adopt the Palestinian narrative, targeting Israel. This issue of news coverage is, of course, an immensely contested battlefield. For every book claiming pro-Palestinian bias, one can find books claiming pro-Israel bias, especially of the American press.8 The overall impact of media coverage in the twenty-first   7 On Newsweek comparing Beirut to Warsaw Ghetto, see Joshua Muravchik, “Misreporting Lebanon,” Policy Review 23 (Winter 1983): 14. This propensity to compare Jews to Nazis grotesquely distorts the reality—no one was being ­exterminated in Beirut, much less burned to death with flame throwers, not even the PLO. In this moral derangement, Westerners were assisted by many an Israeli “intellectual” who adopted this self-accusing discourse. Notes Edward Alexander: “During the 1982 (Lebanon) war, a whole range of Israelis whom nobody outside of Israel had ever heard of before, from professors to publishers of pornographic newspapers, became instant European celebrities by applying the epithet ‘Judeo-Nazi’ to other Israelis, in precisely the style of “projection” that antisemitic Jews have been practicing since the Middle Ages”; see Alexander, Jews against Themselves (New Brunswick: Transaction, 2015), 6, chap. 2.   8 This includes: the highly polemical Greg Philo and Mike Berry, Bad News from Israel (Edinburgh: Pluto, 2004); Richard A. Falk and Howard Friel, IsraelPalestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East (London: Verso, 2007); Marda Dunsky, Pens and Swords: How the American Mainstream Media Report the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008); Daniel Dor, The Intifada Hits the Headlines (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004). A close look at these books indicates an

191

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

century seems pretty clear, however. If large minorities in Europe believe that the Israelis are committing genocide against a ­population whose constant growth actually threatens Israeli democracy, if Israel ranks alongside Iran and North Korea as threats to world peace, this can only be the result of skewed media coverage.9

Al Durah, September 30, 2000: The Nuclear Bomb of Cognitive Warfare So let’s begin with the first major victory for global Jihad in the Western media in the twenty-first century, the case of Muhammad al Durah, an event that precedes 9/11 by almost a year. Unlike the ­spectacular real-world success of 9/11, al Durah was a cheap fake, consisting of 6 ten-second video sequences, which, despite their brevity and lack of focus, contradicted repeatedly the claims of the journalistic narrative of Israelis targeting and killing the boy and wounding his father multiple times. The longer “rushes” (raw footage shot by cameraman Talal abu Rahmeh) show long periods of inaction, punctuated by short, most often staged, action sequences. And yet the impact of this minute of footage may have been as consequential as the 9/11 footage, certainly on the cognitive battlefield. It took a peculiar man to do the editorial and narrative magic on this meager and unclear body of evidence, in this case a veteran French-born Israeli who had served the IDF (Israel Defense enormous sensitivity to criticism of the Palestinians and a high demand for severity towards the Israelis. Indeed, reading these texts one quickly realizes that they criticize the media for not fully adopting the Palestinian narrative (or alternatively, for not being sufficiently compliant with Palestinian media demands).   9 For a survey of these polls registering, among other things, a widespread belief that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians, see Manfred Gerstenfeld, The War of a Million Cuts (Jerusalem: JCPA, 2015), 55–66. For the argument that Israel needs to abandon the West Bank because of the ­demographic threat from Palestinians, see Joseph Chamie, “By 2035, Jewish Population in Israel/Palestine Is Projected at 46 percent,” Mondoweiss, February 21, 2014, http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/population-israelpalestine-­projected. The website features numerous articles accusing Israel of genocide: http:// mondoweiss.net/?s=genocide.

192

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad

CHAPTER 6

Forces) in the army spokesman’s office, and worked for the French network France2. Perhaps only he would have had the credibility among Israeli officials to pull it off. His voice-over identifies the boy as the “target of fire “coming from the Israeli position,” . . . another round of fire, and the boy is dead, the father badly injured.” He then cut the last scene entirely, in which the boy, declared dead two takes earlier, slowly and deliberately lifts up his arm and peeks out.10 Once the tale was told, however, the pressure was on others to tell it, or be left out of a huge story, like CNN, which had turned it down the day before.11 And no matter how much evidence, both direct and circumstantial, contradicted the narrative, it spread like wildfire. In the Arab and Muslim world it provoked furious calls for revenge and served as a recruiting device for global Jihad, ­masterfully exploited by Bin Laden in a recruiting video widely disseminated among radical Muslims globally. In the West, journalists jumped at the chance to confirm the Palestinian cameraman’s claim that it was cold-blooded murder.12 This shocking affirmation of the long-standing Palestinian claim that Israel deliberately killed Palestinian children moved a ­peculiarly noxious substitution theology (they’re all noxious) from the margins 10 Charles Enderlin claimed that he cut the unbearable “death throes” from his footage as inappropriate. He claims to have a (clearly post-broadcast) medical report affirming that these are the death throes, which he has never produced. The only thing unbearable about the cut footage is the narrative that the boy died two takes earlier. For Enderlin’s version, see his Un enfant est mort: Netzarim, 30 septembre 2000 (Paris: Don Quichotte éditions,‎2010). For the footage and analysis, see Richard Landes, Al Durah: Making of an Icon, https://vimeo.com/67060204; for a critique of Enderlin’s journalism in this matter, see Landes, “‘What’s Your Problem with That?’: Enderlin and the Intellectual Corruption of the MSM,” The Augean Stables, June 23, 2009, http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/06/23/whats-your-problem-withthat-enderlins-mask-falls-in-schapira-movie-interviews/. 11 Personal report from CNN staff. Apparently the Israeli members of the staff were most insistent. 12 Robert Fisk, “Where ‘Caught in the Crossfire’ Can Leave No Room for Doubt,” The Independent, October 2, 2000, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ world/middle-east/where-caught-in-the-crossfire-can-leave-no-room-fordoubt-635236.html.

193

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

to the center of the public discourse—just as Nazis e­ xterminated Jews in the Holocaust, Jews were now exterminating Palestinians. A week after the broadcast, a crowd of Muslim immigrants and leftist French demonstrated at Place de la République, under a great banner that equated the Star of David with the swastika, with a picture of the al Durahs behind the barrel proclaiming, “They, too, kill children.” And for the first time since the Nazis, the cry of “Death to the Jews” arose in the streets of a European capital. The press, fully compliant with lethal journalism’s principles of not reporting Muslims as antisemitic aggressors, did not report that particular detail in the reports on the demonstration, nor did the leftists present object, neither at the time the cry went up nor ­subsequently. On the contrary, the moral reversals permitted by the substitution theology so seized the public voice, that a mainstream, authoritative journalist, Catherine Nay, could proclaim: “This death [sic] erases, replaces the picture of the boy in the Warsaw Ghetto.”13 Whether Nay actually propounded the view, or merely gave it voice, she spoke for a crucial mass of French, who, having swallowed this lethal narrative hook, line, and sinker, cheered on the suicide bombing campaign against Israel. The image of the boy, crouching in terror at bullets hitting the wall above his head, “coming from the Israeli position,” became the poster for the intifada (implying with its explicitly accepted message that Israelis [intentionally] kill children). As a result of the embrace of this image and its symbolic meaning—a blood libel of immense proportions—the Western media, without realizing it, waved the flag of Jihad before the eyes of their own Muslims. The i­ ntifada of the suburbs, the amalgam whereby both Muslims and French infidels held French Jews responsible for what Israel ­(reportedly) did, broke out in France alongside the 13 Catherine Nay: “Avec la charge symbolique de cette photo, la mort de Mohammed annule, efface celle de l’enfant juif, les mains en l’air devant le SS, dans le Ghetto de Varsovie”; cited in Pierre-André Taguieff, La Judéophobie des Modernes: Des Lumières au Jihad Mondial (Paris: Odile Jacob,‎2008), 300–301. The original footage is not available online.

194

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad

CHAPTER 6

intifada in Israel: “I grew up in Tunisia. We didn’t hate the Jews there. I hate the Jews since I came to France . . . not from watching Arab TV, but French TV.” In Israel, there began a long and unremitting series of suicide b ­ ombings, some explicitly aimed at revenging the blood of Muhammad al Durah, that explicitly targeted Israeli civilians within the Green Line.14

Lethal Journalism and the “Jenin Massacre,” 2002 The end of 2000, therefore, marks the point at which a Western school of “lethal journalists” dominated the mainstream news media. After al Durah, their first massive feeding frenzy occurred during the Jenin campaign of March–April 2002. Finally retaliating after sixteen years of this terror campaign, and hundreds dead, the IDF went after the center of the suicide terror industry, an area of about five square blocks in the Jenin refugee camp, outside of the city of Jenin. For three weeks, during the actual operation, the IDF kept out the press, who used the time to report Israeli claims of the massacre of hundreds of civilians as credible. So intense was the consensus among journalists that a massacre had taken place, that even Ted Koppel’s daughter, Andrea, was heard declaring that, as a result of this “massacre,” Israel had lost its moral standing and “might not last much longer.” During this three-week period, lethal journalism with its accounts of slaughters and massacres went unrestrained by any form of journalistic skepticism. CNN’s Andrea Koppel, hardly what one would think of as an advocacy-driven pro-Palestinian journalist, responded to the challenge, “And you believe them,” with the rejoinder, “Oh, so now they are all just lying?” It turns out, yes. Extensively, continuously, unashamedly. When the body count finally came in, fifty-two to fifty-six Palestinian dead, twenty-three 14 Conversation with a taxicab driver, Paris, spring 2005; reported in R. Landes, “The Unintended Consequences of Media Error: Al Durah and the Ramadan Riots of 2005,” The Augean Stables, http://www.theaugeanstables.com/essayson-france/paris-notes-fall-2o05.

195

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Israelis dead. Of the Palestinian dead, almost two-thirds were combatants—an astoundingly low civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio for urban warfare. The press coverage, however, scarcely corrected by belated admissions that there was “no massacre,” left an indelible i­ mpression of both extensive Israeli brutality and the massive devastation of the (untouched) city of Jenin. UN representative Terjed Roed-Larsen, standing amidst the five-block rubble, proclaimed: “I think I can speak for all in the UN delegation that we are shocked. This is horrifying beyond belief. Just seeing this area, it looks like there has been an earthquake here and the stench of death is over many places where we are standing.” He found Israel’s behavior “morally ­repugnant.” The result is that, to this day, large numbers of people believe there was a “massacre” at Jenin, despite the fact that no Western army in urban combat has come near to the 2:1 ­combatant-to-civilian ratio of the IDF at Jenin.

Lethal Journalism Redux: Muslim Street and the Fraying of Civil Society in the West It’s hard to think of a better example of how the news media, as a pack, swallowed whole Palestinian war propaganda aimed at destroying Israel and repeated it as if they really believed it.15 The Jenin Massacre was an emperor’s new clothes procession that paraded an icon of hatred before the eyes of the world. A blight on the struggling twenty-first century. For while this orgy of accusation against Israel went on in the news media, Jihadi and “leftist” forces in the West engaged in furious public demonstrations against Israel. It was the insane d ­ emonstrations of the early aughts—2002 (Jenin), 2003 (Iraq)—that startled at least some people with a moral compass. Oriana Fallaci found it “shameful” 15 On the Andrea Koppel affair, see my analysis, Landes, “Principled Dupedom: On the Moral Imperative to be Stupid,” The Augean Stables, April 18, 2013, http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2013/04/18/principled-dupedom-on-themoral-imperative-to-be-stupid/.

196

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad

CHAPTER 6

that in Italy there should be a procession of individuals dressed as suicide bombers who spew vile abuse at Israel, hold up p ­ hotographs of Israeli leaders on whose foreheads they have drawn the swastika, incite people to hate the Jews . . . I find it shameful that the Catholic Church should permit a bishop . . . to participate in that procession and plant himself in front of a microphone to thank in the name of God the suicide bombers who massacre the Jews in pizzerias and supermarkets. I find it shameful that in France, the France of LibertyEquality-Fraternity, they burn synagogues, terrorize Jews, profane their cemeteries . . . that in nearly all the universities of Europe Palestinian students sponsor and nurture anti-Semitism . . . that state-run Italian television stations contribute to the resurgent anti-Semitism, crying only over Palestinian deaths while playing down Israeli deaths, glossing over them in unwilling tones. I find it shameful that in their debates, they host, with much deference, the scoundrels with turban or kaffiah who yesterday sang hymns to the slaughter at New York and today sing hymns to the slaughters at Jerusalem, at Haifa, at Netanya, at Tel Aviv . . . that the Roman Observer, newspaper of the Pope—a Pope who not long ago left in the Wailing Wall a letter of apology for the Jews—accuses of ­extermination a people who were exterminated in the millions by Christians.16

And, surprise! in only a few years, these same Jihadis would also strike Europeans. One is reminded of the scene in Independence Day, when the new-agers danced on the roof of a skyscraper to welcome the aliens, and then got zapped to oblivion. Indeed, it was during the frenzied news of the “Jenin Massacre,” that Western campuses became war zones in which angry Muslims and leftists seized the upper hand and, in England, introduced the first stages of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS).17 16 Oriana Fallaci, “On Jew-Hatred in Europe,” Panorama, April 17, 2002, http:// www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=11611. 17 See treatment by Alexander, Jews against Themselves, chap. 11, starring the key figures in Howard Jacobson’s roman à clef, The Finkler Question. For the real-life

197

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

And once the dynamic was in place, it repeated again and again: every time Israel defended itself from rockets aimed at its civilians, by attacking Jihadis embedded in civilian populations, whom they used as human shields, lethal journalists featured Palestinian suffering and Israeli aggression 24/7. Even when Palestinians’ rockets killed their own people, their own children, the press played up Palestinian a­ ccusations against Israel, while downplaying the evidence to the contrary.18 These orgies of lethal journalism regularly provoked violent demonstrations, not only in the Muslim world but also in the Western world, where, by 2009, demonstrators shouted, “We are Hamas,” and chased the police through the city. By 2014, this had graduated into mini-pogroms where Arab immigrants, scarcely restrained, rampaged through the city with primitive weapons, shouting, “Death to Jews.”19 This repeated pattern of egregious own-goal war journalism, ­consistently provokes angry and virulently anti-Zionist and ­antisemitic sentiments in the West. It has had a devastating effect on discourse in the public sphere. In Europe, shortly after 2000, it penetrated ­diplomatic and policy circles—“Israel, that shitty little country.” In the United States, a bit slower to take up “the Palestinian cry for justice,” it manifests itself primarily on U.S. campuses in the twenty-first figures to which Jacobson alludes, see Alvin Rosenfeld, “Progressive” Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism (New York: AJC, 2006), http://www.ajc.org/ atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/Progressive_ Jewish_Thought.PDF. 18 Most recently, the really scandalous case of Shati refugee camp and the trucebreaking killing of 11 Gazan children; see Gilead Ini, “What the Amnesty International Report on Palestinian Violations in Gaza Tells Us,” CAMERA, March 27, 2015, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12&x_ article=2975. Of the few outlets that recognized the issue, see Abeer Ayyoub and Tom Coghlan, “‘Misfired Hamas Rockets’ Killed Children in Gaza,” The Times (London), March 26, 2015, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/ middleeast/article4392976.ece. 19 On the lethal journalism, which is, ironically, also “own-goal” journalism, see Richard Landes, “BBC and Own-Goal War Journalism,” The Augean Stables, November 16, 2015, http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2015/11/16/the-bbcand-own-goal-war-journalism/. On the outbreak of violent antisemitism during (the lethal reporting of) Operation Protective Edge, see Robert Wistrich, “Summer in Paris,” Mosaic Magazine, October 5, 2014, http://mosaicmagazine. com/essay/2014/10/summer-in-paris/.

198

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad

CHAPTER 6

century. In the University of California system, the campuses “have become breeding grounds for hate speech.”20 Intolerance, bigotry, shouting down speakers with “Zionist” views, intimidation . . . they all spread unchecked, even facilitated by (often well-meaning) administrators.21 The participation of scholarly ­organizations in this campaign indicates just how deeply politicized the social sciences and humanities have become. Indeed, the situation has become such a caricature that one can actually identify the cognitive components. The near hysteria that characterizes much of the anti-Israel discourse reflects a deeply ­politicized academy, intellectually empowered by a post-colonial paradigm that views Zionism as the quintessential “right-wing . . . fascist . . . imperialist . . . colonialist . . . racist movement.”22 A deeply ironic gap necessarily opens up, between this perverse “reading”— Israeli Goliath—and the reality on the ground. Indeed, all of those negatives with which the post-colonialists never tire of denouncing Israel—especially the racist and imperialist accusations—­characterize precisely the enemies of the Zionists. Obviously, one maintains this paradigm only by the constant violation of basic standards for information professionals.23 The violations of basic rules of evidence by “lethal journalists” covering— and dominating the coverage of—the struggles between autonomous Jews and triumphalist Muslims in the land made meaningful by 20 Philippe Assouline, “How UC Campuses Have Become Breeding Grounds for Hate Speech: Guest Commentary,” Los Angeles Daily News, December 23, 2015, http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20151223/how-uc-campuses-havebecome-breeding-grounds-for-hate-speech-guest-commentary. 21 Richard Landes, “Salem on the Thames,” The American Interest, July 15, 2015, http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/07/30/salem-on-the-thames/. 22 Perhaps the most egregious case of this was the historian Tony Judt’s deeply ahistorical “Israel: The Alternative,” New York Review of Books, October 23, 2003, http:// www.nybooks.com/articles/16671. Fisked at The Augean Stables, March 9, 2009, http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/03/09/insights-into-whyeurope-slept-revisiting-tony-judts-israel-the-alternative/. 23 On the impact of Edward Said on Middle Eastern Studies, see Martin Kramer, Ivory Towers on Sand (Washington, DC: Institute for Peace, 2004); Philip Carl Salzman and Donna Robinson Divine, eds., Postcolonial Theory and the Arab– Israeli Conflict (London: Taylor and Francis, 2008).

199

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Jews have been legion. Indeed, I think (hope) in retrospect, they will be seen as the catastrophic failure they were. In the meantime, the result has been a near-total disorientation of the Western elite, who for moral reasons participate in one procession of hatred after another, siding with an ugly apartheid society, and attacking their enemies for being apartheid.24 Nothing better illustrates the complete moral and empirical disorientation of the current intelligentsia—academic, journalistic, policy elites—than the behavior of Angela Merkel in the latter part of 2015. Ten years after Europeans received their first warnings about the cultural and demographic war being waged against them by ­triumphalist Muslims who intend to spread Dar al-Islam to Europe, Europe’s most wealthy and socially generous nations—Germany and Sweden—opened themselves up to a wave of Muslims migrating from the social and political disasters of Muslim-majority lands. They did so under the impression—heavily promoted by both news media and spiritual authorities—that they were bringing in refugees as desperate as the Jews their people had so victimized in the Holocaust. All the evidence that this was not the case, that many were not refugees from Syria, that adult males outnumbered women and ­children by a significant ratio, that too many of these “refugees” displayed typical triumphalist behavior—contempt for infidels, lawless and intimidating behavior—did not penetrate the sense of moral superiority that Western Europeans had over the more self-protective Eastern European countries, such as Hungary. Convinced they engaged in a grand, global redemptive gesture of ­generosity and Wiedergutmachen for the sins of the Holocaust, the Germans allowed in a wave of at least a million, possibly millions, of Muslims, hundreds of thousands of them potential recruits, if not already reinforcements, for the Jihadis that struck France in November 2015.25 24 Ben Dror Yemini, “The Arab Apartheid,” Maariv, May 14, 2011, http://www. mideasttruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10380. 25 The most extensive responsible coverage of this migrant disaster is to be found at the Gatestone Institute, in particular the work of Soeren Kern: http://www.

200

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad

CHAPTER 6

Indeed, since 2000, European (and more broadly Western) ­officials and policymakers repeatedly made decisions (or failed to make decisions) that strengthened Jihadis in Europe and weakened the upholders of a tolerant, democratic culture. Each wave of lethal journalism (2000, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014) led to a more aggressive and transgressive “Muslim Street” in Europe, in which the cry “Death to the Jews” arose. The West’s inability to tell genuinely moderate Muslims from Dawa Jihadis filled intelligence services with misinformation. Policies of non-confrontation ­repeatedly conceded positions of strength to accommodate Muslim “sensitivities.” Perhaps the most deeply damaging of all was the eagerness with which academics, journalists, and “human rights” NGOs adopted the t­ riumphalist Muslim’s enemy as their own: Israel Unser Unglück.26 How could this have happened? How could what seemed like a vigorously successful civil society, dedicated to a better world for all, collapse so ignominiously before so primitive a drive to power? How is it that, when President Bush said that Islam was a “religion of peace,” historians familiar with Islam’s long and global warrior imperialism didn’t laugh, and religious scholars familiar with the exegetical principles of triumphalist religiosity would not point out that the passage the president quoted as “more eloquent in the o ­ riginal Arabic” actually justified the attacks? How is it that, instead, our academics and public voices taught an Islam devoid of triumphalism, for the vast majority of Muslims a peaceable religion of repeating rituals? So dominant was this gatestoneinstitute.org/author/Soeren+Kern. The wave of “taharush” rape-assaults of New Year’s Eve 2016, confirmed all the worst fears of those who opposed the opening of Western Europe to the wave of migrants; see Ross Douthat, “Germany on the Brink,” New York Times, January 9, 2016, http://www.nytimes. com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/germany-on-the-brink.html?_r=0. 26 Richard Landes, “Shared Antichrist: The Shared Antichrist of the Global Left and Jihad,” in The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel, ed. Cary Nelson and Gabriel Noah Brahm (Chicago: MLA Members for Scholars Rights, 2015), 293–310.

201

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

r­ eluctance to address the triumphalist aspects of Islam that, even in the teens of the twenty-first century, most people working for ­homeland security still don’t know what Dar al-Harb or dhimmi mean, even though these two terms are the most important for all infidels to understand, especially in an age of apocalyptic Jihad. How is it that people who warn about what triumphalist Muslims openly talk about among themselves—global Dar al-Islam—are denounced as Islamophobes engaged in “hate speech” and “conspiracy theory”?

Moral Schadenfreude: The West’s Achilles Heel Let us return to the three possible explanations for the remarkably foolish manner of Western information professionals—especially ­journalists—in dealing with triumphalist Islam in the twenty-first century: · post-colonial ideology, or underdogma;27 · fear of triumphalist Muslim retaliation, or proleptic ­dhimmitude;28 and · antisemitism, or, what I’d like to call an unhealthy appetite for moral Schadenfreude about the Jews. The first, the ideological, I consider the least compelling as an explanation. As an excuse it works fine, but no serious and thoughtful intellectual, not driven by other concerns, could tolerate the level of insulation from reality necessitated by adhering to this paradigm. Making Hamas look moderate? . . . a reliable source of information? . . . a provider of health and ­education to its people? Ideological commitments may account for how some i­ mpas­sioned souls adhere to the narrative despite its departure (even inversion 27 See Michael Prell, Underdogma: How America’s Enemies Use Our Love for the Underdog to Trash American Power (Dallas: BenBella, 2011). 28 Richard Landes, “Triumphalist Religiosity: The Unanticipated Problem of the 21st Century,” Tablet, February 10, 2016, http://www.tabletmag.com/jewishnews-and-politics/197151/triumphalist-religiosity.

202

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad

CHAPTER 6

of) reality; and that would also explain their tendency to newspeak, but ideology cannot account for the near unanimity of underdogma when applied to the Palestinians (and more broadly, the Muslims) among the current mainstream news media (MSNM). Ideology cannot account for how moral indignation against Israel, for crimes every nation on earth commits—and worse (especially worse among its neighbors)—could sweep an intellectual ­community allegedly not given to “antisemitism.” It cannot explain how the best can lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity. Which would normally lead us towards antisemitism as the major factor. And here I think there is strong evidence of its o ­peration, although, as with the ideologues, I think it can only account for a minority of the cases. Jews tend to say, “Esau hates Jacob,” meaning, “gentiles will always hate Jews; antisemitism is an e­ xistential ­condition.” But even so, that kind of hatred only metastasizes to d ­elirious proportions under certain conditions, and as late as the 1990s, it ­ seemed like a thing of the past, at least in the post-­Holocaust West. The dominant narrative right now, certainly among the Global Progressive Left (GPL), is that their anti-Zionism is not antisemitic, just anti-Israel. Indeed, the progressive Left is, in its very principles, opposed to any kind of prejudice and hate speech, including antisemitism. And since plenty of Jews embrace this anti-Israel narrative, it’s clearly not antisemitic in any conventional meaning of the term to embrace this discourse. On the contrary, this particular argument holds, if anyone is a victim of the kinds of hatreds that stalked Jews in the early twentieth century, today, it’s the Muslims—Arabs too are Semites—who are the victims. Islamophobia is the twenty-first-century manifestation of antisemitism, “exactly the same against Muslims today as against Jews in 1900.”29 Of course, such a discourse is not only involved in denial about themselves—no antisemitism among us!—but in 29 This attitude dominates “antisemitism” research in Germany; see Clemens Heni, Schadenfreude: Islamforschung und Antisemitismus in Deutschland nach 9–11 (Berlin: Edition Critic, 2011).

203

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

denial about Muslim antisemitism, which thrives in the most lurid forms within the community of the faithful, and to which their progressive allies pay no attention. Like so many components of this post-colonial discourse, these assertions increasingly veer away from any serious reading of reality (however one perceives it). As Muslim hatred of Jews qua Jews becomes more openly expressed .  .  . as the language and the techniques of the BDS movement become increasingly brown­ shirted . . . as the ubiquity of conspiracy theories about the Jews spreads . . . it becomes harder to deny this reality. Who in the 1990s, when some were declaring the death of antisemitism, could have predicted that within two decades leaders of Western European democracies would bemoan the possibility that violent Muslim hatred of Jews threatened to drive the Jews from Europe? (If they succeed, triumphalist Muslims will have accomplished in a couple of generations what triumphalist Christians had failed to do for over a millennium.) And who could have foreseen that the progressive Left would be the major enabler, encourager, even ally in this wave of delirious, genocidal antisemitism? Which brings us back to the possibility that, even though they insist they are not antisemites, progressives may nonetheless betray an unconscious attraction to scapegoating, Jew-loathing narratives, so amply provided by their lethal journalists, among them ­progressive anti-Israel Jews. One of the more remarkable aspects of following the career of lethal journalism in the Middle East is the reception it has engendered. It is one thing for the press to favor the Palestinians in what seems like an unfair context (ignoring Arab and Muslim anti-Zionism, focusing entirely on Palestinian grievances about the occupation), it is another to have an audience avid for any horrible story about the Israelis.30 30 And yet, as one German photographer discovered, risking one’s life for pictures from Syria was not nearly so lucrative as pictures from Gaza, done under the protection of Hamas operatives on the ground, with Israeli avoidance of bombing journalists from the air.

204

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad

CHAPTER 6

And yet the evidence suggests just that latter condition. The al Durah story, rather than provoking well-deserved skepticism and investigation, instead produced a rapid consensus leaning heavily toward the indictment of Israel for child-murder. Similarly, the eagerness with which the progressive camp leapt on the false news about a massacre in Jenin, and a crucifixional siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (see image), indicates how strong this appetite for news about (autonomous) Jews behaving badly ­dominated the public sphere in Europe and in global progressive circles in the first years of the new century.31 Catherine Nay’s remark (see note 13 above) represents, on the one hand, a massive case of moral disorientation—a cheap fake (she couldn’t know) replaces an image that symbolizes the deliberate murder of a million Jewish children in the Holocaust. But on the other, it also expresses a profound need, even drive, to knock Israel off its moral high ground. For Europeans, it not only erased the previous, shameful image of the Holocaust and the guilt Europe bears before its Jewish victims, but it reversed the moral poles: with this substitution, the Jews become the new Nazis, the Muslims the new victims. A secular replacement theology in which the Jews are identified with the secular symbol of evil incarnate: Nazism, and the Palestinians, whose ideology when it comes to Jews may even surpass the Nazis for its genocidal hatreds, become the Jews, the new innocent victims. Obviously, a desire to be free of the shame of the Holocaust can explain some of this. Especially for French intellectuals, with their rather dismal record, this reversal is particularly welcome.32 It ­operated as a “get-out-of-Holocaust-guilt-free” card. But it doesn’t

31 On the Jenin “massacre,” see Sharon Sadeh, “How Jenin Became a ‘Massacre,’” The Guardian (UK), May 6, 2002, http://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/ may/06/mondaymediasection5. 32 For a sense of the pervasiveness of pro-Nazi, antisemitic discourse among French intellectuals during this period, see Pierre-André Taguieff, Grégoire Kauffmann, and Michaël Lenoire, eds., L’Antisémitisme de plume, 1940–1944: Études et documents (Paris: Bergue International Editeurs, 1999).

205

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Fig. 1  La Stampa, April 2002: “Why are they doing this again!?!” explain the behavior of the British, in particular, and more broadly of the progressive world. Here it seems to me a position of central importance should be accorded to the role of an unconscious supersessionism among the progressive secular Left. Supersessionism is a key characteristic of triumphalist monotheists—in particular, Christians and Muslims who believe that they have replaced, erased, superseded the previous monotheists. The Christians claimed they replaced the Jews as Verus Israel; the Muslims believed they preceded and rightly ruled over the Christians and Jews, who had distorted scripture. In this zero-sum notion of chosenness, one’s own election as God’s favorite, one’s own status as “true believers in the one True God,” necessitates the removal of any favor to previous claimants of the status of “chosen people.” In the crude world of pre-modern politics, triumphalism translates into power politics and imperialism: “I am right because I rule.” Normally, one would imagine that secular people, who explicitly renounce the superstitions of religion, would be free from this kind of invidious spirituality. After all, the embodiment of the most 206

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad

CHAPTER 6

“progressive” values on earth would seem the most immune to a theology of substitution, in which they replaced all previous moral pretenders as the definitive articulators of “The Moral Truth.” Multiculturalism commits to the notion that we should rise above such petty “us–them” rivalries (the main appeal of Said’s Orientalism); and post-modernists formally renounce both any notion of an “objective truth” as well as any “Grand Narratives” to which such notions give rise. Why would they become supersessionists? And yet, in the nonviolent world of post-modern discourse, triumphalism translates as “I am right because I am morally s­ uperior.” Post-modern supersessionists, accordingly, thrive on narratives about the moral depravity of their rivals. And, to judge by their need to demean them, of all the rivals that progressives seem to fear, the Zionists seem to be the greatest threat to their sense of moral grandeur, to their sense that they are the moral cutting edge of the global community.33 “Moral Europe” needs to debase Israel in order to posture on the global stage in a dance of death.34 Thus, when one looks at the discourse that lies just beneath the “genteel” veneer of anti-Zionism, one finds unmistakable signs— the profound hostility to Israel as a “chosen nation” replicates the antagonism towards Jews believing that they are the chosen people. (Still! How dare they!) In a comment similar to countless others, the author of “An Elegy for Gaza” gives voice to what he thinks (and fears) the Jews think (and hates them for it):

33 Lethal journalism during the Lebanon war in the summer of 2006 led to one particularly revealing explosion of supersessionist hatred from a widely read Norwegian writer, Jostein Gaarder; see Richard Landes, “Open Letter to Jostein Gaarder: Fisking Crypto-Supersessionism,” The Augean Stables, August 2006, http://www.theaugeanstables.com/multiple-part-essays/open-letter-to-josteingaarder-fisking-crypto-supersessionism/. 34 On the way in which Sweden’s posturing as a “moral superpower” has led Swedes into the trap that triumphalist Muslims have set for them, see Ingrid Carlqvist, “Sverige: ‘Har talibanerna kommit till stan?’”; see the English version: “Sweden: ‘Have the Taliban Come to Town?’: One Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in Sweden” (trans. Maria Celander), Gatestone Institute, January 9, 2016, http://www. gatestoneinstitute.org/7190/sweden-islam-taliban.

207

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

. . . we revel in our treasure spun of stolen land, a god created in our image, draping our souls with hate and fear enough to warm our hubris, all we stand tall, all, we are the chosen unto the planets, we need no other, want no other, will have no other, suffer no other, no, no, for we are, we are, WE ARE.35

This is precisely the fear that motivated the Nazis to interpret the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a “warrant for genocide.” And today, this fear gorges on lethal narratives about the IDF. In this we find the inverse of the Jewish knot of self-loathing, in which gentiles project their own definition of chosenness (the promise of dominion) onto the Jews (whose success comes precisely from renouncing dominion), and hate the Jews for what they ­themselves are. And, in the current progressive case, even more shocking, they share their Jew-hatred with the most delirious Jew-haters, and fanatics of dominion on the planet, the Jihadis.36 Mocking disdain for Israel permeates anti- and post-Zionist discourse: sneering contempt for self-evident claims that Israel is the “only democracy in the Middle East,” that it has a (the most) moral army (in the world).37 Israel, for them, is the quintessence of hatred and contempt for gentiles, of an unsurpassed conviction that they can do anything they please to those who are not part of the tribe. That is why supersessionists are so attached to suffering Palestinians, but only if they are victims of Israel. 35 jesús b otxoa, “An Elegy for Gaza as Symbol for the New Year under Netanyahu,” January 1, 2015, http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=186001&sid=3ZIP&ext=PDF&lcl=gaza2.pdf&usr=viejolex1&doc=260411428&key=key-dRzyuf4v4UGhU10IF2J0. 36 The first to warn and extensively document this in the Anglophone world after 2000 was Alvin Rosenfeld, “Progressive Jewish Thought and the New AntiSemitism,” 2006, http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42d75369-d582-4380-8395d25925b85eaf%7D/progressive_jewish_thought.pdf. 37 E.g.: “Purity of Arms, Absurdity of Claims,” The Hasbarah-Buster, January 26, 2009, http://thehasbarabuster.blogspot.com/2009/07/purity-of-arms-impurity-of-­ claims.html.

208

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad

CHAPTER 6

In doing so, supersessionists perpetually feed Jew-hatred among twenty-first-century Muslims, not only those in Muslim majority lands, but also (perhaps even more so) those in the Western d ­ iaspora. European Muslim violence against Jews—a growing phenomenon that democratic regimes seem unable to control—is now in the process of chasing Jews out of Europe. What triumphalist Christians failed to do for over a millennium, triumphalist Muslims, if unchecked, will do in less than a century.

Conclusion: The Role of Moral Schadenfreude in the Weakening of Western Democracies I have long puzzled over the behavior of the twenty-first-century news media, especially in regards to their aggressive commitment to their own-goal war journalism. Part, obviously, is that they don’t see it, they don’t see themselves through the eyes of their enemies, but rather in a narcissistic cognitive coffin where it could not occur to them that the Palestinians are killing Israelis for the same reasons that Jihadis kill Europeans. So for them it’s just “lethal journalism”; the target is just Israel; and, if they bother to think about it, the collateral damage is just Palestinians who want to live in peace. But why so lethal and why so relentlessly one-sided? The obvious answer is underdogma. Palestinians are the smaller side, weaker, and need our help to level the playing field. Okay, I u ­ nderstand some advocates sacrificing their principles and ethics as information professionals in favor of social activism. Not that I approve, but I understand how that progression can happen. But the wide consensus? How to explain that such a distortion—the Israeli Goliath, the Palestinian David— could become the commonplace, indeed, the hegemonic frame. And, unquestionably, the moral Schadenfreude that many a ­journalist enjoys while here,38 and the eager audience for sharing 38 As one of them told me with scarcely disguised glee, “Stop whining. Generals don’t complain about the rain.” (Of course they would if it only and always fell on them and not their enemies.) Richard Landes, “MSNM to Israel: We’re a Force of Nature.

209

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

his joys at tales of (autonomous) Jews behaving badly, did much to bind Western elites to the “narrative of Palestinian suffering.” In that sense, it was specifically in their appeal to a European hostility to the Jews, dormant (repressed) since the Holocaust, that Jihadis could win a major victory in the Western public sphere. It seduced the West into embracing their apocalyptic scenario in which Zionism was the Antichrist (Dajjal) and Israel’s sacrifice would bring universal redemption (global caliphate).39 If the Jihadis win, future generations will look back on this campaign and call it the soft underbelly of the West. But I want to note something that only recently has become clearer: the role of intimidation. Part of my unhappiness with the explanations of post-colonial ideology and antisemitism, was the belief that in a reasonably operating public sphere, soon enough people would object to the violation of empirical evidence ­necessary to keep these ­distortions and inversions viable. Long ago, people would have been shouting down the sloppy job journalists were doing. (I thought Lebanon 2006 would be a journalistic turning point. Not.) Long ago people would have said, “No, this political correctness is preventing us from ­ understanding and dealing with reality.” Which brings me to the role of intimidation. We all know about the Mafia, its omertà, its rules of who gets hit and when, its notion that “you’re not a man until you’ve gotten your bones” (killed someone). We are less familiar with the dhimma, which is the Muslim protection racket for religious minorities.40 Here again we have protection offered to people by those who would kill them unless they abide by rules laid down by those offering the protection. So all dhimmi behavior is done under the threat of summary punishment, Deal with It,” The Augean Stables, October 18, 2010, http://www.theaugeanstables. com/2010/10/18/msnm-to-israel-were-a-force-of-nature-deal-with-it/. 39 Landes, “Shared Antichrist.” 40 Bat Ye’or, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002).

210

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad

CHAPTER 6

and, depending on the ruler at the time, entails minimal c­ onsequences to the Muslim who kills. Dhimmi buy their existence by accepting to be stigmatized in every way—from standing before the law to standing before a Muslim. And among the most significant elements of these demands was an inchoate but clear directive: Muslim honor always trumps. Dhimmi have no dignity; they are a subject, disgraced, humbled, if not ­humiliated, people. They are to pass in the gutter and avoid the eyes of Muslims; they cannot ride horses, or have large tall houses of worship. And, above all, they cannot talk back, they cannot criticize, complain, insult, dishonor, or demean a Muslim. All that goes only one way in a Sharia-run society: triumphalist Muslims dump on infidels; infidels do not challenge triumphalist Muslims. In Middle East reporting circles, the reporters are dhimmi to the Palestinians. They make crucial friends with violent people, and, as a sign of goodwill, they help them dump on Israel. It’s so hard for the Israelis to get the news media to be more honest, not because they’re incapable of it, or because they’re so blinded by underdogma that they can’t see the problem. It’s because they’re afraid of the consequences of defying the Palestinians (i.e., the Arabs, the Muslims) and criticizing them publicly. If the metal filings on the surface of the page line up in lethal narratives aimed at Israel, it’s not because of the imbecilic ideology that seems to so deeply move so many well-intentioned people (what Russell called the “fallacy of the superior virtue of the oppressed” or what Nietzsche might have called ignoring the ­“ressentiment of the subalterns”), but because the magnet under the table is dhimmi i­ ntimidation.41 That’s why political correctness has become ever more tyrannical over these last years: it’s driven by fear of what will happen if we do say what we have to say about the 41 Bertrand Russell, “The Fallacy of the Superior Virtue of the Oppressed,” Unpopular Essays, chap. 5, http://readingrussell.blogspot.cz/2007/11/unpopular-essays-chapter-5.html. Friedrich Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, I, 10–17.

211

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

behavior of Palestinian and Arab and Muslim leaders and power-holders. And like the dhimmi of old, the leaders of the dhimmi ­communities—Jewish, Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic—were the first and major line of enforcement. Peaceful conditions meant not times when dhimmi spoke their minds, but periods when dhimmi complied with the honor demands of Muslims. And the dhimmi leaders were the primary enforcers of that compliance. Today we see it in a whole array of arenas—journalism, academia, the public sphere—where anyone who transgresses the rules of deference gets attacked as an Islamophobe, racist, xenophobe, fascist. This domestic policing is particularly salient in the case of ­journalists who “socialize” newbies to the rules. Thus in 2014, when Hamas got so crude in its intimidation of journalists that even the FPA (Foreign Press Association) in Jerusalem—notable for its complaints about Israel alone—issued a formal objection to Hamas’s behavior, the split was clear. The only journalists to violate the rules were newcomers: an Indian film crew, an Icelandic reporter, an Italian journalist, a hapless France2 reporter who was on-screen when Hamas fired a rocket right behind him. The veterans—NYT photographer Tyler Hicks, BBC correspondent Jeremy Bowen—avoided violating “the journalistic procedures for reporting from Palestine.”42 Jodi Rudoren epitomized the split when, in full compliance with the omertà demanded by Hamas, she tweeted: “Every reporter I’ve met who was in Gaza during the war says this Israeli/now FPA narrative of media harassment by Hamas is nonsense.”43 Apparently, she only hangs with veteran 42 Uriel Heilman, “NYT on Why It Hasn’t Shown Photos of Hamas Fighters: We Don’t Have Any,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, July 31, 2014, http://www.jta. org/2014/07/31/news-opinion/nyt-on-why-no-photos-of-hamas-fighters-wedont-have-any-1. Jeremy Bowen, “I Saw No Evidence of Hamas Using Palestinians as Human Shields,” The New Statesman, July 22, 2014, http://www. newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2014/07/jeremy-bowens-gaza-notebook-i-sawno-evidence-hamas-using-palestinians-human. 43 Jodi Rudoren tweet: https://twitter.com/rudoren/status/498853892113719300.

212

The Wages of Moral Schadenfreude in the Press: Anti-Zionism and European Jihad

CHAPTER 6

reporters, already socialized to the rules, who meet no harassment or intimidation because they don’t violate the rules. Unpacked (in italics), her tweet (in bold) reads: Every reporter I’ve met who was in Gaza i.e. subject to retaliation during the war is fully compliant with PMP narrative in saying that this Israeli/now FPA narrative of media harassment by Hamas is nonsense.

The quickness with which one sees public figures—even actors— jump on anyone who publicly criticizes Muslims for behaving badly as Muslims, who criticizes the Qur’an for its numerous passages preaching contempt for, and violence against, people who do not share the Muslim’s faith—reflects neither, I think, their moral sensibilities (on the contrary) nor their genuine concern that this is a “slippery slope” to these lamentable “right-wing” sins, but fear that such criticism will anger Muslims. After all, the Obama admini­ stration’s logic of not uttering the term “radical Islam” is because it might alienate moderate Muslims. Why would it? Especially if, the same people assure us, this violent Islam has nothing to do with their peaceful Islam. Unless it’s the opposite: they are much closer to this triumphalist Islam than we like to think, and criticizing them is likely to push them over the tipping point to joining the violent ones. In which case, our leaders, our pundits, our scholars, our journalists, our “human rights” scolds are actually the leaders of a proleptic dhimmitude in which, even without being conquered, we submit to the zero-sum honor of triumphalist Muslims. In the big picture, this Muslim triumphalist intimidation (that’s the main purpose of terror attacks and assassinations) is the magnet under the table. The West might have resisted more seriously had they not been drawn into their own-goal reporting of Jihadi ­propaganda as news and scholarship. Now there’s a powerful trinity of forces keeping us locked in a suicidal road to submission to one

213

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

of the most pitiless and violent imperial drives the world has ever seen: intimidation, underdogma as an ideological fig-leaf covering our dhimmi compliance, and moral Schadenfreude against the Jews as the sugar that helps the poison go down. Democracy was created when Christians (and post-­Christians) reached the point that they no longer needed to humiliate the Jews to make themselves feel superior; when they could tolerate free and independent Jews.44 It will fall when citizens of de­mocracy find autonomous Jews an intolerable blow to their self-esteem.

44 Note the fascinating remark by Jean-Jacques Rousseau: “If someone dared to publish among us books that openly favored Judaism, we would punish the author, the publisher, the book dealer [as happened to Rousseau]. This is a convenient and sure policy for always being right. There is a pleasure in refuting people who do not dare speak . . . [When conversing with Jews] . . . these unfortunates feel themselves to be at our mercy. The tyranny practiced against them makes them fearful . . . I shall never believe that I have seriously heard the arguments of the Jews until they have a free state, schools, and universities, where they can speak and dispute without risk”; see Emile, ou de l’education (1762), IV, 618–20, trans. Allan Bloom (New York: Basic Books, 1979), 303ff. The book was publicly burned in the first year of its publication. The immense hostility of so many Western “intellectuals” to Israel today suggests that they find hearing Jews “reason” unbearable, and the hostility of many Israeli intellectuals to their own nation, suggests that they still feel “at the mercy” of the larger world.

214

CHAPTER 7

Palestinian Identity Theft and the Delegitimization of Israel Jerold S. Auerbach

A

nti-Zionism, the currently fashionable expression of a­ ntisemitism, assumes many forms. From Holocaust denial, which attributes the blight of Jewish statehood to a contrived tragedy, to allegations of Israeli apartheid, which seek to delegitimize Israel as a racist state, the ancient hatred of Jews has morphed into contemporary loathing of the Jewish state. Amid this malevolent inversion of historical truth and contemporary reality, not surprisingly, Palestinians have been designated—and resolutely (if absurdly) cast themselves—as the true inheritors and rightful possessors of the Land of Israel. It is no small irony—but one seldom noted—that Palestinians (enabled by their allies worldwide, many of whom, especially in academic circles, are Jews) have so avidly plundered Jewish and Israeli sources in constructing their own national narrative as to warrant indictment for historical plagiarism. With barely half a century of national history in the land they claim as the legacy of their ancient “Canaanite” inheritance, Palestinians have reinvented themselves as the “real” Jews, entitled to the land, history, holy sites, and symbols that have defined Judaism for three millennia. Modern conceptions of “Palestine” began to emerge in the mid-nineteenth century when the Holy Land, as it became known to increasing numbers of enchanted European visitors, reentered Western consciousness. The veil of obscurity lifted after Edinburgh-born artist

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

David Roberts followed the trail of the ancient Israelites from Egypt through the Sinai wilderness to their promised land. During his journey, Roberts sketched the drawings that filled The Holy Land (1842), his magnificent three-volume collection of lithographs. Riveted by ancient city gates and walls, barren wilderness landscape and exotic local ­inhabitants, Roberts created unrivaled romantic depictions of sacred memory, now dismissively denigrated as “Orientalist”—the popular term of opprobrium for the alleged patronizing of Middle Eastern Arabs by Western travelers, writers, and artists. A year after publication of The Holy Land, another Scotsman, Rev. Alexander Keith, authored The Land of Israel, according to the Covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. Keith, too, had traveled to the Holy Land in 1839; there he came to believe that Christians should bring to fulfillment the biblical prophecy that Jews would return to their ancient homeland. His book included a phrase that would reverberate long afterward. Jews, he wrote, are “a people without a country; even as their own land . . . is in a great measure, a country without a people.” Slightly altered by a reviewer, it became the iconic phrase: “A land without a people and a people without a land.” Keith’s words (with a sharp concluding reference to “those few” Arabs who “have but a slight hold on the land that is not theirs”) were reiterated several years later in a letter from Lord Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley-Cooper) to Lord Palmerston, the British foreign minister. Ashley-Cooper pondered the future of “Greater Syria” (as the land of the ancient Israelites was then commonly identified) following the Crimean War. He rephrased Keith’s description as “a country without a nation” needing “a nation without a country.” He wondered, “Is there such a thing?” before answering his own ­question: “the ancient and rightful lords of the soil, the Jews!” Keith’s phrase continued to recur in the writings of Christian Zionists, especially after pogroms erupted in Russia during the 1880s. Evangelist William Blackstone, concerned over the plight of Russian Jews, referred to the “astonishing anomaly—a land without a people, and a people without a land.” In 1897, John Lawson 216

Palestinian Identity Theft and the Delegitimization of Israel

CHAPTER 7

Stoddard published a travel guide exhorting Jews: “You are a people without a country; there is a country without a people. . . . Go back, go back to the land of Abraham.” Curiously, Keith’s memorable phrase seldom appeared in Zionist literature. Maverick Zionist Israel Zangwill wrote in the New Liberal Review (1901) that “Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country.” Then, on the eve of World War I, Chaim Weizmann (who would become the first president of the State of Israel) said: “There is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without a people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country?” But few other Zionists adopted the phrase, preferring to refer to Palestine more succinctly as the “Jewish national home.” From the end of the nineteenth century, and especially during the decades of British Mandatory rule, Zionist land development began to attract Arabs from Iraq, Syria, Trans-Jordan, and the Arabian Desert who came to Palestine in search of a better life (and e­ ventually became “Palestinians”). The exact number before 1917—unknown due to the absence of Ottoman immigration statistics—remains a matter of dispute. Some scholars have claimed that Arab i­ mmigration was substantial, in response to the improving agricultural ­conditions and increasing work prospects that accompanied Jewish land development. Others, however, insist that the growth of the ­ Palestinian Arab population was primarily attributable to natural increase, not to immigration. Despite the centuries-old presence of an Arab population and a local Arab elite—the Husseini and Nashashibi families in Jerusalem prominent among them—there was little evidence of Palestinian national consciousness or cohesion. “Palestinian” identity fused Ottoman, Islamic, Christian, and local Arab sources. In their p ­ olitics, social structure, land tenure, and public discourse Palestinian Arabs identified with Greater Syria and “the larger Arab people.” In her careful scrutiny of “land without a people” mythology, historian Diana Muir concludes that Arabs “neither perceived 217

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Palestine as a distinct country, nor Palestinians as a people.” Testifying before the British Peel Commission, established in 1936 to consider changes in Mandatory governance following months of Arab rioting and violence, Syrian leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi asserted: “There is no such country as Palestine. . . . Our country was for centuries part of Syria. ‘Palestine’ is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it.” Shortly before the State of Israel was born, Arab historian Philip Hitti conceded: “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.” Columbia University historian Rashid Khalidi, an expert on Palestinian identity (and an adviser to the Palestinian Authority), has acknowledged that before World War I, “Palestine” did not exist in Arab consciousness or self-definition. Internal Palestinian politics were dysfunctional: leaders did not lead, nor could they mobilize public support or establish a Palestinian “state structure” or r­epresentative institutions. Even as late as 1964, when the PLO was founded, “the very idea of ‘Palestine,’” Khalidi recognizes, “appeared to be in a grave, and perhaps in a terminal state.” The idea of a Palestinian people with a distinctive identity and consciousness was fueled by the humiliating Arab defeat in the Six-Day War, which abruptly ended Jordanian control over West Bank Arabs. Why was it, wondered Walid Shoebat from Bethlehem, “that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian. . . . We considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of a sudden we were Palestinians.” Once Jordanian rule was terminated by King Hussein’s aggression against Israel, West Bank Arabs began to construct a Palestinian national identity on the foundation of Jewish history in a land that never had been inhabited by a (previously nonexistent) “Palestinian” people. Even Zuhair Muhsin, PLO military commander and member of the Executive Council, acknowledged: “There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation . . . the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes.” The vision of a Palestinian state, he conceded, was merely “a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel.” 218

Palestinian Identity Theft and the Delegitimization of Israel

CHAPTER 7

The creation of Palestinian identity eventually emerged from claims of victimization inflicted by cruel and conquering Zionists. No one did more to popularize the image of the wandering Palestinian victim, forced into exile from his homeland by Zionist aggression and conquest, than renowned Columbia University professor Edward Said (whose name adorns Khalidi’s professorial title). His impassioned and articulate advocacy of the Palestinian national cause, palpable identification with it from his own claimed experience, and denial of Zionist legitimacy transformed him into an international intellectual celebrity. From Said’s uncompromising premise that Zionism was a colonial and racist movement, it followed that “a largely European people” would come to Palestine, “pretend that it was empty of inhabitants, conquer it by force, and drive out 70 percent of its inhabitants.” Said’s self-identification as a victimized Palestinian refugee gave emotional sustenance to his eloquent jeremiads against Israel. He passionately declared his “sense of belonging to the Palestinian people” and vividly articulated his “pain at their sufferings and defeats.” As he claimed in an interview: “I am a Palestinian who was born in Jerusalem and was forced as a result of the 1948 Catastrophe to live in exile, in the same way as many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were.” In 1948, he wrote, “my entire family became refugees from Palestine.” He repeatedly conflated his life as “a Palestinian in exile” with “a condition that . . . includes the largest part of the Palestinian population.” Writing in Harper’s, he noted succinctly: “I was born, in November 1935, in Talbiya, then a mostly new and prosperous Arab quarter of Jerusalem. By the end of 1947, just months before Talbiya fell to Jewish forces, I’d left with my family for Cairo.” In a s­ ubsequent essay in the New York Review of Books, excerpted from his memoir Out of Place, he referred to the “wrenching, tearing, sorrowful loss [of Palestine] as exemplified in so many distorted lives, including mine.” But Said’s oft-told tale of his Jerusalem boyhood and exile, his family’s dispossession, and his lost home in Palestine was a self-­ constructed myth. The implication that between 1935 and 1947 219

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Said and his family had lived in Jerusalem was false. And if the Said family left Jerusalem in 1947, as he recounted, how could it have been forced into exile “as a result of the 1948 Catastrophe”? To be sure, Said was born in Jerusalem in 1935. But on his birth certificate Said’s parents identified Cairo as their permanent address, which it remained into his teenage years. Throughout his boyhood, Said’s immediate family—parents, sisters, retinue of servants, and Said himself—resided in luxurious comfort in Cairo, where his father owned a lucrative office supply business. The Said family hardly departed from Jerusalem as fleeing ­“refugees.” Late in 1947, amid accelerating intercommunal violence between Arabs, Jews, and British Mandatory authorities, they left Palestine of their own volition to return to their comfortable Cairo home. Said’s anguished claim that “I lost—and my family lost its property and rights in 1948” in Jerusalem more accurately described the Saids’ plight in Cairo, where revolutionary supporters of Gamal Abdel Nasser destroyed the family business in 1952 and ­subsequently nationalized family property. Said’s memoir, Out of Place (1999), revealed the identity ­confusion that permeated his family (and is painfully documented in Looking for Palestine, his daughter Najla’s memoir). His parents were Palestinian only by the accident of birth. Indeed, he noted, his father “never much liked” Palestine. Born in Jerusalem, which “he hated,” he left as a teenager in 1911 for the United States, where he became a U.S. citizen and lived for ten years, long enough to proudly claim thereafter that America was “his country.” Said’s mother, born in Nazareth, was sent to boarding school and junior college in Beirut. With her marriage, she was “wrenched from a happy life in Beirut” to relocate in Cairo, where she lived for the next twenty years, returning to her true exilic home in Lebanon shortly before her death. For Said’s parents, Palestine was a location of convenience and a place to visit relatives, but hardly their home or where they wished to live. Affluence allowed the Saids to enjoy annual three-month summer respites from the brutal Cairo heat in the hills of Lebanon. There also were visits to Jerusalem, which Said described as 220

Palestinian Identity Theft and the Delegitimization of Israel

CHAPTER 7

“off-and-on sojourns in Palestine.” When Cairo was endangered during World War II, the Said family left Egypt for a lengthy vacation there. But when Palestine was besieged in 1947, they returned to the safety of Egypt. Based on abundant evidence in his memoir, Palestine hardly was, as Said would proudly claim, the place “I grew up in.” Indeed, charming childhood photographs show Edward with his mother in the Mena House gardens in Cairo, with his father on the beach at Alexandria, with his family at the Giza pyramids, and with his sister Rosy on their Cairo apartment terrace dressed in Gezira Preparatory School uniforms. Yet the New York Review of Books, when it published an excerpt from Said’s memoir, and the New York Times, to accompany its laudatory review, chose to display a photograph of Edward and his sister, captioned “in traditional Palestinian dress, Jerusalem, 1941.” It is, to be sure, a fetching childhood photograph. Edward, age six, wears a long robe with his head wrapped in a keffiya. Suggestively, his right hand rests on the handle of a knife tucked into his belt, while his left hand holds a pistol. This “traditional Palestinian” photo certainly affirms his own mythological narrative of his ­childhood. But the Gezira prep school photograph of young Edward, wearing his double-breasted school blazer, neatly pressed shorts, and knee socks, is a far more faithful depiction of his privileged, most un-Palestinian, boyhood in Cairo. As compelling as his memoir might be in service to the Palestinian national cause—and, not incidentally, in elevating his own international stature as an intellectual-in-exile due to Zionist mistreatment of his family—it was a largely mythological construct. Based on his own recollections, Israel had nothing discernible to do with his profound sense of identity dislocation and disorientation. Those feelings, his book confirms, were far more attributable to the volitional wanderings of his rootless father, and the enduring yearning of his mother for Beirut, than to Zionist malevolence. Only after the Six-Day War did Said, by then a tenured professor ensconced on Morningside Heights, finally reinvent himself as a 221

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Palestinian. Then, for the first time, he experienced the “wrenching, tearing, sorrowful loss [of Palestine] as exemplified in so many distorted lives, including mine.” Nearly thirty years later he would tell an interviewer for Al-Arabi: “I am a Palestinian who . . . was forced as a result of the 1948 Catastrophe to live in exile, in the same way as many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were.” By then his own invented narrative of Israeli dispossession, like that of the Palestinian people to whom he claimed to belong, had become the conventional wisdom, contrived though it was, in the indictment of the Jewish state. But like Yasser Arafat, whose cause he loyally served, Edward Said was an Egyptian claiming to speak as a “Palestinian.” If Israel was to blame for the plight of Palestinians, there was an obvious remedy: eradicate it. Not by force, to be sure, but through delegitimization. That solution was the contribution of historian Tony Judt, like Said a world-renowned public intellectual living in Manhattan exile, but unlike his “Palestinian” counterpart a Jew and disillusioned Zionist. Judt’s adolescent infatuation with Marxism, in conjunction with his self-described “all-embracing engagement with left-wing Zionism,” had inspired idyllic teenage summers of joyous labor on Israeli kibbutzim. “I idealized Jewish distinction, and intuitively grasped and reproduced the Zionist emphasis upon separation and ethnic difference.” He avidly embraced the “Muscular Judaism” (and “guilt-free sex”) for which kibbutzim were then renowned. But disillusion soon followed: “Israel felt like a prison in those days, and the kibbutz like an overcrowded cell.” The Six-Day War sealed Judt’s rejection—and stoked his fury. His postwar “experience with the army on the Golan Heights” taught him that “most Israelis were not transplanted latter-day agrarian socialists but young, prejudiced urban Jews” whose “attitude toward the recently defeated Arabs shocked me . . . and the insouciance with which they anticipated their future occupation and domination of Arab lands terrified me.” Their chauvinism, racism, and militarism demolished his adolescent infatuation with the Jewish state; by the age of twenty, he “had become, been, and ceased to be a Zionist.” Israel had taught him to be “suspicious of identity politics in all forms, Jewish above all.” 222

Palestinian Identity Theft and the Delegitimization of Israel

CHAPTER 7

Cambridge doctorate in hand, Judt became a highly respected scholar of French and modern European history. A self-described “universalist social democrat,” he (like Said) eventually relocated to the United States, where he taught at New York University. His public recognition soared after his scathing essay, “Israel: The Alternative,” appeared in the New York Review of Books (2003). Nearly four decades after leaving Israel behind, he became an anti-Zionist icon for branding the Jewish state an “anachronism” that was on the verge of becoming “neither Jewish nor democratic.” Calling for its dissolution, the jilted lover of Zion finally gained his revenge. In his despair over the crumbling Middle East peace process, Judt offered a scathing critique of Israel that passionately—and preposterously—enumerated what was so wrong with the Jewish state that it must cease to exist. There was, of course, the “occupation,” with “illegal settlements” that “corralled” Palestinians into “shrinking Bantustans.” Israel’s “ethno-religious self-definition” made it an “anachronism” in the modern world of “individual rights, open frontiers, and international law”—Judt’s idealistic fantasy, but hardly descriptive of the Muslim Middle East in which Israel is embedded. Judt offered the familiar, dire—and erroneous—demographic projection that continued Israeli “occupation” of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (which it soon abandoned) would, within “half a decade,” make it “neither Jewish nor democratic.” To remain Jewish, it would be forced to “conduct full-scale ethnic cleansing” that “would condemn Israel forever to the status of an outlaw state, an ­ international pariah”—the status to which Judt had already consigned it. It was time, he proclaimed, “to think the unthinkable.” This once avid Zionist had become convinced that there was “no place in the world today for a ‘Jewish state.’” With a two-state solution doomed, “the true alternative facing the Middle East in the coming years will be an ethnically cleansed Greater Israel and a single, i­ ntegrated, b ­ inational state of Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians.” Curiously but revealingly, no other state in the world—least of all the prospective Palestinian state whose leaders repeatedly proclaimed its Judenrein 223

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

intentions—deserved replacement. But in the c­ontemporary “‘clash of cultures’ between open, pluralist democracies and ­belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno-states,” Judt asserted, Israel had become a “dysfunctional” anachronism. “Bad for the Jews,” he concluded, it must disappear. Shortly before his death, Judt reflected on his concededly ­“notorious” essay. Absurdly wrapping himself in the mantle of a Jewish protector of Israel, he proclaimed: “I do feel as a Jew that one has a responsibility to criticize Israel vigorously and rigorously, in ways that non-Jews cannot,” lest they be accused of antisemitism. (Jews, to be sure, may be vulnerable to the allegation of self-hatred.) He insisted that his “experience as a Zionist allowed me to identify the same fanaticism and myopic, exclusivist tunnel vision in others— most notably the community of American cheerleaders for Israel.” Judt righteously proclaimed his own immunity from criticism because, as a Jew, he was “oblivious to moral blackmail from ­censorious fellow-Jews.” After all, “I am also a Jew who has lived in Israel and been a committed Zionist” (even if only as a besotted teenager). Displaying his Jewish credentials, even as adult loathing for Israel replaced misguided youthful adoration, he claimed to be “deliberately trying to pry open a suppressed debate”—as though there had been no calls for Israel’s dissolution until the publication of his own diatribe. Judt wanted everyone to know, despite impressions that he might give to the contrary, that “I was not, am not, and do not come across as anti-Israeli.” Rather, he immodestly claimed, he was “more honest and outspoken” than others. (But, he conceded, “it took very little courage to publish a controversial piece about Israel in the New York Review of Books while holding a tenured chair at a major ­university.”) Judt was merely objecting to the shift in Zionist ­political power “toward religious zealots and territorial fundamentalists” in a society increasingly dominated by “intolerant, belligerent, self-­ righteous, God-fearing irredentists.” The unrelenting academic assault on Israel, in which Said and Judt were the shining exemplars, represents what Harvard professor 224

Palestinian Identity Theft and the Delegitimization of Israel

CHAPTER 7

Ruth Wisse has aptly labeled “the liberal betrayal of the Jews.” Israel’s critics prefer to ignore the inconvenient truth that she identified: “Jews have more concurrent rights to their land than any other people on this earth can claim: aboriginal rights, divine rights, legal rights, internationally guaranteed rights, pioneering rights, and the rights of that perennial arbiter, war.” Yet liberal academics (and journalists) tumble over each other to dismiss these rights as ­ spurious, especially when compared to contrived Palestinian claims designed to negate Jewish history and usurp Jewish land. Indeed, as Dutch scholar Ian Buruma observed, “the Palestinian cause has become the universal litmus test of liberal credentials.” The fusion of liberalism and anti-Zionism in the d ­ elegitimization of Israel has become the conventional wisdom in academic circles. Its most popular current expression is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which singles out Israel as a pariah state for illegally occupying “Palestinian” land and oppressing its people. Across the country, gullible students claiming to be ­“progressive” (while failing to comprehend their own antisemitism) have flocked to the cause. From the University of California to the Ivy League, and academic enclaves in between, the BDS movement has attracted enthusiastic student support for nearly a decade. My favorite example of this double standard is Oberlin College (my alma mater), renowned for its liberalism ever since it became the first American college to admit female and African-American (then known as Negro) students. Students for a Free Palestine recently led a campaign to divest college investment from six companies “that profit from the occupation and oppression of ­ Palestinians.” Enthusiastic support came from La Alianza Latina, the South Asian Students Association, the Queer Wellness Coalition, and the Center for Women and Transgender People. Oberlin, proclaimed one proud student, “lives up to its progressive history and reputation.” Caught in the web of Palestinian myths and Israel-bashing spun by Said, Judt, and their academic acolytes, a generation of students has been brainwashed by their professors into believing the worst 225

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

about Israel. In their self-deluded guise of progressivism, they have unknowingly endorsed the final solution to the Jewish problem embraced by every maniacal dictator from Titus to Hitler.

Note on Sources The story of “A Land without a People” is insightfully recounted in Diana Muir, “A Land without a People for a People without a Land,” Middle East Quarterly 15, no. 2 (2007): 55–62. For the short history and modern construction of Palestinian national identity, see Baruch Kimmerling and Joel Migdal, The Palestinian People: A History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), and Gudrun Krämer, A History of Palestine (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008). For academic delegitimization of Israel, see Manfred Gerstenfeld, ed., Academics Against Israel and the Jews (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2007); Richard L. Cravatts, Genocidal Liberalism: The University’s Jihad Against Israel & Jews (Sherman Oaks, CA: David Horowitz Freedom Center, 2012); David Meir Levi, Stolen History: How the Palestinians and Their Allies Attack Israel’s Right to Exist (Sherman Oaks, CA: David Horowitz Freedom Center, 2011). Ruth Wisse offers a trenchant analysis in If I Am Not For Myself . . . The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews (New York: Free Press, 1992). My analysis of Edward Said draws upon his memoir Out of Place (New York: Vintage, 1999), and my critique in “Edward Said’s Silence,” Congress Monthly (November/December 1999), 12–14. See also Najla Said, Looking for Palestine: Growing Up Confused in an ArabAmerican Family (New York: Penguin, 2013). Tony Judt’s call for the dissolution of Israel, “Israel: The Alternative,” appeared in the New York Review of Books (October 23, 2003), sparking a vigorous response (and self-defense) in the December 4 issue.

226

CHAPTER 8

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism Eunice G. Pollack

Antisemitism under Cover

I

n 1945, the essayist and novelist George Orwell observed that although “prejudice against Jews ha[d] always been pretty ­widespread in England,” and was currently clearly “on the increase,” most Englishmen had recently become “ashamed of being antisemitic”—or, at least, of being perceived as antisemites. ­ Englishmen now vehemently denied that they were antisemitic, even while pointing out why they “disliked Jews.” One woman explained, “No one could call me antisemitic, but I do think the way these Jews behave is too absolutely stinking. The way they push their way to the head of queues, and so on. They’re so abominably selfish. I think they’re responsible for a lot of what happens to them.” An Englishman, offering no explanation, confided, “No, I do not like Jews. . . . I can’t stick them,” adding, “Mind you, I’m not antisemitic, of course.” Most who disclaimed any bigotry had nonetheless retained the old antisemitic images: “A Jew don’t do no work, not the same as what an Englishman does,” one remarked. In short, antisemitism was now considered “an irrational thing,” and as they understood themselves to be “reasonable beings,” their views deriving only from “observations of the facts,” they were certain that they were not prejudiced. But despite their conviction that they could not be guilty of what they

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

now held to be “an unforgiveable sin,” Orwell found that their antisemitism was nonetheless often visible in their acceptance of absurd, vile tales about Jews.1 Before long, after the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, large numbers—certainly well beyond the confines of Britain—found a new, respectable, and very effective means of expressing their animus toward Jews, while vociferously disavowing antisemitism. Anti-Zionism increasingly became the preferred cloak of many antisemites. They explained that “the facts” had led them only to detest Zionism, Zionists, and the Zionist state—or entity— but assuredly not Jewry. Now, even Yasser Arafat, head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, could denounce “the evils of anti-Semitism,” while planning the eradication of the “plague of Zionism” and the Zionist entity. Indeed, many proud anti-Zionists repeatedly proclaimed that “Arab opposition to Zionism has nothing to do with antisemitism,” even as their characterizations of the Zionist state invariably echoed hoary adages about Judaism or Jews. They had discovered that it was not Jews, as revealed in the tsarist forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, but the Zionist state that stealthily embarked on the “quest for world domination.” It appeared that not only had those who called for the end of Zionism and the elimination of Israel avoided the unsavory ­reputation of the bigot, but they had gained real political ­advantage— the antisemite was dismissed as “reactionary,” but the anti-Zionist was now hailed as “progressive.” No longer would one attribute the ills of the world to Jews—increasingly the blame settled fully on the Zionists and the Zionist state. Notably, where Orwell found that antisemitic depictions of Jews on postcards and in cartoons—long staples of the English press—had “disappeared as though by magic,”2   1 George Orwell, “Anti-Semitism in Britain,” Contemporary Jewish Record (April 1945).   2 “Palestine Opinion on the Tenth Anniversary of the Revolution: What do the Palestinians Want?” Palestine, January/February 1975, 2–5; Jamal J. Nasir, A Day of Justice: The Truth about the Arab Case in Palestine, 3rd rev. and enlarged edition (Jerusalem: Mosher Press, 1957), 93; Izzat Tannous, Warning from Palestine Arabs (Beirut, 1951); M. S. Arnoni, The Minority of One: Rights and Wrongs in the

228

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

in succeeding decades they were replaced by ubiquitous venomous caricatures of Zionists. In this chapter I adumbrate many core claims shared by large numbers of anti-Zionists, which were only slightly modified over time. Secular or religious—Christian or Muslim—anti-Zionists borrowed freely from each other—sharing platforms, drawing on the same images and texts—in a determined effort to dehumanize “Zionists” and delegitimize the Jewish state. Aimed at the Englishspeaking world, the pamphlets and tracts were drawn up largely in the United States and Britain, but also in Lebanon, where materials were created by anti-Zionists associated with the American University of Beirut, which had been founded by American Protestant missionaries.

From Jews’ Bloodlust to Bloodthirsty Zionists Anti-Zionists saw it as their mission to reveal to the world the “true character of the Zionist Movement, [which] is not, and never was ‘humanitarian.’” From its inception, it had merely been “a selfish, racist movement, devoid of all human feelings,” and Zionists, in blind pursuit of their goals, had routinely defied “all the laws pertaining to human rights.” In sum, anti-Zionists characterized “the true nature of the confrontation” in the Middle East “as a struggle between Zionism, which wants to brutalize, and Arabism, which wants to humanize.”3 Year after year, in clashes large or small, the anti-Zionists, cleaving to their ideology, barely altered their narrative, with even the props remaining virtually unchanged. They taught that Zionists, in their iniquity, swept into Arab villages at night, tossing “hand grenades into the windows of houses, often killing women and Arab-Israeli Conflict (Passaic, NJ: Minority of One Press, 1967), 17; Orwell, “Anti-Semitism in Britain.”   3 Anonymous, The Holy Land under Israeli Occupation, 1967: An Appeal to World Conscience (Beirut: Palestine Research Center, 1969), 10; Clovis Maksud, “The Palestine Question: Is It Closed or Not?” The Arab (March 1968).

229

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

children in their beds, .  .  . invariably kill[ing] the innocent.” Alternatively, the Zionists attacked by day, “aim[ing] deliberately along the main street,” the Arab “children coming out of school mown down by mortars and anti-personnel fragmentation bombs.” Indeed, the Zionists’ weapons of choice, the anti-Zionists attested, were napalm—predictably dumped on the “areas . . . most densely populated with civilians”—and cluster bombs, an alleged fragment of which they held aloft at demonstrations against the Zionist state. Over and over, gaining added traction with each repetition—in an effort to create a modern version of the medieval blood libel long leveled against Jewry—the anti-Zionists singled out children as the preferred target of Zionist depravity. The “special treatment” “the enemy air force provides” for Arab children even included the ­dropping of “small parcels resembling children’s toys and candy boxes, which were found to be full of explosive charge”—only “discovered by coincidence.” Fortunately, “guerrilla explosive experts” were on hand to “lecture [the] children on the dangers of picking up toys, pens, lighters” and other “booby-trapped” items, with which the Zionists hoped “to entice” them. The anti-Zionists exposed that the “barbarism” of the Zionist state had no limits, claiming that in order “to protect its soldiers” from innocent “stone-throwing youths,” it “straps children to the windshields of armored vehicles, or ropes children to jeep tail gates and drags them into the deserts, where they are buried alive.” The Zionists even “arrest teenage boys and threaten to sodomize them if they don’t confess to treason. Not only do they shoot the unarmed, but they go into the hospitals where they lay bleeding and beat them”—and, oh, then they “bludgeon the nurses and doctors who treat them.” Ever in search of innocent prey, Zionist pilots “often get bored with mere reconnaissance,” and the “sly and vicious enemy” “decide to drop rockets or bombs on schools or medical centers,” or on another favorite target—“peasants in the orchards.” Given the nature and extent of the (supposed) crimes of the Zionist state, many anti-Zionists argue the only “proper punishment” is “­ extinction.” In almost every conflict with the Jewish state, anti-Zionists have leveled 230

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

similar accusations, slight variations on the theme—which Western journalists avidly report as “breaking news.” Orwell remarked that “one of the marks of antisemitism is an ability to believe stories that could not possibly be true.” Clearly, this also held for numerous anti-Zionists, whose credulity remained undiminished in the face of the most outlandish claims about the insatiably “bloodthirsty” Zionists. In January 1964, when Paul VI arrived in the Holy Land for a brief visit, the first time a pope had traveled outside Italy in more than a century, the anti-Zionist Arab press expressed its extreme dismay—in English and Italian, as well as Arabic—about the “definite trend among Catholics to exonerate the Jews completely from the blood of Jesus.” (The next year, the Vatican would issue Nostra Aetate, lifting the blame for the ­crucifixion from contemporary Jews.) Reminding the pontiff that the Jews had not only “admitted their guilt” for killing the Christian savior, but “boasted of it,” the press pointed out that their bloodlust had not been slaked—and “while the Catholics are busy making peace with the Jews,” the Jews—the Zionists—just “assassinated the foremost Catholic lay personality in the world.” Not only was Kennedy’s “assassin Jewish, . . . so is the man in charge of the investigation.” Indeed, the press reported that because it was devoted to “the single pursuit of truth,” even “at the risk of being accused of ­anti-­Semitism,” it will “prove that President Kennedy . . . was the victim of a Zionist-armed hand,” “just like the two American p ­ residents assassinated before him.” “It is no secret that John Wilkes Booth, murderer of President Abraham Lincoln, and Leon Czolgosz, who assassinated President McKinley, were both Jews in the service of the Zionist cause.” Nor was the American Zionists’ taste for blood limited to that of Christian leaders. Recently, an American Zionist ­organization—the United Jewish Appeal—had “put placards up in New York and elsewhere in the United States,” advertising “Pay a Dollar and Kill an Arab.”4   4 Nasir, A Day of Justice, 61; Guy Ottewell, “Deir Yassin: A Forgotten Tragedy with Present-Day Meaning,” Palestine Perspectives (April 1969): 10; “Palestine Feature,” Palestine, January/February 1975; “Progressive Groups around Country

231

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Anti-Zionists as Combatants against Antisemitism Since before the founding of the State of Israel, anti-Zionists have proclaimed that it was the Zionists—not they—who promote ­antisemitism. Apparently drawing on the same talking points—or from the same texts—they contend that “Zionism has almost a vested interest in racial discrimination,” that is, in the “constant threat of anti-Semitism,” without which there “could be no Zionism”—and without which “Israel would lose the colossal financial aid” it elicits thereby. Determined to maintain “a feeling of insecurity among world Jewry,” Zionists carefully mount “rescue operations” to save “allegedly threatened Jews.” Thus anti-Zionists claimed—and claim—that it was “Zionist terrorists” who blew up Baghdad “synagogues and Jewish cafes” in 1950–51 in an effort not only to convince Jews and the world of the supposed unending menace of antisemitism—and thus the “necessity” of Israel—but also, mafia-like, “to shakedown Jews” for more contributions to the Zionist “empire.” By contrast, anti-Zionists stress that they have strongly opposed antisemitism, which, after all, only means “greater immigration to Palestine.” Thus, anti-Zionists manage to overlook the thousands of antisemitic tracts that have long pervaded the Arab media, poured out of mosques and echoed in the street, some drawn up initially by the Nazis who found a warm welcome, a new home, and new ­opportunities to utilize their well-honed skills in Arab lands after World War II. They included former officials of Josef Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry, such as Franz Buensche, author of Sexual Crimes of the Jews, and Louis Heiden, distributor and translator into Arabic of Mein Kampf.5 Protest Begin Visit, Israel Celebration,” Palestine Perspectives (May 1978): 8; The Times (London), May 20, 1974; Islamic Society of North America (henceforth, ISNA), Islamic Association of Palestine, Muslim Youth Association, Muslim Student Association, Palestine—A Muslim Issue (1988); Arnoni, Minority of One, 7, 13–14; Orwell, “Anti-Semitism in Britain”; Anonymous, Holy Land under Israeli Occupation, 26.   5 Maksud, “The Palestine Question”; Sami Hadawi, “Zionism and AntiSemitism,” in Palestine, comp. Yusef Sayegh (Free Palestine, 1968), 19; “Zionism in Practice,” Palestine, January/February 1975, 20–22; Arnoni, Minority of One, 13;

232

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

Many of the anti-Zionists echoed the teachings—really, ­preachings—of the vehemently anti-Zionist English historian Arnold Toynbee, who insisted that “Zionism and anti-Semitism are ­expressions of an identical point of view.” Provided a platform in 1961 by the American Council for Judaism, which denied Jewish peoplehood or nationhood and promoted only increased ­assimilation of Jews, Toynbee characterized “the assumption ­ underlying both ideologies”—Zionism and antisemitism—as: “it is impossible for the Jews and non-Jews to grow together into a single community and that therefore a physical separation is the only ­practical way out.” To Toynbee, this meant that “the watchword of anti-Semitism is ‘Back to medieval apartheid,’” and “the watchword of Zionism is ‘Back to the medieval ghetto.’” In making this startling equivalence, the historian clearly revealed that he had no knowledge of the miserable ­conditions and constraints imposed and enforced on Jews entrapped in “the medieval ghetto.” Toynbee went on to conclude scornfully that the goal of Zionism, like that of a­ ntisemitism, was that “all the far flung ghettos of the world are to be gathered into one patch of soil in Palestine to create a single consolidated ghetto there.” Convinced that he had completely discredited Zionism by ­identifying it with antisemitism, Toynbee, along with his acolytes, now dismissed Zionism as only a political solution to a rapidly disappearing—or, in many areas, nonexistent—problem, which persi­sted largely in the fevered imagination of the once-persecuted Jews. Indeed, he and his followers held that Zionism was the problem—only Zionism now caused antisemitism—and anti-­Zionism was the solution. One explained that even Nazism had developed only in response to the Zionist Balfour Declaration and German Jews’ subsequent embrace of loyalty to Zion instead of to the German fatherland.6 George Gordon, “The Arab Propaganda Campaign on the Campus,” Near East Report (October 1969): 99–100.   6 Hadawi, “Zionism and Anti-Semitism,” 19–21; Ian Gilmour, “Zionism and Anti-Semitism,” Spectator (London), June 23, 1960; Anonymous, Holy Land under Israeli Occupation, 11; Faris Glubb, “British Crimes in Palestine—1,” Palestine, November 16–30, 1979, 26.

233

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Leading anti-Zionists, in Britain and the United States, portrayed Zionism as an ignoble movement that even had a “grim record towards Jews themselves”—Jews whom they, the anti-Zionists, had sought to protect. They confessed that as “objective Western writers,” they saw “no good reason why the Western world must remain permanently ignorant of Zionism’s skeletons,” even though, they explained disingenuously, they “constantly hesitate” to expose these execrable actions “lest anti-Semitism [sic] may seize” on them. Still, they were forced to risk this because the Zionists had engaged in an ignominious “campaign that literally shaped all subsequent history.” The anti-Zionists felt compelled to reveal that “Zionism’s extraordinary callousness towards the Arab refugees” of the 1948 Arab–Israeli war had been “foreshadowed by its callousness towards the Jewish ­refugees” of World War II. With the Zionists deploying “Machiavellian” means to foil the plans of “the King,” Franklin D. Roosevelt, they “saw to it that Western countries did not open their doors, widely and immediately, to the inmates of the DP [Displaced Persons] camps,” “deliberately arranging that the plight of the wretched survivors of Hitlerism should be ‘a moral argument’ which the West had to accept.” The hero of the anti-­Zionists was FDR, who, “even during the War,” formulated “his plan, which would have absorbed all the DPs in Europe.” By contrast, their villains were the Zionists, who “sabotaged” the president’s program and presented “the salvation of the DPs” only “as lying in and through a Jewish State in Palestine.” The diabolical Zionists purposely loaded “creaking ships . . . with DPs, sent to Palestine in the certain knowledge that they would be turned back” by the British, thereby gaining the sympathy of the West for their cause.7 Anti-Zionists, like traditional antisemites, imagined the Zionists as all-powerful, although Jews, including Zionists, had been largely ineffective in their efforts to convince Roosevelt to aid or provide even a temporary refuge for Jews from the ravages of Nazism in the thirties or during the war, or to finance the War Refugee Board when   7 Erskine B. Childers, “The Palestine War, 1948–49,” Spectator (London), July 21, 1960; Gilmour, “Zionism and Anti-Semitism”; Hadawi, “Zionism and AntiSemitism,” 20–21; Institute of Arab American Affairs (henceforth, IAAA), “Arabs Want Peace in Palestine!” (advertisement), New York Times, February 16, 1946.

234

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

it was finally established in 1944. Nor was it an influential Zionist movement that thwarted Roosevelt’s program, formulated in 1944, to help DPs return to their old homes in Europe once the war was over. The Jewish DPs, numbering about 250,000 in 1947, were unable to return to their former dwellings because their c­ ommunities had been obliterated, their homes occupied, their belongings stolen, their families murdered, and because antisemitism remained rife in Europe after the war, with Jews who returned being greeted once again by pogroms. Moreover, many European—and American— borders were closed to Jewish DPs. Notably, anti-Zionists do not mention President Truman’s call to alleviate the problem of the displaced Jews in part by admitting 100,000 into British Mandatory Palestine. Truman communicated this request to British prime minister Clement Attlee in August 1945. In response, Attlee and Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin established an “Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry regarding the problem of European Jewry and Palestine,” which, to their great dismay, issued a report in April 1946, recommending unanimously that the Jewish refugees be permitted to emigrate to Palestine. None of this is ever addressed by anti-Zionists. Anti-Zionists never tire, however, of citing the pro-Arab view of Richard Crossman, Labour Party member of the committee. They uniformly fail to reveal, however, that by March 1946, after meeting with Holocaust survivors in Germany and visiting Jerusalem, Crossman had become a wholly committed Zionist, a ­lifelong advocate for Zionism. Indeed, Crossman c­ onsidered Chaim Weizmann, the first president of Israel, his “­ spiritual father”—“one of the very few great men I have ever met.” It was only in 1948 that the U.S. Congress passed the Displaced Persons Act, though even it was unfavorable to Jews. After it was amended in 1950, more than 80,000 Jewish DPs would immigrate, but by then the State of Israel had been providing a home for the refugees.8   8 Stephen H. Norwood, Antisemitism and the American Far Left (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 91–92, 117, 137; Leonard Dinnerstein, “The U.S. Army and the Jews: Policies toward the Displaced Persons after World War II,” in America, American Jews, and the Holocaust, ed. Jeffrey S. Gurock (New York: Routledge, 1998, 2013), 358, 428–39; Alexander J. Groth, Accomplices: Churchill, Roosevelt and the

235

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

In overlooking reality, anti-Zionists promoted the view that “political Zionists” had used the Jewish DPs as pawns in their effort to establish a powerful state at the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and Europe. They hoped thereby to counter—or at least dilute—the charge that it was the Arab states that were using Palestinian-Arab ­refugees as pawns in their determined effort to delegitimize the Jewish state.

Denying Nationhood At the core of the anti-Zionist narrative was the claim—endlessly reiterated—that Jews constitute only a religious group—thus there could be no Jewish state. After all, as Faris Glubb, son of the British officer who led the Arab Legion during the 1948 war, and a convert to Islam, thundered, “International law does not recognize [­religion] as a basis for a nation state’s existence.” Inverting reality, anti-­Zionists taught that it was only in the nineteenth century that Jews invented Zionism, introducing the new claim that “Judaism is not just a religion but it is a religion, people and nationalism.” In truth, from the inception of their belief-system—of their foundation narrative— Jews comprised a people attached to the Homeland—the Promised Land—and to the Temple at its core. It was only with “­ emancipation” in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century that, in an effort to accommodate the hostile, majority Christian population, some now “reformed” Judaism, reshaping it as only a “faith”. Other anti-Zionists argued that Jews could not form a nation because they lacked a shared language, stressing that “the Hebrew Holocaust (New York: Peter Lang, 2011); Jan T. Gross, Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland (New York: Penguin, 2002); Jan Grabowski, Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013); U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, “Displaced Persons,” http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005462; U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, “Postwar Refugee Crisis and the Establishment of the State of Israel,” http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005459; Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick, “Crossman and the Creation of Israel,” http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/mrc/explorefurther/digital/crossman/urss/Israel; Michael J. Cohen, Palestine and the Great Powers (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014).

236

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

language was resuscitated only after the birth of Zionism” at the end of the nineteenth century. They refused to recognize that Hebrew had always been the common language of prayer for Jews, the language of the Bar Mitzvah—boys’ entry into the community—and the language in which Judaism’s foundation texts were written. More often, anti-Zionists characterized Jews as only a race— another illegitimate basis for a nation. Ignoring that any convert to Judaism is a Jew, they contended that it was only “ancestry—the sheer biological fact of descent from other Jews—that makes a person ‘Jewish.’” Still others, however, including Faris Glubb, proclaimed that “the term ‘Jewish people’ is inaccurate” because “the Jewish race is a myth.” Ignoring all the evidence that has disproved his claim, Glubb asserted that “most modern Jews are descended . . . from a variety of tribes, . . . the largest single one being the Khazars,” and clinched his case by observing that “there is absolutely no racial homogeneity between the Yemenite Jews, . . . [who] are Oriental in type,” “and the Jews of Daghestan, . . . [who] belong to the Mongol race.” In sum, no race—therefore, no nation. Many Muslim anti-Zionists, upon learning that a sizeable number of Zionists are not, “in fact, believing or practicing Jews”—and finding the concept of the secular Jew incomprehensible—have concluded that they too cannot possibly be part of a Jewish people or nation. Yet, although anti-Zionists are certain the Jews cannot constitute a people or a nation, the General Union of Arab Students in the UK and Ireland, for example, insists that “historically the Arabs were, and are, one people, having one culture, religion and language”!9

Stigmatizing Zionism Since Jews could not comprise a people or a nation, Zionism was simply a political movement. According to the anti-Zionists’ text, it   9 Fayez A. Sayegh, Zionist Colonialism in Palestine (Beirut: Palestine Research Center, 1965), 21; General Union of Arab Students in the UK and Ireland, The Imperialist Background to the Middle East Crisis (unpublished paper), [1967], Movement for Colonial Freedom Collection (henceforth, MCF), School of Oriental and African Studies (henceforth, SOAS), London.

237

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

is but “a selfish, racist movement . . . [that] uses the sufferings of the Jewish people as a stepping-stone towards its [nefarious] goals.” Thus, “International zionism, in collusion with imperialism ­represented by Britain, has embarked upon carrying out a laid-down plan . . . to dominate the Arab countries. . . . [They] are united by the same objective, namely the eradication of Palestine’s Arabism, imposing . . . Israel to serve as a barrier between the Arabs in the East and Arabs in the Maghreb.” “The quarrel of the Arabs,” they maintain, is therefore “not with Jews, but [only] with the Zionists who . . . established themselves on Arab soil in order . . . to do the bidding of their Western backers,” initially Britain and France, and later the United States. It is perfectly reasonable then, as Arabic grammar textbooks instruct the young, that “the Arabs plan to destroy the Zionists.” “Israel must be strangled.” To anti-Zionists, Zionism “represents one of the most r­ eactionary of modern-day political and ideological relics.” The “quintessence of Zionism,” they uniformly insist, is “racism.” This is Zionism’s “congenital, essential and permanent” trait. The “illiberal f­ oundations of Zionism, in principle and in practice,” they conclude—“racial purity . . . racial exclusiveness” and “Zionist c­ hauvinism”—render “the Palestine cause . . . even more ­straightforward than the Rhodesian or South African cause.” In the anti-Zionists’ guidebooks, “the Zionist creed” mandates the imposition of racial “mastery” of the “‘Chosen People’” over the “Arab ‘natives.’” The Zionist principle of “racial supremacy” differs, however, from that of “European settlers elsewhere in Asia and Africa . . . [who] found it possible to express their supremacy over . . . ‘lesser peoples’ and ‘inferior races’ within the framework of ‘hierarchical racial coexistence.’” Although the “European colonists . . . openly disdained the ‘natives’ [and] ruthlessly suppressed them, . . . [they] deemed the continued presence of the indigenous p ­opulations ‘useful,’” reserving “all the menial functions and . . . inferior roles” for them. “Not so the Zionists!” they exclaim. It is only “Zionist dogma” that has “so passionate a zeal for thoroughgoing racial exclusiveness” and contempt for the “indigenous Arabs,” that Zionists, unlike 238

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

traditional colonists, “isolated themselves,” “instituting a systematic boycott of Arab produce and labor.” In the relentless drive to denigrate Zionism—and delegitimize Israel—the anti-Zionist playbook identified Zionism with Nazism. Anti-Zionists characterized Zionists’ alleged policy of “isolation and boycott” as “only a tactical and temporary suspension of the Zionist dogma of racial exclusiveness”—of racial intolerance—“forced . . . by the circumstances surrounding the early stages of Zionist c­ olonization.” The ultimate aim of “Zionist doctrine,” they proclaimed, was always “the physical expulsion of . . . the indigenous Arabs of Palestine.” Thus “if racial discrimination against the ‘inferior natives’ was the motto of race-supremacist European settler-regimes .  .  ., the motto of the race-supremacist Zionists . . . was racial elimination.” Here was the desired inversion of Nazism, the victims now cast as the victimizers— the Zionists now deploying “the ‘final solution’ to the ‘Arab problem’ in Palestine . . . [through] the elimination of the unwanted human element in question.”10 These charges, like the others, are without foundation. As Efraim Karsh has shown, when the Peel Commission in 1937 recommended “a population exchange between the prospective Arab and Jewish states as a means of reducing intercommunal tensions,” Ze’ev Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism, the “forebear of today’s Likud party,” was appalled. “The commission’s report describes me as an extremist,” he responded. “But at least I never dreamt of demanding the Arab inhabitants of the Jewish state to emigrate. This might be a dangerous precedent.” Karsh adds that “Jabotinsky upheld this view to his dying day,” in 1940. Similarly, David 10 Arab Petroleum Institute for Labour Studies, Colonialism . . . Zionism . . . & Palestine (1963), 2; Sayegh, Zionist Colonialism in Palestine, 21–27; “Quotations from Arab Schoolbooks” (Cairo: Ministry of Culture and Education), American Jewish Committee Archives, New York; Ghayth Armanazi, “Zionism: The Challenge to Western Liberalism,” The Arab (March 1968); “The Western Press,” Free Palestine (January 1973); Musa Mazzawi, The Arab Refugees: A Tragic Human and Political Problem (London: Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding [henceforth, CAABU], 1968), 28-30; CAABU, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A British View of the Arab Cause (September 1967), 13; IAAA, “Arabs Want Peace in Palestine!”

239

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel’s first prime minister, “stressed” in a letter to his son in 1937: “We do not wish and do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.” Even in 1948, during Israel’s War for Independence, when it became a military necessity to expel the Arabs from a village, Israel made the decision with great reluctance, only after the defeated Arab soldiers refused to surrender their weapons and—although they had been promised that they would then be permitted to return to their normal lives—chose instead to continue firing at the Israelis. The anti-Zionists were also determined to attach the other lethal stigma of the twentieth century to the “Zionist settler-state,” characterizing its alleged “practice of racial discrimination against the vestiges of Palestinian Arabs” who continued to live within its borders, as “apartheid.” Indeed, they deem the “Zionist settlers” even more contemptible than “the Afrikaner apostles of apartheid in South Africa,” whom they supposedly emulate. Apparently, “the Afrikaners brazenly proclaim their sins,” while “the Zionist practitioners of apartheid in Palestine beguilingly protest their innocence!” That is, the Zionists retain the traditional deceptive traits of Jewry, about which the Qur’an repeatedly warns. Overlooked somehow are the large numbers of Arab Israelis in Israel’s universities and hospitals, in the electorate, the Knesset, diplomatic missions, and so on.11 Thus, from the founding of the Jewish state, anti-Zionists endlessly and uniformly denounced it as a depraved and illegitimate “entity.” They claimed that the West tolerated this degenerate state only because of its “revulsion . . . towards the . . . horrors of the Nazis,” which the “Zionists have played . . . incredibly successfully.” Indeed, anti-Zionist agitators were determined to redirect this sympathy from the innocent Jewish victims to the Palestinian Arabs. Thus Zionists were now labeled the new Nazis, who, from 1948 to the present, have forced “the agony of exile, degradation, persecution, oppression, massacre, 11 Sayegh, Zionist Colonialism in Palestine, 27–31; Efraim Karsh, Palestine Betrayed (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010), 215–19.

240

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

and foreign occupation” upon the Palestinian Arabs, whom they identified as “the indigenous people of the Holy Land.” The propagandists then concluded that, given the execrable beliefs and behavior of Zionists, nations could only support the Zionist “entity” if they had ulterior motives—using it as a “tool of imperialism,” a “watchdog and military accomplice,” a “stooge” to facilitate the disruption of Arab unity, and to “plunder [Arabs’] oil wealth.” As a result, anti-Zionists called openly for the annihilation of the Zionist state. In 1963, the University of London student union (ULU) debated the proposition “that this House condemns the Creation and Existence of the State of Israel,” the motion carrying decisively 421 to 307. Arguing for the affirmative, along with Faris Glubb, a student at the time, was a Mr. Bastawous, who “almost ended by his breaking down and sobbing,” as he “painted a vivid picture of homeless arabs wandering naked in the desert,” cast into exile by the Zionist conquerors. Textbooks reminded Arab elementary school students “how the Jews tormented Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah,” and then called on them: “My Arab brethren, . . . help me throw Israel into the depths of the ocean, to the remotest deserts.” Arab leaders, in turn, openly promised “to blow up Israel.” In 1960, Gamal Abdel Nasser, president of Egypt, plainly announced the intended goal of the repatriation of Arab refugees: “If the refugees return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist.” One year later, Radio Cairo was equally explicit: “It is obvious that the return of one million Arabs to Palestine . . . [will enable] them to impose their will on the Jews and expel them from Palestine.” Clearly, anti-Zionists did not consider it necessary to use ­circumlocutions. On June 4, 1967, the day before the Six-Day War broke out—only twenty-two years after the end of the Holocaust— the president of Algeria, Colonel Hourari Boumedienne, proclaimed unequivocally: “The Arab struggle must lead to the liquidation of Israel.” And Nasser, who later disingenuously denied that he had wanted war, demanded “a general assault against Israel,” promising, “This will be total war. Our basic aim is the destruction of Israel.”12 12 Nicholas Fogg, “Israel: The Miracle and the Myth,” Afrasian 3 (1968); “1,000 Nightmares,” Free South Arabia (Autumn 1964), reprinted as “Imperialism’s

241

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Jews in Arab Lands: The Equality Myth Although the anti-Zionists reject the Jewish state and even the concept of a Jewish nation or people, they insist that they “have no quarrel with . . . those persons of the Jewish faith who regard ­themselves as a religious community.” Problems between Arabs and Jews only arose, they maintain, when “the Zionist Jews . . . converted Judaism into Zionism.” Thus most Arabs never accepted the ­legitimacy of the Balfour Declaration (1917), with Britain’s promise of support for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine—the anti-Zionists now equating it with the Munich Pact, in which Britain betrayed Czechoslovakia. By contrast, anti-Zionists recognized the White Paper of 1939, in which Britain retreated from its commitment to the Jewish Homeland, endorsing a binational state incorporating a small Jewish minority, as Britain’s Finest Hour. Although adopted after Kristallnacht and the Anschluss, and on the eve of the German invasion of Poland and the start of World War II, the White Paper virtually ended Jews’ right to enter Palestine or to purchase land. Strangely, anti-Zionists continually boasted—even in 1946—that “on many occasions in history, when Christian Europe savagely slaughtered and expelled the Jews . . ., it was the Muslim countries that welcomed and succored them”—even as they now cheered the White Paper that had sealed the exit of Jews at the time of Europe’s most lethal “pogrom.”13 A major refrain, ceaselessly reiterated by anti-Zionists—­ beginning even before the UN voted for Partition in 1947—was that ‘Divine Right,’” Liberation (July/August 1969); Arnoni, Minority of One, 17–21, 34–36; Rev. Ibrahim Ayad, Israel and the Christians (Washington, DC: Palestine Information Office, 1981), 11–12; Quotations from Arab Schoolbooks, “Reader for 3rd Grade”; CAABU, The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 13; General Union of Arab Students in the UK and Ireland, Imperialist Background to the Middle East Crisis; H. G. G., “Arab v. Jew,” Kip (ULU), May 4, 1963. 13 CAABU, The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1–3, 12–13; Nasir, A Day of Justice, 28–29; IAAA, “Arabs Want Peace in Palestine!”; American Jewish Committee, “‘Some of Our Best Friends . . .’: The Claim of Arab Tolerance, A Background Memo,” December 1975, American Jewish Committee [henceforth, AJC] Archives, New York.

242

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

there was no need for “political Zionism” or a Jewish state because “throughout the ages,” as long as Jews had lived under Arab rule, “there was mutual trust, respect and happy coexistence between them.” They were adamant that it had always been “the national policy of all the Arab states, acting individually or collectively,” to ensure “justice and equality for all citizens regardless of their race, color or creed.” In sum, “anti-Jewish attitudes were virtually unknown in the Arab world,” where “the Arabs ha[d] been the kindest and most generous of hosts” to the Jews, happily providing “asylum, shelter—and tolerance” to them. With prejudice and discrimination nonexistent in the Arab world, “large Jewish communities had prospered for centuries.” The problem, they warned as early as 1946, was that “the political Zionists . . . by their vilification of the Arabs generally, are unwittingly spreading the Jewish problem to Muslim countries, where it had never existed before.” Incredibly, they invariably attributed the alleged “perfect harmony” between Arabs and Jews to “Islam . . . a most tolerant faith.” It is, they stressed, “the universal character of Islamic education and attitude” that explains “this long and proud tradition of religious tolerance.” An additional reason proffered for their supposed “peaceful coexistence” was that “when all is said and done, Arabs and Jews are but branches of the same Semitic race, acknowledging Abraham as a common ancestor.” What could possibly come between them?14 Because Jews in Arab/Muslim lands allegedly “always enjoyed complete independence and constant respect in religious affairs,” anti-Zionists were adamant that Jews never fled in search of refuge elsewhere. Although 750,000 to 850,000 Jews left Arab lands from 1948 to 1970, anti-Zionists insist that none were “refugees.” They were only “lured by the Zionists,” who “resorted to veiled blackmail 14 CAABU, The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1–3; El Mehdi ben Aboud, Moroccans of the Jewish Faith (Arab Information Center, 1961), 5–7, 12–13; Mazzawi, The Arab Refugees, 27–30; Israeli Socialist Organization and Palestine Democratic Front, “Joint Israeli-Arab Statement on the Middle-East Crisis,” June 3, 1967, MCF Collection; IAAA, “Arabs Want Peace in Palestine!” Nasir, A Day of Justice, 93; AJC, “‘Some of Our Best Friends . . .’”.

243

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

in their attempts to get Jews to emigrate to Israel.” Incredibly, they assert that “the Jews who left the Arab countries for Israel did so in conditions of leisure and ease, taking most of their possessions.” They allow that “there were some restrictions on the transfer of cash from Arab countries to Israel,” quickly adding, “but it is known that these technical restrictions did not in the end work any serious ­hardship upon the emigrants, who found easy ways of getting round them.” In short, those crafty Jews manage to circumvent even the most reasonable of laws—especially when money is involved. By contrast, they maintain that “the Arabs who left Palestine did so under severe intimidation or terror and had no option”—no ­alternative. And they “often left [only] with the clothes they stood in, and with families separated in chaos.” Thus only the Arabs can be considered refugees, the number of whom the anti-Zionists hugely inflate, while slashing the number of Jews who left Arab lands by at least half. Textbooks remind Arab youth that while “the Jews have always claimed they were persecuted in order to elicit sympathy, [in] actual fact, nobody ever persecuted Jews anywhere.” Arabs allege that before “Zionism organized and maintained a propaganda machine recruiting immigrants to Palestine from our shores,” there was “no Jewish problem” in Arab lands. After all, some argue, “if such a conflict [between Arabs and Jews] had existed before, it would not have been possible for a man like Sason Hushail, an Iraqi and a Jew, to be an influential and important Minister in Iraq’s government in the 1920s and 1930s.” Thus “difficulties” arose only with “the ­infiltration of Zionist agents,” come “to indoctrinate young” Jews with their cause. To be sure, a few Jews in Arab lands released ­statements—some clearly reflecting fears of exposing their actual situation—that supported the anti-Zionist position, as they openly “denounced the international campaign . . . by imperialist hypocrites who try to create a conflict in order to discredit our country and tear away the Jewish population from the national community.” The anti-Zionists’ closing argument in the effort to discredit Zionism and delegitimize the “Zionist State” held that although Jews who 244

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

remained in the Arab countries “were treated in all respects as free and equal citizens,” the Arabs who stayed in Israel have continued “to live under Israeli military rule in a system of apartheid as secondclass citizens.”15

Jews as Happy Dhimmis? Anti-Zionists’ depictions of Arabs’ and Muslims’ treatment of Jews in the centuries before the emergence of modern Zionism, however, bore no resemblance to reality. The position Arabs assumed of wounded innocents, as they routinely hurled challenges at the West—such as “Why should we Arabs . . . be made to atone for the sins of intolerant Europe?”—was wholly misplaced. The assessment of the foremost Jewish medieval philosopher, Moses Maimonides, on the treatment of Jews in Arab/Muslim lands was unequivocal: “Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.” And in a letter to a Jew in the Yemen, he concluded, “No nation has sought such refinements of evil as they [the Muslims] have to weaken, diminish and humiliate us.” Samuel Romanelli, the eighteenth-century Italian Jewish poet, portrayed the Jews of Morocco, among whom he had lived for years, as “oppressed, m ­ iserable creatures, having neither the mouth to answer an Arab, nor the cheek to raise their head.” An English traveler in Morocco near the end of the eighteenth century detailed some dimensions of the Jews’ submission and humiliation: “If a Moor enters a Jew’s house, disturbs his family and insults his wife, the Jew dares not murmur. A Moor may beat a Jew as long as he pleases. One sees children strike Jews in the streets if the Jew attempts to overtake them.” An observer at the beginning of the next century commented, “Despite all the services the Jews render the Moors, they are treated by them with more disdain than they would their animals.” A French traveler at the end of the 15 Ayad, Israel and the Christians, 11; Quotations from Arab Schoolbooks, The Arab Homeland, 3rd grade; El Mehdi ben Aboud, Moroccans of the Jewish Faith, 12; Mazzawi, The Arab Refugees, 19–21; CAABU, The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 112–13.

245

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

nineteenth century characterized the Jews of Morocco “as serfs, in total feudal dependency on Muslim lords, who could . . . drive them away at will.” Similarly, a British official, writing from Iraq in the first decade of the twentieth century, found that Muslims treated Jews “as a master might treat a slave.” Another Englishman, who lived in Cairo in the early nineteenth century, reported simply that the Jews of Egypt were “held in the utmost contempt and abhorrence by Muslims in general.”16 Not surprisingly, the writer Albert Memmi, a Jew who grew up in Tunisia and went to college in Algeria, confronted Muammar Gaddafi, the “Revolutionary Chairman” of Libya, in Paris in 1973: “Is it enough to have been born an Arab to be entitled to everything and to have been born a Jew to have a right to nothing, except to be condemned to remain eternally second-class citizens, exposed to humiliation and periodic massacres?” Memmi continued his challenge to Gaddafi: “And if you seriously wanted to avoid our gathering together in that corner of land we call Israel to renew a most ancient tradition, why have you hunted us down throughout all the regions where your writ runs?” Elsewhere, Memmi summarized the Jews’ experience, which he had known: “Never, and I mean never . . . have the Jews lived in an Arab country otherwise than as an u ­ nderprivileged and insecure group, with the odd pogrom from time to time to keep them in their place.”17 Contrary to the incessant boasts of the Arabs, Islam never served as a source of equality toward Jews. Indeed, Islam always divided the world into Dar al-Islam—the “Realm of Islam”—and Dar al-Harb— the “Realm of War.” As detailed in the Qur’an, Allah specifically mandates that Muslims subjugate “the People of the Book,” that is, Jews and Christians: “They would not invade you, but you invade them, to convert them, and if they refuse to convert, subjugate 16 Norman A. Stillman, “Myth, Countermyth, and Distortion,” Tikkun (May/ June 1991): 60–64; AJC, “‘Some of Our Best Friends . . .’”; “Exploding a Myth: Arabs Had Never Discriminated Against Jews in the Past,” Jewish Chronicle, November 7, 1975. 17 “Exploding a Myth.”

246

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

them.” Other clauses command the slaying of nonbelievers, although it is unclear if this refers to “People of the Book,” or only other infidels. Still, the Qur’an and the hadith—which allegedly contains the teachings and sayings of Muhammad—single the Jews out for special abuse. As clerics repeatedly remind worshippers, Jews are the only people cursed in the Qur’an, which identifies them as the ­“descendants of apes and pigs.” And the hadith promises that “the Last Days will not come unless the Muslims will fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill them.” The Qur’an explains that the Jews were—and are—“laden with Allah’s anger” because they had “disbelieved the signs of Allah.” According to the Qur’an, the Jews were the original “corrupters of Scripture,” who knowingly distorted the truth that had been entrusted to them. As a result, Allah sent the original, literal text— the Qur’an—to Muhammad, the last of his prophets. But because the Jews rejected His truth, Allah promises them “degradation in this world and a mighty chastisement in the next world.” In short, there can be no equality for Jews. That the Jews are the focus of intense enmity and contempt in Islam’s foundation texts derives in large part from Muhammad’s designation of himself as the successor to Moses, and his ­expectation that the Jews would therefore become his followers. The Jews of Yathrib—renamed Medina (“City of the Prophet”) by Muhammad— however, rejected him as their prophet. Not only did they believe that the era of the prophets had ended a thousand years earlier, but they found that he could not answer correctly any of the questions they posed to him about the Hebrew Bible. Critically, Muhammad responded only by accusing the Jews of concealing the true meaning of their Bible, and therefore the Qur’an characterizes the Jews for all time as deceitful, never to be trusted or taken as friends. They had denied the “final revelation” granted to Muhammad only because they were “puffed up with pride.” Henceforth the followers of Muhammad engaged Jewish tribes of the area in successive battles, each of which the Jews lost after 247

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

their allies deserted them. Upon defeating the Jewish Nadir tribe, Muhammad expelled them from their lands, allowing them to take only what they could carry on their camels. The Qur’an attributes the punishment of the Jews to Allah: “Allah decreed exile for them. . . . In the hereafter they will undergo the chastisement of the Fire. That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger and whoever so opposes Allah will find that Allah is severe in retaliation.” Notably, “by Allah’s command,” Muhammad’s followers then cut down the Jews’ fruit trees. The Qur’an explains that “Allah did this to disgrace the transgressors. Allah gave these trees as spoils to His Messenger. Allah grants power to His Messenger over anyone He pleases.” Thus Muslims learn that it was with respect to the Jews that Allah—through his prophet, Muhammad—demonstrated his power to disgrace and exile a people. They are taught that Allah directs that Muslims are to benefit at the expense of the Jews. And when the exiled Nadir Jews sought the aid of a member of Muhammad’s original pagan tribe, who asked if the religion of the “people of the first scripture” was better than that of the Prophet, the result was the Qur’anic decree that “whomever Allah has cursed will find none to support them.” That is, the Jews are not only cursed, but to be isolated. And when the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, abandoned by its allies and having held out for twenty-five days, surrendered, Muhammad had the 700 Jewish men beheaded, all the Jewish women and children sold into slavery, their possessions distributed among the Muslims—this too was attributed in the Qur’an to Allah’s judgment upon the Jewish blasphemers, who would deny Allah’s truth.18 For well over a millennium, the teachings of the Qur’an, encoded in the Pact of Umar, the decrees of the eighth-century caliph Umar I, formed the framework for the treatment of Jews 18 AJC, “‘Some of Our Best Friends . . .’”; Robert S. Wistrich, A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad (New York: Random House, 2010), 46–49, 64, 738, 744–47, 754, 762, 771–72, 788–89; Wistrich, Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger (New York: AJC, 2002), 1–36; Martin Gilbert, In Ishmael’s House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010), 12–26.

248

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

who dwelled in Arab lands. The decrees drew directly on the terms Muhammad had imposed on the tribe of Khaybar Jews, who had been defeated after a month of fighting. Although all their land was given to the Muslims, because only the Jews knew how to ­irrigate their palm groves, some of them would not be killed, but could remain as tenants, tending their date palms—provided they turned over half their harvest each year to the Muslims. Thus so long as “People of the Book” paid a substantial annual tribute— the jizya—they could live in Arab lands as “protected peoples”— dhimmis. Jews and Christians would be allowed to exist only within a web of legal restrictions that ensured their s­ ubjugation, humiliation, and inferiority to Muslims, although they could “practice their religion.” Judaism would be tolerated as “a faith,” but Jews could never be acknowledged as a people—a nation. Unlike Christians, who were “protected by their r­ epresentatives” or could move to Christian states, the persecuted Jews found little relief until French and British imperialists ­penetrated the Muslim lands in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although the decrees that mandated the abasement and ­submission of “People of the Book” were not enforced uniformly in all periods and places, conditions always remained precarious for Jews. False accusations were common because courts would not accept a Jew’s testimony over that of a Muslim. To be sure, Jews might at times be permitted to evade a regulation—for example, to make forbidden repairs to a synagogue—if they agreed to pay the bribe the local Muslims demanded. But in accordance with Allah’s revealed order of the universe, the positions of Jews—of all infidels—must clearly convey their inferiority and subordination to Muslims. Thus the height of Jews’ houses must be lower than that of Muslims. Jews were generally forbidden to ride horses, lest this elevate them above a Muslim. They could only ride mules or donkeys. Jews were required to step off a path or yield the center of the road to Muslims. And Jews could not bear arms.

249

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Lest a Jew mistakenly be considered an equal to a Muslim, the Jews’ appearance must telegraph their identity. Thus the regulation that Jews wear a “yellow badge originated in Baghdad, not Europe.” In some Muslim lands, they were compelled to display a red cloth on their chest. Although Jews were often prohibited from wearing matching shoes, in some Muslim areas, Jews did not dare wear shoes in public at all. Even when undressed in bathhouses, Jews had to be distinguishable—in some Muslim lands, by a metal neck-ring. Above all, a Muslim could not be seen to occupy a position ­subordinate to a Jew. When, in a time of famine in Morocco, an elderly Jew was discovered to have employed an impoverished Muslim woman as his domestic servant, he was nailed to the ground and beaten to death—and Allah’s order of the universe was restored. Moreover, Muslims held that it was their right to be more prosperous than the unbelievers. As a result, to avoid eliciting the wrath of Muslims, Jews in Yemen “dressed like beggars” and made sure that the exterior of their houses appeared “not just modest . . . but decrepit.” Indeed, throughout Muslim lands, entire Jewish ­communities would be endangered should any Jew be deemed to have become too successful or powerful. Threats arose often, because many Muslim rulers relied on the knowledge and skills of Jewish physicians, engravers, financiers, scholars, linguists, administrators, and others. Yet, as humiliated subjects, Jews could never ­acknowledge that their accomplishments—their contributions to the ­development of the Muslim lands—had come at their initiative or reflected their expertise. Even Muslims’ perceptions of a single Jew’s unseemly success could lead to an entire Jewish community being “engulfed in an inferno of murder, rape and looting.”19

19 AJC, “‘Some of Our Best Friends . . .’”; “Exploding a Myth”; Wistrich, A Lethal Obsession, 690–91, 734, 786–91, 817, 831, 836, 867, 876; Gilbert, In Ishmael’s House, 21–43, 67–71, 83–92, 98–126; David S. Landes, “Palestine Before the Zionists,” Commentary, February 1976, 47–56; Bat Ye’or, Understanding Dhimmitude (New York: RVP Publishers, 2013).

250

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

Anti-Zionists endlessly call attention to the “golden age” of Sephardic Jewry, the years 800–1250, to stress the essential tolerance of Islam. This was a period of a flourishing mercantile economy, in which the demands for degradation and submission were not systematically applied, and Jews prospered. But the Jew who rose too high, overturning Allah’s divine order, readily evoked the envy and outrage of the Muslim masses, the response often encouraged by religious leaders. In 1066, Muslims killed a Jewish vizier (a high official) in Granada, and then proceeded to murder 3,000 to 5,000 Jews. Still, scholars of Arab civilization attribute the relative ­tolerance of this period to the continued strength of pre-Islamic traditions, Hellenistic humanism, and “the remnants of the ancient heritage of the Near East.” And once these secular, humanistic, and pre-Islamic elements waned and Islam prevailed, the system of relentless ­debasement and subjugation was restored. Even when viewed from the perspective of the 1970s, Georges Vajda, a leading scholar of the Jewish experience, concluded: “It seems that no Muslim power, however ‘liberal’ it may like to think itself . . ., could depart from the line followed in the past . . . and confer on the Jews anything but the historic status of ‘protected persons,’ patched up with ill-digested and unassimilated Western phraseology.” It was clear that the belief system of the Muslims could not accommodate the military prowess and marked economic achievements of the “Zionists”—of the Jewish state. Those who had oppressed the Jews for more than a thousand years would not accept that the era of Muslim domination and humiliation of Jews— mandated by Allah—was over. This was the unanticipated—and inexplicable—naqba (“catastrophe”).20 Thus one can discern in the Arab/Muslim assaults on the Jews of Israel echoes of the long-established patterns of behavior toward the dhimmis. Muslim youth who routinely stone Israelis are holding fast to the traditional mode of expression of their enmity and contempt for Jews. Similarly, the Arabs/Muslims who capture 20 “Exploding a Myth”; Stillman, “Myth, Countermyth, and Distortion,” 61; Gilbert, In Ishmael’s House, 40–69.

251

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Israelis, ­ planning to exchange them for imprisoned Arabs, are following the well-worn path of their forebears, who seized Jewish elders and held them for ransom. Even the absurd charges regularly leveled at Israelis and Israel—and accepted uncritically by the anti-Zionist Left in the West—are the continuation of the deeprooted practice of hurling false accusations against dhimmis in Arab lands. Many of the allegations directed at Israelis can also be seen as projections of Muslims’ time-honored treatment of the subjugated Jews. Those who had long indulged in wanton looting of Jews now accused the Zionists of robbing them. Those who had imposed “second-class citizenship” on Jews—when they were allowed to acquire citizenship at all—now insisted that the Zionists accorded, at best, second-class citizenship to Arab Israelis. Muslims who had appropriated Jews’ land, houses, and possessions—to be sure, at the command of Allah, transmitted to Muhammad—now accused the Jews of stealing their land and dwellings—when they often owned neither. Whereas Allah had ruled that some of the former Jewish owners of the lands Muhammad had given to his followers would be allowed to remain as tenants (provided they hand over half their produce each year to the Muslims), the Arabs now denounced the “Zionists” for forcing some of the alleged former Arab landowners to work the land for them—thereby violating Allah’s divine ­arrangements. Above all, Allah had decreed exile for large numbers of Jews—allowing the families to take only those belongings that could be carried on their camels. And now Muslims could not accept that it was the yahudi—the Zionists—who had, they charged, sentenced the Arabs of Palestine to exile—taking only the items they could carry on their heads when they left—or, in truth, often when they fled. The world that was their right—according to Allah—had been turned upside down. Although Muslims had long subjugated, demeaned, and ­discriminated against Jews, Arabs now defined the Zionists as the racists, contemptuous of Palestinian Arabs and confining them to separate and subordinate roles. Some now explained that it was 252

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

only the Jews’ racism that had caused them to reject Mohammad, a Hashemite Arab, as their prophet. It was through such p ­ rojections that Arabs revealed their inability to cope with the loss of an ­identity long sustained by the subjugation and humiliation of the inferior Jews.21

Islam against Zion: The Religious Assault on the Jewish State Many—increasingly, most—Muslims and Arabs defined their conflict with Zionists and the “Zionist entity” in religious terms. They attached to the Jews—generally translated as “Zionists” only for Western consumption—traits allegedly drawn from the “Old Testament,” “their minds [still] filled with the Chosen people’s dreams of domination, exploitation and arbitrariness.” In contrast to Islam—the religion of peace—the Hebrew Bible ­“instigat[ed] the Jews to commit acts of murder, invasion and extermination.” Theological, political, and intellectual leaders assured fellow Arabs and Muslims that “the evolution of human society had no effect on these beliefs or teachings. On the contrary, the principles of racialism, aggression and bloodshed [continue] to flourish in the minds of Jews.” Their readers and listeners learned that the principles “embodied in the Talmud”—which “is more holy than, and s­ uperior to, the Bible”—sustained Jews’ convictions about their “superiority” and their commitments to “isolationism and aggression.” Thus over the years of their exile and isolation, their practice of “exploitation and aggression” became “more savage.” Textbooks in Jordan reminded Muslim children that, unlike Allah, the Jewish god is “bloodthirsty, fickle-minded, harsh and greedy. He is pleased with imposture and deceit.” They were informed that Judaism was “the only religion which has made a 21 AJC, “‘Some of Our Best Friends . . .’”; “Exploding a Myth”; “600 Jewish Residents Reported Jailed by Egypt,” New York Times, June 14, 1967; Wistrich, A Lethal Obsession, 47, 771–72, 790, 818–19, 922–23; Robert S. Wistrich, “The AntiZionist Mythology of the Left,” Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs (2015): 5, 7; Mansur Al Tunsi, “Moral Swindle by West Denunciated,” Free Palestine (August 1968).

253

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

tenet of ­espionage.” The Jordanian minister of education taught that “Zionists,” cleaving closely to the “precedents . . . found in the Bible,” were ­dedicated to “the spread of corruption and decay, [both] as an o ­ bjective and as a means.” They even “exploit r­ eferences to ­espionage in the Bible, in order to transform espionage into a . . . religious service.” As evidence, the minister called the attention of his ­countrymen to “Beria, a former Minister of the Interior of the USSR, . . . [who] did not spy for the USA or England, but for the purposes of World Zionism.” Sermons—often “sanctioned by the state or by the head of state”—framed the conflict with Zionists and the Zionist entity as a death-struggle with the “arch-enemy of Islam.” On the eve of the Six-Day War (June 5–10, 1967), the rector of Cairo’s Al Azhar University appealed to all “the world’s Muslims” to support President Nasser in what promised to be a “decisive battle in the history of religion and Arabism”—the war to destroy the “Zionist menace.” Quoting from the Qur’an, clergymen routinely cast the struggle with Zionists as the continuation of “the Prophet’s” wars with the Jews. Authors of religious texts and tracts reminded the faithful that “the Jews of our time are the descendants of the Jews who harmed the Prophet”—who tried to poison him—and taught that “the Prophet enlightened us about the right way to treat them.” Thus they must “purify Holy Palestine from their filth.” A leaflet drawn up by an Islamic organization, which began with a negative quotation from the Qur’an about the Jews and incited Muslims to “Fight them until death,” concluded with the rallying cry: “The time of Khaibar has come!” All Muslims r­ ecognized that it was there that Muhammad’s forces had not only defeated the Jews, but introduced the punishment of tenancy, of the jizya, and the humiliation and subjugation that would later be systematized as dhimmitude. And when President Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, the Sheikh of al-Azhar, “the highest authority of established Islam,” justified it to Egyptians, in a ruling printed in the newspapers, by making an analogy to the “Prophet

254

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

Muhammad’s . . . peace at Hudhaybiyya.” Readers understood well that Muhammad had signed this “ten-year armistice” with the people of Mecca when he was about to lose the battle. But after only two years, with his forces strengthened, Muhammad broke the treaty, and conquered the city.22 Clergy roused their minions by stressing that Muslims had controlled Palestine—with the exception of 200 years of rule by the alien Crusaders—from AD 636 until 1918, when it was ­occupied by the “British, . . . conspiring with Zionism until 1948.” It was Islam that had been blessed by expansion and conquests. For all those years, Palestine had been part of the patrimony of the elect of Allah, and they denounced the Zionist victories and the “displacement” of Muslims by Jews as the inversion of the divine order. Many condemned the Jews’ supposed belief that they were “the chosen” on whom their god had bestowed e­ xclusive possession of “this land, from the river of Egypt unto the river of the Euphrates.” Large numbers of anti-Zionist speakers and writers—both ­religious and secular—energized their followers with claims that “the Arabs had been in continuous occupation of the country for thirteen centuries,” while “the Jew . . . had left the country some two thousand years ago.” Others maintained that “the Holy Land” had been the Arabs’ “homeland since the beginning of the world,” and in 1951—six years after the end of the Holocaust— proclaimed the UN’s partition of Palestine “the most inhuman crime of all times!”—causing “this unprecedented wholesale massacre of a docile people.” Some were adamant that it was the “forefathers” of the dispossessed Palestinian Arabs who had 22 Arab Petroleum Institute for Labour Studies, Colonialism . . . Zionism . . . & Palestine, 5–6; ISNA et al., Palestine—A Muslim Issue; El Mehdi ben Aboud, Moroccans of the Jewish Faith, 8; E. Hess, comp., Extracts from Arab School Texts (Jerusalem: Information Division, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, [1968]); “Cairo Acts to Bar Israeli Shipping in Gulf of Aqaba,” New York Times, May 23, 1967; Rafi Israeli, “The Impact of Islamic Fundamentalism on the Arab-Israeli Conflict,” Survey of Arab Affairs (August 15, 1988), 3, 5–6; Mazzawi, The Arab Refugees.

255

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

“continuously owned and farmed” the lands that the Zionists had stolen. They boasted that the growth in the Arab population of Palestine in the decades before the ­establishment of Israel was the result of natural increase, unlike the Jewish population, whose rise was attributable to immigration.23 Many of their charges, however, were misplaced. Efraim Karsh and other leading historians have definitively shown, for example, that the frequently reiterated “claim of [Zionists’] premeditated dispossession [of the Arabs of Palestine] is not only baseless, but the inverse of the truth.” Robert Wistrich concluded that, contrary to the accusation that “Zionism had displaced a major portion of the ‘native’ Palestinians in the name of . . . [their] spurious rights,” “the Jewish presence and the resultant economic projects” had, in fact, “turn[ed] Palestine into a land attracting substantial Arab immigration.” Indeed, Wistrich noted that “most Palestinian ­ Arabs [from the early 1920s to 1940] were either immigrants from ­neighboring Arab lands or descendants of immigrants who had arrived since the late nineteenth century.” Even the Peel Commission report of 1937 found that “the increase in the Arab population is most marked in urban areas affected by Jewish development.” Not only had the majority of Palestinian Arabs arrived relatively recently, but the economic transformation effected by the Zionists ­considerably improved the lives of the Arab immigrants and their d ­ escendants. Among the numerous “beneficent effects of Jewish ­immigration on Arab welfare,” Karsh cites the sharp drop of the “mortality rate in the Muslim population” in Palestine, as well as the very significant rise in the Muslims’ life expectancy—“from 37.5 years in 1926–27 to 50 in 1942–44 (compared to 33 in Egypt).” Even “the rate of natural increase leapt upward . . . (from 23.3 per 1,000 people in 1922–25 to 30.7 in 1941–44)—well 23 Arab Petroleum Institute for Labour Studies, Colonialism . . . Zionism . . . & Palestine, 4–6; Tannous, Warning from Palestine Arabs, 1–9; Mazzawi, The Arab Refugees; Israeli, “Impact of Islamic Fundamentalism,” 3; Nasir, A Day of Justice; CAABU, The Arab-Israeli Conflict.

256

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

ahead of the natural increase . . . of other Arab/Muslim populations.” In summary, Karsh finds: the fact “that nothing remotely akin to this was taking place in the neighboring British-ruled Arab countries .  ­ .  . can be explained only by the decisive Jewish ­contribution to Mandatory Palestine’s socio-economic ­wellbeing.” Thus the growth of the Arab population was a result of immigration and natural increase—but both were, in turn, attributable to the ­transformations Zionists had effected in the socioeconomic system of Palestine.24

Anti-Zionism and Islam’s Claim to Jerusalem Before—and even more, after—the Six-Day War, in which Israel captured East Jerusalem, anti-Zionists incited Muslims with the need to wrest the Holy City from the infidels. Although Jerusalem is referred to more than 600 times in the Hebrew Bible and is not mentioned in the Qur’an, agitators continually warned that Jerusalem was “central to the consciousness of the one billion Muslims in the world” and “deplored the arrogant and irreligious disregard Zionists have demonstrated” for the “fast-deteriorating City of Peace.” Notably, when waging war with Iraq (1980–88), Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini reminded his troops that the road to Jerusalem went through Baghdad. That is, upon conquering Baghdad, they would have advanced halfway from Teheran to Jerusalem, their “ultimate goal.” Muslims have been taught that Muhammad was taken on a “mysterious night journey” to what the Qur’an identifies only as the “Al Aqsa” (i.e., the “further”) mosque, from which he was led to heaven. After being returned to the mosque from heaven, he rode his winged horse back to Mecca. The faithful have long been instructed that this was the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. This is central to Islam’s supersessionist claims, in which Muhammad is said to have ascended to heaven from the outcropping of rock to 24 Karsh, Palestine Betrayed, 5, 12–13; Wistrich, “Anti-Zionist Mythology of the Left,” 3.

257

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

which Jews believe Abraham brought Isaac to be sacrificed. For some time, however, secular scholars have recognized that the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem did not even exist in Muhammad’s lifetime. Although Muhammad died in 632, it was the fifth caliph, Abd al Malik ibn Marwan (who ruled from 685 to 705), who began to have it built. These findings are highly destabilizing to the faithful, and the grand mufti of Jerusalem has proclaimed that Al Aqsa had been a mosque “3,000 years ago, and 30,000 years ago”—indeed it has existed “since the creation of the world.” “This is the Al Aqsa Mosque that Adam . . . or, during his time, the angels built.” By contrast, a prominent Egyptian scholar of Islam, Youssef Ziedan, has recently argued that the “further mosque” referred to in the Qur’an was likely a mosque just outside “the city of Ta’if, west of Mecca,” a finding introduced by the Muslim scholar al-Imam Al-Wiqidi, who lived 748–822. For his efforts, Ziedan has been condemned by another scholar of the Qur’an as “a heretic.”25

Denying Zion: Discrediting Jews’ and Judaism’s Ties to the Homeland While Muslims trace their claim to Jerusalem to Muhammad’s night journey and their right to sovereignty over Palestine to the conquests Allah granted the faithful, they dismiss Jews’ historical ties and biblical claims to the Promised Land as bogus. A thirdgrade text, The Arab Homeland, flatly instructed: “The Zionist claim that Palestine, which they call ‘Zion’ or ‘the Promised Land,’ is the ­spiritual and national homeland of the Jewish people, is utter nonsense.” Muslims, as well as anti-Zionist Christians in the West and Near East, insisted that Jews’ “pretensions” to Eretz Israel were “based on the most dubious and archaic religious claims.” 25 Nasir, A Day of Justice; ISNA et al., Palestine—A Muslim Issue; Sayegh, Palestine; Israeli, “Impact of Islamic Fundamentalism,” 4–5; “Temple Mount in Jewish Hands?” Jerusalem Post, December 24, 2015; Times of Israel, October 25, 2015.

258

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

Christians—who, from the earliest years of the faith—and Muslims—who, from the time of Muhammad—maintained that Jews did not understand the Hebrew Bible, now taught that Zionists intentionally “misinterpret . . . Holy Scripture to justify Jews’ return to Palestine.” Anti-Zionists were particularly threatened by what they called “Christian apologists’” support for Zionism, attributing their ­position only to their “conscious[ness] of the sufferings that have been inflicted on the Jews by the Western World.” This had caused them simply to be “anxious to make reparation for crimes in which, if only vicariously, they feel they have shared.” The anti-­ Zionists ­ relentlessly derided the Christian Zionists’ views as arising “out of ignorance,” and rejected their conviction that “recent events in Palestine . . . represent . . . the fulfillment of the Divine will.” “Such an interpretation,” the anti-Zionists contended, “requires some strange distortions, both of human history and of biblical prophecy.”26 Anti-Zionists were adamant that the Hebrew Bible did not allow—much less support—the return of the Jews to their original Homeland from the Second Diaspora—the exile that began in 70 CE or 135 CE. They insisted that according to the prophets of the “Old Testament,” “a remnant of the Jews would return to Palestine . . . [only] from a specific exile—the Babylonian Exile.” This p ­ rediction having been “fully accomplished” beginning in 538 BCE, they ­maintained: “It cannot be overemphasized that, within the Old Testament, there is no prophecy of a ‘second return.’” Citing Genesis, they explained that the “promise of Palestine” was dependent on “obedience to the will of God”—“‘because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments.’”—and quoted 26 Quotations from Arab Schoolbooks, Arab Homeland; Fayez A. Sayegh, “Do Jews Have a ‘Divine Right’ to Palestine?” in Sayegh, Palestine, 17; Michael Adams, The Churches and Palestine (London: CAABU [1970]), 4–5; William Holladay, Is the Old Testament Zionist? (Beirut: University Christian Center, 1968), 8–13; Armanazi, “Zionism: Challenge to Western Liberalism”; Anonymous, Holy Land Under Israeli Occupation, 9; Alfred Guillaume, Zionists and the Bible (London, 1946) (reprint: New York: Palestine Arab Refugee Office, 1956).

259

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Deuteronomy to prove that it was “definitely declared” that “the punishment [for] disobedience” was to be “‘scattered among the nations.’” “These prophecies,” they stressed, “plainly foretold the [actual] course of Israel’s history”—the history of a sinful people who defied the “statutes” and “laws” of God. Christian anti-Zionists stressed that God had once again offered the Jews redemption, but they rejected it. Although “by their sins [the Jews] had broken the Old Covenant,” the prophet Jeremiah foretold that “God in His wisdom would make a New Covenant, which . . . they would have to keep.” To the Christians, “the New Covenant was made with the coming and teaching of Jesus Christ,” and the Second Diaspora was the Jews’ punishment for their refusal to acknowledge him as God’s “only begotten Son,” and for their responsibility for his crucifixion. As evidence that, as a result of their transgressions, Jews had been denied any ­subsequent “possession of the land of Canaan,” they repeated the declamation attributed to their savior in the gospel of Matthew: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” Having never forgiven the Jews’ dismissal—or ­ refutation—of the Christian interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy, they denounced as ­“arrogant” the ­expectation that Muslims or Arabs should support the Jews’ version—­“especially [as it] involves the acceptance of a physical and a political presence in Palestine for which the authority is so questionable.” In effect following the axioms of the Christian anti-Zionists, Arabs and Muslims endlessly condemned the Zionists for their alleged flagrant violations of the resolutions—commandments—of the UN, the Creator of the Zionist state—the appropriate consequence being the dissolution of the state and the dispersion of the Jews. Christian anti-Zionists also widely circulated—in the United States, Britain, and the Near East—their belief that “the Land of Canaan” was never promised exclusively to the Jews. Instead, according to the “Old Testament,” the Jews and the Muslims were

260

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

equal heirs to “the promise of Palestine.” They acknowledge that God made “explicit promises” of “all the Land of Canaan” to “Abraham and his seed” as “an everlasting possession”—and that they were “subsequently made [expressly] to Isaac and Jacob and their seed.” They maintain, however, that the “inclusiveness of the earlier p ­ romises was not canceled by the relative narrowness of the later ones.” Thus Ishmael, Abraham’s son by his servant “Hagar the Egyptian,” remains an heir to the promise. And because Muslims claim descent from Ishmael—who, according to their s­upersessionist narrative, was the son Abraham brought to be sacrificed—title to the land belongs equally to them, although those crafty Zionists deny it. Strangely, but necessarily, anti-Zionists omit that, according to Islamic belief, it was to Mecca that Abraham brought Ishmael to be sacrificed. At the same time as they insisted that the Jews were not the sole heirs to the Promised Land, the anti-Zionist Christians denied that all Jews could lay claim to the “divine promise”—be they the Jews of the biblical era or the Jews of today. Quoting the Book of Esther that “many from among the peoples of the land became Jews, for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon them,” and drawing on the—completely discredited, but politically useful— paradigm of the “wholesale conversion of the Khazars of Russia to Judaism . . . in the eighth century,” they concluded that “a sizable proportion of Jews are not descendants of Abraham.” Maintaining that “the progeny of Abraham is [therefore] no longer capable of accurate identification,” they taught that there was no possible scriptural justification for the modern Jewish state. Thus many who had earlier mocked Zionism as “narrow tribalism” or “racist chauvinism” now delighted in dismissing Jews as not a tribe at all.27 27 Sayegh, “Do Jews Have a ‘Divine Right’ to Palestine?” 14–17; Adams, Churches and Palestine, 5–6; Holladay, Is the Old Testament Zionist? 8–13; CAABU, The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 29; Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum, “Memo to Colleagues,” April 2, 1969, 4, AJC Archives; “Appeal—The Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples,” Cairo, January 1969, MCF Collection; Guillaume,

261

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Above all, Christian anti-Zionists rejected “political Zionism” and its manifestation in the Jewish state because they were diametrically opposed to the message of the New Covenant, ­ ­delivered by the “Son of God.” Central to this doctrine—long taught to Christians—was that the “parochialism, provincialism, or ‘­nationalism’ of the Jewish tradition” had been replaced by ­“universalism.” According to the Gospel of Matthew, “after his passion and before his ascension,” Jesus had commanded his ­apostles to “make ­disciples of all the nations,” thereby, as alleged in the Gospel of Luke, “incurr[ing] the wrath of the Jews for rebuking the narrow nationalism of their faith.” Theologians stressed that this meant that there were no longer any “privileges . . . based upon racialist ties or descent from a common ancestor.” “The biological acceptation of the term ‘children of Abraham’” was now “ridiculed.” The concept of “‘Israel of the flesh’ gave way to ‘Israel of the spirit’” and the land of Canaan, Jerusalem, and the Temple “lost the importance formerly attached to them [by] the law of Moses.” Anti-Zionist Christians relentlessly directed scorching criticism at the “Jew who [alone] still lives . . . in the Old Testament dispensation [and] regards the possession of the land as ­ important”—and sermons dismissed the Jews’ claim to Palestine as atavistic. Although routinely condemning Jews’ archaic attachment to the Holy Land, Christian leaders would not denounce Islam’s Qur’anic ties to Mecca and Medina, from which kafir— unbelievers—are officially barred. Nor did they protest Saudi Arabia’s prohibition of the right of non-Muslims to worship openly or to be citizens of the realm. In 1968, in an internal report, Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum, director of the Inter-religious Affairs Department of the American Jewish Committee, complained bitterly of the “soft-mindedness, if not schizophrenia, at work in some current Zionists and the Bible; “Jews Are Not Descended from Khazars, Hebrew University Historian Says,” Haaretz, June 26, 2014; Shaul Stampfer, “Did the Khazars Convert to Judaism?” Jewish Social Studies 19 (Spring/Summer 2013): 1–72.

262

Foundation Myths of Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 8

[Christian] moral theologies.” And in an internal memo the next year, he expressed his deep frustration with “Christian attitudes toward Israel,” which he ­ understood to be “complicated by frequently unacknowledged—and perhaps unconscious—theological presuppositions.”28 Christian teaching that denied any biblical bases for a Jewish state was widely endorsed by anti-Zionists—Christian and Muslim—in the West and Near East. They fully appreciated the “proof” that Jews had misunderstood—or misrepresented—the Hebrew Bible to justify “the Zionist claim to the land.” Many anti-Zionists were deeply troubled by the Jews’ sovereignty in Palestine, fearing that it nullified or threatened their central belief in supersession. Many Christians strongly espoused what had come to be known as “replacement theology,” which holds that “the Jewish nation no longer has a place as the special people of God; that place has been taken by the Christian community, which fulfills God’s purpose for Israel.” They had learned that “the Church completely and ­permanently replaced ethnic Israel . . . as recipient of Old Testament promises to Israel.” In a widely cited lecture, one theologian warned the faithful to heed “the New Testament affirmation that it is the Church, we ourselves, who are the true Israel . . . we are it, the Israel of God. . . . Modern Israel is not in theological continuity with ancient Israel.” A packet sent by a leading Presbyterian minister to large numbers of “American clergymen and lay leaders of all denominations”— in July 1967— included a memo flatly summarizing “the Requirements of the Christian Faith vis-à-vis the Palestinian

28 Sayegh, “Do Jews Have a ‘Divine Right’ to Palestine?” 15–17; “Beirut Has Become the Center of Propaganda against Israel in the United States,” Maariv (Tel Aviv, Israel), January 14, 1969; Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum, “International Seminar on Justice and Peace in the Near East,” 1968, in Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum Collection, 1945–1992, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati; Tanenbaum, “Memo to Colleagues,” 4.

263

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Problem”: “Israel is based on a [narrow] racist state of mind, which no Christian conscience can accept.” With Muslim and Christian anti-Zionists convinced that it had now been shown conclusively that the Old Testament did not support a Jewish state, they forcefully maintained that they were not opposed to Judaism—thus could not be considered antisemitic. And with no religious foundation for the Jewish state, Israel from its inception was only a colonialist land-grab by European Jews using a spurious deformation of a religious text in their devious effort to dispossess an innocent, indigenous people.29

29 Holladay, Is the Old Testament Zionist? 8–13; Bruce Waltke, “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1987), 274; Ronald Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought (Rome: Istituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, 2000), 2; Tanenbaum, “International Seminar on Justice and Peace”; Adams, Churches and Palestine, 6; CAABU, ArabIsraeli Conflict, 6; Armanazi, “Zionism: Challenge to Western Liberalism”; Michael Vlach, “Defining Supersessionism,” Theological Studies, http://www. freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3152055.

264

CHAPTER 9

Past and Present: Plus Ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose Edward Alexander

I: Past Shame and contrition, because we have not done enough, weigh even more heavily upon the Jews of the free countries [than on the Allied powers]. Not only do we have the greater responsibility of kinsmen, but our own weakness may be one of the causes why so little has been done. The history of our times will one day make bitter reading, when it records that some Jews were so morally ­uncertain that they denied they were obligated to risk their own safety in order to save other Jews who were being done to death abroad. —Ben Halpern, “We and the European Jews,” Jewish Frontier, August 1943

E

arly in 1963, the controversy over a single book made it clear how much American Jews were still living “abroad,” in both the shadow of the Holocaust and the afterglow of the creation of the State of Israel. Just a few years after the destruction of European Jewry, a martyred people had created in 1948 what Ruth Wisse has

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

called “a more hopeful augury than the dove’s reappearance to Noah with an olive leaf after the flood.”1 But, just as light is a quality of matter even though blind people don’t see it, neither the author of Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil nor her acolytes could see what is to Wisse (and many others) as clear as day.2 Hannah Arendt’s book first appeared in New Yorker articles of February and March before being published as a book in May 1963. The English novelist George Eliot had predicted (in 1876) that some day, when the Jews were no longer a dispersed people, they would “have a defense, in the court of nations, [just] as the outraged Englishman or American” did. But not even the great sibyl could have prophesied that in the twentieth century, “crimes against the Jewish people” would include the destruction of European Jewish civilization. Arendt’s book aroused a storm of controversy, primarily because it alleged that the Jews had cooperated significantly in their own destruction. Except among her most passionate disciples, it is now generally accepted that Arendt was woefully and willfully mistaken in this central assertion. In 1963, little serious historical research had been done on the subject of the Judenräte (Councils). But even to the meager historical material available Arendt paid little ­attention, preferring secondary sources that supported her a­ ccusation of Jewish collaboration. The abrasive effect of the book was increased by its original appearance in the New Yorker—discussion of mass murder alongside the ads for perfume, mink coats, and sports cars—and what Gershom Scholem (the great Jewish scholar who left Germany for Jewish Palestine in 1923) called its “heartless … sneering and malicious” tone towards Jewish leaders. The rebuttal to Arendt came from Zionists like the journalist and poet Marie Syrkin, but also from non-Zionists like the socialist   1 Ruth Wisse, Jews and Power (New York: Schocken, 2007), xiv.   2 Adolf Eichmann, a leading organizer of the Nazi destruction of European Jewry, was captured by Israeli agents in Argentina in 1960 and brought to Jerusalem to stand trial.

266

Past and Present: Plus Ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose

CHAPTER 9

and literary critic Irving Howe. Howe had defended the Israeli capture of Eichmann in Argentina as a necessary moral act by the victims of Nazi Germany. He was outraged by the fact that her articles, which had brought the most serious charges against ­ European Jews, their institutions and leaders, had been distributed to a mass audience unequipped to judge them critically, and had then been sealed shut against criticism in the New Yorker itself. The debate took place in the Partisan Review, although Arendt and her acolyte, the left-wing journalist Dwight Macdonald, did their best to stop editor William Phillips from printing critic Lionel Abel’s attack on the book. Abel, rejecting Arendt’s condemnation of the Jewish Councils for “collaborating” with the Nazi killers, pointed out that in the Ukraine, where there was no Jewish Council to collaborate with the conquerors, the Nazis had nevertheless managed efficiently to destroy more than half a million Jews between November 1941 and June 1942. Dispute over the book, which also meant dispute over the State of Israel and over the ingrained intellectual tradition of blaming Jews for the violence unleashed against them, divided the New York ­intellectuals into opposing camps. Howe’s magazine, Dissent, ­organized a public forum on the book early in the fall of 1963; it was attended by nearly 500 people to witness a debate between Arendt’s detractors, Abel and Syrkin, and defenders like Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg and sociologist Daniel Bell. Like the Dreyfus Affair, the Eichmann ­ controversy split families. Although Howe awarded the accolade for the “most judicious words in the whole debate” to Norman Podhoretz,3 Podhoretz’s wife, Midge Decter, later accused Howe of having arranged a “lynching” of Arendt and her book. Syrkin scoffed at the notion that haughty Arendt could ever have been a defenseless lamb set   3 The concluding words of Podhoretz’s fierce attack on Arendt were these: “The Final Solution reveals nothing about the victims except that they were mortal beings and hopelessly vulnerable in their weakness. . . . The Nazis destroyed a third of the Jewish people. In the name of all that is humane, will the remnant never let up on itself?”

267

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

upon by a frenzied mob. The symposium, she argued, was not a mere literary controversy about a book, but an examination of widely disseminated allegations of the Jews’ complicity in their own destruction. Howe had performed notable service by involving a previously aloof sector of the Jewish intelligentsia in a consideration of the greatest crime of the century, and brought awareness of the catastrophe to a once i­ ndifferent group. Certainly, the debate had brought awareness to Howe himself. Long after World War II ended, Phillips recalled that Howe “was haunted by the question of why our intellectual community . . . had paid so little attention to the Holocaust in the early 1940s. . . . why we had written and talked so little about the Holocaust at the time it was taking place.” One may search Partisan Review from 1937 through summer 1939 without finding mention of Hitler or Nazism. When writing his autobiography, Howe looked through the old issues of his own journal, Labor Action, to see how, or whether, he and his socialist comrades had responded to the Holocaust. He found the experience painful, and concluded that Trotskyists, including himself, were only the best of a bad lot of leftist sects, and that this inattention to the destruction of European Jewry was “a serious instance of moral failure on our part.”4 Nor was this their only moral failure. The leading New York intellectuals had shown appalling indifference not only to what had been endured by their European brethren but to what had been achieved by the Jews of Palestine. Events of biblical magnitude had occurred within a single decade: a few years after the destruction of European Jewry, the Jewish people had created the State of Israel. Like protagonists in a great tragedy, the Jewish people had imposed a pattern of meaning upon otherwise incomprehensible suffering. Winston Churchill, addressing Parliament in 1949, said: “The coming into being of a Jewish state in Palestine is an event in world history to be viewed in the perspective, not of a generation or a century, but in the perspective of a thousand, two thousand or even three thousand years.”   4 William Phillips, A Partisan View (New York: Stein and Day, 1983), 123.

268

Past and Present: Plus Ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose

CHAPTER 9

Having averted their eyes from the destruction of European Jewry, the “first-rank” Jewish intellectuals now looked away from one of the most impressive assertions of the will to live that a martyred people has ever made. They had been immersed in the twists and turns of literary modernism, the fate of socialism in the Soviet Union and the United States, and in themselves, especially their “alienation” from America and from Judaism and Jews. Indeed, they found their Jewish “identity” precisely in their ­alienation from Jewishness. Looking back on this debacle many years later, novelist Saul Bellow admitted to fellow novelist Cynthia Ozick that “it’s perfectly true that ‘Jewish Writers in America’ … missed what should have been for them the central event of their time, the destruction of European Jewry. I can’t say how our responsibility can be assessed. We … should have reckoned more fully, more deeply with it. Nobody in America seriously took this on and only a few Jews elsewhere (like Primo Levi) were able to comprehend it all. The Jews as a people reacted justly to it. So we have Israel, but in the matter of higher comprehension … there were no minds fit to comprehend. . . . All parties then are passing the buck and every honest conscience feels the disgrace of it.”5 Four years after the Eichmann in Jerusalem controversy, the Six-Day War of June 1967 presented American Jewish intellectuals with a new challenge, one that, even more than Arendt had done, brought Holocaust “consciousness” to the fore. Gamal Abdel Nasser, declaring that “Israel’s existence is itself an aggression,” launched a war intended “to turn the Mediterranean red with Jewish blood.” As in 1948, the Arabs lost the war on the battlefield; but they and their supporters threw their energies into rescinding its results. Having failed to destroy the Jewish state, they commenced an ideological onslaught against Zionism itself. Here, where the Jews were alleged to be adept, the defeated Arabs did much better. Having refused to admit a Jewish state into a region they proclaimed exclusively theirs,   5 Benjamin Taylor, ed., Saul Bellow: Letters (New York: Viking Penguin, 2010), 438–39.

269

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

they accused the Jews of refusing to accept an Arab (“Palestinian”) state; having launched several wars, countless terror attacks, and an international boycott, they accused Israel of aggression for defending itself. Having exploited Arab refugees they themselves had created and continued to exploit as human refuse, they blamed Israel for Palestinian homelessness. In transforming their rhetoric from Right to Left, the Arabs made a calculated appeal to liberals, especially Jewish ones. The latter, as Ruth Wisse has pointed out, were now forced to choose between abandoning their faith in progress and enlightenment, and—once again—abandoning the Jews. Irving Howe saw what was coming. Even more contrite than Bellow about his “moral failure” with respect to the Holocaust, he foresaw the next great moral debacle of American Jewish intellectuals. As the verbal violence of the New Left turned into actual violence in the late sixties, his direst predictions of the “movement’s” fate were being realized, especially by its Jewish cadre of liberal “explainers” of terror. By 1970, he found the treachery of the younger generation of Jewish intellectuals ­literally unspeakable: “Jewish boys and girls, children of the ­ generation that saw Auschwitz, hate ­democratic Israel and celebrate as ‘revolutionary’ the Egyptian dictatorship; … a few go so far as to collect money for Al Fatah, which pledges to take Tel Aviv. About this, I cannot say more; it is simply too painful.” The seventies—and early eighties—were also the years in which an earlier abandonment of the Jews—by American Jewry’s most beloved and adored politician, FDR—had been made common knowledge among literate people by the books of David Wyman and Henry Feingold.6 They revealed that, as Howe himself put it in World of Our Fathers, the record of the Roosevelt ­administration in admitting Jewish refugees had been “shameful,”   6 David Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941–45 (New York: Pantheon, 1984); Henry R. Feingold, The Politics of Rescue: The Roosevelt Administration and the Holocaust (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1970).

270

Past and Present: Plus Ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose

CHAPTER 9

more stony-hearted than that of any European country. To this subject I shall return.

II: Present Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

—Karl Marx, Eighteenth Brumaire The questions that should have riveted the attention of American-Jewish intellectuals during Hitler’s twelve-year war against European Jewry had long ago been asked in the Bible: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9) “And Moses said unto the children of Gad and the children of Reuben: ‘Shall your brethren go to the war, and shall ye sit here?’” (Num. 32:6) Generally, as we have seen, they were not the besetting q ­ uestions. Has the belated recognition, by such formidable figures as Howe and Bellow, taught their successors among Diaspora Jewry’s learned classes any lessons? Can they respond any more convincingly to Moses’s question to “the children of Reuben” than their ancestors did during World War II? Have they learned, from the moral debacle of their intellectual predecessors, that survival must precede definition? Many of those “Jewish boys and girls” whose hatred of Israel rendered the usually voluble Howe speechless would go on to become (some still are) well-established figures in journalism and academia, tigers of wrath who became insurrectionaries sitting in endowed university chairs, or editorializing in the New York Times or New Yorker or New York Review of Books. If ideological liberals became unsympathetic to the fate of the Jews in the Middle East because it contradicted their sanguine view of the world, the tenacity of the Arabs’ rejection of Israel and their worldwide campaign to destroy Israel’s moral image by “delegitimization” have brought a mass defection of Jewish liberals from Israel. They fall roughly into three categories. 271

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

First, there are the “ashamed Jews,” desperate to escape the negative role in which they are being cast by the alleged sins of Israel. Readers of spiteful broadsides against Israel by Jewish intellectuals will notice the frequency with which these accusers mention the shame and embarrassment that overcomes them at cocktail parties or in faculty lounges. Thus Berkeley history professor Martin Jay’s notorious essay blaming Ariel Sharon for the rise of the new ­antisemitism begins as follows: “‘No one since Hitler,’ my dinner partner [another Jewish academic] heatedly contended, ‘has done so much damage to the Jews as Ariel Sharon.’… this stunning a­ ccusation [was] made during a gracious faculty soiree in Princeton.”7 Julien Benda, the French Jewish philosopher and novelist, once urged intellectuals of all countries “to tell your nations they are always in the wrong by the simple fact that they are nations … Plotinus blushed at having a body. You should blush at having a nation.” So far, however, only Jews have responded in substantial numbers to Benda’s advice. The late Tony Judt, history professor at New York University, was perhaps the most famous victim of this newest entry in the nosology of social diseases. “Today,” he wrote, “non-Israeli Jews feel themselves once again exposed to criticism and vulnerable to attack for things they didn’t do. . . . the behavior of a self-described Jewish state affects the way everyone else looks at Jews.”8 Judt saw nothing “disproportionate” in recommending politicide—the end of Israel—as the cure for his insecurity. Secondly, there are the Jews who nimbly turn their desire to advertise their own goodness by dissociating themselves from a people under attack into a mode of Jewish “identity.” In 1942, the Hebrew writer Haim Hazaz created (in his story “The Sermon”) a literary character who declared: “When a man can no longer be a Jew, he becomes a Zionist.” That motto has now been replaced by a new one: “When a man can no longer be a Jew, he becomes an anti-­ Zionist.” Jewish intellectuals who cannot read the alef-beys discover   7 Martin Jay, “Ariel Sharon and the Rise of the New Anti-Semitism,” Salmagundi 137/138 (Winter/Spring, 2003): 12.   8 Tony Judt, “Israel: The Alternative,” New York Review of Books, October 23, 2003.

272

Past and Present: Plus Ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose

CHAPTER 9

their Jewish “identity” by denouncing Israel for its m ­ anifold sins, and call for the dismantling of the very state upon which their identity rests. The roman à clef by Howard Jacobson, The Finkler Question (2010), affords a group portrait of such people, most based on actual persons; English, to be sure, but indistinguishable from their American cousins. A character named Kugel, for example, explicitly states: “I am a Jew because I am a non-Zionist.” Another character, probably based on actor Stephen Fry, is described as follows: “To be an ASHamed Jew did not require that you had been knowingly Jewish all your life. Indeed, one among them only found out he was Jewish at all in the course of making a television programme in which he was confronted on camera with who he really was. In the final frame of the film he was disclosed weeping before a memorial in Auschwitz to dead ancestors who until that moment he had never known he’d had. . . . Born a Jew on Monday, he had signed up to be an ASHamed Jew by Wednesday, and was seen chanting ‘We are all Hezbollah’ outside the Israeli Embassy on the following Saturday.” A third, perhaps more subtle form of identity creation via anti-Zionism is what might be called “the new Diasporism.” It ­flourishes mainly among writers and scholars, including those in Jewish Studies. Ironically, this academic specialty, very much like Soviet Jewry’s awareness of and yearning for Israel, came into being because of the exuberance generated by Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War. But now its practitioners bombard the university presses with manuscripts purporting to discover that the Jewish state, which most Europeans blame for all the world’s miseries except perhaps global warming, should never have come into existence in the first place. They suggest or assert that “the [non-Zionist] roads not taken” would have brought (and may yet bring) a “new” Diaspora Golden Age. Some of them organize “academic conferences,” which serve, in effect, as kangaroo courts, on “Alternative Histories within and beyond Zionism”; others churn out articles or monographs or novels celebrating those roads not taken. A few even recommend a one-state solution or a no-state solution or (this from the tone-deaf literary critic George Steiner) “a final solution.” 273

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

The strategy of the new Diasporists is at once timely and ­timeless. They dredge up from relative obscurity long-dead Jewish thinkers who opposed Zionism altogether or opposed political Zionism (a Jewish state) at the very time that their liberal, progressive colleagues are discovering that the nation-state is itself obsolete and that Israel is the most pernicious nation-state that exists or has ever existed. But in another sense they are ahistorical and disdainful of time and change because they write as if there were no difference between Jewish opposition to a conjectural Jewish state eighty or a hundred years ago and opposition to a living entity of 8 million people (75% of them Jewish) under constant siege by genocidal fanatics boasting of their intention to “wipe Israel off the map,” enemies who already have in place—in Iran, for example—the instruments for its ­destruction and willing accomplices as well as cheering bystanders among Israel’s neighbors. Finally, we have the “Zionists against Israel,” epitomized by an organization called J Street, which misses no opportunity to blacken Israel’s reputation, and very few opportunities to encourage campaigns to delegitimize it, yet insists on calling itself “pro-Israel, pro-peace.” Its co-founder, Daniel Levy, calls Israel’s creation “an act that went wrong.” The organization cannot “pick a side” in the conflict between Israel and Hamas. It constantly castigates Netanyahu for harping on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and aspiration to obliterate Israel more than “the Palestinian issue.” It derides Israeli actions against terrorism as “escalation” or “cruel brutality,” or—a favorite, of course— ­“disproportionate”; and it lobbies the U.S. government to oppose the policies of the Israeli government. Funded by such billionaires as George Soros, who boasts (justifiably) strong ties to the Obama administration, and fancying itself a (Jewish) ­government-in-exile, it has a “Rabbinic Cabinet” whose members include supporters of the Hamas bombing of Sderot and also Michael Lerner, the pioneering promoter of the “Palestinian cause” within the Jewish community. Typically, Lerner grants that Palestinian suicide bombings, lynchings, and pogroms may be “immoral,” but Israel is not justified in protecting itself against them because it too is ethically impure. Besides, Israeli 274

Past and Present: Plus Ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose

CHAPTER 9

military response to Arab terror is bad for the Jews, in Berkeley and other centers of prophetic morality: it causes “a frightening upsurge in anti-Semitism.”9 “Not since the days of the Communist Party,” the sociologist Werner Cohn has written of J Street, “has there been a comparable spectacle of ­methodical disingenuousness in American political life.”10 J Street is exceeded in misrepresentation and the pursuit of moral rectitude in disregard not just of reality but of danger (to Israelis, that is) only by Peter Beinart. If American Jewry is really divided between those who judge Judaism by the standards of the New York Times and those who judge the New York Times by the ­standards of Judaism, Beinart was the anointed philosopher king of the former group; indeed, it was the New York Times that published his book, called The Crisis of Zionism. He was reported to have been assisted in this attempt to save Israel from itself (in Beinart’s view, its only mortal enemy)—and America from Israel—by advances from “progressive” Jews of several hundred thousand dollars. This stipend helped him to hire the twenty-four researchers whom he thanks for helping to assemble the 800 footnotes that adorn his prophetic denunciations of fallen Israel. Convinced that Judaism follows an arrow-straight course from Sinai to the left wing of the Democratic Party, Beinart contends that Zionism must do the same. Although second to none in hatred for Israel as it actually exists, Beinart insists on calling himself a Zionist (just like his grandmother). He supports (more explicitly than J Street) the almost seventy-year-old Arab economic boycott of Israel, but with a difference, intended to preserve the mask of the do-gooder (that is, a person who confuses doing good with feeling good about what he is doing). He would boycott, divest from, “sanction,” only the so-called occupied territories. He published his book at a midpoint in Barack Obama’s presidential trajectory from “first black president” to “first Jewish president” (chapter 5 of the book) to “first   9 Michael Lerner, “Jews for Justice,” The Nation, May 20, 2002, 4–5. 10 “J Street—The Gentle Façade and What’s Behind It,” Fringe Groups.com, March 31, 2011.

275

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

gay president,” and so provided his hero with the second person of his triune divinity. Lest anyone doubt Obama’s credentials, Beinart conjures up a dream-vision in which Rabbi Stephen Wise, meeting with Obama (and today’s woefully illiberal and unrepresentative Zionist leaders) in the Oval Office, pronounces the president the only genuine Zionist in the room. The irony of Beinart’s identification with Wise was pointed out by Sol Stern in a shrewd (and shrewdly entitled) piece called “Beinart the Unwise,” but it is worth further elaboration. Wise was the most important American Jewish leader throughout FDR’s long years in the White House. Although he wrote to a colleague in 1933 that “FDR has not lifted a finger on behalf of the Jews of Germany,” he came to adore the man who was, after all, commander in chief of the war against Hitler. American Jews, he said, “rightly look up to [FDR], revere him, and love him … No one would more deeply sorrow than I … if this feeling of Jewish homage … should be changed.” Wise obsequiously (Jeremiah, with whom Beinart confuses himself, would have said idolatrously) referred to Roosevelt as “the all Highest.” In his best-known “Dear Boss” letter to FDR (November 1942) about irrefutable reports of the mass murder of European Jewry, Wise apologized for impinging on the president’s precious time (“I do not wish to add an atom to the awful burden which you are bearing with magic”), confessed that he had kept the terrible information secret and sworn other Jewish leaders to do so, and asked the president not for a rescue plan, but only “a word which may bring solace … to millions of Jews who mourn.” In May 1944, Wise, together with Nahum Goldmann, actually urged FDR’s State Department to deport the leaders of the Bergson Group,11 by far the most effective force at work for the rescue of Europe’s Jews. Their reasoning was precisely the apologia Roosevelt used for not admitting Jewish refugees: Bergson activities (rallies, newspaper ads, 11 Peter Bergson (a pseudonym for Hillel Kook) was a founding figure, with Menachem Begin, of the Irgun fighting force for Jewish independence in Palestine. But the outbreak of World War II convinced him that rescue of European Jewry was a still more urgent task, and he tried, often spectacularly, to raise awareness in the United States of the Jewish catastrophe.

276

Past and Present: Plus Ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose

CHAPTER 9

rabbinical marches on Washington) would stir up the (conjectural) antisemitism of Americans. By May 2012, Beinart, as a reward for his own sycophancy, was invited to the White House to “share” his views on how to renew the “peace process.” (The aforementioned Michael Lerner had also, back in 1993, been given entrée to the White House, but for the Clintons, especially Mrs. Clinton, Lerner was less a court Jew than a Rasputin, the sinister Russian monk who had exerted great influence in the court of Nicholas II.) Beinart had become the reincarnation of the Stephen Wise of his dream-vision, just as (in his view) Benjamin Netanyahu is the ideological reincarnation of his late father, Benzion Netanyahu. (Bibi’s public endorsement of the idea of a Palestinian state, the very opposite of his father’s views, was for Beinart merely typical Israeli subterfuge.) The elder Netanyahu, let us remember, became the preeminent historian of the Spanish Inquisition because he discerned the very truth constantly denied by Beinart: a­ ntisemitism is not the result of Jewish misbehavior but of the Jew-haters’ panic. He was active in the aforementioned Bergson Group and also ­executive director of the Revisionists (New Zionist Organization of America) about whom Beinart regurgitates the fixed epithets that, as Orwell observed long ago, progressives reserve for people they don’t like: “fascist” and “militarist.” But for Beinart, Benzion Netanyahu’s greatest sin must surely be that he went regularly to Washington with the express purpose of establishing ties with prominent figures in the Republican Party in order to promote the twin goals of rescue and the Jewish claim to Palestine. It was because of such (renegade) efforts by Wise’s Jewish opponents that in 1944 first the Republicans and then (in large part out of political necessity) FDR and the Democrats incorporated support of Israel into their presidential platforms. That is the reason why America remains, even now under a president in whose ostensibly warm heart there is always a cold spot for the Jews, Israel’s sole reliable ally. Beinart gave Obama two copies of his book at their May meeting, and in return received Obama’s encouragement to stand firm against his detractors (who by this time included even several “liberal” 277

PART 3

Anti-Zionism: Antisemitism Since the Holocaust

Zionists): “Hang in there,” Beinart is reported to have been told by the grateful recipient of his sycophancy. Beinart’s polemic brings us, full circle, back to the painful subject of American Jewry and the Holocaust, and also to a still more enduring theme: the need to choose between survival and definition. Were Beinart to read a few serious books on the subject, he might be surprised to discover that the split between Wise and the Bergson Group over how to rescue European Jewry was not primarily one between Left and Right but between Zionists and rescuers; and his man was on the side of the Zionists. In 1962, the historian Lucy Dawidowicz wrote that “political Zionists” like Wise “gambled away [the] one chance to save the Jews” by emphasizing the Palestine issue instead of rescue in 1943–44. Samuel Merlin, although he was the cofounder with Menachem Begin of the Herut political party, emphasized that “Bergson once explained to Rabbi Stephen Wise, in a private conversation, that if the rabbi was trapped in a house that was on fire, his main concern would be how to get out alive, not how to get to the Waldorf Astoria.”12 Because, as I noted earlier, Saul Bellow admitted his own immoral thoughtlessness about the Jewish catastrophe, he merits the last word on this subject. He wrote it in 1976 when he visited Israel: “The subject of all this talk is, ultimately, survival. . . . The Jews, because they are Jews, have never been able to take the right to live as a natural right.”13

12 Lucy Dawidowicz, “Perfidy, by Ben Hecht,” Commentary, March 1, 1962; Samuel Merlin, Millions of Jews to Rescue, ed. Rafael Medoff (Washington, DC: Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, 2011), 157. 13 Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back: A Personal Account (New York: Viking, 1976).

278

CHAPTER 10

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews? Benjamin Ginsberg

M

any on the political Left turned against Israel and, s­ ometimes, against its Jewish defenders, in response to the events of the late 1960s and early 1970s. During this period, Israel emerged as a regional superpower in the American military and political orbit. And, if this wasn’t enough to earn the enmity of the liberal Left, Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestinian lands g­ enerated a wave of condemnations and anti-Zionist rhetoric on the part of American and European progressives. It is, of course, possible to be anti-­Zionist without being antisemitic. There are, of course, even anti-Zionist Jews. But, what is true in principle is often not so true in practice. Even those for whom anti-Zionism begins as something other than a politically correct form of antisemitism can find it difficult to remain vehemently opposed to Israel for very long without d ­ eveloping at least a measure of hostility toward Israel’s supporters, namely, the American and European Jews with whom anti-Zionists constantly clash. In the political arena it is difficult to maintain a strong ­commitment to an anti-Zionist discourse without becoming a bit of an antisemite. Indeed, those who regularly clash with the Jews and, perhaps, learn to view the Jews as their foes may come to regard the enemies of the Jews as their friends. This process may explain the “green/brown” alliances that have sprung up in Europe between

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

progressives and neo-Nazis who find common ground on the Jewish question.1 Ironically, the very same events that undercut sympathy for Israel on the political Left had the effect of increasing support for Israel and empathy for the Jews more generally, among the ­politically conservative, white evangelical Protestants who have emerged from their bastions in the South and Southwest to become an important force in American politics in recent years. Israel’s new allies came to be known as “Christian Zionists” and have included such p ­ rominent evangelical ministers as the late Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, Richard Land, the late Oral Roberts and Pat Robertson. Recently, Israeli prime minister Netanyahu thanked the Christian Zionists for their “unwavering friendship” for Israel and said their support was critical to the defense of the Jewish state.2 Falwell, for many years the politically influential leader of the “Moral Majority,” was fond of declaring that God commanded Americans to support Israel. Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), said, “Fifty million Christians are standing up and applauding the State of Israel.”3 Robertson, for his part, has frequently fulminated against politicians who sought to compel Israel to relinquish even one square inch of the Arab territories captured in 1967. Robertson sometimes has been even more ­vehement on this point than the Israelis themselves. In 2006, he famously declared Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s near-fatal stroke to have been God’s punishment for Sharon’s decision to abandon some Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. Christian Zionists explain that their support for Israel is based directly upon Holy Scripture. They say the Bible makes it clear that  1 Gabriel Schoenfeld, The Return of Anti-Semitism (San Francisco: Encounter, 2004), chap. 3.  2 “Prime Minister Netanyahu Affirms Christian Zionists,” The Jerusalem Connection,    http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2010/03/11/prime-ministernetanyahu-affirms . . .   3 John Hagee, In Defense of Israel (Lake Mary, FL: Frontline, 2007), 2.  

281

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

God gave the Holy Land to the Jews—to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—but definitely not to Ishmael, the biblical ancestor of the Arabs. Christian Zionists also point to God’s commitment to Abraham in the book of Genesis (12:3) as reason enough to support the Jewish people. Some Christian Zionists, moreover, accept the doctrine of “premillennial dispensationalism,” a set of beliefs in which the return of the Jews to the Holy Land prefigures the second coming of Christ. To dispensationalists the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 and Israel’s lightning victory over Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in 1967, resulting in the Israeli capture of Jerusalem, affirmed the truth of biblical prophecy. According to Jerry Falwell, these events were signs “indicating the imminent return of Jesus Christ.”4 The fact that evangelicals are Bible-believing Christians is certainly important but does not completely explain their devotion to Israel. The same Bible that today seems to tell evangelicals to love Israel also contains passages that for centuries were cited by ­antisemitic preachers to justify hatred for the Jews. Even today, while Christian Zionists find clear biblical sanction for championing Israel, other Christians continue to see what they deem to be ­compelling biblical justifications for opposing Israel and the “Zionist agenda” more generally.5 Some even say the Bible proves that Christians, not Jews, are God’s chosen people.6 Purely doctrinal disputation, however, is unlikely to convince most Christian Zionists that they should drop their support for Israel. Christian Zionism is more than a religious creed. There are, as we shall see, a number of earthly considerations that direct the eyes of the evangelicals to passages from the Bible pointing to the Jews as God’s chosen people, rather than to portions of

  4 Stephen Spector, Evangelicals and Israel (New York: Oxford, 2009), 28.   5 Stephen Sizer, Zion’s Christian Soldiers? The Bible, Israel and the Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007).   6 Ibid., chap. 3.

282

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

scripture that seem to censure the Jews as wicked people who stubbornly reject Christ. Christian Zionists may love Israel, but many American Jews have difficulty reciprocating their affection. As a religious minority in the United States, Jews are generally suspicious of groups that seek to introduce religious discourse in the political arena and on such issues as abortion, gay marriage, and the place of religion in public life, only the most orthodox Jews take positions similar to those espoused by conservative evangelicals. Some Jews, moreover, associate Southern evangelicals with past antisemitism and see dispensationalism as a doctrine that anticipates the eventual ­conversion of the Jews to Christianity, if not the ultimate destruction of the Jewish people. And, even many Jews who are not familiar with the nuances of dispensationalist thought, nevertheless find it awkward to be ­politically associated with the religious Right. American Jews are, for the most part, liberal Democrats. For many, this identification is too important to permit an alliance with Christian conservative Republicans—however much the latter support Israel. A match made in heaven may prove impossible to consummate on earth, at least in the United States. Israel is a different matter. Israeli politicians have often found American conservatives to be reliable friends and are certainly accustomed to religious discourse in the public sphere. Accordingly, Israelis have had little difficulty accepting the support of the Christian Zionists. Indeed, they welcome such support.

Premillennial Dispensationalism Discussions of Christian Zionism usually begin with the doctrine of dispensationalism, a set of beliefs first popularized by n ­ ineteenth-­ century British evangelist John Nelson Darby, who averred that his close reading of Holy Scripture revealed that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land would set into motion a series of events

283

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

leading to the second coming of Christ. Darby wrote and spoke extensively in England and America, where he built a following among pastors, Bible teachers, and revivalists.7 Darby’s ideas, ­particularly those relating to the importance of the Jews, have had a major impact upon the views of generations of evangelical Protestants.8 Today, dispensationalism is promoted by a network of churches and institutes and such publications as the Scofield Reference Bible, first published in 1909. Many aspects of d ­ ispensationalist doctrine, especially those relating to the ­importance of the Jews in “end times,” have spread well beyond the core of adherents into the more general evangelical ­community, including Pentecostals. Dispensationalists divide the history of the world into seven epochs, called “dispensations,” beginning with the garden of Eden. Most dispensationalists believe that we are currently living in the sixth epoch, the “age of the Church,” and will soon enter the seventh dispensation, “the Millennial Kingdom” or “Millennium,” a one-thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. Among dispensationalists, the details are disputed, but in general terms, sometime prior to the Millennium faithful Christians will ascend to the clouds in an event called “the Rapture.” While these true believers are safe with Jesus, the Antichrist will rule on earth for seven years. Apostates and unbelievers, including the Jews, left behind on earth will suffer terribly during this period of tribulation. At first, the Antichrist will present himself as a benevolent dictator and will allow the Jews to rebuild the Temple of Solomon. During the fourth year of his reign, however, the Antichrist will reveal himself, persecute the Jews, outlaw the Jewish religion, and demand to be worshiped as God. When the Jews refuse, he will lead armies against Israel. Most of the Jews will be killed, and the remainder will accept Christ. At this point, Christ and the raptured believers will return to earth and, in the battle of Armageddon near   7 Timothy P. Weber, On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 26.  8 Spector, Evangelicals and Israel, 15.

284

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

Jerusalem, defeat the Antichrist and his armies. The Antichrist and his followers will be thrown into a lake of fire and Satan will be chained and thrown into a bottomless pit. God will gather the nations of the earth for judgment in the Valley of Jehoshaphat where they will be judged on how they have treated God’s chosen people— the Jews. After the destruction of the Antichrist and the judgment of the nations, Jesus will restore the throne of David and rule the world for one thousand years. At the end of this period, Satan will launch another rebellion, which God will suppress. This will be followed by the Day of Judgment, the resurrection of the dead, and the creation of a new heaven and a new earth.9 Many of these prophecies have been popularized in such bestselling books as Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth and Tim LaHaye’s “left behind” series. Books in this series have sold more than 60 million copies and served as the basis for film and television productions, along with tapes, assorted items of clothing, curios and knickknacks. In LaHaye’s stories, after the sudden rapture of millions of Bible-believing Christians, ordinary people are left behind to suffer through the seven years of tribulation. Some, albeit belatedly, repentant individuals, led by the hero, airline pilot Rayford Steele, form a “tribulation force” to resist the Antichrist, who turns out to be Nicolae Carpathia, the charismatic new Romanian secretary general of the United Nations, a pro-abortion, one-world e­cumenicist. Many battles are fought, and treacheries, plagues, and disasters are faced and ­ overcome. Eventually Christ appears on a white horse leading his raptured followers to defeat the forces of darkness. The Jews play a critical role in dispensationalist eschatology. The return of the Jews to the Holy Land and the reestablishment of the biblical Jewish kingdom is a precondition for the emergence of the Antichrist, the period of tribulation, the battle of Armageddon, and the eventual Millennium. In the dispensationalist view, the   9 Ibid., 14.

285

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

current era is merely a “parenthesis,” or interruption, in God’s ­relationship with the Jews. Those Jews who survive the time of ­tribulation and accept Christ as their messiah will be saved and Jesus will reign over the earth from Israel. Dispensational doctrine is certainly one factor that makes Jews suspicious of evangelical backing. Many Jews believe that e­ vangelicals support Israel only in the hope of bringing about the end of the world and the conversion of the Jews to Christianity—and it is sometimes difficult to discern which of these events Jews fear more. For their part, Jewish secular intellectuals, a group that generally does not concern itself much with the second coming, simply find dispensationalist ideas strange and incomprehensible. Dispensationalists constitute only a minority of Israel’s allies in the evangelical community. All told, only about 5 million ­evangelical Protestants in the United States identify themselves as dispen­ ­ sationa­ lists, but millions of others have been affected by dispensational ideas via popular books and films, if not through their churches. But, even outside the narrowly defined d ­ ispensational community with its focus on the periods of human history, most white evangelical Protestants are premillennialists, believe that Israel has a critical role to play in end times, and accept the idea that Bible-believing Christians have a ­scripturally sanctioned obligation to support the State of Israel. God’s promise to Abraham to bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse the Jews is widely accepted among evangelicals. Thus, although only 10 percent of evangelicals are full-fledged ­ dispensationalists, more than 60 percent of evangelicals surveyed express a strong affinity for Israel.10 Indeed, in a poll conducted prior to the 2004 presidential election, 31 percent of the evangelicals surveyed said U.S. support for Israel was their “primary consideration” in selecting a president and another 64 percent cited it as “an important factor.”11 Of course, some evangelicals, including such notable figures as former 10 Sizer, Zion’s Christian Soldiers? 11. 11 Victoria Clark, Allies for Armageddon: The Rise of Christian Zionism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007), 238.

286

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

president Jimmy Carter, and many other Christians, are quite critical of Israel and scornful of the Christian Zionists. Often, disputes between Israel’s supporters and opponents in the Christian community seem to have a theological basis. Some of Israel’s mainline Protestant critics are, by doctrine, covenantalists. This group avers that God’s biblical promises to the Jews were already fulfilled by the coming of Jesus, his death and resurrection, and the founding of the Christian church.12 The dispen­sationalists, along with most other Southern Baptists and Pentecostals, dismiss these assertions as a form of replacement theology or ­“supersessionism,” which ignores the clear language of the Bible. According to the d ­ ispensationalists, the covenantalists are guilty of implying that God’s promises cannot be trusted, a grievous theological error indeed.13 To some, perhaps, these doctrinal issues have a good deal of intrinsic significance. No doubt, biblical scholars can devote many hours, indeed many years, to the analysis of ambiguous biblical passages and to debates over their true meaning. For most ­individuals, however, even those who regard themselves as “Bible-believing,” the appeal of a particular scriptural interpretation is likely to be a matter of its extrinsic as well as its intrinsic features. Once a doctrine is securely established, of course, it can have a powerful impact upon its adherents’ perceptions of the world. In the first instance, however, individuals are likely to be drawn to biblical interpretations that seem compatible with their secular views or to validate and advance their secular interests. To take a well-known example, the rising European bourgeoisie of the seventeenth century found aspects of Calvinist religious doctrine attractive, less because of its internal qualities than because many of its tenets seemed congruent with their own economic interests and political aspirations. The ­bourgeoisie did not accept Calvinism in its entirety and, strictly speaking perhaps, the majority did not become Calvinists. Most tended, nevertheless, to internalize aspects of Calvinist doctrine 12 Sizer, Zion’s Christian Soldiers? 12. 13 Spector, Evangelicals and Israel, 21.

287

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

that, in various and often modified forms, seemed consistent with their secular outlooks, interests, and values.14 In a similar vein, aspects of premillennial doctrine and ­eschatology, including the importance of the Jews in end times and the notion that support for Israel is biblically sanctioned, are very relevant to the secular interests and mundane perspectives of the evangelical community. For evangelicals, the creation and continued existence of the State of Israel is empirical proof of the truth and power of their reading of the Bible. The rebirth of Israel seems to demonstrate the superiority of evangelical doctrine to the ­covenantalist, postmillennialist, and other scriptural interpretations proffered by the mainline Protestants with whom evangelicals engage, not only in spiritual competition but also in earthly ­competition for influence and adherents. Their religious beliefs tell evangelicals to support Israel, and, in turn, Israel is a sign for all to see that evangelicals’ religious beliefs are valid. In this way, the success of the State of Israel furthers the worldly interests and ­ambitions of the evangelical movement, and evangelicals, for their part, have a stake in ensuring Israel’s survival. If this mundane interest is not enough to reinforce evangelicals’ scriptural commitment to Israel, two other factors are also important. First, evangelicals are patriotic, and their patriotism tells them to respect a nation that does battle with America’s foes. Second, unlike many other Christian groups today, evangelicals actually evangelize and, in this realm, come into sharp conflict with Israel’s chief enemies—the Muslims. This ongoing struggle, fought throughout the Middle East and Africa, gives evangelicals another reason to take pro-Israel positions. Against this backdrop, the oft-expressed Jewish concern that Christian Zionism is some sort of transient narishkeit that could ­disappear tomorrow is probably unfounded. Christian Zionism 14 Terry Lovell, “Weber, Goldmann and the Sociology of Beliefs,” Archives Européennes de Sociologie 14 (1976): 304–23.

288

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

is firmly rooted not only in scriptural principle but in earthly interest as well.

Religious Competition In the later years of the nineteenth century, a de facto schism d ­ eveloped among America’s Protestant churches. The mainline denominations of the Northeast, including the Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists, came under the control of liberal theologians who sought to bring about a r­econciliation between the Gospel and modern secular society. This reconciliation included acceptance of scientific theories, such as evolution, and a concern for ameliorating such social ills as poverty and inequality through the “Social Gospel,” which called for the application of Christian principles to the problems and conflicts of industrial society. For liberal Protestants, the Bible was often to be understood ­metaphorically and salvation was not a final reward in the afterlife but a lifelong process of growth in love, service, and well-being.15 The churches and Bible colleges of the South and Southwest, on the other hand, were dominated by a different group of Protestants. These were the “fundamentalists,” named for a series of pamphlets published by a group of conservative theologians early in the ­twentieth century and entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony of Truth. In these pamphlets, which were distributed and widely read in the South, conservative pastors defended traditional Christian views, called for a literal reading of the Bible, and attacked Social Gospel advocates for presuming that salvation could be achieved through “works” rather than faith alone. Before World War II, liberals and fundamentalists each ­dominated a discrete region of the country and ruled separate empires of 15 Richard W. Fox, “Liberal Protestantism,” in A Companion to American Political Thought, ed. Richard W. Fox and James T. Kloppenberg (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995), 394.

289

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

churches, seminaries, and publishing houses. The two groups had serious s­piritual disagreements but little direct contact. After the war, however, the liberals and fundamentalists entered into headto-head ­competition in one another’s territorial bastions. To begin with, during the war, large numbers of white Southerners migrated from their home region to California and the upper Midwest to work in factories and defense plants. These transplanted Southerners were uncomfortable in the Protestant churches—to say nothing of the secular culture—they found outside Dixie, and they welcomed visits from conservative ministers from their home states. These visits soon became large-scale revival meetings and crusades in which the old-time religion was preached to the faithful and the curious. Southern California, which had been a focal point of immigration from the lower South, hosted a number of crusades in the 1940s and 1950s featuring such ministers as Billy Graham and “Fighting” Bob Shuler.16 Graham and some of the other crusaders had already begun to call themselves “evangelicals” rather than “fundamentalists” to signal that their goal was to restore the primacy of the Gospel in a secular and sinful society. During the war, they founded the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), which drew its membership from Pentecostals as well as fundamentalists.17 These evangelicals built churches and religious organizations throughout the North, and they sought to broaden their membership base through evangelical outreach activities, such as radio and television ministries, heavily publicized crusades and revivals, and organizations such as the Campus Crusade for Christ. The upshot of these efforts was that the evangelicals were soon locked in competition with the various liberal Protestant denominations on the latters’ home turf. 16 George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New York: Oxford, 2006), 239. 17 Sydney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1972), 1099.

290

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

On the heels of this Southern conservative Protestant invasion of the North, Northern liberal Protestantism invaded the South. The instruments of this counter invasion were the federal courts, the civil rights movement, and the national media. As to the first of these, beginning in the late 1940s, the federal courts issued a series of d ­ ecisions aimed at separating church and state, particularly where they intersected in the realm of public education and local morals ­ordinances. In its 1947 decision Everson v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the First Amendment’s free e­ xercise and establishment clauses applied to the states. This decision meant that practices that were traditional throughout the nation, but ­especially in the Bible Belt, such as the recitation of Christian prayers in the public schools and the required teaching of creationism, could be challenged on constitutional grounds. A series of cases and court decisions unfavorable to religious practices were deeply ­offensive to evangelicals, especially in the South, where religious leaders were accustomed to exercising what has been called “­ custodial” control over the local culture.18 Although such court challenges were initially ­spearheaded by civil liberties groups, they were endorsed by the mainline Protestant churches, whose increasingly ecumenical and secular orientation left them with little taste for imposing their religious practices on others. Evangelicals saw this endorsement as a betrayal of Christian principle and a direct attack upon their own efforts to promote the Gospel. Liberal Protestants viewed e­vangelical efforts to defend creationist teaching and school prayer as e­mbarrassing throwbacks to an earlier unenlightened era and soon gave their full support to efforts by the ACLU and other groups to bring these practices to an end. A second instrument through which the Northern churches invaded the South was the civil rights movement. The major civil 18 Grant Wacker, “Uneasy in Zion: Evangelicals in Postmodern Society,” in Evangelicalism and Modern America, ed. George Marsden (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), 22–28.

291

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

rights organizations were generally promoted by black Southern ministers and were strongly supported by liberal Jews. Nevertheless, a number of prominent liberal Northern ministers, such as Eugene Carson Blake and William Sloane Coffin, joined demonstrations and protest marches and castigated their Southern counterparts for failing to raise their own voices against an unjust and un-Christian apartheid system.19 Southern Protestants were infuriated by the Northern ministers’ interference and accusations. Falwell first achieved national prominence with a 1965 sermon, entitled “Marchers and Ministers,” in which he attacked liberal Protestant ministers for intruding into Southern society. The duty of the church, said Falwell, was to “preach the word,” not to “reform the externals.”20 Finally, liberal Protestants invaded the South through the mass media. Liberal Protestants had accepted, indeed embraced, the cultural revolution of the 1960s. The major liberal denominations, along with their umbrella group, the National Council of Churches (NCC), came to support abortion rights, an end to local moral codes, racial and gender equality, limits on religious displays and symbols in public places, and, broadly, the evolution of a more secular society. In numerous films, television series, and d ­ocumentaries produced in the 1950s and 1960s, the ideas and sometimes the ­personalities of the liberal Protestants were presented in a favorable light—A Man Called Peter, for example, the biography of a wise and sensitive Presbyterian minister—while the f­undamentalists and ­evangelicals were depicted as racist, Neanderthal “Bible thumpers,” often venal, alcoholic, and committed to outmoded and discredited ideas. This genre includes such films as Inherit the Wind, a fictionalized account of the Scopes trial, and Elmer Gantry, the story of a drunken and dishonest Pentecostal preacher, patterned on the revivalist Billy Sunday. 19 Michael B. Friedland, Lift Up Your Voice Like a Trumpet: White Clergy and the Civil Rights and Antiwar Movements, 1954–1973 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1998). 20 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 238.

292

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

If Hollywood needed encouragement to produce such films, the NCC was ready to provide it. Between the war and the late 1960s, the NCC maintained a “Protestant Film Commission” in Hollywood, ostensibly to encourage the production of films that promoted Christian values. For the most part, the commission encouraged the making of films that espoused the values of liberal Protestantism. For example, films that received awards from the commission in the 1960s generally were those that criticized ­segregation and promoted racial equality. Thus, award winners included A Patch of Blue, the story of a relationship between a black man and a blind white woman, and In the Heat of the Night, a film in which a black Northern police officer gradually wins the respect of a bigoted white Southern sheriff. Evangelicals responded vigorously to this Northern assault on their social and religious institutions, making use of two weapons in particular, politics and doctrine. On the political front, between the 1960s and the 1980s evangelical ministers and activists organized such groups as the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and a host of others to battle on behalf of school prayer, against abortion, against the Equal Rights Amendment, against same-sex marriage, and, generally, to halt America’s moral decline. Republican politicians, beginning with Ronald Reagan, viewed e­vangelicals as an important new GOP constituency and made major efforts to reach out to them through campaigns emphasizing “family values.” Evangelical votes were critical to Reagan’s election as well as the election of both George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush to the presidency. Since the 1980s, evangelicals have been an important force on the right wing of the Republican Party. At the same time, evangelicals launched a major doctrinal attack on the liberal Protestants, highlighting the failure of the mainline denominations to defend the Bible against the ­encroachment of secularism. While the liberals preached personal growth, social justice, and self-realization through service to society, evangelicals

293

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

preached faith in the Gospel and salvation through a c­ ommitment to Jesus Christ. Premillennialism came to figure prominently in this conflict. When Darby developed his notion of premillennial dispensationalism at the end of the nineteenth century, it was ­ welcomed by a small number of conservative theologians as a defense of biblical literalism and a powerful argument against ­advocates of the Social Gospel. Premillennialism declares that the conditions for the Messiah’s return and human salvation are ­foretold in biblical prophecy and are not subject to human will. It, thus, offers a direct refutation of the liberal view that salvation is at least partially a result of good works. Initially, though, premillennialism was something of a fringe theology, mainly popular among the tent-show revivalists who went from town to town in rural areas, primarily in the South and Southwest. These revivalists soon found that premillennialism was a crowdpleaser. The revivalists were early “masters of mass c­ ommunication” and sought to appeal to people’s “hopes, fears and resentments.”21 They saw in premillennialism a clear and powerful doctrine that could be understood by their audiences. Although the rural folks attending a tent meeting might not catch all the subtleties of theological ­disputation, they could certainly understand the Rapture, the ­tribulation, the second coming, Armageddon, the fiery lake, and the other dramatic elements of the premillennialists’ biblical story. As historian Timothy Weber puts it, revivalists preaching premillennialism “out-Bibled” the competition.22 And as preachers observed the success of their colleagues making use of premillennialist doctrines, they did the same. As one minister put it, “I do not mean to say that the apparent outstanding success of these godly men became c­ onclusive.... But it did do this for me—it started me again to study my Bible.”23 Some preached dispensationalism, with its 21 Weber, On the Road to Armageddon, 33. 22 Ibid., 36. 23 Ibid., 35.

294

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

division of history into seven periods, while others preached related forms of premillennialism. By World War II, premillennialism had moved from the fringes to the evangelical mainstream. Most evangelical pastors were now premillennialists and quite a few were full-fledged d ­ ispensationalists. As the evangelicals moved to the North and engaged in head-tohead competition with the mainline Protestant denominations, premillennialism proved as powerful a force as it had been fifty years earlier in the South and Southwest. Mainline Protestant ministers offered their congregants the thin gruel of a doctrine of personal growth and affirmation not so different from the ideas that could be found in any secular self-help treatise. The e­ vangelicals, on the other hand, offered fire and brimstone, rapture and ­tribulation. And, with the birth of Israel, they could point out that their truth was true. The battle between premillennialism and the social gospel turned out to be an unequal contest. In the 1940s, a majority of America’s Protestants belonged to the mainline liberal ­denominations. Today, the evangelicals outnumber their rivals by a 2 to 1 margin, though well-educated, upper-income Protestants are still more likely to ­identify with the mainline denominations.

Nationalism A second factor contributing to evangelical support for Israel is patriotism. White Protestant evangelicals are among the most ­ ­nationalistic groups in America. Most believe that America has a special role to play in the world and that the nation has received special p ­ rotection from God for much of its history.24 In recent years, white Protestant e­vangelicals were among the strongest supporters of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and have generally 24 Luis E. Lugo, “International Obligations and the Morality of War,” Society 44 (2007): 109–12.

295

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

been staunch advocates of U.S. military dominance in the world.25 Many evangelicals believe they have a duty to send their sons and daughters to defend the nation. As one pastor said, “sacrificial patriotism” is a high value in the e­vangelical community.26 Compare this view to that of the m ­ ainline Protestant churches. At the 2006 World Council of Churches Assembly, the American delegation, representing thirty-four ­mainline ­denominations, issued an apology to the world for America’s misdeeds. They said the United States was guilty of “entering into imperial ­projects that seek to dominate and control for the sake of our own national interests.” They accused the United States of “raining down terror” and sowing “violence, degradation and poverty.” In a slap at the evangelicals, the U.S. delegation declared, “Nations have been ­ demonized and God has been enlisted in national agendas that are nothing short of ­idolatrous.”27 Sacrificial patriotism did not appear to be on the agenda. Since World War II, evangelical churches have been e­ stablished throughout America. The greatest concentration of Protestant evangelicals, though, remains in the South and Southwest, ­ including Southern California, where migrants from the South fueled the growth of the evangelical movement in the 1950s. The presence of tens of millions of evangelicals has helped to make the entire South a bastion of support and major source of recruits for America’s ­ military services. The promilitary views of the region are, of course, strongly reinforced by the presence in the South of large numbers of military installations and military industries, often leading wags to characterize America’s sun belt as its “gun belt.” 25 Robert L. Williams and Colin C. Quillivan, “The Relationship of Political Evangelicalism to Critical Thinking and Selected Sociopolitical Values in 2007,” Journal of Religion and Society 10 (2008), https://dspace.creighton.edu/xmlui/ bitstream/handle/10504/64371/2008-39.pdp?sequence=1. 26 James K. Wellman, Evangelical vs. Liberal (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). 27 Zev Chafets, A Match Made in Heaven (New York: Harper, 2007), 84.

296

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

Intense evangelical patriotism is a fairly recent phenomenon, dating from World War II. Members of the evangelical community, on the whole, had not been enthusiastic supporters of U.S. i­nvolvement in World War I. Inspired, however, by the preaching of such ministers as Louis Bauman, many evangelicals came to see World War II as the beginning phase of the apocalyptic struggle that would lead to the second coming. Bauman, a dispensationalist, was able to interpret the events leading up to the conflict through the lens of the Bible and, forging a close link between religious belief and patriotism, to persuade evangelicals of their religious duty to go to war. Bauman identified Japan, Germany, and the Soviet Union with various aspects of biblical prophecy and, at one point, declared that Mussolini was the Antichrist. According to historian Matthew Avery Sutton, e­ vangelicals emerged from the war “as America’s most patriotic (and xenophobic) citizens.”28 And, once established with the help of biblical interpretation, patriotism had a continuing effect on the ways in which evangelicals read and understood the holy text. With the defeat of the Axis powers and the start of the Cold War, evangelicals quickly became staunchly anti-Communist and supportive of a strong military defense.29 Dispensationalists, in particular, had no difficulty identifying the Soviet Union with the Gog and Magog, who in Ezekiel 38–39 lead an attack against the land of Israel.30 Many dispensationalists believed that the book of Revelation foretold that a nuclear war midway through the period of tribulation would result in the destruction of one-third of the human 28 Matthew A. Sutton, “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition: World War II, the Apocalypse, and Fundamentalist Political Activism,” paper presented to the 124th annual meeting of the American Historical Association, San Diego, CA, January 8, 2010. 29 Angela Lahr, Millennial Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares: The Cold War Origins of Political Evangelicalism (New York: Oxford, 2007). 30 Weber, On the Road to Armageddon, 204.

297

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

race.31 Despite this rather dire view of the future, dispensationalists were by no means averse to the expansion of America’s military might. In this and other matters, they favored “giving the Devil all the trouble we can till Jesus comes.”32 For their part, evangelicals with a more optimistic outlook had no difficulty recognizing that the United States was engaged in a struggle against godless Communism. Some evangelical leaders also saw the military as a fertile recruiting ground and made the armed services a major mission field.33 During the Vietnam War, ­evangelical leaders supported the military, which, in turn, gave its support to evangelical chaplains in preference to those sent by the mainline denominations. Later, evangelicals were elated when President Reagan, in a 1983 speech before the National Association of Evangelicals, called upon them to struggle against “the aggressive impulses of an evil empire.” For evangelicals, post–World War II events in the Middle East had both religious and patriotic significance. In the dispensationalist community, the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 caused enormous excitement, as it seemed to fulfill biblical prophecy and to portend so much more. The editor of the Weekly Evangel declared, “We may well wonder whether we are awake or lost in sleep merely having a very exciting dream ... Beloved, it can’t be long until our blessed Lord takes us home to be forever with Him ... Oh, joy unspeakable.”34 In the larger evangelical community, however, where premillennial views were not universally accepted, opinions were mixed, with some expressing concern about the injustices suffered by the Palestinian Arabs. Subsequent events in the Middle East, however, expanded and solidified evangelical support for Israel by drawing the Jewish state into the American security orbit, first, in America’s global 31 Ibid., 151. 32 Ibid., 200. 33 Anne C. Loveland, American Evangelicals and the U.S. Military: 1942–1993 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996). 34 Weber, On the Road to Armageddon, 173.

298

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

struggle against Communism and, subsequently, in America’s global war against terrorism. Viewing Israel through the lens of their own patriotism, evangelicals could ignore Arab claims and focus on God’s promises to the Jews. The first of these events was the 1956 Suez crisis. The crisis began with a decision by the United States to withdraw its offer to finance the construction of Egypt’s Aswan High Dam. Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser turned to the Soviet Union for support and secured a Soviet promise to finance the dam. On the heels of a 1955 agreement to provide Egypt with large quantities of new Soviet bloc arms, this arrangement seemed to indicate the development of ever closer ties between Egypt and the Soviet Union, a development that might ultimately pose a threat to Western oil interests. This threat quickly materialized when Nasser announced that he was n ­ ationalizing the Suez Canal, which had been owned by an Anglo-French consortium and upon which Britain and France depended for a large percentage of their Middle Eastern oil shipments. Britain and France developed a joint plan to seize the canal by force. Israel had its own reasons for attacking Egypt, which had blocked Israeli access to the Red Sea and served as a base for terrorist attacks against Israeli settlements. At the invitation of the French, who were at that time Israel’s chief military patrons, Israel agreed to add its own forces to those of the British and French. The attack was launched in October 1956 and was militarily successful. In response to threats and pressure from the Soviet Union, however, the United States compelled Britain, France, and Israel to accept a cease-fire and to withdraw their forces. As it had been after the creation of Israel, the evangelical community was divided by these events. Some were concerned about the rights of the Arabs and feared that Israel’s actions would lead the world into a devastating war. Thus, Oswald Allis of the Princeton Theological Seminary wrote that Jews had no right to take possession of large parts of Palestine and to force the Arabs from it. Moreover, he asked, “Should Christians be willing to 299

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

plunge the nations into a third world conflict just to restore ­unbelieving Jews to ... a land from which they were driven nearly two thousand years ago?”35 Most evangelicals, however, sided with Israel. The Jews, said Wilbur Smith of Fuller Theological Seminary, had made the desert bloom, while the Arabs had been “a curse to the land.”36 Some evangelicals, noting that Israel had been fighting against a foe armed by Soviet Russia, found it hard to understand why the United States had formally condemned the AngloFrench-Israeli attack on Egypt. One dispensationalist writer concocted a complex theory in which America’s condemnation of Israel’s actions was intended by God to pave the way for a Russian invasion of Palestine and the fulfillment of biblical prophecies.37 Thus, despite some continuing divisions, the fact that Israel was fighting on the side of the West against the Communists and their allies was beginning to have an effect on evangelical perspectives. This fact became all the more important in the next round of fighting between Israel and its Arab neighbors. In the years following the Suez crisis, Egypt moved firmly into the Soviet camp, becoming a major recipient of Russian economic aid and military hardware. In the late 1950s, Syria, too, became a Soviet client and briefly joined with Egypt to form the United Arab Republic (UAR). Though a military coup in Syria led that nation to abandon the UAR in 1961, Egypt and Syria remained allies, and Syria joined Egypt as a Soviet military client. Now Israel’s two main enemies were both armed and supported by America’s great rival, the Soviet Union. For e­ vangelicals, the Bible and the American flag now clearly sent the same message of support for Israel. In 1967, after several years of skirmishing between Israel and the Arab states, Egypt sent a large army into the Sinai Peninsula 35 Quoted in ibid., 178. 36 Ibid., 178. 37 Ibid., 177.

300

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

to confront Israel, ejected UN peacekeepers from the IsraeliEgyptian border, and closed the Strait of Tiran to Israeli vessels, cutting off Israel’s access to the Red Sea. Nasser boasted that he would drive the Jews into the Mediterranean. Not waiting to be attacked, in June 1967 Israel launched a preemptive strike and within two days had annihilated the Egyptian air force and had driven the Egyptian army out of the Sinai Peninsula and across the Suez Canal, destroying most of its Soviet-built tanks and other heavy arms. Believing initial Egyptian claims of victory, however, Syria and Jordan had also entered the war against Israel. Once they defeated Egypt, Israeli forces turned on both these nations. The Syrians were quickly routed and forced to relinquish the strategic Golan Heights on the Israeli-Syrian border. Jordanian forces were driven from the West Bank of the Jordan River, and on the third day of the war Israeli forces entered and occupied East Jerusalem, site of the Western Wall, from which Jews had been barred for decades. In six days of fighting, Israel had defeated all its Arab neighbors, captured the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights, and reunified the city of Jerusalem—an astonishing victory. To evangelicals, the outcome of the Six-Day War was nothing short of a miracle. Many had thought the badly outnumbered Israelis might be defeated and a second Holocaust initiated. Biblebelieving evangelicals thought God must have fought on Israel’s side. For the dispensationalists, in particular, Israel’s victory was a clear ­affirmation of biblical prophecy and a sure indication that the second coming was near. They saw Israel’s capture and reunification of Jerusalem as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Luke: “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled.” With the reunification of Jerusalem by the Jews, events leading up to the return of Jesus Christ would soon take place.38 38 Ibid., 185.

301

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

Those less convinced of the immediacy of the second coming nevertheless saw Israel defeat large armies that had been trained and equipped by the Soviet Union. If Israel had not yet confronted the minions of the Antichrist, it had battled and beaten the ­surrogates of the Communists. And, significantly, the Six-Day War came at a time when the United States, itself, was engaged in a bitter and ­inconclusive struggle against Communist forces in Southeast Asia. Many members of the various liberal Christian denominations, along with liberal Jews, were engaged in protests against the war in Vietnam, which they viewed as an expression of American militarism and imperialism, and a diversion of resources from vital domestic tasks in the realms of civil rights and social welfare. Evangelicals, on the other hand, supported the war, which they saw as a necessary battle against Communism, if not Satan himself. These competing views helped induce very different reactions to Israel’s victory on the part of liberal Christians and evangelicals. Like the evangelicals, mainstream Christians had been divided over Israel’s founding, with some seeing biblical prophecy and others seeing an injustice to the Arabs. Viewing the Six-Day War through the lens of Vietnam protest, antimilitarism, anti-­ imperialism, and the growing influence of liberation theology, liberal Christian groups, such as the National and World Councils of Churches, became increasingly antagonistic toward the Jewish state.39 Evangelicals, though, viewed Israel’s victory through the lens of a nationalistic, promilitary and anti-Communist perspective and believed that Israel’s military triumph served America’s global ­interests as well as Israel’s own goals. The 1967 war represented a watershed in the relationship between Christians and Israel. The liberal Christian denominations began to see Israel as a white ­colonial power repressing people of color—a position that ­hardened during the subsequent years of Israeli occupation of the 39 Paul Merkley, Christian Attitudes toward the State of Israel (Montreal: McGillQueen’s University Press, 2001).

302

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

West Bank and seemingly never-ending war between Israel and the Arabs. Evangelicals, on the other hand, thought Israel could do nothing wrong except, perhaps, return so much as one square inch of conquered territory to the Arabs. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, both the notion that the USSR had a role to play in bringing about the second coming and Israel’s value as an anti-Soviet bastion in the Middle East lost their significance. Soon, however, Reagan’s evil empire was replaced by George W. Bush’s “evil doers” as militant Islam took Soviet Russia’s place in evangelical eschatology and politics. A number of ­dispen­sationalists rediscovered the importance of Islam in biblical prophecy.40 At the same time, just as Israel had been on America’s side in opposition to the Soviet Union, Israel was the enemy of the radical Islamic regimes and shadowy terrorist networks that attacked and threatened the United States. To radical Islamists, America was the “great Satan” and Israel the “little Satan,” working arm in arm against the Muslim world. To evangelicals, it might be radical Islam that served Satan, but Israel and the United States certainly worked arm in arm. Some critics of Israel, of course, argue that the alliance between the United States and Israel is a product of the political efforts of American Jews and Christian Zionists rather than an expression of America’s own economic and security interests. While many liberal Christians, and some Jews, have accepted this argument, the evangelical community, for the most part, dismisses the idea. ­ Prominent evangelical politician Gary Bauer, founder of the Family Research Council and leader of the Christian lobby group American Values, calls Jerusalem and Washington “two shining cities upon a hill.”41 After the 9/11 terror attacks, says Bauer, news footage showed Arabs celebrating, while “in Israel they were crying with us.”42 Thus,

40 Weber, On the Road to Armageddon, 207. 41 Clark, Allies for Armageddon, 241. 42 Ibid., 247.

303

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

as during the Cold War, evangelicals’ patriotism reinforces a biblical understanding calling for support for Israel.

Evangelism Premillennialism and nationalism provide evangelicals with reasons to support Israel. A third factor, evangelism, leads to bitter enmities between evangelicals and Israel’s Muslim foes. During the ­nineteenth century and the early decades of the twentieth century, the mainline Protestant churches conducted extensive missionary activities in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. The Congregational Church and the Presbyterian Church were particularly active, and the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church was one of the largest missionary organizations in the world. Protestant missionaries preached the Gospel to non-Christians and to members of the i­ ndigenous Christian communities of the Middle East, such as Coptic, Nestorian, and Syriac Christians, whose level of religious knowledge was considered “nominal” by devout American Protestants. In addition to preaching the Gospel, Protestant m ­ issionaries established hospitals, schools, and universities. The American University in Beirut, the American University in Cairo, and a number of other institutions of higher education were founded by Protestant missionaries during this era.43 Today, the mainline Protestant denominations sponsor a number of organizations that engage in humanitarian work aimed at promoting justice, providing health care, and alleviating hunger overseas. These include the Office of Peace and Ministries of the Episcopal Church, and Global Ministries, which represents the Wider Church Ministries of the United Church of Christ and the Division of Overseas Ministries of the Disciples of Christ. These organizations typically act in partnership with local and ­international 43 Eleanor Doumato, “Protestantism and Protestant Missions,” in Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, 2nd rev. ed., ed. Philip Matter (New York: Macmillan, 2004), http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3424602200.html.

304

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

religious bodies, such as Churches for Middle East Peace and the World Council of Churches. The mainline Protestant d ­ enominations do not attempt to proselytize. They take an ecumenical perspective, endeavor to maintain good relations with local governments and other religious faiths, and take the position that there are many paths to salvation. Consistent with the service orientation of their mother churches, mainline Protestant missionaries are concerned more with saving bodies than souls. Whatever their goals, the mainline churches are responsible for less than 10 percent of the tens of thousands of the American Protestant missionaries currently serving in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. More than 90 percent are deployed by ­evangelical church organizations.44 These include the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Samaritan’s Purse, an international evangelical organization directed by Franklin Graham, son of the late Billy Graham. The mainline Protestants do not proselytize, but evangelical missionaries are eager to win converts to Christianity. Like their mainline counterparts, evangelical missions offer humanitarian aid, including food, medical care, toys for children, and so forth. The evangelicals’ humanitarian work, though, is always accompanied by a Christian message.45 Thus, food boxes sent to Iraqi refugees carried a biblical quote translated into Arabic: “For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.” In Afghanistan, Samaritan’s Purse reportedly organized Christmas celebrations for Muslim children and handed out Christian Bibles along with relief supplies.46 And some evangelical missionaries dispatched to hostile environments, particularly in Muslim countries where evangelizing is generally outlawed, have adopted a practice known as “tentmaking” or 44 Allen Hertzke, Laura Olson, and Kevin Den Dulk, Religion and Politics in America, 3rd ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2004), 181. 45 Doumato, “Protestantism and Protestant Missions.” 46 “Campaign against Operation Christmas Child,” http://www.inminds.co.uk/occ. html.

305

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

“tunneling,” which entails engaging in another type of work as a cover while preaching in secret to avoid detection by the local authorities.47 The evangelical missionaries rescued by U.S. special forces at the outset of the Afghan war were tentmaking before being taken prisoner by the Taliban. Because they do not actively proselytize, mainline Protestant missionaries are tolerated in some, though not all, Muslim nations. Indeed, by generally espousing pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli (and often anti-American) positions, liberal Protestant organizations like the World Council of Churches curry favor with the authorities in Arab countries, thus protecting the security of their facilities and safety of their workers.48 Evangelical missionaries, however, actively proselytize and so risk arrest, imprisonment, and even murder, particularly in the Muslim world. In recent years, many evangelical missionaries have been imprisoned in Muslim countries, and a number have been killed by Muslims. For example, American Christian medical workers were murdered in Afghanistan in 2010, and in the preceding years, an American evangelical nurse was murdered while working in a clinic in southern Lebanon, and three other evangelical missionaries were murdered by Muslims while working in a clinic in Yemen. While liberal Protestants point to these deaths as evidence of the futility of proselytizing in Muslim countries, evangelicals assert that the victims were Christian martyrs who should inspire others to preach the Gospel.49 Not surprisingly, in light of the violence directed against them, many evangelicals have developed a good deal of animus toward Muslims. The late Jerry Falwell called Muhammad a terrorist, and Franklin Graham declared that Islam was a very evil and wicked ­religion.50 J. Don George, senior pastor of Calvary Temple in Irving, Texas, said, “Our faith is in Jesus Christ, and the Muslim community 47 Joel C. Rosenberg, “Time Magazine Tackles ‘Radical’ Christian Evangelists in Muslim Nations,” Newsmax.com, April 21, 2003, http://www.newsmax.com/ Pre-2008/Time-Magazine-TacklesRadical-/2003/04/21/id/675157/. 48 Chafets, A Match Made in Heaven, 83. 49 Duomato, “Protestantism and Protestant Missions.” 50 “Anti-Islam,” Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, December 20, 2002, http://www. pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week616/cover.html.

306

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

does not accept Jesus and God, and therefore we’re at odds with Muslims ... any religion or ideology that refuses to acknowledge the lordship of Jesus Christ could be typified as [Satanic].”51 Of course, Jews are another religious group that refuses to accept the lordship of Jesus Christ. Jews, however, are not noted for killing Christian missionaries. Despite the annoyance sometimes expressed by Israel’s government and religious authorities over evangelical missionary activities, evangelicals proselytize quite actively and without much interference in the Jewish state. Among the most visible is the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, sometimes known as the “Jews for Jesus,” which has made use of Israel’s Law of Return to settle a number of its members in the Holy Land. Here they preach primarily to Jews from the former Soviet Union whose minimal religious background and training are thought to make them especially susceptible to Christian appeals. Thus, missionary activities generate little conflict between ­evangelicals and Jews. Indeed, Israeli Jews are the bitter enemies of the evangelicals’ Muslim foes and, in this world, if not the next, the enemy of my enemy is about as close to a friend as can usually be identified. If evangelicals have a bone to pick with the Jews in this area, it is with American Jews who sometimes criticize evangelical preachers for their anti-Muslim statements. On one such occasion, after Jewish groups objected to his intemperate remarks about Islam, Pat Robertson indignantly said, “If I say something that Islam is, you know, an erroneous religion, then I get criticized by the AntiDefamation League. You just want to say: When are you going to open your eyes and see who your enemy is.”

Christian Zionism and the Jews Premillennialism, nationalism, and evangelism provide America’s evangelical Protestants with compelling reasons to support 51 “Attacks on Muslims by Conservative Protestants: Graham, Hinn, Falwell, Robertson, Swaggart & Baldwin,” ReligiousTolerance.org, http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter18b.htm.

307

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

Israel—and they have. Through years of Palestinian terrorism, two intifadas, wars in Lebanon, and major armed clashes in Gaza and the West Bank, Christian Zionists have stood with Israel. Evangelical leaders have raised money, organized rallies, and continually applied ­pressure on politicians on Israel’s behalf. For example, when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, the first call Prime Minister Begin made was reportedly to the late Jerry Falwell to secure Falwell’s support in justifying the attack to the Reagan administration and the American public. In a similar vein, Falwell mobilized 1,500 ­evangelical ministers to come to Washington to show their support for Benjamin Netanyahu when President Clinton summoned the Israeli prime minister to hector him over the expansion of West Bank settlements. John Hagee led the assembled ministers in a chant of “Not one inch!” to express opposition to turning over land to the Arabs.52 And, during the 2006 Israeli battle with Hezbollah, Hagee called the Bible God’s foreign policy statement and sent several thousand evangelicals to Capitol Hill to make certain their ­representatives supported Israel. To show his solidarity with the Jews, Pat Robertson went to Israel and broadcast his television program, The 700 Club, from the town of Metulla, while Hezbollah rockets fell nearby.53

Christian Zionists and American Jews Christian Zionist support for Israel is welcomed by many American Jews who believe the beleaguered Jewish state needs all the friends it can get. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that American Jews and Christian Zionists can enter into anything more than an arm’slength relationship. For some Jews—and evangelicals—the religious gap prevents a true alliance. Many Jews fear that evangelicals want to convert them to Christianity, while some evangelicals cannot 52 Spector, Evangelicals and Israel, 149. 53 Chafets, A Match Made in Heaven, 203.

308

Christian Zionism: Is It Good for the Jews?

CHAPTER 10

­ nderstand why the Jews stubbornly refuse to accept Jesus. This u ­religious difference, however, is not as insurmountable as it may appear. The truth is that evangelical Protestants are happy to accept the conversion of Jews, but it is not their highest priority. There are many more potential converts among the hundreds of millions of Middle Eastern and African Muslims, Latin American Catholics, and so forth than among the tiny handful of Jews in the United States and Israel. Premillennialists, moreover, are confident that the Jews will all accept Christ during the seven years of t­ ribulation or, certainly, when they witness the second coming. There isn’t much urgency about converting them now. Indeed, the familiar line goes that Jews agree with the evangelicals that the Messiah is coming. When he arrives everyone can ask whether he’s been here before or not and settle the disagreement between Christians and Jews once and for all. But, even if the conversion issue is put to rest, there remain other problems. To begin with, Jews and evangelical Protestants live in physically and socially different worlds. The Jews reside in a small number of affluent urban and suburban areas; the evangelicals occupy America’s rural and small town heartland. The Jews are professionals, managers, and members of the intelligentsia; many evangelicals hold blue-collar and lower-middle-class positions. Jews strive to attend elite colleges. Evangelicals (with the exception of Robertson, a Yale law graduate) have little desire to set foot on Ivy League campuses. Jews have a bit of disdain for the evangelicals, while the evangelicals seem to love Israel more than they like Jews— witness the occasionally insensitive comments about Jewish avarice made by evangelical preachers. Then, there is the problem of politics. Christian Zionists are mainly conservative Republicans; American Jews are mainly liberal Democrats. Jews have a substantial psychological and material stake in the Democratic Party and the liberal political camp. Most American Jews regard Robertson, Hagee, Falwell, and the other ­ e vangelical leaders as political Neanderthals

309

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

determined to deprive women, blacks, and gays of their newly won rights and to drag America back into the previous century. In short, Jews and e­ vangelicals have nothing but Israel between them, and though that may lead to some flirtation, it probably is not enough for a marriage. Every Israeli prime minister since David Ben-Gurion himself has cultivated the friendship of America’s evangelical leaders. In the United States, however, most Jews appear to feel more comfortable associating with liberal secular anti-Zionists than with right-wing Christian Zionists.

310

CHAPTER 11

Holy Land, Sacred History, and Anti-Zionism David Patterson

We must ask whether this ever happened that, after two millennia, a people was returned to its language, its state, its land. Without a Book—this Book—this return could not possibly have taken place. This is the shared astonishment behind all religio-­secular diversities. This is the shared experience that makes possible a bond between all Israel and Torah. —Emil Fackenheim, To Mend the World

T

 he definitive link between antisemitism and anti-Zionism is evident enough. Zionism is a movement to establish and to sustain the Jewish state as a haven for the Jews in a world whose hostility toward them has repeatedly proven deadly. To oppose the ­movement is to oppose the haven. There can be only two reasons for such an opposition: it must be maintained either that another Holocaust is impossible and the Jews would be perfectly safe elsewhere, for which there is no evidence, or that another Holocaust is desirable. The post-Holocaust context here is crucial. Prior to the Holocaust, Franz Rosenzweig could oppose the Zionist movement and cling to the post–World War I hope that perhaps the Jews could find a place in the world after all.1 In the post-Holocaust era there can be no such hope. To deny the Jewish state   1 See Franz Rosenzweig, On Jewish Learning, ed. N. N. Glatzer (New York: Schocken, 1955), 64.

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

its existence is to deny the Jewish people their existence. Opposing the presence of a Jewish state, anti-Zionists, like all antisemites, oppose a Jewish presence. Why? Because the Jews, by their very presence in the world, signify the millennial testimony to the absolute, divinely commanded responsibility that each of us has for the other. Such a testimony undermines the antisemite who would either eliminate or appropriate God, whether ideologically or t­heologically. Inasmuch as modern secular thought tends to think God out of the picture, it tends to think the Jews out of the picture; unable to tolerate a people apart, it cannot tolerate a state apart. As for theological anti-Zionism, in our time it is most fanatically manifest in the murderous diatribes of the world’s Islamic Jihadists. The Jewish presence in the world is a presence in space and time; it is a presence that also represents a certain understanding of space and time. In order to purge the world of Jewish teaching and ­testimony, the anti-Zionist must purge the world of a Jewish understanding of geography and history, of Holy Land and sacred history, as affirmed in the Covenant of Torah that fundamentally determines Jewish identity. The anti-Zionist desire to remove the Jews from their dwelling place is obvious. The desire to remove them from history is manifest in various forms of a denial of history, the most notorious of which is Holocaust denial, which ranges from declaring that it did not happen to comparing the Jews to Nazis. Because traditional Jewish thinking about the Holy Land and sacred history is rooted in Torah, anti-­ Zionism is steeped not only in a hatred of the People of the Book but also in a hatred of the Book itself. The anti-Zionist determination to erase Zion from the face of the earth is a determination to erase the Torah that “goes forth from Zion and the word of HaShem from Jerusalem” (Isa. 2:3; Mic. 4:2). Left-wing ideological anti-Zionists dismiss the Torah out of hand, regarding it at best as some quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore. Jihadist anti-Zionists appropriate the divine revelation of Torah as their own, as when Hamas calls its charter the “Charter of Allah” (Hamas = Allah); indeed, the Qur’an declares the Jews to be falsifiers of scripture (see 2:59; 3:78).2   2 I generally use the term Jihadist, rather than Muslim, since Qur’an-based Islam is arguably pro-Zionist, as the Qur’an declares the Land of Israel to be a dwelling

312

Holy Land, Sacred History, and Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 11

If Torah is the ground of Jewish thought, it is ultimately the ground of Zionist thought, in all its “religio-secular diversities,” as Emil Fackenheim says,3 the influence of European nationalism notwithstanding. It is not for nothing that Israeli government ­buildings are embossed with biblical verses and the streets of Israel are named for patriarchs, prophets, and Jewish sages. Just as there is no Zion without the Book, so without the Book there is no Zion. The biblical categories that shape Zionist thinking, therefore, are crucial, inasmuch as they shape a certain understanding of space and time, of Holy Land and sacred history. Anti-Zionism rests on a way of thinking about space and time—land and history—that is diametrically opposed to biblical teaching and Jewish thinking about Holy Land and sacred history. It is, therefore, inherently antisemitic. Jewish thinking about space as Holy Land is limiting, precisely because it is grounded in Torah: God promises this land to the Jews, but only this land and no more. Unlike the Israelites, almost all ancient peoples of any prominence—Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and numerous others—were expansionist and viewed space as something to be conquered. As for the anti-Zionists, who among them—from those who would bring the world under the banner of the socialist-communist utopia to those who would bring humanity under the law of Sharia—is not expansionist? For them, as for the ancients, history is the history of the human conquest of the world. The biblical categories that shape Jewish thinking about space and time are grounded in the Covenant. Just as the Covenant is tied to a sanctification of space in the Holy Land, so it is tied to a ­sanctification of time as sacred history. Jewishly understood, the Holy Land is holy not because certain events have transpired there; rather, certain events have transpired there because the Holy Land is holy. Without the covenantal relation to the land that precedes any dwelling in the land, there can be no teshuvah, no movement of return to this land. The Jewish presence in the land, therefore, place for the Jews, to which the Jews in exile will be returned when the last days approach (see 17:100-104).   3 Emil L. Fackenheim, To Mend the World: Foundations of Post-Holocaust Jewish Thought (New York: Schocken, 1989), 328.

313

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

t­ranscends political agendas, where power can justify anything. If the Israelis’ struggle for their very survival amounts to something more than a power struggle, it is because the Jewish state, in the words of Emmanuel Levinas, “stems from the religion which modern political life supplants.”4 Since 1945 the historical context for the Jewish return to the land and to history is, of course, the Shoah. “The Shoah,” as Levinas states it, “re-establishes the link—which up until then had been incomprehensibly hidden—between p ­ resent-day 5 Israel and the Israel of the Bible.” And the Israel of the Bible is the Israel of the Covenant. In making such a statement, Levinas ­understands space and time in terms of the Holy Land and sacred history couched in the Covenant of Torah. Let us consider, then, exactly what antisemitic anti-Zionism opposes in its opposition to the Jewish testimony to Holy Land and sacred history.

The Holy Land André Neher comprehended very well the meaning of the Holy Land when he wrote, “Is not the State of Israel, in its very existence, a ­meta-state? And surely the war launched against Israel on Yom Kippur, October 6, 1973, was not only horizontal. . . . Zion, which is only a fragment of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, is a word one can neither play around with, nor play tricks with, nor beat around the bush with. It is the key word of the ‘meta’ of Jewish history. Through Zion, Zionism becomes bi-dimensional. The vertical is interlocked with the horizontal.”6 Just as Zionism is bi-dimensional, so is anti-Zionism; just as Zionism is a tacit affirmation of the Covenant of Torah (­regardless of the belief of this or that Jew), so is anti-Zionism an implicit assault on that Covenant. This spatial interlocking of the vertical with the horizontal is voiced in the prophet’s cry: “HaShem is   4 Emmanuel Levinas, Difficult Freedom: Essays on Judaism, trans. Sean Hand (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 217.   5 Ibid., 12.   6 André Neher, They Made Their Souls Anew, trans. David Maisel (Albany: SUNY Press, 1990), 58.

314

Holy Land, Sacred History, and Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 11

exalted, for He dwells on high; He has filled Zion with His justice and righteousness” (Isa. 33:5). Filling the land with His justice and ­righteousness, He fills the land with His Torah. Levinas insists, therefore, that the State of Israel, “in accordance with its pure essence, is possible only if penetrated by the divine word,” which always speaks in the imperative.7 This incursion of the vertical into the horizontal embodied by Torah and its imperatives is precisely what the anti-Zionists are anti. Where there is no d ­ imension of height, there is no holiness; where there is no ­holiness, the land is nothing more than a piece of real estate, the ownership of which is determined by power, and not by justice or ­righteousness. Justice and righteousness stem from the commandments of Torah, from the mitzvot, which connect humanity to God, to Zion, and to one another; to be sure, the root of mitzvah is tzavta, which means “connection.” That connection reveals the bi-dimensional ­relationship that imparts meaning and sanctity to life. As a mode of antisemitism, anti-Zionism opposes both the commandment and the connection, both the vertical and the horizontal relation, embodied in the Holy Land. Yehuda Loeve (1513–1609), the Maharal of Prague, taught that the name of the Holy One is to be identified with the Holy Land.8 The commandments of Torah that radiate from Zion and into the world form what the Maharal calls “the life force of holiness” that illuminates and sustains creation by affirming the holiness of life.9 Hence Zion is “the joy of the whole earth,” as it is written (Ps. 48:2), and the joy in the return of the Jews to the land is the joy of a groom returning to his betrothed, as it is written (Isa. 62:4). To understand the holiness of the Holy Land in such terms means that, contrary to fabricating a justification for everything done to protect the land, everything done to protect the land must be justified before Torah. The Jewish people, “though chosen by God,” as Leo Baeck says, “can   7 Emmanuel Levinas, “Zionisms” (trans. Roland Lack), in The Levinas Reader, ed. Sean Hand (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 271.   8 Yehuda Loeve, Maharal of Prague: Pirke Avos, trans. and ed. R. Tuvia Basser (Brooklyn: Mesorah, 1997), 322.   9 Ibid., 355.

315

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

remain so only if it practices righteousness; sin separates it from God. Its only possible existence is religious: either it will live as God has commanded or it will not live at all.”10 Hence, says Levinas, “the State of Israel will be religious because of the intelligence of its great books which it is not free to forget. It will be religious through the very action that establishes it as a State. It will be religious or it will not be at all.”11 Israel’s great books—the sifre kodesh, or “holy books,” that the antisemites repeatedly consign to the flames—are the vessels of the testimony that goes forth from Zion, a testimony through which all the nations of the world are blessed (see, e.g., Gen. 12:3). Which means: neither the Jews nor the nations are free to turn away from Israel. To demand the destruction of the Jewish state is to demand the destruction of human sanctity. Such a demand is ­characteristic of anti-Zionist ideological and religious t­ otalitarianism, in which everyone is expendable. At the center of the Holy Land is the Holy City of Jerusalem, the seat of Zion and the Zionist longing, as expressed in Israel’s anthem HaTikvah, which declares the hope of the Jews “to be a free people in our land, the land of Zion and Jerusalem.” That Jerusalem bears a particular significance for anti-Zionists of every ilk is self-evident; it shows up along a spectrum of Jew-hatred, ranging from objections to the Israelis’ building schools, homes, or hospitals within Jerusalem to the call for Jews to be purged from Jerusalem. The significance of Jerusalem in Jewish religious consciousness provides a key to ­understanding anti-Zionist antisemitism. The Talmud, for example, says that the word living applies to God, Torah, and Jerusalem because they are among the things necessary for life (Avot d’Rabbi Nathan 34:11). In keeping with this tradition, the medieval sage Joseph Albo identifies the name Jerusalem as one of the names of God (Sefer Ha-Ikkarim 2:28). Which means: anyone who would usurp God must lay claim to Jerusalem—a claim that Jews and Judaism precisely do not make. Contrary to the anti-Zionist Jihadists 10 Leo Baeck, The Essence of Judaism, trans. Victor Grubenweiser and Leonard Pearl, rev. ed. (New York: Schocken, 1948), 67. 11 Levinas, Difficult Freedom, 219.

316

Holy Land, Sacred History, and Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 11

who claim Jerusalem as their own, the Jews do not lay claim to Jerusalem—Jerusalem lays claim to the Jews. Therefore, when Jews pray to the Holy One they refer to Jerusalem as irkha, “Your city,” that is, God’s city, acknowledging God as the Boneh Yerushalayim, the “Builder of Jerusalem.” As the Boneh Yerushalayim, God is the Shokhen Yerushalayim, “the One who dwells in Jerusalem” (Ps. 135:21). Indeed, the Bible repeatedly identifies Zion as the dwelling place of the Holy One, who makes possible all human dwelling (e.g., Ps. 74:2; 76:2; 132:13–14; Isa. 8:18; Joel 3:17). Signifying the presence of the Holy One, the Holy City signifies the dimension of height that the anti-Zionist antisemites would expunge from the world. Whereas the anti-Zionists would ban the Jews from Jerusalem, as they were banned from the Old City prior to the Six-Day War, the Jewish testimony to the holiness of Jerusalem demands an openness to every human being. That openness has been attained only since Jerusalem became reunified as the capital of the Jewish state in 1967; since that time, everyone who comes in peace has been free to pray in the Holy City (the one exception is the Temple Mount, where any non-Muslim who would pray seriously endangers himself because it remains under Muslim control). This openness to humanity is an affirmation of the connection of each human being to every human being, beginning with Adam, and Jerusalem is the nexus of that linkage, both vertically and h ­ orizontally, as it is taught in the Tanna debe Eliyahu: “In the place whence Adam’s dust was taken, there the altar was built.”12 As the Holy City’s Holy of Holies, the altar signifies the bond between God and humanity; as the place from which Adam’s dust was taken, it signifies the tie between human and human. By contrast, one need only look to Mecca to see what the notion of a “holy city” means in the Muslim world and to have an inkling of what drives Muslim anti-Zionism: it is closed to all except Muslims. Whereas Mecca signifies the truth of Islam, Jerusalem signifies the holiness of humanity—that is what

12 Tanna debe Eliyahu: The Lore of the School of Elijah, trans. William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1981), 411.

317

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

makes Jerusalem God’s dwelling place. That is what makes this space called Jerusalem the Holy City. Still, some will wonder: If the Jews seek a haven, why would they want it to be in Zion, the site that so many have designated as a target of destruction? Is there no place safer than this land where rockets continually rain down? Here, too, however, a Jewish ­understanding of space comes to bear. The haven sought in the Holy Land is a haven not only of safety but also of sanctity in an anti-­Zionist world characterized by an eclipse of all that is sacred; it is the place, HaMakom, where the vertical intersects with the horizontal. If being safe means being free from all physical danger, there may be “safer” places (although that is questionable), but, understood in the contexts of the Covenant, “safety” is not the point. The Torah itself warns us that “the sword shall bereave you of children without, as shall the terror from within” (Deut. 32:25). In a commentary on this passage, the Talmud urges us to move to the inside, even if there, too, terror threatens to bereave us of our children (see Bava Kama 60b). This movement to the inside is an ascent, as Levinas suggests: here, he says, we “see the entire problem of present-day Israel appear, with all the difficulties of the return. One must withdraw into one’s home. . . . And even if ‘at home’—in the refuge or in the interiority—there is ‘terror,’ it is better to have a country, a house, or an ‘inwardness’ with terror than to be outside.”13 The point in having a home and a haven for the Jewish people is not mere survival. It means bearing witness to the holiness of the human being from within the center that commands that testimony, where a bi-dimensional within and above become synonyms. It means a Jewish presence in the Holy Land. “Do we not smell here,” says Levinas, elaborating on the ­implications of this internal terror, “the odor of the camps? Violence is no longer a political phenomenon of war and peace, beyond all morality. It is the abyss of Auschwitz or the world at war. . . . One must go back inside, even if there is terror inside. Is the fact of Israel 13 Emmanuel Levinas, Nine Talmudic Readings, trans. Annette Aronowicz (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), 190.

318

Holy Land, Sacred History, and Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 11

unique? Does it not have its full meaning because it applies to all humanity? All men are on the verge of being in the situation of the State of Israel. The State of Israel is a category.”14 The current spread of Islamic terrorism throughout the world attests to the prophetic nature of Levinas’s words. If the Jewish state is a category, it is because it represents the interlocking of the vertical and the horizontal, of within and beyond, that both the ideological anti-Zionist and the Jihadist anti-Zionist would eliminate, the former through eradication, the latter through appropriation. The antisemitic diatribes of both reek of the odor of the camps. That ashen scent is the smell of a history that has seen the earth covered with the ashes of the Jews, those ashes that bellowed from dozens of chimneys for a thousand days to be cast upon the winds. They are in the earth from which we harvest our bread, in the bread that we place in our mouths. We can no more escape them than we can escape time itself. Here too lies the geographical and historical link of all humanity to the Jewish state. Moving to the inside, we become the bearers of those ashes. And we are launched into sacred history.

Sacred History Franklin Littell has asked, “On what basis do we affirm that the Exodus, Sinai, the return from the first exile, . . . the destruction of the Temple, . . . the Holocaust, . . . a restored Israel, and a united Jerusalem . . . are more important to our view of history than, say, the Battle of Waterloo or Custer’s Last Stand?”15 In a word, the Covenant provides such a basis. The covenantal relation that ties all Jews and all humanity to the Holy Land also opens up the dimension of holiness in time. Here too there is a “vertical” relation, an eternally ethical relation, to an absolute that imparts meaning to every temporal contingency. If “the human situation in history begins

14 Ibid., 190–91. 15 Franklin Littell, The Crucifixion of the Jews: The Failure of Christians to Understand the Jewish Experience (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986), 10.

319

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

with the covenant,” as André Neher asserts,16 it is because the Covenant establishes the sacred in sacred history. To say that with the Covenant begins the “human situation in history” is to aver that this is where history takes on meaning. If there is no sacred history, then history so-called amounts to little more than a catalogue of ephemeral conquests and inevitable defeats, the meaning of which is determined by the storyteller alone. Because Zion signifies a Jewish presence in history, anti-Zionists use the term Zion with contempt, as though it signified some sort of evil. This contempt for Zion is a contempt both for the Jews and for the sacred history they represent. The atheist anti-Zionists deny the Covenant from which sacred history stems, the Christian anti-Zionists say it is superseded, and the Jihadist anti-Zionists insist that the Jews falsified it. If the Covenant is the ground of the human situation in history, then, in the words of Abraham Joshua Heschel, the emergent “sacred history is the collecting of the threads of His promise.”17 The anti-­ Zionists would unravel those threads, which amounts to an unra­veling of the divine commandment to care for the other human being. Thus we have the calls to boycott Israel economically, which only damages the Palestinians, whose economy is interwoven with the economy of Israel: the anti-Zionists’ hatred of the Israeli Jews trumps their ostensible care for the Palestinians. Similarly, we have the Jihadist morphing of murder into martyrdom, with the attendant proposition that the murder of a Jew is the Muslim’s ticket to eternal paradise: here the anti-Zionists’ hatred of the Jews trumps their love for their children. In each case we have an assault on any future for the Jews, beginning with the Jews who live in the Jewish state. This assault on the future is an assault on history. “The o ­ pposite of the past,” Elie Wiesel writes, “is not the future but the absence of future; the opposite of the future is not the past but the absence of

16 André Neher, The Prophetic Existence, trans. William Wolf (New York: A. S. Barnes, 1969), 142. 17 Abraham Joshua Heschel, Israel: An Echo of Eternity (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1969), 131.

320

Holy Land, Sacred History, and Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 11

past.”18 Therefore, according to a Jewish understanding, history is not the narrative of the past; it is an orientation toward the future. If, according to a Jewish understanding, history is about the future, it is about our infinite and absolute responsibility to and for the other human being. And if history is about that infinite responsibility, then history is made of mitzvot, of the divine commandments to care for the other human being. In the mitzvot that go into the making of history God lies hidden. Where does He hide? In the covenantal relation that establishes the human situation in history and that serves as the foundation of Zion. Fackenheim has explained that, according to a Jewish understanding of sacred history, “the divine Presence occurs within history, not as its consummation or transfiguration.”19 As covenantal history, sacred history is the presence of God in the realm of space. Inasmuch as anti-Zionist antisemitism entails an assault on the sacred history, it is an assault on that Presence. Made of that Presence, Jewish ­“tradition” is masoret, from the verbal root masar, which means to “transmit” or “hand down” for the sake of the future. This history consists of transmitting a teaching and a testimony, a meser, or “message,” concerning the infinite dearness of human relation as an expression of a higher relation, whether that teaching is revealed at Mount Sinai or is annihilated at Auschwitz. More than a sequence of events, masoret is steeped in mesirut, which is “devotion” or ­“dedication,” a responsibility to and for others, including those yet to be born: it transcends the temporal horizons of one’s own life. Here, says Levinas, “time is precisely the fact that the whole of existence of the mortal being—exposed to violence—is not being for death, but the ‘not yet’ which is a way of being against death.”20 This way of being against the death of the other human being, even if it means my own death, lies at the crux of sacred history. It is the opposite of 18 Elie Wiesel, From the Kingdom of Memory: Reminiscences (New York: Summit, 1990), 239. 19 Emil L. Fackenheim, God’s Presence in History: Jewish Affirmations and Philosophical Reflections (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 18. 20 Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity, trans. Alphonso Lingis (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1969), 224.

321

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

the being-for-death, the Sein-zum-Tod, that characterizes the antisemitism of the self-legislating ego, where time is viewed as the only limit to my will. It is the opposite of egocentric ­antisemitism that views my death as my passage into paradise. It is manifest in the commandment to choose “the good and life,” over against “evil and death” (Deut. 30:15). It is the opposite of loving death more than life: to love death more than life is to love evil more than good. Jewish thought understands time itself in terms of human relation, and not in terms of the duration experienced in the ­ ­isolation of the ego. Thus in Jewish tradition, time is measured not from the first day of creation but from the sixth day, when human relation came into being: Rosh Hashanah, the new year and the regeneration of the cycle of time, is the anniversary of day six, when it was affirmed that “it is not good for the human being to be alone” (Gen. 2:18). To enter into a relation over the generations of history is to relate a tale, what in Judaism is called agadah. Whereas the anti-Zionist “battle of narratives” amounts to nothing more than a power struggle, agadah forsakes every power play for the sake of a relation. Here relating the tale of history is a calling of deep unto deep, and memory is at its core. If the Nazis’ war against the Jews was a war against memory, as both Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi have said,21 so is the anti-Zionist war against the Jewish state, from the left-wing intellectuals who view history as nothing more than “competing narratives” to Article 20 of the PLO National Charter, which denies that the Jews have ever had any historical connection to the Holy Land.22 From a Jewish perspective, history is not about generating this narrative or that. Rather, there is a divine narrative that the historian aspires to articulate and a divine commandment that the chronicler aspires to fulfill, the commandment to remember through telling the 21 See Elie Wiesel, Evil and Exile, trans. Jon Rothschild (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), 155; and Primo Levi, The Drowned and the Saved, trans. Raymond Rosenthal (New York: Vintage, 1988), 31. 22 See Walter Laqueur and Barry Rubin, eds., The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict (New York: Penguin, 2008), 117–20.

322

Holy Land, Sacred History, and Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 11

tale. “To the modern historian,” as Heschel draws this ­distinction, “history is not the understanding of events, but rather the ­understanding of man’s experience of events. What concerns the prophet is the human event as a divine experience.”23 Anti-Zionism is an effort not only to expel the Jews from the Holy Land but the Holy One from human history. The Divine Presence is manifest in the ­presence of the ethical, as Levinas understood very well.24 If sacred history is the history of the eternal in time, it is the history of the ethical in time, so that, in the words of Baeck, “through the unity of the ethical is realized the unity of history.”25 That unity, in turn, is realized by the historical return of the Jewish people to the Holy Land, from which the divine commandment emanates into the world, for the sake of the future of all humanity. Once again we find that, as a denial of Jewish history, anti-Zionism is a denial not only of the Jewish past but also of the Jewish future and with it the future of human sanctity. It is a denial of the Jewish child whom the Nazis sought to exterminate and of the ethical message transmitted to that child. Indeed, the child is at the center of a Jewish understanding of history. The Hebrew word often translated as “history” is toledot, which has the same root as yeled, the word for “child.” History is not about generating this narrative or that; no, it is about bringing into the world children to whom we transmit the meaning and the message of the Covenant. History has a face: it has the face of a child. As the guarantor of the Covenant of Torah, as taught in the Midrash (see Tanchuma Vayigash 1; Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:4:1), the child is the guarantor of sacred history—the yeled is the guarantor of toledot. As a “guarantor,” or arev, the child situates us at the erev, or at the “eve,” of history, making history into what is about to transpire but is not yet decided, and not simply what has already unfolded. History moves along the edge of this not yet. That edge—that eve—has a name: it is birth. What the Covenant means to a Jewish understanding of 23 Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 1:172. 24 See Emmanuel Levinas, Ethics and Infinity, trans. Richard A. Cohen (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1985), 109. 25 Baeck, The Essence of Judaism, 236.

323

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

history, therefore, can be seen from another meaning of toledot: it is “generations,” which are “brought forth,” from the verb yalad, meaning to “give birth.” Like the Nazis before them, the anti-­Zionists cannot abide the birth of Jewish children, especially in the Land of Israel. There lies the core issue of demographics and the Palestinian plan to take over by sheer numbers, a plan that has the full support of anti-Zionist antisemites everywhere. Here we realize, on a deeper level, why sacred history is something to which God and humanity give birth in a covenantal union. We also realize, on a deeper lever, what it means to speak of the birth of the Jewish state and its meaning for sacred history. For the realization of the meaning of sacred history, as Fackenheim has argued, “requires the incursion of God.”26 Zion signifies that incursion and the c­ ommandment that defines it. As an interweaving of the ethical and the existential, sacred history is the history of a commanded ethical relation and our striving for that relation. Once we have lost the ethical relation, we have lost a sense of sacred history. And once we have lost a sense of sacred history, we have lost a sense of human sanctity. “Zion is absolute in the world,” the Chasidic master the Maggid of Mezeritch once said. “It is the life of all countries.”27 It is absolute because, as the fulcrum of sacred history, it lies at the center of the testimony to an absolute ­responsibility to and for the other human being.

Anti-Zionism Because anti-Zionist antisemitism is rooted in a mode of thought whose categories are antithetical to the Jewish categories of Holy Land and sacred history, its opposition to the Jewish state has a metaphysical aspect. This explains what Neil Kressel calls the “Protocols thinking” that characterizes anti-Zionism.28 As in the 26 Emil L. Fackenheim, Quest for Past and Future: Essays in Jewish Theology (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968), 89. 27 Quoted in Louis I. Newman, ed., The Hasidic Anthology (New York: Schocken, 1963), 301. 28 See Neil J. Kressel, “The Sons of Pigs and Apes”: Muslim Antisemitism and the Conspiracy of Silence (Washington, DC: Potomac, 2012), 41.

324

Holy Land, Sacred History, and Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 11

­infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Zionists are nothing less than the embodiment of an ominous, invisible presence lurking throughout the world, sowing havoc and evil, with Israel as their base of operations. Identified as racists, colonialists, and i­ mperialists who are out to rule the world, the Jews, beginning with the Israelis, are by implication worthy of nothing less than annihilation. Whereas left-wing anti-Zionists may not specifically refer to the Protocols, the Jihadist antisemites invoke it by name, as in Article 32 of the Hamas Charter of Allah.29 In truth, however, the global domination that the anti-Zionist antisemite fears is neither political nor financial; no, it is the ethical demand upon humanity that goes forth from Zion and into the world. Projecting their own evil onto the Jews, the anti-­ Zionist antisemites cast the Jews in the mold of the ultimate evil: antisemitism. “It goes as follows,” explains Jonathan Sacks. “The Holocaust is the worst crime of human being against human being. . . . Israel behaves towards the Palestinians as the Nazis behaved towards Jews. . . . If, therefore, you oppose antisemitism—which, as a civilised human being, you must—you must oppose the State of Israel and all those who support it, who happen to be Jews.”30 Once again, such a move is made possible by an opposition to Jewish thinking about Holy Land and sacred history. The anti-Zionist opposition to Jewish notions of Holy Land and sacred history is tied to a drive for a totalitarian universalism over Jewish particularism. As Littell has rightly said, “The rage for universal truths, accompanied by abandonment of holy events and the Scriptures that record them, came to dominate university thinking following the Enlightenment. It is this style of thinking that is the most fertile single source of liberal Antisemitism— whether religious or secular.”31 Where there is a leveling of the particular into the universal and a subsequent abandonment of holy 29 See Dimitry Kapustyan and Matt Nelson, The Soul of Terror: The Worldwide Conflict between Islamic Terrorism and the Modern World (Washington, DC: International Affairs Press, 2007), 147–48. 30 Jonathan Sacks, Future Tense: Jews, Judaism, and Israel in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Schocken, 2010), 101. 31 Littell, The Crucifixion of the Jews, 38–39.

325

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

events, there can be no Holy Land or sacred history. Of course, the anti-Zionists on the Left, whether religious or secular, dress their Jew-hatred in the guise of tolerance, echoing the famous statement of Count Stanislas de Clermont-Tonnerre before the French Revolution’s National Assembly in 1789 that the Jewish individual deserves the same consideration as any other human being, but the Jewish people deserve nothing, least of all a Jewish state.32 And yet without the Jewish people and the Torah that defines them—the Torah signified by Zion itself—there is no Jewish individual apart from the Jewish people: if the Jewish state has no “right to exist,” then neither may the individual exist as a Jew. Rejecting the covenantal thinking that sets apart the Holy Land and the sacred history of the Jewish people, both the religious and secular Left must oppose a Jewish state. Tacitly rejecting the notion of a covenantal Holy Land, the Unitarian Universalist program known as “Toward Peace and Justice in the Middle East,” to take one example, “strongly condemns Israel in very specific terms for its ‘occupation’ and specifically calls for various acts against the Jewish state, including divestment and withholding of weaponry key to its defense.”33 On the occasion of its 216th general assembly in Richmond, Virginia, June 26–July 3, 2004, the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., decided to initiate a process of phased selective divestment from corporations operating in Israel. The Catholic Church has proven to be no better. When Pope John Paul II was in Syria on May 5, 2001, the mass murderer Bashar al-Assad greeted him by declaring that the Jews are bent on destroying the principles of religion “with the same mentality with which they betrayed Jesus Christ.” Just weeks prior to his meeting with the pontiff, al-Assad had declared the Israelis to be worse racists than the Nazis. On both occasions the pope said nothing.34

32 See Jacob Katz, From Prejudice to Destruction: Antisemitism, 1700–1933 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), 109. 33 Kressel, “The Sons of Pigs and Apes,” 80. 34 See Eric J. Greenberg, “Open Season on Jews,” The Jewish Week, May 11, 2001.

326

Holy Land, Sacred History, and Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 11

In remarks made during an interview with El Pais on April 21, 2002 Nobel laureate José Saramago presented a perfect illustration of the metaphysical aspect of anti-Zionist ­antisemitism among left-wing demigods. Labeling Israel “a racist state by virtue of Judaism’s monstrous doctrines—racist not just against the Palestinians, but against the entire world, which it seeks to manipulate and abuse,” he asserted that “Israel’s struggle against its neighbors had ‘a unique and even metaphysical quality of genuine evil.’”35 Saramago’s ­“negationist anti-Zionism,” as Robert Wistrich names it, is “not only Manichean in the philosophical sense, but totalitarian in its ­political essence, and theological in its insistence that Israel was ‘born in sin.’”36 Opposed to the ­covenantal conception of Holy Land and sacred history, such anti-Zionist antisemitism must necessarily be t­heological to the core, even—or especially—if the antisemite is an avowed atheist. Other examples from the secular Left include Ibrahim Aoude, who declared, “Israel is a colonial project and no colonial project has a basis for existence,”37 in space or in time; Nicholas De Genova, whose assertion that “the heritage of the Holocaust belongs to the Palestinian people,”38 undermines not only any sense of history but also every Jewish notion of sacred history; and Gil Anidjar, who repeats the venomous mantra, insisting that “Israel is absolutely a colonial enterprise, a colonial settler state,”39 equally delegitimizes the Jewish presence in the Holy Land. The Holy Land is not a geographic possession to be colonized; it is a 35 Quoted in Robert S. Wistrich, A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad (New York: Random House, 2010), 7. 36 Ibid., 62 (emphasis in original). 37 Edward S. Beck, “Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME): Fighting AntiIsraelism and Antisemitism on the University Campuses Worldwide,” in Academics against Israel and the Jews, ed. Manfred Gerstenfeld (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2007), 134. 38 Ibid., 135. 39 Quoted in Nermeen Shaikh, The Present as History: Critical Perspectives on Global Power (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), 247; see also Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab: A History of the Enemy (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003).

327

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

realm to be sanctified, not only by dwelling in the land but also by attesting to what it means for all of humanity. As for what drives such anti-Zionism among left-wing Europeans, Kressel has an interesting observation: “Liberal Europe . . . shows that its own Jewish victims, by extension, couldn’t have been all that blameless; rescues its religious tradition; and proves that it is now more moral than ever by helping the Palestinian victims.”40 Here, being “more moral” demands the rejection of anything like the particularity of the Holy Land and sacred history. Thus the often atheistic anti-Zionists find common cause with their Christian cohorts, as when Sue Blackwell called for Britain’s Association of University Teachers to boycott Haifa University and Bar-Ilan University in all academic and economic matters.41 Recall, too, Mona Baker’s dismissal of two Israeli academics from the editorial board of the British journal The Translator, on June 6, 2005, solely because they were from Israel; the two scholars in question were Miriam Schlesinger of Bar-Ilan and Gideon Toury of Tel Aviv.42 When were German, Soviet, Chinese, Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, or Palestinian scholars ever dismissed because of where they were born? If they were not subject to such hatred, it is because, among other reasons, their thinking falls outside the categories of Holy Land and sacred history found in the Jewish tradition. As for the Jihadists, the Palestinian claim that the Jews have no historical connection to the land and the Hamas claim of Jewish expansionism cited above demonstrate their antisemitic subversion of the Jewish categories of Holy Land and sacred history. That this anti-Zionist antisemitism is rooted in an opposition to such metaphysical categories, and not in the contingencies of “occupation,” is demonstrated by remarks made by Salafist Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Yaqoub in a broadcast aired on Egypt’s Al-Rahma TV, January 17, 2009: “If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start 40 Kressel, “The Sons of Pigs and Apes,” 151. 41 Ronnie Fraser, “The Academic Boycott of Israel: Why Britain?” in Gerstenfeld, Academics against Israel and the Jews, 198. 42 Ibid., 199.

328

Holy Land, Sacred History, and Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 11

loving them? Of course not. . . . They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing. . . . Our fighting with the Jews is eternal, and it will not end, . . . until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth.”43 This visceral hatred of the Jews, Judaism, and the Jewish state is rooted in a hatred of the Jewish teaching on Holy Land and sacred history. Hezbollah’s Sheikh Taha al-Sabounji confirms this point in a statement he made in April 2002: “Judaism is a project against all humanity. . . . There is no such thing as Zionism. . . . There is only Judaism.”44 And at the core of Judaism is a covenantal understanding of Holy Land and sacred history. The metaphysical aspect of this equation of Zionism with Judaism is tied to the demonization of the Jewish state. More than tagging Israel with whatever evil is currently fashionable, the ­demonization of the Jewish state is calculated to label Israel as the source of every evil. Such thinking shows up in Article 22 of the Hamas Charter of Allah, which states, “There is not a war going on anywhere without [the Jews] having their finger in it.”45 Because the Jewish state is demonic in its essence, the Jihadists determine that, far from being the haven for a persecuted people, Israel is the epicenter of a satanic plot to take over the world and is therefore the enemy of all humanity. Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb, for instance, viewed the Jewish state as just a small part of a “universal Zionist conspiracy.”46 Taking up this theme, Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television has portrayed “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a key part of a larger effort to halt the ‘cancer’ of Zionism” that spreads throughout the world.47 And, like the self-righteous secular Left, the Jihadist fanatics see themselves as the saviors of humanity. 43 Muhammad Hussein Yaqoub, “We Will Fight, Defeat, and Annihilate Them,” Al-Rahma TV, January 17, 2009, http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID= SD227809. 44 Quoted in Wistrich, A Lethal Obsession, 775. 45 See Kapustyan and Nelson, The Soul of Terror, 147–48. 46 See Ronald L. Nettler, Past Trials and Present Tribulations: A Muslim Fundamentalist’s View of the Jews (Oxford: Pergamon, 1987), 49. 47 Avi Jorisch, Beacon of Hatred: Inside Hizballah’s Al-Manar Television (Washington, DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2004), 68.

329

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

Such a project begins with the extermination of the demonic “Zionist entity,” as illustrated by Ruhollah Khomeini in an assertion made to his followers on February 6, 1971, deeming Zionism “the enemy not only of Islam but of all humanity.”48 In other words, Israel—both the people and the country—is an absolute evil that must be annihilated. What must be understood in all of this is that if the Jewish state is not the Holy Land, then the Jewish presence there must make it the “Evil Land.” Just as holiness emanates from Zion into the world, so does the evil emanate from Zion and into the world. Article 15 of the PLO Charter spells out the only logical aim to be drawn from such a view, namely, the annihilation of Israel and the Jews and the takeover of the land.49 Thus in 1977, PLO chief Abu Iyad asserted, in language calculated to echo the Nazi discourse, “An independent state on the West Bank and Gaza is the beginning of the final ­solution.”50 And, commenting on the Oslo Accord of 1993, Sakhr Habash, a member of Fatah’s central committee and a chief PLO ideologue at the time, affirmed that once the Palestinians had control of Gaza and the West Bank, they would proceed to the “final solution.”51 He described the PLO’s position by saying, “There can be no coexistence between Zionism and the Palestinian national movement,”52 any more than there can be any coexistence between God and Satan. The conquest of the Land of Israel is not enough: there must be a “final solution” not only to the Jewish “occupation” but to the Jewish testimony to Holy Land and sacred history. The war here is fought not only in a political realm but also on a metaphysical level. 48 Ruhollah Khomeini, Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini (1941–1980), trans. Hamid Algar (Berkeley, CA: Mizan, 1981), 195. 49 See Matthias Küntzel, Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11, trans. Colin Meade (New York: Telos, 2007), 113. 50 Quoted in Barry Rubin, Revolution Until Victory? The Politics and History of the PLO (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), 47. 51 Efraim Karsh, Arafat’s War: The Man and His Battle for Israeli Conquest (New York: Grove, 2003), 62. 52 Quoted in ibid., 199.

330

Holy Land, Sacred History, and Anti-Zionism

CHAPTER 11

Hence the introduction of martyrdom into the Jihadist discourse, a move to which the secular anti-Zionists have offered no objection. Whereas in the Jewish tradition, as in other traditions, martyrdom means dying in a refusal to commit murder in a sanctification of the Name, for the Jihadist anti-Zionist “martyrdom” has come to mean dying precisely in order to commit murder. Thus the “martyr” purchases his ticket to paradise by murdering Jews. In other sacred traditions, however, the martyrs do not take themselves to have purchased anything; for them, martyrdom is not a commodity for which they expect due payment—it is a summons from on high, to which they respond. The Jihadist anti-Zionist evil represents a radical perversion of the most ancient, most fundamental evil—murder— into the highest good that brings with it the highest reward. Indeed, murder is the logical outcome of the eradication of the Jewish ­categories of Holy Land and sacred history, a view of space and time rooted in the first utterance of the divine revelation at Mount Sinai: “I am God,” which, according to Jewish tradition, means “Do not murder” (see, e.g., Mekilta Bachodesh 8; Pesikta Rabbati 21:19; Zohar I, 90a). Anti-Zionist antisemitism, therefore, is murderous.

Closing Reflection If this history has shown anything, it has demonstrated that a Jewish state in the Holy Land is indispensable to any hope for a future for the Jewish people. Such a condition is a defining feature of the post-Holocaust era, an era darkened by the shadow of anti-Zionist antisemitism. That shadow is the shadow of Auschwitz itself. Inasmuch as the anti-Zionist comparison of Jews to Nazis amounts to a denial of the Holocaust, it is a denial of the Jewish people as a people with a past, which is an opposition to any future for the Jewish people. The future of the Jewish people as a people chosen for a testimony to the sanctity of every human being hinges upon the testimony to the covenantal land as a Holy Land and to ­covenantal history as sacred history. As we have seen, anti-Zionist antisemitism is diametrically opposed to 331

PART 4

Zionist and Anti-Zionist Theologies: Christian Zionists, Islamic Jihadists, and the Jewish State

such categories and to the categories of space and time upon which Judaism rests. Like all forms of antisemitism, anti-Zionism is essentially ­supersessionist, in both its theological and ideological ­manifestations. The supersessionism of Christianity and Islam is well known, with both traditions laying claim to a dispensation that displaces Jewish tradition, including the Jewish testimony to Holy Land and sacred history. With the advent of secular ideologies that stem from modern and postmodern thought, the category of revelation is superseded by the autonomous authority of the thinking individual. With the antisemitic supersession of Jewish tradition, we are left with a thinking that turns the Holy Land into an object of possession and sacred history into someone’s narrative. In both instances, power is the only reality and weakness the only sin, where the one who is in power possesses both the land and the narrative, ruling over both space and time. The struggle against anti-Zionism is not a struggle for power—it is a struggle for the truth of the millennial testimony to the holiness of humanity and the absolute, divinely commanded responsibility to and for the other human being. Without a notion of Holy Land and sacred history, such a testimony is meaningless.

332

CHAPTER 12

Zionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass Andre Oboler

Introduction

T

 here are two concepts that inspire more online passion than almost any other. Both relate to Zionism, yet they are as different from each other as night and day. The one is the view of Zionists, the other a concept of evil promoted by various types of anti-Zionists who should more accurately be described as antisemites. Anti-Zionism is not always antisemitic, but any form of anti-Zionism that ­demonizes the very concept of Zionism is by definition antisemitic. Here I introduce these diametrically opposed views of Zionism and discuss their clash in the online world and the challenge posed by online anti-Zionism in the effort to combat global antisemitism. To Zionists, Zionism is the liberation movement of an oppressed people, a movement designed to protect the people’s future.1 This is reflected in Theodore Herzl’s statement as he opened the first Zionist Congress in 1897: “We are here to lay the foundation stone of the house which is to shelter the Jewish nation.”2   1 World Zionist Organization, “The Jerusalem Program,” http://www.wzo.org.il/ The-Jerusalem-Program.   2 Theodore Herzl, “Opening of the First Zionist Congress, Basel, Switzerland, August 29, 1897,” in Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, 2nd ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996), 45.

Zionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass

CHAPTER 12

Shelter and protection were acute needs and deeply justified after almost 2000 years of exile, in which the Jewish people were subjected to special laws and taxes, restrictions on employment, religious persecution, and massacres in the form of pogroms.3 The subsequent genocide targeting the Jewish people in the Holocaust reaffirmed these needs. Zionism is a broad tent with many entrances. For some, the belief in Zionism comes from religion; for others, it is based on universal principles of human rights; still others see it is as a way to protect Jewish culture, build a better society, or advance the cause of the Jewish people on the international political stage. Zionism is a modern political movement expressing the often conflicted and contradictory will of an ancient people. Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador to the United States, describes the lived experience of Zionism as “Jewish responsibility” and as “reconciling our desire to be enlightened with our longing to remain alive.”4 The other concept of Zionism is axiomatic—it sees Zionism as the ultimate evil, a self-evident truth. This was expressed most nakedly by Gilad Atzmon in 1996: “To regard Hitler as the ultimate evil is nothing but surrendering to the Zio-centric discourse. To regard Hitler as the wickedest man and the Third Reich as the embodiment of evilness is to let Israel off the hook . . . It is about time we internalise the fact that Israel and Zionism are the ultimate Evil with no comparison.”5 This view was not new. Its origins can be traced to the Arab states and their war with the “Zionist Entity,” the   3 Chaim Gans, A Just Zionism: On the Morality of the Jewish State (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 92. See also Chaim Gans, “Paper for the UC/ Utrecht Symposium on Jewish Politics and Political Behavior,” October 12, 2008, http://perush.cjs.ucla.edu/index.php/volume-1-2009-working-papers-seriesjewish-politics-and-political-behavior-editors-introduction/chaimgans-the-justification-for-the-jews-return-to-palestine-and-the-burdens-of-contemporary-zionism.   4 Michael B. Oren, “In Defense of Zionism,” Wall Street Journal, August 2, 2004, http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-defense-of-zionism-1406918952.   5 Gilad Atzmon, “Beyond Comparison,” Al-Jazeerah, August 12, 2006, https:// web.archive.org/web/20060830111918/http://www.aljazeerah.info/ Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/August/12%20o/ Beyond%20Comparison%20By%20Gilad%20Atzmon.htm.

335

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

State of Israel they refused to acknowledge or name.6 The British, too, played a part in this, describing Zionism in the last years of the Mandate period in terms of a range of unpopular p ­ olitical ­ideologies in an effort to undermine it.7 The real push to consider Zionism the ultimate evil, however, came from the Soviet Union. Although the Soviet Union was the first country to extend de jure recognition to the new State of Israel, throughout the Cold War that followed World War II Jews in the Soviet Union experienced increased antisemitism as Stalin sought to create tension between “real Russians”—ethnic Russians, identified as “patriots”—and “non-Russians,” such as Jews, who were ­characterized as “antipatriots.”8 A state crackdown on intellectuals, seen as pro-Western, which had begun in 1947, by 1949 focused on “rootless cosmopolitans,” that is, Soviet Jews.9 Zionism, which promoted Jewish nationalism and identity, was characterized as opposed to Soviet ideals. By 1963, the plight of Soviet Jewry began attracting attention internationally. Unable to attack the Jews directly because of international opposition to antisemitism after the Holocaust, the Soviet Union sought instead to attack Zionism, redefining it in the international arena, through state-sponsored propaganda, as the ultimate evil.10 The culmination of the Soviet propaganda effort was the passage of the infamous Resolution 3379 of the UN General Assembly on November 10, 1975.11 This resolution defined Zionism as a form of   6 Jeffrey Herf, ed., Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in Historical Perspective: Convergence and Divergence (New York: Routledge, 2013), 233.   7 Ibid.   8 Konstantin Azadovskii and Boris Egorov, “From Anti-Westernism to AntiSemitism,” Journal of Cold War Studies 4, no. 1 (2002): 66–80, http://www.fas. harvard.edu/~hpcws/egorov.htm.   9 Ibid. 10 Herf, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism, 233. 11 Yohanan Manor, “The 1975 ‘Zionism Is Racism’ Resolution: The Rise, Fall, and Resurgence of a Libel,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, May 2, 2010, http:// jcpa.org/article/the-1975-zionism-is-racism-resolution-the-rise-fall-andresurgence-of-a-libel/.

336

Zionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass

CHAPTER 12

racism. It was repealed by the UN General Assembly on December 16, 1991, by 111 votes to 25.12 The “Zionism is Racism” push, including an effort to reinstate Resolution 3379, was renewed a decade later in 2001 at the NGO Forum of the World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa.13 The Durban Conference set out a plan of action that led to today’s Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.14 Approaching anti-Zionism from another angle were neo-Nazi groups. These groups, like the Soviet Union, recognized that outright antisemitism had become unacceptable after the Holocaust, but they joined others in using “Zionists” as a code for Jews. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an antisemitic forgery pretending to be the minutes of a secret meeting of Jewish leaders who plotted to control the world, was required reading under the Nazis.15 The neo-Nazis expanded this idea of a Jewish conspiracy, teaching that the United States and, later, other countries were dominated by “Zionist Occupied Governments” (ZOG).16 There are, however, a tiny minority of anti-Zionists who are not antisemites. Groups like the Satmar, a sect of Ultra-Orthodox Jews numbering around 120,000, object to the idea of a Jewish state on ­religious grounds, without employing antisemitic arguments. Other groups or individuals who object to the idea of nation states, without 12 Paul Lewis, “U.N. Repeals Its ‘75 Resolution Equating Zionism with Racism,” New York Times, December 17, 1991, http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/ world/un-repeals-its-75-resolution-equating-zionism-with-racism.html. 13 Herb Keinon, “‘Zionism Is Racism’—A Dead Issue,” Jerusalem Post, September 2, 2001, forums.canadiancontent.net/international-politics/57579-Zionism-racismdead-issue.html. 14 Adam Shay, “Manipulation and Deception: The Anti-Israel ‘BDS’ Campaign (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions),” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, March 19, 2012, http://jcpa.org/article/manipulation-and-deception-the-antiisrael-bds-campaign-boycott-divestment-and-sanctions/. 15 Esther Webman, The Global Impact of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: A Century-Old Myth (New York: Routledge, 2012), 4. 16 Jessie Daniels, White Lies: Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality in White Supremacist Discourse (New York: Routledge, 1997), 45.

337

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

focusing on Israel as the first nation to be dismantled, are also anti-­ Zionist, but not antisemitic. My study is not about these few, but about the vast majority of anti-Zionists who are anti-Jewish and find “anti-­ Zionism” to be a more acceptable way of clothing their antisemitism. Antisemitism in the guise of anti-Zionism is not a problem of the past, but one causing problems today, from college campuses to the international arena. The historian Robert Wistrich warned of the danger as long ago as 1984: “It can be compared to the threat posed to Jews by Nazism in the period of its upsurge—before it assumed governmental power.”17 That danger is increasing through the spread of misinformation via the Internet. To combat it, we need to know more than the history of anti-Zionism. We need to enter that perverse online looking-glass world, understanding that what is said has nothing whatsoever to do with a Zionist concept of Zionism. The two concepts of Zionism are as different and unrelated as the bark of the dog and the bark of the tree. To combat antisemitism in the guise of anti-Zionism, one needs knowledge of this form of antisemitism far more than one needs knowledge of Zionism. To that end, the next section steps through the looking glass to present the antisemites’ view of Zionism. Following the advice of a unicorn for managing things on the other side of a looking glass, I’ll “hand it round first, and cut it ­afterwards.”18 That is, I’ll present the arguments; then I’ll take a vorpal blade and dissect them.19 After this I will discuss how these arguments appear in social media, and then consider what should be done in response to this growing problem. 17 Robert Wistrich, “Anti-Zionism as an Expression of Anti-Semitism in Recent Years,” lecture held on December 10, 1984, at Study Circle on World Jewry in the home of the president of Israel, http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/Antizionism. htm. 18 Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There (1896), 99, https://birrell.org/andrew/alice/lGlass.pdf. 19 Ibid., 20.

338

Zionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass

CHAPTER 12

Through the Looking Glass Zionism Should Not Be Equated with Judaism Our journey through the looking glass begins with the allegation that “Judaism is not Zionism.”20 Confusing these terms is a “terrible mistake,” explains Neturei Karta, the third site that appears in a Google search for Zionism.21 The site warns that “Zionists have deceived many well meaning Jewish people via terror, trickery and false propaganda. They have at their disposal the use of a nearly universally subservient media. Whoever attempts to criticize them puts his livelihood and, at times, his very life in danger.”22 True Torah Jews, ranked fourth, agrees. It provides a list of quotations that “alone are enough proof that almost all of the greatest sages and leaders of the Jewish people opposed the establishment of a Jewish state.”23 So what is Zionism if it is entirely unrelated to Judaism? The site Serendipity, ranked eighth in a Google search for Zionism, provides the answer.24 It explains that Zionism “seeks to dominate all of Palestine and the Middle East by means of violence and the threat of violence . . . and to maximize its influence in world affairs and in world history, principally by means of control of the government of the USA . . . at the expense of the social wellbeing not only of the Palestinians but of the peoples of all lands.”25 Serendipity explains that the Zionists want “this state [Israel] to be for-Jews-only, thus the desire and intention to expel from Israeli-controlled territory all the indigenous inhabitants,” which, it explains, is “sometimes known as ethnic cleansing, a concept derived from the Nazi practice” with respect to the Jews.26 20 Neturei Karta International, http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/judaism_ isnot_zionism.cfm. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 True Torah Jews, “What Is Zionism,” http://www.truetorahjews.org/what­­­i­szionism. 24 Serendipity, “Zionism,” http://www.serendipity.li/zionism.htm. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid.

339

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

Zionism Is Not Categorically Different from Nazism Like Neturei Karta, Serendipity is also at pains to remind us that “Zionism should not be equated with Judaism.” It warns that the “contemptible treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli ­government is supported and approved of by many Jews but not by all Jews,” and gives examples of those who are opposed. The first example is a link to JewsAgainstZionism.com, which redirects to the True Torah Jews site. The second example is Not In My Name, the earlier name of the Chicago Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace.27 The third is the Neturei Karta site. Serendipity goes on to explain just how bad Zionism is with a quote from Gilad Atzmon, “Zionism is . . . racist, it is nationalist, and it is Biblically inspired (rather than spiritually inspired). Being a fundamentalist movement, Zionism is not categorically different from Nazism. Only when we understand Zionism in its nationalist and racist context will we begin to comprehend the depth of its atrocities.” The Nazi analogy is growing in popularity. The Palestinian Genocide website provides a list of quotes from political leaders and luminaries who have described Gaza as a concentration camp.28 It features British prime minister David Cameron, MIT professor Noam Chomsky, Lawrence Weschler, former staff writer at The New Yorker, American political commentator Pat Buchanan, former British deputy prime minister Baron Prescott, Vatican diplomat Cardinal Renato Martino, Tony Blair’s sister-in-law Lauren Booth, British politician George Galloway, and many others. Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis An article by Mark Weber in the Journal of Historical Review informs readers of the “wide-ranging collaboration between Zionism and 27 http://www.jvpchicago.org. 28 “Gaza Concentration Camp—The Most Horribly Abused and Largest Concentration Camp in the World Today,” https://sites.google.com/site/­palestin­ iangenocide/gaza-concentration.

340

Zionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass

CHAPTER 12

Hitler’s Third Reich.”29 Taking a very different approach from that of Serendipity, Weber argues that Jewish Zionists and German National Socialists (Nazis) agreed that “Jews and Germans were distinctly different nationalities,” and that as a result Jews in the Third Reich were not “Germans of the Jewish faith,” but foreigners with no claim to equal rights with (non-Jewish) German citizens.30 Weber notes that a Zionist publication welcomed the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws,31 and explains how German authorities ­cooperated with German Zionists, helping them to run camps and ­agricultural centers to train for life in what would become Israel. He writes of ­cooperation between the SS and the Haganah, the precursor of the Israel Defense Forces, noting that the cooperation “even included secret ­deliveries of German weapons to Jewish settlers for use in clashes with Palestinian Arabs.” Weber also discusses the “Transfer Agreement” between the World Zionist Organization and German officials in which German Jews, along with their assets, would be sent to British Mandatory Palestine with the support of Nazi Germany. 32 In his PhD thesis, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas took these claims further, explaining how the “Zionist movement led a broad campaign of incitement against the Jews living under Nazi rule to arouse the government’s hatred of them, to fuel vengeance against them and to expand the mass extermination.”33 The Zionist–Nazi collaboration is “proven” on multiple sites by displaying pictures of a medal bearing a swastika on one side, and a Jewish star and reference to “Palestina” on the other.34 The website Rense.com takes it a step further with what purports to be a letter 29 Mark Weber, “Zionism and the Third Reich,” Journal of Historical Review 13, no. 4 (1993): 29–37, http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Mahmoud Abbas, “The Other Side: The Secret Relationship between Nazism and Zionism” (PhD diss., Moscow State University, 1983); cited in Chris McGreal, “Arafat Forced to Give Up Most Powers to New PM,” The Guardian, March 19, 2003, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/19/usa.israel. 34 Rense.com, “Zionist-Nazi Collaboration: From Rivka Cohen, 7-12-9,” http:// rense.com/general86/nzz.htm.

341

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

from a Rivka Cohen discussing the medal and stating that “in reality the Zionist leadership and the Nazis were the best of friends.”

Cleaning the Glass Neturei Karta—in Reality—a Most Extreme Fringe The idea that real Jews are not Zionists is mostly promoted by Neturei Karta, a small sect of Ultra-Orthodox Jews created in 1935 to oppose Zionism and later the State of Israel.35 Numbering only a few t­ housand by their own estimates,36 Neturei Karta has been described as the “most extreme fringe of the Haredim m ­ ovement.”37 Members attended the Iranian Holocaust denial conference in 2006,38 have been pictured giving the inverted “Heil Hitler” salute,39 and marched in support of the far-right Hungarian political party Jobbik.40 Although many Jewish leaders outside the Zionist movement were opposed, for various reasons, to the establishment of a Jewish state prior to the founding of the State of Israel, today the vast majority of Jewish people, Jewish leaders, and Jewish organizations describe themselves as Zionists. A major survey in Australia, for example, found that 81 percent of the Jews in a sample of almost 5,700 described themselves as

35 Melanie J. Wright, Studying Judaism: The Critical Issues (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2012), 107. 36 Neturei Karta, “What Is the Neturei Karta?” http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/. 37 Peter Herriot, Religious Fundamentalism: Global, Local and Personal (New York: Routledge, 2008), 249. 38 Assaf Uni, “Neturei Karta Delegate to Iranian Holocaust Conference: I Pray for Israel’s Destruction ‘In Peaceful Ways,’” Haaretz, January 7, 2007, http://www. haaretz.com/neturei-karta-delegate-to-iranian-holocaust-conference-ipray-for-israel-s-destruction-in-peaceful-ways-1.209305. 39 @israel_shield, When Neturei Karta Lost the Torah, Jewish Press.com, February 12, 2015,  http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/israel-shield/when-netureikarta-lost-the-torah/2015/02/12/0/?print. 40 Ari Soffer, “Neturei Karta Demonstrate in Support of Hungarian Anti-Semite,” Arutz Sheva, January 29, 2014, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/176867#.VoDMg_n5i9I.

342

Zionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass

CHAPTER 12

Zionists.41 Support was highest among those who identified as Modern Orthodox (19% of the sample), where 93 percent describe themselves as Zionists.42 Organizations such as the World Jewish Congress, which includes representatives of national Jewish bodies from more than 100 countries, recognize the “centrality of the State of Israel to contemporary Jewish identity.”43 Famous Jews who supported Zionism include Albert Einstein,44 Abraham Isaac Kook, one of the most celebrated twentieth-century rabbis,45 and, ­apparently, Harry Houdini.46 Sigmund Freud was sympathetic to the Zionist ideal, though opposed to aspects of it.47 It is, in fact, illogical to separate Zionism, self-determination for the Jewish people, from the Jewish people themselves. Doing so is no more than a rhetorical device to give antisemitism a veneer of l­egitimacy. For as long as antisemites have engaged in this game of words, people have stepped forward to expose them. Perhaps the most famous is Martin Luther King Jr., who, at a dinner on October 27, 1967, responded to a comment about Zionists: “Don’t talk like that! When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!”48 This quote continues to discomfort those trying to attack Zionism as a form of racism. In response, there have been efforts to discredit the quote, despite ample evidence of its veracity.49 41 Andrew Markus, GEN08 Jewish Continuity Report (Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, Monash University, 2011), 54. 42 Ibid. 43 World Jewish Congress, “Mission Statement,” http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/about. 44 “Albert Einstein and Zionism,” http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/ Albert_Einstein_zionism.htm. 45 Yehudah Mirsky, “Abraham Isaac Kook Receives the Call,” Mosaic, February 10, 2014, http://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2014/02/abraham-isaac-kookreceives-the-call/. 46 Joshua Spivak, “The True Story of Harry Houdini’s Tefillin,” Forward, March 24, 2015, http://forward.com/culture/214053/the-true-story-of-harry-houdinis-tefillin/. 47 Amalia Rosenblum, “Analyze This,” Haaretz, January 11, 2007, http://www. haaretz.com/israel-news/analyze-this-1.209770. 48 Seymour Martin Lipset, “The Left, the Jews & Israel,” Encounter, December 1969, 24, http://www.unz.org/Pub/Encounter-1969dec-00024. 49 Douglas Anthony Cooper, “Sorry, Dr. King Did Not Consider You an Enlightened Anti-Zionist. Deal with It,” Huffington Post, November 18, 2011, http://www.

343

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

Conspiracy Sites Continue an Old Tradition The Serendipity site is wide-ranging. It seeks to prove that 9/11 was a hoax;50 that the Waco siege was a deliberate massacre organized by the U.S. government,51 and that Princess Diana’s death was a state-­ordered assassination.52 The site also campaigns for Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel,53 and publishes AIDS conspiracy theorist Alan Cantwell Jr.54 It is a conspiracy theory site rather than a reputable source. People are led astray because it often quotes from other sources, some legitimate, wedged between its own inventive additions. Antisemitic discourse contains many conspiracy theories, and the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a Rosetta Stone that brings them all together. The Anti-Defamation League noted how the Protocols have “been heralded by antisemites as proof that Jews are plotting to take over the world.”55 The Protocols are, however, a well-documented fake, debunked in courts of law,56 the press,57 and books on the topic.58

huffingtonpost.ca/douglas-anthony-cooper/martin-luther-king_b_1091950. html. 50 John Kaminski, “9/11 was a Hoax: The American Government Killed Its Own People,” http://www.serendipity.li/wot/911_a_hoax.htm. 51 “The Waco Massacre,” http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html. 52 “The Murder of Princess Diana,” http://www.serendipity.li/more/diana_ murder.htm. 53 Peter Meyer, “Ernst Zündel and the Zündel Heresy Trial,” http://www.serendipity.li/hr/zundel.htm. 54 Alan Cantwell Jr., M.D., “The Secret Origin of AIDS and HIV,” http://www. serendipity.li/more/cantwell.htm. 55 “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion: A Hoax of Hate,” Anti-Defamation League, June 1990, http://archive.adl.org/special_reports/protocols/print.html. 56 Ibid. 57 Brian Handwerk, “Anti-Semitic ‘Protocols of Zion’ Endure, Despite Debunking,” National Geographic News, September 11, 2006, http://news.nationalgeographic. com/news/2006/09/060911-zion.html. 58 Hadassa Ben-Itto, The Lie That Wouldn’t Die: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (London: Vallentine Mitchell, 2005).

344

Zionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass

CHAPTER 12

Holocaust Denial and Inversion Holocaust denial is a particular flavor of conspiracy theory. The public, however, generally strongly rejects it. In a survey of American librarians, for example, all who expressed an opinion found Holocaust denial material at least as offensive as, and almost half found it more offensive than, other forms of material that might elicit protest from library patrons.59 Despite this, Holocaust denial— especially Holocaust inversion—is often found mixed in with antisemitic anti-Zionism. The Journal of Historical Review is published by the Institute for Historical Review, the “central institution” for a “loosely-organized international network of Holocaust deniers.”60 At its first convention in 1979, the Institute for Historical Review passed a resolution claiming that “the facts surrounding the allegations that gas chambers existed in occupied Europe during World War II are ­ demonstrably false” and that “the whole theory of ‘the holocaust’ has been created by and promulgated by political Zionism for the attainment of political and economic ends, specifically the continued and perpetual support of the military aggression of Israel by the people of Germany and the US.”61 Richard Evans, a scholar of German History at Cambridge University, noted that none of the board members of the Institute for Historical Review holds a degree in history, nor are any of them established historians.62 He added that the “Journal and its parent institute have a political rather than an academic background.”63 A statement 59 John A. Drobnicki; Carol R. Goldman; Trina R. Knight, and Johanna V. Thomas, “Holocaust-Denial Literature in Public Libraries: An Investigation of Public Librarians’ Attitudes Regarding Acquisition and Access” (York College Publications and Research, 1995), 20, http://academicworks.cuny.edu/yc_pubs/40. 60 Richard Evans, “Expert Report by Professor Richard Evans Submitted in Evidence in the Case of Irving vs Lipstadt and Penguin Books (2000), cl 3.5.1, http://www. phdn.org/negation/irving/EvansReport.pdf. 61 Ibid., cl 3.5.2. 62 Ibid., cl 3.5.8. 63 Ibid., cl 3.5.9.

345

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

by the Organization of American Historians characterized the Journal of Historical Review as “nothing but a masquerade of scholarship.”64 Unlike much of the content discussed in the “Through the Looking Glass” section, above, the Transfer Agreement of 1933, also known as the Haavara Agreement, was real. In the early months of the Hitler regime, a controversial pact was agreed upon by the Third Reich and Zionist organizations. Around 60,000 Jews were ­transported, and $100 million—more than $1.8 billion in today’s money—was transferred to the Jewish community in British Mandatory Palestine. The agreement lasted until the start of World War II in 1939, at which point its implementation became ­impractical. It predated the mass confiscation, expulsion, and ­extermination policies of the Third Reich. Edwin Black provides a full treatment of the subject in The Transfer Agreement.65 Robert Wistrich noted how Arab leaders, particularly Palestinians, failed to absorb the horror of the Holocaust and suppressed the real collaboration of certain Arab leaders, such as the grand mufti of Jerusalem, with the Nazis.66 Wistrich explained that as a result, many Arab and Palestinian leaders perceived the Holocaust as a political tool of the Zionists, and to counter it, they believed “the Palestinian tragedy had to be inflated into a new and even more horrific Holocaust instigated by Israel itself.”67 Wistrich pointed out that this could be seen as far back as December 4, 1961, when Ahmed Shukeiry, the first chairman of the PLO, told the UN that “Zionism was nastier than Fascism, uglier than Nazism, more hateful than imperialism, more dangerous than imperialism. Zionism was a combination of all these traits.” It is against this background that Abbas’s PhD thesis should be viewed. It maintained that the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust had been greatly exaggerated, a claim he has since 64 ADL, “Institute for Historical Review,” http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/ historical_review.html. 65 Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement (Washington, DC: Dialog Press, 2009). 66 Wistrich, “Anti-Zionism as an Expression of Anti-Semitism in Recent Years.” 67 Ibid.

346

Zionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass

CHAPTER 12

retracted.68 He has not, however, retracted his assertions about Zionist r­ esponsibility for the Holocaust, another form of Holocaust conspiracy theory.69 This derives from Soviet propaganda following the Arabs’ defeat in the Six-Day War in 1967. According to these claims, secret agreements allowed European Jews to be gassed in exchange for Nazi support for Zionism—specifically that the Zionists sought to create a “pro-Nazi” state in the Middle East and therefore facilitated the Holocaust, s­ abotaged Jewish resistance in the ghettos, and served as a fifth column for the Nazis in Europe.70 Wistrich observed that these “grotesque Soviet blood-libels” were later “taken up by a part of the radical Left—­ especially the Trotskyists—in Western Europe and America.”71 The accusers of Zionist complicity in the Holocaust point to a letter from “Rivka Cohen.” This letter is, however, easily debunked. It refers to “the famous ZIONAZI MEDAL which was struck by the Nazis (Goebbels) to commemorate our friendship.” The medal is actually a promotional token from the Berlin Nazi Party newspaper Der Angriff, founded by Joseph Goebbels. The text on the medal reads “EIN NAZI FÄHRT NACH PALÄSTINA” (“A Nazi Travels to Palestine”), the title of the series of articles sent to the paper by SS member Leopold Edler von Mildenstein when he traveled to Palestine.72 Mildenstein became the first head of the “Jewish Desk” in the SS and was succeeded in that position by Adolf Eichmann.73 At the time the medal was issued, the official Nazi policy was still to push the Jews to leave Germany, and the articles, 68 Jodi Rudoren, “Mahmoud Abbas Shifts on Holocaust,” New York Times, April 26, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/world/middleeast/palestinian-leader-­ shifts-on-holocaust.html?_r=0. 69 Yair Rosenberg, “Mahmoud Abbas: Still a Holocaust Denier,” Tablet, April 27, 2014, http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/170686/mahmoud-abbas-still-a-holocaustdenier. 70 Wistrich, “Anti-Zionism as an Expression of Anti-Semitism in Recent Years.” 71 Ibid. 72 “Germany: ‘Angriff’ Newspaper—‘A Nazi Travels to Palestine’ Promo Token, c. 1934,” Historama, http://www.historama.com/history-shop/judaic-medals-tokens/germany-angriff-newspaper-a-nazi-travels-to-palestine-promotoken,-c.1934-detail.html. 73 Ibid.

347

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

in a newspaper otherwise filled with antisemitism, were designed to encourage emigration, not to signify friendship. The Gaza Concentration Camp One form of Holocaust inversion is the comparison of Gaza to a concentration camp—thus making an analogy between Israel and the Nazis. This was seen in the looking glass at the Palestinian Genocide website. It also appears regularly in social media. The concentration camp analogy spiked in 2014 as a result of the Gaza war (Operation Protective Edge) and a social media strategy by Hamas, which told supporters to “avoid entering into a political argument with a Westerner aimed at convincing him that the Holocaust is a lie and deceit; instead, equate it with Israel’s crimes against Palestinian civilians.”74 The Palestinian Genocide website includes a range of real quotes, however, not all of which make an analogy with the Holocaust. Prime Minister Cameron called Gaza a “prison camp,” while Noam Chomsky called it “basically a prison, huge prison.” These quotes are included to make the page appear legitimate and its comparison between Israel and the Nazis plausible, even though the quotes themselves do not in any way support the comparison. Most of the quotes that do call Gaza a concentration camp are from pro-Palestinian activists. Many elicited considerable criticism. Cardinal Renato Martino’s comparison of Gaza to a concentration camp, for example, was described by Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi as “inopportune” and causing “irritation and confusion” rather than illumination.75 The comments by Lord Prescott, characterizing Gaza as a “concentration camp,” led the Board of Deputies of British Jews to call for misconduct p ­ roceedings 74 Andre Oboler, “Rise of Anti-Semitism from This War Is No Accident,” The Australian, August 11, 2014. 75 Rachel Donadio, “Israel Condemns Vatican’s ‘Concentration Camp’ Remarks,” New York Times, January 8, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/ middleeast/09vatican.html.

348

Zionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass

CHAPTER 12

to be initiated against him for “deeply offensive” comments that “trivialised the Holocaust.”76

The Impact in Social Media The narratives of antisemitic anti-Zionism can be traced back to Soviet propaganda, Arab and Palestinian propaganda, Holocaust deniers, and religious fringe movements. Their impact, however, comes not from these sites, but from the spread of memes through social media and comment sections of online newspapers. A meme is generally thought of as an image with some overlaid text, often made using online tools such as Meme Generator and Quick Meme.77 Most memes are harmless fun but some are used to spread antisemitism,78 racism,79 religious vilification,80 or other forms of hate. The idea of a meme, however, is broader. The term was coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976). He ­identified a meme as “a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of ­ imitation,” and explained that these units “propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad 76 Matthew Holehouse, “Gaza: Lord Prescott Accused of ‘Trivialising Holocaust,’” The Telegraph, August 1, 2014, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/ 11005105/Gaza-Lord-Prescott-accused-of-trivialising-Holocaust.html. 77 Andre Oboler, “Aboriginal Memes and Online Hate,” Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI), 2012, 12, http://ohpi.org.au/aboriginal-memes-and-online-hate/ 78 Andre Oboler, “The Antisemitic Meme of the Jew,” OHPI, 2014, http://ohpi. org.au/the-antisemitic-meme-of-the-jew/. 79 Oboler, “Aboriginal Memes and Online Hate.” 80 Andre Oboler, “Islamophobia on the Internet: The Growth of Online Hate Targeting Muslims,” OHPI, 2013, http://ohpi.org.au/islamophobia-on-theinternet-the-growth-of-online-hate-targeting-muslims/.

349

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

sense, can be called imitation.”81 Dawkins gives as examples “tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches.”82 Others, however, have pointed out that antisemitism is also a meme.83 The core messages of antisemitic anti-Zionism—that is, Zionism as seen through the looking glass—appear regularly as memes in social media. They appear both in the form of the typical Internet image meme and in the broader context as an idea that appears and reappears in online conversation. Unfortunately, the memes gain traction and are impossible to dislodge. Few people who see them in social media investigate. Often, the ideas behind the memes are quickly Googled—used to support existing positions in online ­arguments. The situation is the same as that with online hoaxes, which, despite the best efforts of websites like Snoops to debunk them, just continue to circulate. Graphical images representing Israel as a Nazi state, claiming Mossad was responsible for 9/11, or that an accusation of ­antisemitism is no more than a way to silence criticism of Israel spread rapidly and survive online for years, as they are reposted again and again. The Graphical Memes The report “Recognizing Hate Speech: Antisemitism on Facebook” gave an overview of some of these memes.84 One included a blue-and-white image resembling the Israeli flag but with a rat in its center emblazoned with a Jewish star and the words “The Real Plague” above it. The meme linked Nazi dehumanization of Jews—which built on antisemitic ideas from the Middle Ages—with Zionism and Israel.

81 Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, [1976], 2006). 82 Ibid. 83 James Gleick, “What Defines a Meme?” Smithsonian Magazine, May 2011, http://www. smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/What-Defines-a-Meme.html?c=y&page=4. 84 Andre Oboler, “Recognizing Hate Speech: Antisemitism on Facebook,” OHPI, 2013, http://ohpi.org.au/recognizing-hate-speech-antisemitism-on-facebook/.

350

Zionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass

CHAPTER 12

Another meme featured a banner of a torn Israeli flag, exposing a Nazi flag behind it. A small label on the banner reads “NAZIONISMO,” a combination of “Nazi” and “Zionismo,” Italian for Zionism. The English equivalent “Zionazi” is also popular online; a Google search on the term returns 56,700 results. An image search on the term shows the way this idea has spread. Many of the images integrate a Nazi swastika into the design of the Israeli flag; others integrate the Jewish star into Nazi symbols. Also shown in the search results are images of Neturei Karta members holding signs proclaiming “Zionism Is State Organized Terror” and images juxtaposing Prime Minister Netanyahu and Hitler. One image shows a man carrying two signs—one calling on people to “Target All Zionist Businesses” and the other teaching that “every Zionazi is a legitimate military target.” Images like these can easily be found through search engines and shared through social media time and time again. This ­normalizes the message of anti-Zionist antisemitism and is a form of “Antisemitism 2.0.”85 Once normalized, these messages become conceptual memes—that is, memes in the more general sense, as they morph and reappear in conversations. The Conceptual Memes The memes representing antisemitic anti-Zionism are becoming more common in social media. Some provide short comments and links to external sources; others repeat or hint at antisemitic narratives. The most disturbing expression of the antisemitic ­ 85 Andre Oboler, “Online Antisemitism 2.0: ‘Social Antisemitism’ on the ‘Social Web,’” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, April 1, 2008, http://jcpa.org/article/ online-antisemitism-2-0-social-antisemitism-on-the-social-web/.

351

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

anti-­Zionist meme I’ve encountered was a Facebook post during the Gaza conflict in 2014. Posted by a human rights activist, it argued that the situation in Gaza was so bad that antisemitic propaganda was ­justified. There are comments on Twitter that start by accusing 352

Zionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass

CHAPTER 12

Israel of war crimes and end with “kill the Jews.” One Facebook post completely inverted the situation when it argued that calling comparisons of Israel and the Nazis antisemitic was in itself a form of racism and Holocaust denial. The conceptual memes appear whenever a discussion about antisemitism takes place, even when the discussion is unrelated to Zionism, Israel, or the Middle East. Any expression of concern about antisemitism seems to compel some people to share memes that seek to undermine concern about racism against Jews. A post on Facebook about Holocaust Memorial Day in 2016, for example, attracted not only the traditional Holocaust denials, but comments such as “True: Denying the Holocaust of the Palestinians is current” and a reply from another user, “Yeah but for some reason its globally accepted. And when you mention anything about Israel’s actions you are labeled antisemitic. Which I’m not.”86 This promotes the narrative of Palestinian suffering as greater than that of Jews in the Holocaust, thereby justifying, ignoring, or downplaying the Holocaust, even on Holocaust Memorial Day. The report adds still another meme—the idea that claims of antisemitism can be ignored. This is a significant problem on the political Left, which is often only willing to recognize antisemitism if it comes dressed in a Nazi uniform. A post on Holocaust Memorial Day 2015 also elicited ­antisemitic comments. One read, “Israel is the new Nazi Apartheid state,” and proceeded to mix legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy with comments trivializing, and questioning the reality of, the Holocaust.87 Other memes included the cry “anti-Zionism does not mean antisemitism,” a true statement in itself, but which is used to mean “anti-Zionism cannot also be antisemitic,” which is plainly false. It’s like a person arguing that “killing does not mean murder”; some killing may be lawful, but this statement is no defense when someone has committed murder. 86 “Unbelievable Responses on Holocaust Memorial Day,” OHPI, January 28, 2016, http://ohpi.org.au/unbelievable-responses-on-holocaust-memorial-day/. 87 “Modern Antisemitism: The Holocaust and Other Genocides,” OHPI, February 16, 2015, http://ohpi.org.au/modern-antisemitism-the-holocaust-and-other-genocides/.

353

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

The 2015 post also attracted comments promoting the meme of Zionist–Nazi collaboration. “This was a Zionist plot to get Israel back. Research Zionist Agenda,” one commenter advised.88 Another res­pon­ded, “I believe you have failed because you have focused on ONE atrocity, on one group of humanity only, in our human history and thereby unwittingly joined the Zionist strategy to hide Israel’s crimes.”89 The idea that it is unacceptable to focus on antisemitism, even when speaking about the Holocaust, and even on UN International Holocaust Remembrance Day, is itself a growing meme. Another post highlights this directly: “Jews were not the only religion that were persecuted. They need to ‘let it go’ and stop being the victim. Only then will there be peace in Palestine.”90 It’s hard to understand how forgetting the Holocaust would advance either peace or human rights, unless the idea is to make these advances at the expense of the Jewish people. Forgetting Jewish suffering would certainly make it easier to ignore the Zionist concern for the safety and security of the Jewish people. This is the meme promoted by the Arabs and Palestinians all along, even if it is now expressed by people who regard themselves as peace activists and anti-racism activists. Online Antisemitism Is More Than a Virtual Danger The impact of antisemitic memes spread through social media is not limited to the online world. The ideas they promote spill over into conversations in work places, among elected officials, and within media organizations. Politicians broadcast them to the world. Antisemitic memes have a particular impact on college campuses, given that students are more engaged with online content and likely

88 Ibid. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid.

354

Zionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass

CHAPTER 12

to take what they learn online into campus life.91 In February 2016, Alex Chalmers, co-chair of the Oxford University Labour Club, resigned his position, explaining that a large portion of the club and the student Left in general at Oxford “have some kind of problem with Jews.”92 The Union of Jewish Students, the main body ­representing Jewish students in the UK, expressed alarm, given that alumni of the student club often go on to careers in national politics. 93 The incidents described by Chalmers include casual references to Jews as “Zio” by members of the club executive, a former co-chair of the club declaring that “most accusations of antisemitism are just the Zionists crying wolf.” He refers to criticisms of Israeli policy that “unwittingly rehash age-old sinister tropes about sinister Jewish control” and observes that those who were called out failed to see the problem.94 Chalmers notes that it isn’t that “everyone on the Left is an old-fashioned anti-Semite, but more that people are prepared to turn a blind eye” to antisemitism and that “it’s very difficult to make people actually pay attention.”95 The change in cultural values, in which people appear i­ncreasingly immune to criticism for being antisemitic, is a key feature of Antisemitism 2.0. It is also one of the reasons the ­combination of antisemitism and social media is so dangerous.96 The Oxford University Labour Club is far from the only group spreading memes of anti-Zionist antisemitism, which are being embedded in society through social media. 91 Andre Oboler, “Online Antisemitism: The Internet and the Campus,” in Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present, ed. Eunice G. Pollack (Academic Studies Press, 2010), 330–52. 92 Yair Rosenberg, “Oxford’s Labour Club Co-Chair Resigns, Citing Anti-Semitism on the Campus Left,” Tablet, February 16, 2016, http://www.tabletmag.com/ scroll/197744/oxfords-labour-club-co-chair-resigns-citing-anti-semitismon-the-campus-left. 93 Eylon Aslan-Levy, “Oxford Student Leader Resigns as Vote Endorses Israel Apartheid Week,” Times of Israel, February 16, 2016, http://www.timesofisrael. com/oxford-student-leader-resigns-as-vote-endorses-israel-apartheid-week/. 94 Ibid. 95 Ibid. 96 Oboler, “Online Antisemitism 2.0: ‘Social Antisemitism’ on the ‘Social Web.’”

355

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

Countering the Hate One response to online hate speech is to seek its removal. When it comes to websites, removal is not a permanent solution, because the sites will readily move to a new domain or a new host. Closing a hate site is still valuable, however, as it temporarily disrupts the spread of hate. The site may be down for a time, and if the domain name changes, the content may lose visibility in search results, and links spreading the antisemitic poison may be broken. This reduces the impact of the antisemitic content. Social media removals can be far more effective because of the virtual monopoly of the major companies. If content is removed from Facebook, its potential audience immediately drops. More importantly, its antisemitic message is less likely to enter m ­ ainstream discussions. Social media platforms provide mechanisms for reporting online hate, such as antisemitism, but they are not ­particularly good at responding to these reports. In a sample of over 2,000 antisemitic items reported to Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, only 20 percent were removed within ten months.97 The effectiveness of removal varies by social media ­platform: Facebook removed 37 percent of the reported content, Twitter 22 percent, and YouTube just 8 percent.98 The results, however, become even worse when the content is the “New Antisemitism,” that is, antisemitism related to Israel, which includes most varieties of anti-Zionist antisemitism. In regard to the “New Antisemitism”: Facebook removed 27 percent, Twitter 20 percent, and YouTube just 4 percent.99 More needs to be done to pressure social media companies to take their responsibility to prevent the spread of antisemitism more seriously. Another approach is to debunk the myths and expose the ­antisemitic nature of the posts. This isn’t, however, always possible. 97 Andre Oboler, “Measuring the Hate: The State of Antisemitism in Social Media,” Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism, 2016, mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/ AntiSemitism/Pages/Measuring-the-Hate-Antisemitism-in-Social-Media.aspx. 98 Ibid., 7. 99 Ibid.

356

Zionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass

CHAPTER 12

On a Facebook page dedicated to spreading anti-Zionist a­ ntisemitism, posts that call attention to the antisemitism are likely to be removed, and those who post them are likely to be both banned and targeted for online harassment. In other cases, for example, on the pages of media organizations, responses may be possible and should be encouraged. This should occur concurrently with a push to remove the antisemitic content. Antisemitism is defamation of the Jewish people, and although a rigorous response and defense should always be pursued, it has long been recognized that this is not enough, as even the discussion itself damages those defamed. The approach to defamation has always been removal and penalties for republication. In the case of hate speech, there is the additional argument that it undermines what U.S. legal scholar Jeremy Waldron called the “public good of inclusiveness” in a society that gives people the “assurance that there will be no need to face hostility, violence, discrimination, or e­ xclusion by others” as they go about their daily lives.100 Telling target groups they have the obligation to continually reply creates the sort of hostile environment that led Alex Chalmers to resign. Such an environment is not good for those who are targeted, or for the social media platforms, which the targeted groups will ­eventually be pushed to leave. Online marketers have suggested another approach—to find online opinion leaders active in related spaces, such as Middle East politics, and engage with them. This device is often used for product placement, or to create positive discussion about a product, or ­negative discussion about a competitor. These methods work well in a sparse marketplace where the aim is increased exposure, but are likely to be far less effective in countering memes embedded in online society. Additional voices who speak out against anti-Zionist antisemitism can, however, help in raising awareness of the problem. Unfortunately, in the stream of discussion flowing past anyone with significant online influence, the chance of a comment being seen or having an impact is small. 100 Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), 4–6.

357

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

Some online marketers have suggested finding the most ­influential antisemites and engaging with them. This idea is based on the a­ssumption that there are “leaders” of antisemitism, like there are leaders of political movements. It also assumes these leaders set the messaging for their followers. This may well apply to some ­antisemites—neo-Nazis, professional Holocaust deniers, and Islamists—but is only a small part of the problem when it comes to the sharing and promotion of antisemitic memes. Antisemitism is not the ideology of a unified political movement; it is better compared to a field, such as music, where some songs are heavily promoted by known labels, but others just appear and spread. In many cases, new antisemitic memes do not emerge through a well-defined channel. They spread from person to person like ­bootlegged music, and without knowing quite how, the message and idea become mainstream. Going viral is an aggregate effect, which may involve a number of people promoting content, or many telling a few friends, who pass it on. In choosing an approach for tackling antisemitic memes, one cannot assume there is an ­organized structure for their production and promotion. We can’t always stop the original producers of antisemitic content, and we can’t always identify who is spreading it, especially when many people are involved, each in a small way. We also need to recognize that what is spreading is a meme, not an exact duplicate like a pirated song or film. It is the idea, the story, the quote, which is told and retold. Many of those promoting antisemitic ideas are not looking for depth; they dip shallowly into many sources, seeing, absorbing, quoting, and reframing the arguments. This constant production of fresh antisemitic content, originating in many different accounts, means that each expression of the same ­underlying antisemitic idea must be evaluated separately. This brings us back to the platforms that allow the content to go viral. Through the right policies, training, and commitment, social media companies like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter can prevent the hate from going viral. It will be a constant battle, and one requiring resources, but that is the cost of doing business in the 358

Zionism through the Internet’s Looking Glass

CHAPTER 12

social media space. If we can encourage the companies to improve the rate at which antisemitic content is removed, we would not only prevent it from spreading, but we would be sending a clear signal that antisemitism is socially unacceptable.

Conclusion The aim of this chapter has been to show how embedded anti-­ Zionist libels are in the fabric of the online world. Both the old web accessed through search engines and the new web of social media contain their share of anti-Zionist antisemitism. The narratives that emerge from different sources twist and weave together, increasing their strength; they are then repeated, reworded, and redrawn by many hands. Absurdities, like antiracists citing Holocaust deniers, become the norm. This needs a response both online and in the resulting public discourse. The online response must both expose the antisemitic nature of much of the anti-Zionist content and strengthen the narrative of Zionism itself for a general audience. Links to positive material can help to change the fabric of the online world, as seen by the campaign that Ami Isseroff and I have undertaken, starting in 2004 with sites like ZionismOnTheWeb.org and ZionismIsrael.com, and appeals for cooperation among Zionist websites.101 In debate, we must start by recognizing that the antisemites’ “Zionism” is entirely unrelated to Zionism itself. We must highlight that what they are speaking about is a daemon constructed by racist propaganda and used to justify the killing of Jews. We must support rigorous debate on Israeli policies yet be unafraid to speak up when the line into antisemitism is crossed. When others agree the line was crossed, but fail to see why it needs a response, that too must be treated as a pressing issue. As for social media, the best solution is an effective response by social media companies each time antisemitic content is reported. 101 Cnaan Liphshiz, “Getting Google to Work for Us,” Haaretz, June 27, 2008, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/994622.html.

359

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

Unfortunately, their current level of response leaves much to be desired. We need to invest our resources in continually measuring their response rates and pressing them to improve. We need to work with the ­companies to better educate their staff, and to close the gap between what the public believe is antisemitic and ought to be removed and what the platforms actually delete. The gap won’t close entirely, because some cases are debatable, but there is significant room for ­improvement before that point is reached. Outside the United States, governments with laws against hate speech need to consider how those laws can be applied to social media and what minimum expectations should be established for the social media platforms themselves. More than thirty years ago, Robert Wistrich warned that “through anti-Zionism, a revival of all the latent murderous potential of antisemitism is in fact already taking place.”102 We must denounce that anti-Zionism when we see it, and expose its antisemitic roots.

102 Wistrich, “Anti-Zionism as an Expression of Anti-Semitism in Recent Years.”

360

CHAPTER 13

Perspectives on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Contemporary Canada Ira Robinson

Six million victims have not rooted out anti-Semitism. There are days when the progress of the human race seems dismally slow. —André Laurendeau1

F

 rom many perspectives, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, life has never been better for Canada’s Jews. The quotas, barriers, and restrictions of an earlier period of Canadian history are largely gone, though hardly forgotten. In 1983, Irving Abella and Harold Troper wrote their now classic study, None Is Too Many, describing Canada prior to 1948 as a country “with immigration policies that were racist and exclusionary, a country blighted with an oppressive anti-Semitism in which Jews were the pariahs of Canadian society, demeaned, despised, and discriminated against.”2 In contrast, Abella asserted in a newspaper article marking the thirtieth anniversary of the book’s publication that “today’s Canada

  1 André Laurendeau, Witness for Quebec (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1973), 278.   2 This chapter is a revised version of a portion of my book: Ira Robinson, A History of Antisemitism in Canada (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier, 2015).

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

is far different—generous, open, decent, humane.”3 It is clear, as Abella has stated elsewhere, that Jews now hold prominent positions in many sectors of Canadian society that were practically u ­ nattainable a generation or two ago.4 Yet he also comments: “There remain ­significant pockets of discrimination and racism. Nazi war criminals and collaborators, thousands of whom were welcomed into this country immediately after the war, still live freely among us.”5 What, then, can be said of antisemitism in Canada today? Any approach to this question leads to ambiguity and paradox. To begin with, the considerable success Jews have achieved in almost every field raises the question of whether Jews’ perceptions of a­ ntisemitism match reality. Cyril Levitt and William Shaffir, for instance, have argued that in contemporary Canada antisemitism is nowhere near as pervasive as many in the Jewish community believe.6 This possible discrepancy has to be understood in the context of the psychological scarring that is one of the legacies of the Holocaust for Canadian Jewry.7 Even though the many survivors of the Holocaust who came to Canada in the mid-twentieth century are rapidly passing from the scene, as Eli Rubenstein states: “Children of Holocaust survivors, and the extended Jewish people, still deeply mourn the loss of six million of their ancestors, and they do so in a very personal way.”8 The perception of antisemitism is likely one of the ways in which the mourning is expressed. In any event, many Jewish Canadians feel that antisemitism is increasing, but they also believe their own safety is not compromised in any significant way. Thus in   3 Irving Abella and Harold Troper, None Is Too Many: Canada and the Jews of Europe, 1933–1948 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983); Irving Abella, “Never Again May Be None Too Many,” Globe and Mail (Toronto) (GM), February 26, 2013.   4 Irving Abella, A Coat of Many Colours: Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada (Toronto: Key Porter, 1999).   5 Abella, “Never Again May Be None Too Many.”   6 Cyril H. Levitt and William Shaffir, The Riot at Christie Pits (Toronto: Lester and Orpen Dennys, 1987), 286n1.   7 Ibid., 48–49, 200.   8 Eli Rubenstein, “Is the Holocaust Unique?” Canadian Jewish News (CJN), September 28, 2011, 33.

362

Perspectives on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Contemporary Canada

CHAPTER 13

a 2013 survey of Jews in Toronto, 61.1 percent of the respondents thought antisemitism in Toronto had increased over the past ten years, whereas only 6.3 percent thought it had declined.9 However, when the same survey asked, “As a member of the Jewish ­community, how safe do you feel?” the nearly unanimous response was either “somewhat safe” or “very safe.”10 This is consistent with earlier data from the United States, where a 1980s survey found that whereas most non-Jewish respondents who were aware of antisemitic ­incidents in that country believed that their number was either stable or declining, most Jews believed that the incidence of ­antisemitism was rising. Thus the Jews’ perception of their position in the United States was much more pessimistic than the corresponding perception of non-Jews.11 Similarly, a 1988 poll ­ found that 57 percent of American Jews believed that “when it comes to the crunch few non-Jews will come to Israel’s side in its struggle to survive.”12 Are the Jews, then, paranoid? Not entirely. According to a 2010 report, law enforcement studies both in the United States and Canada show that “when the motivation behind hate crimes is analyzed by religion, Jews are overwhelmingly and d ­ isproportionately targeted compared to other religious minorities.”13 According to Statistics Canada, of all police-reported hate crimes targeting a specific religion, hate crimes against Jews ranged from a high of 71.5 percent in 2009 to 55 percent in 2013.14 As a precautionary reaction to such reports, there has been a significant increase in recent years in the number and sophistication   9 Ronald Rotenberg and Sam Moses, “What Do You Think about Antisemitism in the GTA?” Jewish Tribune (JT), August 15, 2013, 12. 10 Ronald Rotenberg and Sam Moses, “Most Feel Safe at Shul, Work or Home,” JT, September 12, 2013, 7. 11 Gregory Martire and Ruth Clark, Anti-Semitism in the United States: A Study of Prejudice in the 1980s (New York: Praeger, 1982), 107–8. 12 Charles Liebman and Stephen Cohen, Two Worlds of Judaism: The Israeli and American Experience (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990), 42. 13 League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, 2009 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents (Downsview, 2010), 3. 14 Mario Silva, “Standing Up against Antisemitism” JT, July 7, 2011, 22.

363

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

of security guards at Jewish offices, schools, and synagogues in Canada. This is a direct consequence of the new globalized ­antisemitism.15 In March 2014, for example, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) announced that it was planning to train approximately twenty-five to fifty unarmed volunteers in the ­ ­ monitoring of ­antisemitic threats and vandalism in heavily Jewish neighborhoods in Toronto.16 Thus, though antisemitism is objectively in decline in Canada, it remains a live factor in the discourse of the Jewish community and of Canadian society as a whole. With respect to the Jewish community, as Morton Weinfeld, professor of sociology at McGill University, points out, antisemitism thrives in the sensibilities of Canadian Jews both individually and organizationally.17 Thus iconic antisemitic events, such as the 1933 Christie Pits riot in Toronto—which erupted after a baseball game between a team of Jewish boys and a team of non-Jewish boys in a public park—have become part of the collective historical memory of Toronto Jews, and the stories of the riot are now “told and retold at family gatherings with pride of people and place.”18 With respect to the consciousness of antisemitism on the part of Jews in contemporary Canada, historian Harold Troper has observed: Jewish students in my classes generally indicate familiarity with the major themes of antisemitism in Canadian history. When it comes to historical detail, however, much of what they “know” is wrong. I sense they feel a strong proprietary right to the history of antisemitism, to the Holocaust, and to the earlier era of overt 15 Morton Weinfeld, “The Changing Dimensions of Contemporary Canadian Antisemitism,” in Contemporary Antisemitism: Canada and the World, ed. Derek J. Penslar, Michael R. Marrus, and Janice Gross Stein (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005), 43. 16 “Community Security Network to Launch Pilot Program in Toronto,” CIJA (Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs), March 13, 2012, accessed August 12, 2014, http://www.cija.ca/community-partners/community-security-network-tolaunch-pilot-program-in-toronto/. 17 Morton Weinfeld, Like Everyone Else. . .but Different: The Paradoxical Success of Canadian Jews (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 2001), 319. 18 Bernie Farber, “Remembering the Christie Pits Riot,” CJN, August 5, 2013, 7.

364

Perspectives on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Contemporary Canada

CHAPTER 13

anti-Jewish discrimination in Canada. It is their proximate history, a basic element in their Jewish identity. . . . That their experience of antisemitism is secondhand or thirdhand, however, does not seem to weaken their deeply-held and often-expressed conviction that antisemitism is a clear and present danger today.19

It would not be a terribly bold step to extrapolate from the attitudes of Troper’s sample of Jewish university students to the Canadian Jewish community at large. As was the case almost a century ago, when Jewish activists established the Canadian Jewish Congress and assumed the burden of confronting antisemitism in Canada, the contemporary Jewish discourse on antisemitism has been dominated and shaped by Jewish organizations and their leaders.20 Today the fight against antisemitism in Canada, and its close companion anti-Zionism, is conducted by several agencies, whose agendas and messages differ considerably. They include most prominently the CIJA, which represents the major Jewish ­federations of Canada and sees itself as having taken over the task of fighting antisemitism from the now defunct Canadian Jewish Congress,21 and B’nai Brith Canada, whose League for Human Rights concentrates on the fight against antisemitism and has published an annual “Audit of Antisemitic Incidents in Canada” under various titles uninterruptedly since 1982.22 These major agencies do not, however, exhaust the organizational energies of the Canadian Jewish community in its struggle against antisemitism. To round 19 Harold Troper, “Ethnic Studies and the Classroom Discussion of Antisemitism: Personal Observations,” in Approaches to Antisemitism: Context and Curriculum, ed. Michael Brown (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1994), 202. 20 Penslar, Marrus, and Stein, Contemporary Antisemitism, 6. 21 See the CIJA website, http://www.cija.ca/ (accessed May 11, 2014). 22 The latest audit, “2013 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents,” is available online, accessed September 27, 2016, https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ bnaibrithcanada/pages/174/attachments/original/1431545387/Audit_2013_-_ English.pdf?1431545387; Cf. Joel Goldenberg, “Reported Anti-Semitic Incidents Down in Quebec: B’nai Brith Canada Audit,” The Suburban (Quebec), April 16, 2014, 9, 12.

365

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

out the list we should include the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research,23 the Canadian Institute for the Study of Antisemitism,24 the Canadian Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, 25 and Honest Reporting Canada.26 These groups are organized to detect and address antisemitism. They pay close attention to even relatively small antisemitic phenomena. When in 2013 a Toronto secondary school teacher posted a link to an Iranian website that contained antisemitic ­material and another to a strongly pro-Palestinian article by Richard Falk, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada contacted the school and the Toronto District School Board.27 In another recent incident, pro-Palestinian activists attempted to boycott an Israeli brand of hummus at the cafeteria of the University of Ottawa.28 These incidents are not atypical of those that make up the bulk of B’nai Brith Canada’s “Audit.” The scope and sophistication of the audit’s reporting have greatly increased in the more than thirty years in which it has appeared, as has the number of incidents uncovered. B’nai Brith Canada, “Canadian Jewry’s most senior human rights advocacy organization,” has heavily invested its resources in the effort to protect the Canadian Jewish community from ­antisemitism.29 In 2011, in a full-page advertisement in its journal, the Jewish Tribune (JT), it explained: “B’nai Brith operates as a fi ­ rewall between antisemitism and its victims.”30 Another advertisement, 23 See CIJR, http://www.isranet.org/. 24 See CISA, http://canisa.org/. 25 See Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, http://www. friendsofsimonwiesenthalcenter.com/. 26 See Honest Reporting Canada, http://www.honestreporting.ca/. 27 Brian Henry, “Toronto High School Teacher Links Students to Antisemitic Web Sites,” JT, October 3, 2013, 13. 28 “No, Canada! Ottawa Students Group Wants to Ban Israeli Hummus from Campus” Jerusalem Post, March 10, 2014, accessed March 13, 2014, http://www. j p o s t . c o m / D i p l o m a c y - a n d - Po l i t i c s / N o - C a n a d a - O t t awa - s t u d e n t s group-wants-to-ban-Israeli-hummus-from-campus-344845. 29 See B’nai Brith Canada, “About,” http://bnaibrith.ca. 30 League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, full-page advertisement, JT, September 29, 2011, 24.

366

Perspectives on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Contemporary Canada

CHAPTER 13

published in 2014, based on the recently issued Anti-Defamation League global survey of antisemitic attitudes,31 warned: “Almost 4 million Canadians are afflicted by this disease.”32 The view expressed in these advertisements—that antisemitic acts, whether small or large, remain a threat to the Jewish ­community—is certainly widely held by Canadian Jews. This stance, however, has its critics. The French Jewish academics Esther Benbassa and Jean-Christophe Attias state: “In constantly returning to ­antisemitism and relentlessly condemning every speech that is not entirely standard, in relentlessly tracking down the smallest indices of hatred, rejection, or mere indifference, one undoubtedly creates a community of fantasied suffering.”33 B’nai Brith’s “Audit” has also been subject to criticism over the years by those who, like National Post editor Jonathan Kay, do not agree with B’nai Brith Canada’s policies and argue that many trifling antisemitic incidents are blown out of proportion.34 B’nai Brith and other Jewish agencies are also often denounced by anti-Zionist ­individuals and groups, such as Independent Jewish Voices Canada, who protest the agencies’ criticism of their anti-Israel views as an infringement of their right to free speech.35 There are also journalists who, confronted with Jewish institutional objections to the contents 31 See ADL Global 100, http://global100.adl.org/#country/canada (accessed August 18, 2014); Katrina Clarke, “Canadians More Likely to Be Anti-Semitic Than Americans, Poll Finds,” National Post, May 13, 2014, accessed August 18, 2014, http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/13/canadians-more-likely-to-beanti-semitic-than-americans-poll-finds/. 32 League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, full-page advertisement, JT, June 5, 2014, 11. 33 Cited in Robert S. Wistrich, A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad (New York: Random House, 2010), 322. 34 Jonathan Kay “Jonathan Kay on B’nai Brith’s Latest Attempt to Conjure AntiSemitism out of Thin Air,” National Post, September 22, 2010, http:// fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/22/jonathan-kay-on-bnai-briths-latest-attempt-to-conjure-anti-semitism-out-of-thin-air/; “Jonathan Kay: B’nai B’rith Report on Anti-Semitism Debunked,” National Post, May 12, 2010, accessed May 11, 2014, http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/12/ jonathan-kay-bnai-brith-report-on-anti-semitism-debunked/. 35 “Defend Free Speech,” Independent Jewish Voices, accessed August 1, 2014, http://ijvcanada.org/2013/defend-free-speech/.

367

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

of their writings or productions, question whether it is possible to criticize Israel openly in the media.36 B’nai Brith Canada is aware of such criticism of its work and responds vigorously: There are elements within the Jewish community that concede that there are [legitimate] concerns [about antisemitism], but at times take an almost paternalistic approach in response. This says more about the community’s inherent need for r­ eassurance, than about the scope of the problem. There are certain entities within the Jewish community that even attempt to undermine the findings of the “Audit.” . . . The League does not agree with the notion that suppressing or censoring data [about antisemitism] . . . best serves either community interests or serious research on the topic. . . . Furthermore the attempts by some parties to query the Audit’s supporting data, amount to a second guessing of the reliability of those individuals, which is condescending in the extreme and borders on further abuse of the victimized.37

Elah Feder states the essential problem confronting those who wish to combat antisemitism in contemporary Canada by noting: “It seems the more we talk about anti-Semitism, the more appealing it becomes. If that’s true, we have a conundrum. How do you address a problem without letting people know it exists?”38 Thus for its intended victims and those who would protect them,

36 Nathalie Collard, “Peut-on critiquer Israël?” La Presse, February 2, 2014, accessed March 13, 2014, http://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/45de-7d90-52ebd03d-af60746aac1c606d%7c_0.html. 37 League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, 2002 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents (Downsview, 2003), 17–18. 38 Elah Feder, “The Problem with Fighting Anti-Semitism,” Huffington Post, October 5, 2011, accessed January 1, 2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/elahfeder/anti-semitism_b_989668.html.

368

Perspectives on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Contemporary Canada

CHAPTER 13

antisemitism is recognized as a real problem that needs to be addressed.39 What, then, can we say about the state of antisemitism in Canada today? Disputed or not, we have to start with the available statistics. In May 2014, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith published a large survey of antisemitic attitudes in one hundred countries worldwide, including Canada. The Canadian survey, which queried 505 Canadians, found that 80 percent had a favorable ­attitude toward Jews, as opposed to 8 percent with a negative view. However, 14 percent of Canadians surveyed responded “probably true” to a majority of the questions designed to elicit antisemitic attitudes.40 In the B’nai Brith Canada audit covering the years 2011–13, the cited antisemitic incidents averaged approximately 1,300 (1,297 in 2011, 1,345 in 2012, and 1,274 in 2013). This pattern had remained essentially unchanged since 2009. However, the latest B’nai Brith Canada audit, covering 2014, showed a significant increase of 28 percent, to 1,627 incidents. The incidents recorded ranged from verbal taunts to vandalism, such as occurred at the Mishkan Ha-Torah Yeshiva in Toronto in 2013,41 to death threats, though only a­ pproximately 1 percent of the incidents in the audit were classified as “violent” in 2012, 2013, and 2014.42 39 Penslar, Marrus, and Stein, Contemporary Antisemitism, viii. 40 ADL Global 100, http://global100.adl.org/#country/canada (accessed August 18, 2014). 41 “Statement—Ministers Kenney and Oliver Issue Statement Condemning AntiSemitic Vandalism in Toronto,” CIJA, February 1, 2013, accessed December 30, 2013, http://www.cija.ca/antisemitism/statement-ministers-kenney-and-oliverissue-statement-condemning-anti-semitic-vandalism-in-toronto/. 42 “2013 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents,” accessed September 27, 2016, https:// d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/bnaibrithcanada/pages/174/attachments/ original/1431545387/Audit_2013_-_English.pdf?1431545387; https://d3n8a8­ pro7­vhmx. cloudfront. net/bnaibrithcanada/pages/174/attachments/original/ 433967668/2014_report_English.pdf?1433967668; Sharon Chisvin, “Course Explores History of Anti-Semitism,” Winnipeg Free Press, October 12, 2013, accessed December 29, 2013, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-andlife/life/faith/course-explores-history-of-anti-­semitism-227489951.html.

369

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

These manifestations of antisemitism and anti-Zionism come from a wide variety of sources. A portion comes from Canadian right-wing racist, antisemitic, and anti-Zionist individuals and groups that have targeted Jews in the past, whose activities parallel those in other Western countries. An example is Arthur Topham of Quesnel, British Columbia, who was charged with a hate crime in 2012 for posting antisemitic remarks on his website, where he referred to Jews as “snakes and Zionists.”43 He is convinced “that Canada’s judicial system has been infiltrated and co-opted by foreign Zionist Jew lobby groups operating in Canada since 1919, [and] that Canada’s Zionist Jew media cartel is, and always has been, an ­integral part of their overall plan to formulate and establish Orwellian laws inimical to the rights and freedoms of the people.”44 An example of a group of this type is the National Socialist Party of Canada.45 These individuals and groups are neither numerous nor very influential within Canadian society. Anti-Zionist incidents, which their victims have perceived as antisemitic, are also traceable to left-wing Canadian political organizations and trade unions and appear on university ­ campuses. Arguably, this phenomenon can be attributed to the anti-Zionist sentiment of the antiglobalization movement, in which many consider Israel the prime source of international instability.46 Arnold Ages, professor of French language and literature, remarks, “Anti-Zionism is a marvelous weapon to attack Jews with near impunity. Anyone who is challenged has merely to say, ‘You see, if you attack Israel they call you anti-Semitic.’”47 Such a response is well ­represented by Canadian anti-Zionist academic Michael Keefer: 43 Stewart Bell, “B.C. Man Facing Hate Charges,” National Post (Toronto), November 7, 2012. 44 Arthur Topham, “Bad Moon Rising: How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s ‘Hate Propaganda’ Laws,” RadicalPress.com, March 29, 2014, accessed August 18, 2014, http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=4589. 45 http://nspcanada.nfshost.com/ (accessed August 1, 2014). 46 Penslar, Marrus, and Stein, Contemporary Antisemitism, 10. 47 Arnold Ages, “Antisemitism: The Uneasy Calm,” in The Canadian Jewish Mosaic, ed. M. Weinfeld, William Shaffir, and Irwin Cotler (Toronto: John Wiley, 1981), 391.

370

Perspectives on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Contemporary Canada

CHAPTER 13

The rhetorical tactics being employed in this attack on free speech are familiar enough. They consist in leveling a charge of antisemitism against anyone who draws attention to the State of Israel’s violent, degrading, and (under international law) flagrantly illegal treatment of the Palestinian people . . . or who points to the fact that this treatment is motivated by a systematic and likewise flagrantly illegal project of colonization, apartheid treatment of a subject population, and ethnic cleansing.48

This is the sort of phenomenon Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and others identify as a new antisemitism. For Sacks, this new antisemitism comes from a “left-wing, anti-American cognitive elite with strong representation in the European media.” He feels that this “is not, or not as yet, a clearly developed and consciously espoused anti-­Semitism . . . but rather the floating, impalpable anti-Semitism of a certain climate of opinion.”49 This climate of opinion resists the notion of Jews as victims. Since Jews are generally considered “white”—not just in terms of skin pigmentation, but in their class and cultural milieus—they do not fit easily into what has become the dominant academic framework for the study of antipathy to racial/ethnic groups.50 These leftist groups appear more active than the right-wing groups, and their activities are of much more ­consequence to Canadian society as a whole and to the Jewish community. Finally, negative attitudes toward Jews in Canada include those, often members of the intellectual and political elite, whose zealous opposition to Israel convinces them that they must not merely oppose the “Jewish state” but also “the Jews” in Canada, who, they allege, almost singlehandedly prevent Canada from strongly 48 Michael Keefer, Antisemitism, Real and Imagined: Responses to the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (Waterloo: The Canadian Charger, 2010), 7. 49 Bernard Harrison, The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006), 6. 50 Penslar, Marrus, and Stein, Contemporary Antisemitism, 5.

371

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

opposing Israel. As journalist Margaret Wente puts it, they “seem to believe that Canada’s Jews are so numerous, so powerful, and so single-mindedly devoted to Israel that they can significantly ­influence [Canada’s] politics and foreign policy.”51 A measure of the anti-Israel tendency on the Canadian Left is the ouster of Paul Estrin from the presidency of the Green Party of Canada for having written a blog on the war in Gaza in the summer of 2014 that the party leadership deemed to be pro-Israel.52 Indeed, reactions to Estrin’s blog within the Green Party included one that asserted that Israel, not al-Qaeda, was the power behind the attacks of 9/11.53 There is similarly a strong anti-Israel tendency in the small leftist Quebec provincial party, Québec Solidaire, which currently has three members in the Quebec National Assembly. The party has supported the “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) movement against Israel; its representatives have taken part in anti-Israel demonstrations, and in 2011 its representative in the National Assembly, Amir Khadir, prevented unanimous consent to a motion that condemned the boycott of a Montreal shoe store that was selling shoes made in Israel.54 In recent years, a significant number of Muslims have i­ mmigrated to Canada, with just over 1 million individuals identified as Muslim in the 2011 Canadian census, representing 3.2 percent of the nation’s population.55 They come from a number of countries where antise51 Margaret Wente, “Harper and the Jewish vote” GM, January 28, 2014, 15. 52 Paul Estrin, “Why I’m No Longer President of the Green Party of Canada,” CJN, accessed August 12, 2014, http://www.cjnews.com/news/why-im-no-longerpresident-green-party-canada. 53 “A Call for Paul Estrin to Resign from the Presidency of the Green Party of Canada,” accessed August 20, 2014, http://unpublishedottawa.com/letter/1065/ call-paul-estrin-resign-presidency-green-party-canada#sthash.QKBAjg4L. Rq4tAUfl.dpuf. 54 Janice Arnold, “Khadir Blocks Debate on Anti-Israel Boycott Motion,” CJN, February 17, 2011, accessed August 11, 2014, http://www.cjnews.com/ node/87238. 55 Statistics Canada, “Immigration and Ethnocultural Diversity in Canada,” accessed July 31, 2014, http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-

372

Perspectives on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Contemporary Canada

CHAPTER 13

mitic and anti-Zionist sentiment is endemic, and where the “enemy” to be opposed and fought is interchangeably Israel and “the Jews.” The Muslim community in Canada thus includes numerous anti-­ Zionist activists, in a cultural milieu that makes no essential distinction between “Israel” and “Jews.” These include people like Mohamed Elmasry, a professor at the University of Waterloo, who headed an organization called the Canadian Islamic Congress, and who, on a Toronto TV talk show in 2004, argued that any Jews in Israel of military age (over eighteen) could be a legitimate target for terrorists, because they are “not innocent.” He has also accused Israel and the Jews of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, instigating the invasion of Iraq, and forming a Jewish “cabal” that effectively runs the Canadian government.56 There are clerics, like the leader of the Vancouver mosque Dar al-Madinah, Sheikh Younus Kathrada, who have been heard denouncing Jews as “the brothers of monkeys and swine,” and stressing that the Qur’an depicts Jews as treacherous.57 In a sermon posted on the Internet Sheikh Kathrada said: “Unfortunately we hear too many people saying we must build bridges with them [the Jews]. No. They understand one language. It is the language of the sword, and it is the only language they understand.”58 The press of the Canadian Muslim community has also attracted attention. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Hate Crimes Unit investigated a series of articles appearing in The Miracle, a Muslim newspaper in British Columbia. The articles blamed the Jews for both world wars and the 9/11 terror attacks. The investigation concluded that this was not hate literature per se, and although the 010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm. 56 Ezra Levant, “A Muslim Leader Worth Ignoring,” National Post, accessed July 31, 2014, http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=12573ab0-13ce-48c49e8e-5765b1a654d9. 57 American Jewish Year Book (AJYB) 105 (2005), 300, accessed January 2, 2014, http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/2005_8_Canada.pdf. 58 Robert Matas, “Muslim Group Denounces Sheik at Centre of Hate-Crime Probe,” GM, July 21, 2005, accessed August 1, 2014, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/muslim-group-denounces-sheik-at-centre-ofhate-crime-probe/article1214763/.

373

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

paper clearly intended to promote hatred, that intention was insufficient to prosecute.59 Similarly antisemitic cartoons60 and ­ issues of Holocaust denial61 have arisen with regard to several Muslim community newspapers in Toronto. In addition, there are individual Canadian Muslims who have committed antisemitic acts, such as the firebombing of the library of the United Talmud Torah school in the Montreal suburb of St. Laurent in 2004,62 and of the Skver Hasidic boys’ school building in the Montreal suburb of Outremont in 2006.63 B’nai Brith notes that the number of perpetrators of antisemitic acts who identified as Muslims has increased measurably in recent years, up from sixteen in 2011 to eighty-seven in 2012.64 Accusations of antisemitism in Canadian society have serious consequences for the accused and are strongly resented by them. Accusations of antisemitism caused Winnipeg journalist Lesley Hughes to be dropped as a federal Liberal candidate in 2009. In response, she filed suit against Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada, and others, which ended in a settlement wherein the parties acknowledged that she was not an antisemite. As she put it, after the settlement: “I really hope that the doors that have been closed to me 59 AJYB 106 (2006), 297, accessed January 3, 2014, http://www.ajcarchives.org/ AJC_DATA/Files/AJYB607.CV.pdf. 60 “SUCCESS! Egyptian-Canadian Newspaper Removes Anti-Semitic Cartoons,” Honest Reporting Canada, May 6, 2014, accessed August 18, 2014, http:// www.honestreporting.ca/success-egyptian-canadian-newspaper-removes-antisemitic-cartoons/13946. 61 “Toronto Arab Newspaper Meshwar Denies the Holocaust . . . Again,” Honest Reporting Canada, May 6, 2014, accessed August 18, 2014, http://www. honestreporting.ca/toronto-arab-newspaper-meshwar-denies-theholocaust-again/13935. 62 AJYB 105 (2005), 299, accessed January 2, 2014, http://www.ajcarchives.org/ AJC_DATA/Files/2005_8_Canada.pdf; “Man Admits to Firebombing Montreal Jewish School,” CBC News, December 16, 2004, accessed August 1, 2014, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/man-admits-to-firebombing-montrealjewish-school-1.490700. 63 AJYB 107 (2007), 291, accessed January 3, 2014, http://www.ajcarchives.org/ AJC_DATA/Files/AJYB711.CV.pdf. 64 League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, 2012 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents (Downsview, 2013), 8.

374

Perspectives on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Contemporary Canada

CHAPTER 13

for the last four years will open again. . . . These were associations that were very important to me with people that I respected. People don’t call you back, they don’t answer your emails, they don’t see you when they see you in public. It’s an exercise in being ‘disappeared.’”65 The Pierre Lacerte case is another in which a person accused of antisemitism vehemently denied it. On being exonerated by the Quebec Court of Appeals of charges of harassing his Hasidic ­neighbors in Outremont in 2013 by chronicling alleged Hasidic infractions of municipal bylaws, and repeatedly photographing Hasidim coming and going from their synagogue,66 Lacerte is quoted as saying: “Since the Second World War, there are not many things as damaging to one’s reputation as being called anti-Semitic . . . Not even pedophilia.” If his blog were antisemitic, he added, he would have heard about it from B’nai Brith.67 All mainstream Canadian political parties officially oppose antisemitism and support the existence of the State of Israel. The three major parties, Conservative, New Democratic Party (NDP), and Liberal, have also opposed the BDS movement. Yet, there is undoubtedly wider support for Israel and its positions within the Conservative Party. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper (2006–15), Canada’s policies were among the most supportive of Israel in the Western world. For example, the Canadian government agreed to officially recognize Jewish refugees from Arab countries, a counterbalance to the “right of return” of the Arab refugees from Palestine.68 In his January 20, 2014 speech to the Israeli Knesset, Harper demonstrated

65 Bruce Owen, “Hughes Cleared of Anti-Semitic Allegations in Settlement,” January 30, 2013, accessed December 31, 2013, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/ Hughes-cleared-of-anti-Semitic-allegations-in-settlement-189045281.html. Cf. “Former Liberal Candidate Settles Lawsuit”, CJN, February 7, 2013, 2. 66 “Appeals Court Rejects Suit against Blogger,” CJN, March 27, 2014, 2. 67 Graeme Hamilton, “Unneighbourly Behavior: Prominent Hasidic Leaders Take Montreal Blogger to Court over Libel Claims,” National Post, January 17, 2013, A3. 68 “RECOGNIZING JEWISH REFUGEES FROM THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA: Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development,” accessed August 12, 2014, http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/ Committee/412/FAAE/Reports/RP6294835/faaerp01/faaerp01-e.pdf.

375

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

that he had fully assimilated the idea that some forms of opposition to Israel constitute a “new” antisemitism: And so we have witnessed, in recent years, the mutation of the old disease of anti-Semitism and the emergence of a new strain. We all know about the old anti-Semitism. It was crude and ignorant, and it led to the horrors of the death camps. Of course, in many dark corners, it is still with us. But, in much of the western world, the old hatred has been translated into more sophisticated language for use in polite society. People who would never say they hate and blame the Jews for their own failings or the problems of the world, instead declare their hatred of Israel and blame the only Jewish state for the problems of the Middle East. As once Jewish businesses were boycotted, some civil-society leaders today call for a boycott of Israel. On some campuses, intellectualized arguments against Israeli policies thinly mask the underlying realities, such as the shunning of Israeli academics and the harassment of Jewish students. Most disgracefully of all, some openly call Israel an apartheid state. Think about that . . . It is nothing short of sickening. But this is the face of the new anti-Semitism. It targets the Jewish people by targeting Israel and attempts to make the old bigotry acceptable for a new generation. Of course, criticism of Israeli government policy is not in and of itself necessarily anti-­ Semitic. But what else can we call criticism that selectively condemns only the Jewish state and effectively denies its right to defend itself while systematically ignoring—or excusing—the violence and oppression all around it? What else can we call it when, Israel is routinely targeted at the United Nations, and when Israel remains the only country to be the subject of a permanent agenda item at the regular sessions of its human rights council?69

69 “‘Through Fire and Water, Canada Will Stand with You’: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper,” accessed January 24, 2014, http://unitedwithisrael. org/through-fire-and-water-canada-will-stand-with-you-canadian-primeminister-stephen-harper/?inf_contact_key=861d749ac4ffd57fdcba034de3e2ea50bcc7c07d0e271d990e3ebd6d6afa2b1f.

376

Perspectives on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Contemporary Canada

CHAPTER 13

Within the Liberal Party, support for Israel is somewhat moderated compared to that of the Harper Conservatives, though Irwin Cotler, who has now retired from the House of Commons, constituted a strong pro-Israel voice.70 The newly elected (2015) Liberal g­ overnment of Prime Minister Trudeau has continued the Canadian government’s support for Israel. The New Democratic Party tends to be far more critical of Israel, though within the NDP sharp ­opposition to Israel has largely been prevented by party leader Thomas Mulcair in his bid to make the NDP more mainstream.71 In contemporary Canadian universities there is significant sympathy for the Palestinian cause and there are a number of anti-­Zionist students and professors and numerous pro-Palestinian organizations. At my own university, Concordia, Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR), which was heavily implicated in creating the atmosphere that led to the Netanyahu riot of 2002,72 is still active and affiliated with the Concordia Student Union. Groups of Muslim students and separate groups of students from Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon are also affiliated with the Concordia Student Union and likely share large parts of the 70 Daniel Leblanc, “Veteran Liberal MP Irwin Cotler to Retire from Politics,” GM, February 5, 2014, accessed August 12, 2014, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ news/politics/veteran-liberal-mp-irwin-cotler-to-retire-from-politics/ article16706618/. 71 Ron Csillag, “Trudeau Government Votes against UN Anti-Israel Resolutions,” CJN, November 26, 2015, accessed January 25, 2015, http://www.cjnews.com/ news/canada/trudeau-government-opposes-annual-un-onslaught-against-israel. Konrad Yakabuski, “What Gaza Tells Us about Canadian Politics” GM, August 7, 2014, accessed August 12, 2014, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ globe-debate/what-gaza-tells-us-about-canadian-politics/article19946283/. 72 Corinne Berzon, “Anti-Israeli Activity at Concordia University, 2000–2003,” in Academics against Israel and the Jews, ed. Manfred Gerstenfeld (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2007), 169–71. But cf. Jonathan Kay, “On Fake Anti-Semitism at York U and the Credulous Bubbie-Net,” National Post, September 14, 2011, accessed August 8, 2014, http://fullcomment.nationalpost. com/2011/09/14/jonathan-kay-on-fake-anti-semitism-at-york-u-and-thecredulous-bubbie-net/. Michael Brown, who teaches Jewish Studies at York University, fully concurs; see Michael Brown, “Steps Forward and Steps Backward: Toronto Jewry at the Beginning of the Second Decade of the TwentyFirst Century,” in Canada’s Jews: In Time, Space and Spirit, ed. Ira Robinson (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2013), 204–13.

377

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

SPHR agenda. Concordia is far from unique among Canadian universities in this respect. At present, Concordia is fairly quiet on this issue. In subsequent years, York University in Toronto experienced considerable tensions between anti-Zionist and pro-Zionist activists, and their c­ onfrontations have made more than one sensational headline.73 At the University of Calgary, a Jewish professor of Islamic Studies was made so uncomfortable by confrontations with militant supporters of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in his classes that he felt he had to leave the university.74 Tensions at Canadian universities have in the past decade been largely focused on anti-Zionist activities, such as “Israel Apartheid Week” (IAW), which originated at the University of Toronto in 2005. Also significant is the activism surrounding the debate over BDS resolutions against Israel. These resolutions have been introduced, debated, and voted on in student unions at several Canadian ­universities in the past decade as part of a coordinated international BDS campaign. In the opinion of student supporters of Israel, this campaign “pose[s] an unacceptable restriction on the right of Jewish students to be openly, expressively Jewish.”75 Over the past decade, according to some observers, IAW has “fundamentally shifted the Israel conversation on campuses” in Canada and around the world.76 BDS campaigns tend not to operate solely on an intellectual level. They often involve demonstrations and other tactics that opponents see as antisemitic. Reports concerning anti-Jewish intimidation on university campuses in the context of BDS ­ 73 Ron Csillag, “Cops Quell Anti-Israel Attack at Toronto College,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), February 13, 2009, accessed August 8, 2014, http:// www.jta.org/2009/02/13/news-opinion/world/cops-quell-anti-israel-attackat-toronto-college. 74 Reid Southwick, “University of Calgary Refused to Remove Student Spreading Pro-Jihad Messages from Jewish Professor’s Class,” National Post, June 26, 2014, accessed August 18, 2014, http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/26/ university-of-calgary-refused-to-remove-student-spreading-pro-jihad-messages-from-jewish-professors-class/?recipient_id=14mcWCVNaKzrliFfLhM_ Qwfe9eh5cMbE5r. 75 Marc Newburgh and Raphael Szajnfarber, “Why We Must Fight BDS on Campus,” CJN, April 10, 2014, 7. 76 Yoni Goldstein, “The Bottom Line on IAW,” CJN, March 6, 2014, 6.

378

Perspectives on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Contemporary Canada

CHAPTER 13

campaigns have received extensive media coverage. A March 2014 student referendum at the University of Windsor on the issue of boycotting Israel, undertaken amid charges of serious irregularities,77 reportedly caused a number of Jewish students there to feel that their university had become a “hostile environment.” In addition, an office in a university building was vandalized by anti-Israel ­activists in what Windsor police described as a “hate crime.”78 A similar vote taken by the Student Union of Toronto’s Ryerson University in April 2014 also caused Jewish students discomfort on campus,79 while a vote taken in August 2014 by the Ontario branch of the Canadian Federation of Students allegedly was marked by serious irregularities.80 These feelings of discomfort are well expressed by Canadian academic Nora Gold, who, “due to her own ­ experiences,” wrote a novel, Fields of Exile, on anti-Israel ­manifestations on Canadian campuses. Gold explains: I was so distressed about the anti-Israelism around me that I really couldn’t write about anything else. It was like having a fish hook in my stomach. I was pained not only by the most obvious manifestations of anti-Israelism, like Israel Apartheid Week— ­ during which, year after year, I witnessed the emotional and psychological damage wreaked on Jewish students and p ­ rofessors— but also the increasing normalization of Israel-bashing in classes, 77 “BDS Vote Criticized,” CJN, April 3, 2014, 2. 78 Rebecca Wright, “U of W Students Pass Controversial Referendum to Boycott Israel,” Windsor Star, March 2, 2014, accessed March 13, 2014, http://blogs. windsorstar.com/2014/03/02/u-of-w-students-pass-controversial-referendumto-boycott-israel/?recipient_id=14mcWCVNaKzrn6Yb8t-_n-Zu9eh5cMbE5r. 79 Jen Gerson, “Anti-Israel Campaign Growing: Student Union Vote,” National Post, April 5, 2014, A4; “Pro-Israel Students Walk Out of Ryerson BDS Vote,” CJN, April 4, 2014, accessed August 18, 2014, http://www.cjnews.com/campus/ pro-israel-students-walk-out-ryerson-bds-vote. 80 “Statement on CFS-Ontario BDS Motion,” CIJA, accessed August 24, 2014, http://www.cija.ca/centre-publications/media/cfs-ontario-bds-motion/; “Ontario Students’ Organization Passes BDS Resolution” JTA, August 22, 2014, accessed August 24, 2014, http://www.jta.org/2014/08/22/news-opinion/ world/ontario-students-organization-votes-for-bds?utm_source=Newsletter+ subscribers&utm_campaign=1ebd1d9ab9-JTA_Daily_Briefing_8_22_2014&utm_ medium=email&utm_term=0_2dce5bc6f8-1ebd1d9ab9-25348069.

379

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

in faculty meetings, and at conferences. I was appalled that in certain disciplines it was almost de rigueur to trash Israel.81

Such feelings about IAW are also captured by Yoni Goldstein, editor of Canadian Jewish News, who wrote: “If [IAW] is not, at the core, really just about Jew-hatred, then it’s pretty damn close—and, either way, it’s an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.”82 The University of Windsor incident was the subject of a q ­ uestion in the House of Commons addressed to the then minister of state for multiculturalism, Tim Uppal. Uppal stated in response that he understood BDS to be a new form of antisemitism: We stand in solidarity with the Jewish students and others on campuses who are being forced to endure this travesty. We condemn this one-sided resolution that singles out Israel alone with boycott, divestment, and sanctions. As the Prime Minister has said, Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is absolute and non-negotiable. This new type of anti-Semitism is despicable and does not belong in Canada.83

Uppal’s statement basically adumbrated the Conservative g­ overnment’s stance on this issue, connected to its strong support of Israel’s position internationally. The pro-Israel aspect of Canadian government policy elicited considerable—sometimes severe—criticism of the Harper government by those who think it pandered to the Jewish vote,84 and by others who preferred a more “even-handed” (i.e., less pro-Israel) 81 Petra Marquardt-Bigman, “Israel Hate Up Close and Personal,” The Warped Mirror, Jerusalem Post, June 30, 2014, accessed August 18, 2014, http://blogs. jpost.com/content/israel-hate-close-and-personal. 82 Yoni Goldstein, “The Bottom Line on IAW,” CJN, March 6, 2014, 6. 83 Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (Jewish Federations of Canada), “Yesterday in Parliament—Tuesday, March 4, 2014,” accessed September 27, 2016, http:// www.cija.ca/yesterday-in-parliament-tuesday-march-4-2014/. 84 Tristin Hopper, “Harper’s Foreign Policies Pander to Voters: Trudeau,” National Post, April 5, 2014, A4. Cf. Gil Troy, “Another Take on Controversial Cartoon,” CJN, February 6, 2014, 8.

380

Perspectives on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Contemporary Canada

CHAPTER 13

Middle East policy.85 An extreme expression of this sentiment is that of Canadian pianist Anton Kuerti, who reacted to Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008–2009 by saying: “Israel’s behavior makes me ashamed of being a Jew, and Canada’s servile support of the United States position, that it is all Hamas’ fault, makes me ashamed of being a Canadian.”86 Historically, Quebec has been one of the places where overt antisemitism tended to surface. In contemporary Quebec, religious, ethnic, and linguistic conflicts have manifested themselves in the public square. Issues related to antisemitism and anti-Zionism are often aired in the Quebec media, particularly in French. With respect to Quebec’s coverage of Israel, Radio-Canada, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s [CBC] French-language network, has come in for special criticism, and the CBC “Ombudsman’s Annual Report” recently called upon Radio-Canada to address a “systemic bias” in its coverage of Israel.87 Other French-language media outlets have also been taken to task for excesses in this area. In 2012, Montreal radio talk show host Jacques Fabi received a call from a woman who identified herself as of Arab descent and said she was upset at the deaths of her “brothers and sisters” in Gaza. She went on to “compare Israelis to dogs and said the Holocaust was the most beautiful event in world history.” Fabi responded that it was her right to speak out but that she should be careful about saying anything “offensive” against the Israelis; making negative comments about the Jewish people always has “consequences.” He went on to say that sometimes he

85 Gerald Caplan, “It Is, in Fact, Possible to Criticize Israel without Being AntiSemitic,” GM, January 24, 2014, accessed August 11, 2014, http://www. theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/it-is-in-fact-possible-to-criticize-israel-without-being-anti-semitic/article16501029/. 86 Emanuele Ottolenghi, “Present Day Antisemitism and the Centrality of the Jewish Alibi,” in Resurgent Antisemitism: Global Perspectives, ed. Alvin Rosenfeld (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013), 439. 87 “A Word from Our Chair—Radio-Canada, CIJA Statement on Iran Agreement, Community Engagement,” CIJA, December 3, 2013, accessed August 11, 2014, http://www.cija.ca/a-word-from-our-chair-radio-canada-cija-statement-oniran-agreement-community-engagement/.

381

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

found Montreal’s Jewish community ­ “annoying.”88 Similarly, in August 2014, Gilles Proulx spoke on a Montreal radio program of the power of Jews to bend world g­ overnments to their will while provoking the hatred of local populations, because they took economic control of the countries in which they lived.89 Pro-Israel journalist Lise Ravary commented in the midst of the Gaza campaign of summer 2014 (Operation Protective Edge) that she “won’t be writing about Israel for a while. At least not at home in Quebec, where the time-honoured pro-­Palestinian, anti-Israel bias in the media is now so strong that columnists like me who strive to offer a more balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are symbolically marched out of town. Sometimes with a yellow star on their sleeve.”90 These public exchanges are examples of a climate of opinion in which, according to one recent survey, as many as 39 percent of Francophones in Quebec were prepared to say that Jews have too much power, or caused the Holocaust, or that 6 million did not perish in the Holocaust.91 It is of some significance that antisemitism seems not to have entered into public discourse concerning the 2012 election of Michael Applebaum as the first Jewish mayor of Montreal, or with respect to his resignation under the cloud of an indictment a few months later. As

88 Bertrand Marotte, “Quebec Radio Host Blasted for Comments about Jewish Community,” GM, November 25, 2012, accessed August 12, 2014, http://www. theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-radio-host-blasted-for-­ comments-about-jewish-community/article5656854/. 89 Katrina Clarke and Graeme Hamilton, “Jews Pull the Strings: Quebec Media Star,” National Post, August 14, 2014, A1, A5; Janice Arnold, “Gilles Proulx’s ‘anti-Semitic’ Views Not Retracted,” CJN, August 21, 2014, 20. 90 “Lise Ravary: In Quebec’s Media, Israel Is Always the Aggressor,” National Post, July 30, 2014, accessed August 18, 2014, http://fullcomment.nationalpost. com/2014/07/30/lise-ravary-in-quebecs-media-israel-is-always-the-aggressor/. 91 Beryl Wajsman, “L’affaire Fabi: The Need to Hold to a Higher Standard,” The Métropolitain, November 28, 2012, 12; Janice Arnold, “Radio Host Suspended for Handling of Antisemitic Call,” CJN, December 6, 2012, 6; Karen Seidman, “Holocaust Education Lacking in Quebec School Textbooks, Study Shows,” Montreal Gazette, April 2, 2014, accessed April 3, 2014, www.emsb.qc.ca/emsb_ en/pdf_en/media_en/mediaclippings/2013-2014/2014_04_03-Holocaust ­education lacking in Quebec school textbook.

382

Perspectives on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Contemporary Canada

CHAPTER 13

journalist Lysiane Gagnon pointed out, when Applebaum was mayor there were no nasty comments about Jews taking over city hall.92 Recently, the position of Jews and other religious and ethnic minorities in Quebec was the subject of a sometimes heated debate on a law proposed by the previous Parti Québécois government (Bill 60) that would have outlawed the wearing of overt religious garb (kippot for Jews, hijab and niqab for Muslims, turbans for Sikhs, etc.) in the Quebec Public Service. All the polls indicated that a large number of voters in Quebec supported this measure. Although supporters of Bill 60 publicly expressed their concern for the ­preservation of religious neutrality and laïcité (secularism), the bill clearly cast the protection of religio-ethnic difference by Muslims, Jews, and others as being opposed to “Quebec values.” As Gérard Bouchard, co-chair of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, stated, the campaign on behalf of Bill 60 constituted “a particularly shameful episode” in the political history of Quebec, containing “inflammatory and misleading statements to whip up Quebec’s majority against minorities and immigrants.”93 It is important to note, however, that none of the often vehement criticism directed against this legislation, which went down to defeat along with the Parti Québécois in the April 2014 elections, characterized it as antisemitic. However, in the 2014 campaign itself, one Parti Québécois candidate, Louise Mailloux, publicly expressed her opinion that ­ kosher food was a sort of scam by the Jewish community, that its proceeds might be funding religious wars, and that ritual circumcision, as practiced by Jews and Muslims, was equivalent to rape.94 Mailloux’s opinion on kosher food is similar to the “kosher tax” accusation ­ ­ propagated by antisemites.95 CIJA’s allegation that 92 Lysiane Gagnon, “A Breath of Fresh Air in Montreal,” GM, November 21, 2012, A15. 93 “Drainville’s Political Future Is in Serious Doubt,” Montreal Gazette, May 7, 2014, A20. 94 Janice Arnold, “Pressure Continues on PQ to Drop Mailloux,” CJN, March 27, 2014, 10. 95 Chaim Steinmetz, “Something Is Not Quite Kosher with the PQ Election Strategy,” Montreal Gazette, March 29, 2014, B7.

383

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

Mailloux’s remarks constituted antisemitic rhetoric was vigorously denied by then Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois, who ­emphasized that “the Parti Québécois is not an anti-Semitic party. We have good r­elations with the leaders of this community and all the different communities in Quebec.”96 Mailloux’s opinion on ritual circumcision, like her problem with kosher food, goes well beyond the boundaries of Quebec. It is echoed in a complaint against Jewish ritual circumcision brought to the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons in 2013 against a Jewish physician and mohel (ritual circumciser) in Toronto. The complainant, an ­anticircumcision activist, alleged that the physician in question was no longer fit to practice medicine “due to personal bias surrounding his religious beliefs,” adding that “one cannot rule out sexual motive.” The accused understood the charges against him, which were dismissed by the college, to have been motivated by antisemitism.97 In examining the mass of essentially anecdotal evidence on the state of antisemitism in Canada in the early twenty-first century, it is hard to arrive at a definitive conclusion. The following anecdotes illustrate both the difficulties and ambiguities of an assessment of antisemitism in contemporary Canada. The first concerns Catherine Chatterly, head of the Winnipeg-based Canadian Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism. In 2012, it was reported that Chatterley had received two death threats against her and lots of hate mail. She was forced to get an unlisted ­telephone number and required police security at all of the institute’s public events.98 96 Janice Arnold, “Marois Stands By ‘kosher tax’ Candidate,” CJN, March 20, 2014, 10. 97 Lila Sarick, “Mohel Blames Anti-Semitism for Circumcision Complaint,” CJN, July 24, 2014, 19; Tristin Hopper, “Doctor Cleared after Complaint over Orthodox Jewish Practice of Sucking Blood from Baby’s Penis after Circumcision,” National Post, July 9, 2014, accessed August 8, 2014, http://news.nationalpost. com/2014/07/09/doctor-cleared-after-complaint-over-orthodox-jewishpractice-of-sucking-blood-from-babys-penis-after-circumcision/.   98 Bob Hepburn, “Canadian Anti-Semitism Institute Aims to Fill Worldwide Void,” The Star, May 9, 2012, accessed August 11, 2014, http://www.thestar. com/opinion/editorialopinion/2012/05/09/canadian_antisemitism_institute_aims_to_fill_worldwide_void.html.

384

Perspectives on Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism in Contemporary Canada

CHAPTER 13

Chatterly’s activism in the fight against antisemitism is obviously taken seriously by at least some who wish to silence her and her cause. The second involves an April 2013 production by students of a play written by Quebec author Eric Noël entitled A Play on the Role of Your Children in the Global Economic Recovery, whose publicity promised “authentic characters, at once universal and symbolic of today’s world.” Among these characters is Martha Goldberg, who represents the globalized economy and “who does not hesitate to sell her own children,” and “her two accomplices, Cohen 1 and Cohen 2,” Orthodox Jews who are supposed to be Nazi hunters, “but who ­willingly renounce their pursuit in exchange for a wad of cash.”99 In a number of ways, this play resembles one written by an adolescent Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the 1930s entitled On est Canadien français ou on ne l’est pas. The main character, a Jew named Ditreau, speaks of how he could sell French Canadians shoddy merchandise, and is advised by the French Canadian hero of the play to “take all your things and beat it.”100 Clearly, Trudeau’s play emerged from the ­antisemitic climate of 1930s French Canada. What of Noël’s twenty-first century play? The author vehemently denies the antisemitic nature of his play and argues: “How can we not read the play as a caricature when the cliché of the rich Jew (like all others) is shown, emphasized, and explained with such ­transparency? It goes without saying that to present such a character is part of a satirical approach. It is ­unthinkable and unfortunate . . . to pretend here that this is a resurgence of a­ ntisemitic theater worthy of the 1930s.”101 Finally, there is the teenage girl whose hair was singed by a ­lighter-wielding classmate in a Winnipeg high school in November 2011. The case attracted media attention and was spoken of as a hate crime because of the offender’s antisemitic comment. According to   99 Elie Barnavi, “Is France Becoming Anti-Semitic?” January 28, 2014, accessed February 9, 2014, http://sites.google.com/site/atelierecriturelarochelle/ e-jour­nalistes/3-elie-barnavi-english. 100 Jonathan Kay, “From PET’s Childhood, Lessons for Fighting PQ intolerance,” National Post, April 3, 2014, A13. 101 “Lettre ouverte d’Eric Noël,” accessed February 9, 2014, https://sites.google. com/site/soutientheatreetudiant/lettre-ouverte-d-eric-noeel.

385

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

the Crown Attorney, the offender and his victim crossed paths near his locker and began talking. He pulled out a lighter and started flicking it near her head, saying, “Let’s burn the Jew.” The court decided in January 2014 that the girl was not singled out because she was Jewish, but rather because her tormentor was “a jerk and a bully.”102 Was this a hate crime or not? I have no absolute answers to the questions raised by these ­incidents and numerous others in contemporary Canada. However, I wish to point out an important continuity. In 1932, Canadian writer A. M. Klein remarked about antisemitism in Canada: “AntiSemitism in this country is a mild affair compared with the persistent and malignant forms which it assumes in some countries.”103 More than eighty years later, the situation of antisemitism in Canada could well be summarized in a similar way, certainly in comparison with antisemitism in contemporary Western Europe, particularly France.104 Nonetheless, hatred toward Jews persists in Canada. As long as there are people, in Canada or anywhere else, who have come to the conclusion that standing between them and their ideals—whatever they may be—are “the Jews,” like Hitler in his time and Hamas in our own, the issues and ideas I discussed will retain more than historical significance.

102 James Turner, “Hair-burning Incident No Hate Crime: Crown; Teen Offender Sentenced to 18 Months’ Probation,” Winnipeg Free Press, January 3, 2014, accessed January 7, 2014, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/hair-burning-incident-no-hate-crime-crown-238556751.html. 103 “The Canadian Jewish Committee,” Canadian Jewish Chronicle, January 22, 1932, 6. Stanley R. Barrett makes a somewhat similar claim when he says that the amount of actual violence perpetrated by the radical Right in Canada is less than that perpetrated by comparable groups in the United States; see Stanley R. Barrett, Is God a Racist? The Right Wing in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987), 10. 104 Deborah Lipstadt, “Why Jews Are Worried,” New York Times, August 20, 2014, accessed August 25, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/opinion/ deborah-e-lipstadt-on-the-rising-anti-semitism-in-europe.html?_r=0.

386

CHAPTER 14

The Delegitimization—and Relegitimization—of Israel Joel Fishman

The Delegitimization Process and the Boycott: Background and Context

M

ajor shifts of publicly held attitudes take time. Examples of these changes are the postwar development of an awareness in the United States that civil rights should be extended to African Americans; that women be given full equality; that smoking and the ingestion of asbestos dust are harmful; and that pollution could be a danger to the environment and to public health. Examples of medium-term and more specific campaigns were the movement in the United States during the late 1960s and early 70s to undermine domestic support for the war in Vietnam and counter the Soviet campaign against the development of the neutron bomb. A manual for those who seek to effect social change listed five examples of “social ­ movements”: the U.S. civil rights movement, the antinuclear-­energy movement, the gay and lesbian rights movement, the breast cancer movement, and the globalization movement.1 In

A preliminary version of this research was presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa on November 4, 2011, in Washington, DC. The present study is a revised and updated version of a text, published in the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs 6, no. 2 (2012): 9–20.   1 Bill Moyer, JoAnn McAllister, Mary Lou Finley, and Steven Soifer, Doing Democracy: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements (Gabriola Island: New Society, 2001).

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

the context of Israeli politics, members of the Left, in collaboration with like-­minded Palestinian allies, succeeded in building a temporary public consensus in favor of the Oslo Process, which was officially launched in 1993.2 The goal of this well-planned and well-executed campaign was to create support in Israel for this project by convincing the public that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) really wanted peace and would become a serious negotiating partner. The ability to cause large shifts of attitudes is a matter of great importance. To bring about such a transformation and ultimately to seize power, some are prepared to tear apart the fabric of modern society and destroy the democratic system. This is why, for example, attacks on Christianity became part of this strategy. Melanie Phillips, in her book Londonistan, starkly describes the results of such efforts, whose objective was to undermine the traditional social and moral fabric of English society and to introduce in its place a culture of personal entitlement and political correctness.3 Changing an existing consensus or developing a new one is a long-term undertaking that must be distinguished from marketing and branding. To use the expression of Fernand Braudel, this process is a type of “slow-moving history.” It can be used both for ­constructive and destructive purposes. It is also reversible. In our efforts to ­appreciate the process of delegitimization—and relegitimization, for that matter—it is necessary to understand how public attitudes and the policies of governments may be influenced, if not m ­ anipulated. Indeed, the impact of delegitimization may be leveraged when international governing bodies, such as the UN and its various ­ commissions, lend their prestige to anti-Israel measures.   2 The purpose of the so-called Oslo Process was to reach a series of accords that would ultimately result in a peace agreement between Israel and the PLO. It is the author’s position that the PLO entered into this agreement in bad faith in order to continue its war against Israel and bring about its destruction by exploiting the advantages of the “peace process”; see Joel Fishman, “Ten Years since Oslo: The PLO’s ‘People’s War’ Strategy and Israel’s Inadequate Response,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), Jerusalem Viewpoints, no. 503, September 1, 2003.   3 Melanie Phillips, Londonistan: How Britain Created a Terror State Within (London: Encounter, 2008), 25.

388

The Delegitimization—and Relegitimization—of Israel

CHAPTER 14

The purpose of delegitimization on the international level is to isolate an intended victim from the community of nations as a prelude to bringing about its downfall and ultimate destruction. This process denies the victim the rights and prerogatives enjoyed by other members in good standing of the international community, ­particularly the right to make one’s voice heard. The side that ­initiates a campaign of delegitimization endeavors to obliterate the history, national identity, culture, and rights of the other, and in the case of a sovereign state, the right of self-defense. The perpetrator seeks to ­propagate a culture of defeatism within the society of its intended victim and bring about a paralysis of will to defend itself. There should be no misunderstanding: the ultimate goal of ­delegitimization is neither reconciliation nor peace—it is politicide. Modern asymmetrical warfare operates on two tracks: political and military. When a weaker opponent cannot afford the cost of conventional war, it may attempt to achieve its strategic goals by ­political means, which include methodical deception and ­subversion. Delegitimization is the central method of “people’s war,” a form of asymmetrical warfare successfully employed in Algeria and Vietnam. Because its effects are cumulative, the party that initiates this form of conflict does so over an extended period of time.4 After the Second Intifada, also known as the Second Armed Uprising (September 28, 2000–February 8, 2005), failed to bring about the collapse of Israel, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its allies, notably Iran, resorted to intensive political warfare. Accordingly, they assumed a prominent role in the World Conference against Racism, which took place in Durban, South Africa, August 31–September 8, 2001. The purpose of this conference was to bring redress to victims of racism in the world. In the event, the PA hijacked this conference and made it into an outlet for shockingly vulgar antisemitic accusations.5   4 Stefan T. Possony, People’s War: The Art of Combining Partisan-Military, PsychoSocial, and Political Conquest Techniques (Taipei: World Anti-Communist League, 1970), 86–88. See also Fishman, “Ten Years since Oslo.”   5 See Tom Lantos, “The Durban Debacle: An Insider’s View of the UN World Conference against Racism,” The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 26, no. 1 (2002),

389

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

More recent examples of this determined campaign of delegitimization and defamation may be found in the mendacious accusation that Israel massacred civilians at Jenin during its Defensive Shield campaign (2002); the Goldstone Report (2009), which was published after Operation Cast Lead;6 the efforts to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza; the Palestinian effort to seek recognition for itself at the UN as a first step toward removing the international recognition of Israel, forcing it out of that body and taking its place in the community of nations;7 and, finally, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. Ehud Rosen, a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, has drawn attention to the fact that Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in Europe have been taking an increasingly active part in the cooperative international effort to delegitimize Israel. For their part, Fatah and senior PA officials have also joined this initiative. Both groups “started to expend more effort on the political/civilian sides of the struggle immediately following Israel’s Gaza Operation in 2008–2009.”8 In addition, Israeli and foreign and reprinted by the Institute of the World Jewish Congress (Jerusalem, 2002). See also Joel Fishman, “‘A Disaster of Another Kind’: Zionism=Racism, Its Beginning, and the War of Delegitimization against Israel,” Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs 5, no. 3 (2011): 71–88.   6 Richard Goldstone, a retired justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former chief prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, chaired the UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict (2008–2009). This mission produced what became known as the Goldstone Report. The State of Israel did not cooperate with the mission, but several nongovernmental organizations fed the commission information that favored Hamas and resulted in inaccuracies, not the least of which was the false accusation that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had intentionally attacked civilians. Israel forcefully challenged the report, and ultimately Judge Goldstone, who had been brought into discredit, published a qualified retraction in the Washington Post; see Richard Goldstone, “Reconsidering the Goldstone Report,” Washington Post, April 1, 2001, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/ AFg111JC_story.html.   7 Khaled Abu Toameh, “Abbas’ Intifada: Isolating Israel and Unilateral Steps,” Gatestone Institute, International Policy Council, February 18, 2011, http:// www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1899/abbas-intifada.   8 Ehud Rosen, “The Global March to Jerusalem: Part of the International Campaign to Delegitimize Israel,” JCPA, Jerusalem Viewpoints, no. 588 (March/April 2012);

390

The Delegitimization—and Relegitimization—of Israel

CHAPTER 14

activists have given their advice and expertise. Now that the Muslim Brotherhood is playing a more active role in coordinating and supporting the delegitimization campaign against Israel, of which BDS is a part, the conflict will assume an increasingly religious tone, one of near absolute intolerance that attributes negative c­ haracteristics to such infidels as Jews and Christians and targets them for ­persecution and murder. It is no surprise that the religious and ­political message of the Muslim Brotherhood corresponds with its global geopolitical ambitions. Bismarck used the term “imponderabilia” to describe the ­nonmaterial considerations that play a part in political affairs. Among these are popularly held principles and ethical c­onsiderations.9 Contrary to the fashion of the present, Bismarck knew that there were factors that could not be quantified (and to which metrics could not apply). Thus, one must take into account such nonmaterial ­considerations as the existing environment of ideas, values, and public opinion. Widely held attitudes can evolve over time, sometimes as a result of cultural ferment. They can also be altered as a result of a well-organized initiative. One of the tools perfected by the Soviets during the postwar era was the use of disinformation in order to manipulate public opinion. The techniques used were refined from lessons that had been learned in earlier days. The Soviets organized this program in a coherent form and built the administrative apparatus in order to support this large-scale form of methodical deception. Soviet policymakers used disinformation methods as a weapon of political warfare, not only against countries, but also against individuals. Thus, a discussion of the delegitimization process should include some mention of disinformation and its use. For all intents and purposes, these highly similar methods of political warfare effectively overlap. Ilya Dzhirkvelov, a KGB veteran who defected to the West in the 1980s, Khaled Abu Toameh, “The Third Intifada Is Here,” Gatestone Institute, November 8, 2011, http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2570/third-intifada.   9 Hermann Rauschning, Germany’s Revolution of Destruction (London: W. Heinemann, 1939), 99.

391

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

stated, “Disinformation is not just a well-presented political lie— which is, incidentally, easy to recognize—but a compilation of facts and events which must not only be difficult to refute but which must result in serious consequences for the opposing side.”10 As part of this discussion, one should devote thought to the process of relegitimization, which applies to the example of the Jewish National Home. Efraim Karsh, in a lecture delivered at the Begin–Sadat Center of Bar-Ilan University (April 22, 2007), explained that Christian sympathy made the Balfour Declaration possible. He stated, “Although there may have been pressing immediate ­considerations related to the First World War, Christian sympathy for the Jewish people was the real foundation for the Balfour Declaration, which gave recognition under international law for the project of a Jewish Home. It was more than power politics. There was the commonly held belief in the Jewish tie with Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel].”11 Karsh emphasized that “the historic Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel is the real claim to statehood,” and he asserted, “There is a pressing need to reclaim the historical truth and to rebuild a narrative built on facts, not fiction.”12 For the sake of historical perspective, one may recall David Ben-Gurion’s first premise, which, on January 7, 1937, he stated to the Peel Commission: “I say on behalf of the Jews that the Bible is our Mandate, the Bible which was written by us, in our own language, in Hebrew, in this very country. That is our Mandate. It was only recognition of this right which was expressed in the Balfour Declaration.”13 In short, Christian recognition of a valid historical claim provided legitimacy for the idea of a Jewish National Home. There are two basic elements in this relationship: the historical bond of the Jewish people with the Land of Israel and Christian sympathy 10 Ilya Dzhirkvelov, Secret Servant: My Life with the KGB and the Soviet Elite (New York: HarperCollins, 1987), 304–5. 11 “Delegitimization: Notes of Lectures at BESA,” April 22, 2007, Launching of “Project 1948” (text confirmed by Efraim Karsh, July 22, 2011). 12 Ibid. 13 Conor Cruise O’Brien, The Siege: The Saga of Israel and Zionism (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986), 225.

392

The Delegitimization—and Relegitimization—of Israel

CHAPTER 14

for the Jewish people together formed the real foundation for the Balfour Declaration. A valid historical claim attracted the friendly support of the political class of the leading power of the time. Relegitimization and delegitimization are thus part of the same spectrum. If we examine today’s reality in North America, there still is great Christian support for Israel. It is based on the commonly shared core values of the Christian and Jewish faiths as well as a firm belief in American exceptionalism. The idea of American ­exceptionalism embodies the Judeo-Christian belief that all men are capable of self-improvement and that the United States has a special purpose in the world. Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–59), in his classic, Democracy in America, identified the importance of Christianity as one of the pillars of American democracy.14 When we speak of a broadbased national consensus in favor of the Jewish state, we may understand why the enemies of Israel seek to undermine Christian feelings of a shared morality and sense of identification with the Jewish past and the Jewish People. These views result mostly from the study of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). The adversaries of Israel have endeavored instead to create cultural conditions similar to those of the European Union with its strong secular traditions dating from the French Revolution. The methods of doing so are well known, but it appears that one of the parties does not quite know how to play the game.

Delegitimization as a Form of Political Warfare Can’t anybody here play this game? —Casey Stengel, on the 1962 New York Mets Several scholars have described the reality of delegitimization. In 1984, when the Information Department of the Jewish Agency launched a campaign to bring about the repeal of the “Zionism is 14 Alexis de Tocqueville, “Indirect Influence That Religious Beliefs Exert on Political Society in the United States,” in Democracy in America, ed. and trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 278–82.

393

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

Racism” resolution (UN General Assembly [UNGA] Resolution 3379), it commissioned several learned studies. As part of this effort, the late Ehud Sprinzak, a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem at the time, explained the practical meaning of ­delegitimization. As an example of deliberate delegitimization of a political system from within, Sprinzak referred to the case of the Weimar Republic. The Nazi Party “managed to set in motion a process by which the Weimar Republic was irreversibly ­ delegitimized.” Sprinzak then added, “As for delegitimization fostered from without, the Soviet Union has, in the present century, become the recognized expert.”15 He further explained that the distinguishing characteristic of the new campaign of dehumanization was a process that denied Israelis and Jews their commonly accepted rights, both collectively and individually. He argued that this was part of a new d ­ evelopment, and that it would be more accurate to speak of a new antisemitism.16 Here was a much more destructive form of delegitimization, one that went beyond the level of the usual Cold War polemics, which divided the world into two blocs. A new level of intensity c­ haracterized the Arab and Russian effort to brand Israel a racist state, because the two known racist states of the time were Nazi Germany and South Africa. The purpose of these efforts was to remove Israel from the society of cultured nations. Thereby, they made Israel fair game for all forms of violence, including terror, by designating it a legitimate target that was not entitled either to legal recourse or the right to self-defense. Sprinzak’s central thesis was that a “qualitative change ushered in the anti-Zionism of the ’70s, a change arising from the fact that Zionism had ceased being an object of delegitimization and had become an object of dehumanization [italics in original].”17 In a 1996 briefing paper based on 15 O’Brien, The Siege, 3. For Stalin’s very considerable contribution to abetting the rise of Nazism in Germany, see Robert C. Tucker, Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1928–1941 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992), 228–32. 16 Ehud Sprinzak, “Anti-Zionism: From Delegitimization to Dehumanization,” Forum on the Jewish People, Zionism and Israel 53 (May 1984): 2–3. 17 Ibid., 2.

394

The Delegitimization—and Relegitimization—of Israel

CHAPTER 14

careful research, Gregory H. Stanton, president of Genocide Watch, described what he termed “The 8 Stages of Genocide.”18 Dehumanization was one stage in this process, and there is a d ­ efinite link between the process of dehumanization and actual violence. In the absence of the dimension of conquest and repression, the p ­ robability remains low that violence, destruction, or mass murder will occur. The variable, however, is context. A sudden change of mood or circumstances would be all that is necessary for such evil to reach its dangerous potential. The inclination to commit mass murder may be present, but the opportunity may not be available. However, if there is a conjuncture of will and means, the situation could become genocidal. At the time in which Sprinzak described this process (1984), the logical consequences of “dehumanization” and its devastating outcome were unimaginable. Now, after Rwanda and the bald threats of Iran, they cannot be ignored. Because this crime is inchoate, many have systematically ignored the dangerous potential of the delegitimization process. After the passage of UNGA 3379 on November 10, 1975, Sprinzak described the resultant political devastation: Delegitimization is a process involving ideological and symbolic manipulation. As a result of this process, an accepted political entity, recognized as having a right to exist, is transformed into an unacceptable one without such a right. . . . When delegitimization is achieved . . . the political entity that has been under attack comes to be seen not only as misguided and wrong, but as altogether undeserving of existence.19

Sprinzak noted that as part of its loss of status, a delegitimized state is denied the right to speak and be heard: 18 See Gregory H. Stanton, “The 8 Stages of Genocide,” Genocide Watch, http:// www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/8stagesofgenocide.html. For general and historical background, see “Incitement to Genocide in International Law,” Holocaust Encyclopedia, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, http:// www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007839. 19 Sprinzak, “Anti-Zionism: From Delegitimization to Dehumanization,” 2–3.

395

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

When a political entity is subjected to widespread delegitimization, whatever its spokesmen may have to say on a given concrete subject, even when no particular principle is at stake, is perceived as irrelevant. They are no longer accepted as partners in legitimate discourse, for they themselves are illegitimate. . . . In social-science terms, the basic paradigm of their thought and action is c­ onsidered defective, and thus, though they may have perfectly reasonable things to say, no one will listen to them. At best they will be indulged as members of a sub-human species.20

If one goes beyond the terminology and ponders the effective meaning of the political war being waged against Israel, one may note that the BDS campaign has many characteristics of the ­delegitimization process.21 Although the terminology may differ, the content is almost the same. A quarter century after Sprinzak wrote, Anthony Julius, a member of the Mishcon de Reya law firm in London, analyzed the meaning of boycotting in his path-breaking study, Trials of the Diaspora. It should also be noted that the process Julius describes is nearly the same as that of delegitimization, which slowly undermines certain rights, not the least of which is the right to speak out and be heard: The boycott is an act of violence, although of a paradoxical kind— one of recoil and exclusion rather than assault. The boycotted person is pushed away by the “general horror and common hate.” It is a denial amongst other things, of the boycotted person’s freedom of expression. . . . To limit or deny self-expression is thus an attack at the root of what it is to be human. . . . Boycotting is thus an activity especially susceptible to hypocrisy. It implies moral judgments both on the boycotter and boycotted.22 20 Ibid., 5 21 See Joel Fishman, “The BDS message of anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and incitement to discrimination,” Israel Affairs 18, no. 3 (2012): 418–31, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/13537121.2012.689521. 22 Anthony Julius, Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 482–83.

396

The Delegitimization—and Relegitimization—of Israel

CHAPTER 14

Although attention has been devoted here to relatively new ­developments, the role of the classical antisemites, both European and Islamic, should not be forgotten. It is not generally known that in 1955, Gamal Abdel Nasser engaged the unrepentant Nazi Johann von Leers as an antisemitic propagandist, and even in the 1950s he was one of the first to deny the Holocaust. Von Leers was a close friend of the Nazi collaborator and war criminal, the grand mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was also living in Egypt.23 When the ex-mufti publicly welcomed von Leers in Cairo, he proclaimed, “We thank you for venturing to take up the battle with the powers of darkness that have become incarnate in world Jewry.”24 In addition to the professional obligations of his day job, von Leers was “active as the contact man for the organization of former members of the SS in Arab territory.”25 Similarly, the British h ­ istorian Arnold Toynbee, in his debate with Israel’s ambassador to Canada, Yaakov Herzog (January 31, 1961), compared “from a moral ­standpoint,” the attitude of Israel to the Arabs in 1947 and 1948 with the Nazi slaughter of 6 million Jews, and went on to assert that the Jews have no historical right to Israel whatsoever.26 When considering classical antisemites, one must include General Charles de Gaulle. At his infamous press conference of November 27, 1967, he brutally assaulted the Jewish state and the Jewish people. He referred to the Jews as “an elite people, self-­assured and domineering.” His shocking outburst terminated the period of grace Jews had enjoyed during the postwar era. After this event, it became acceptable once again to vent antisemitic views publicly.27 23 Jeffrey Herf, “Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Nazis and the Holocaust: The Origins, Nature and Aftereffects of Collaboration,” Jewish Political Studies Review 26, nos. 3, 4 (2016), http://jcpa.org/article/haj-amin-al-husseini-the-nazis-and-the-holocaust-the-origins-nature-and-aftereffects-of-collaboration/#sthash. DEygrXVG.dpuf. 24 Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites (New York: W. W. Norton, 1986), 207. 25 This quotation comes from the biographical sketch of von Leers that the Bundesarchiv posted (Bundesarchiv-Findmittelinfo) but is no longer online. 26 Misha Louvish, ed., A People That Dwells Alone: Speeches and Writings of Yaakov Herzog (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1975), 23. 27 Raymond Aron, De Gaulle, Israel and the Jews, trans. John Sturrock (New York: HarperCollins, 1969), 9.

397

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

Writing in 1968, the distinguished French political scientist Raymond Aron explained the true nature of the damage de Gaulle had caused: The antisemites . . . had received solemn authorization from the head of state to make themselves heard again and to employ the same language as before the Final Solution.28 . . . General de Gaulle has knowingly and deliberately i­ nitiated a new phase of Jewish history and perhaps of antisemitism. Everything has once again become possible; everything is b ­ eginning 29 over again.

There can be no doubt that geopolitical motives influenced the attitude of French policymakers. They believed that France’s association with Israel had become too close, and that after the end of the war in Algeria, it would be expedient to reestablish its “traditional ties” in the Arab world and seek new markets there.30 The Soviet Union likewise endeavored to gain a foothold in the region and advance its geopolitical interests. Thus, the Palestinian campaign of delegitimization should be understood in the context of the Soviet Union’s Cold War rivalry with the “Main Enemy,” the United States. The Israeli victory in the Six-Day War caught the Soviet Union by surprise, and it faced a crisis. In response, its leadership immediately tried to stigmatize Israel as the aggressor, but this failed by a vote of 11 to 4 in the UN Security Council.31 The Soviet Union then unleashed a major anti-Israel (and antisemitic) propaganda campaign of methodical deception whose purpose was to distort and falsify the facts in order to convince the world that Israel was the aggressor. In this effort, it enlisted the accomplished propagandists of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), which included a solid representation of veteran Nazi media experts. In an exposé, 28 Ibid., 24. 29 Ibid., 25. 30 For the official view, see Maurice Couve de Murville, Une politique étrangère (Paris: Plon, 1971), 463–75. 31 Dore Gold, The Fight for Jerusalem (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2007), 170.

398

The Delegitimization—and Relegitimization—of Israel

CHAPTER 14

Simon Wiesenthal published a list of the names of those “old comrades,” their job definitions under the Third Reich, and their Nazi Party membership numbers.32 Thus, in the campaign to ­delegitimize Israel, there was a real continuity of personnel, which included war criminals. The Soviet Union, like Egypt, made use of the professional propagandists of the Third Reich. Qui pensiamo in secoli—

“Here We Think in Centuries,” a Vatican Motto In retrospect, it is clear that the passage of UNGA 3379 (Zionism is Racism) on November 10, 1975, represented the defining moment in the international assault on Israel’s legitimacy and brought lasting damage. Even today the accusation of racism serves as the ­foundation for the political war against the Jewish state.33 The program of the Durban Conference, the Boycott Movement (BDS), and the call for a third Intifada date back to UNGA 3379. Following the resolution’s adoption in the UN in 1975, Israel’s political class remained for the most part complaisantly unresponsive, mainly because this group failed to grasp its importance. Abba Eban, Israel’s foreign minister from 1966 to 1974, described this transformation with great insight: The Arab reaction to defeat [in 1967] was not to assume that the anti-Israel policy had failed, but rather that it had not been ­sufficiently applied. The hope of early revenge was nourished with virulence by the Palestinian organizations, especially El Fatah. After some eruptions of military action in 1968 and occasional acts of spectacular piracy against airlines, these ­ ­movements shifted their emphasis to the political domain. Their device was to elevate the concept of “Palestine” to the point at 32 “The Same Language: First for Hitler—Now for Ulbricht,” Simon Wiesenthal’s press conference on September 6, 1968, in Bonn. 33 For the historical background and significance of UNGA 3379, see Fishman, “‘A Disaster of Another Kind.’”

399

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

which “Israel” would disappear. As long as the struggle seemed to lie between Israel and the Arab world, sympathy went to Israel. . . . But when the contest was presented as being not between Israel and the Arabs, but between Israel and the Palestinians, the perspective changed. . . . Israel was now portrayed as powerful, sated, established, and recognized, while the Palestinians were, by contrast, dispossessed, bitter, dissatisfied, and implacable. The current of world opinion flowed away from the embattled victor toward the defeated aggressor. We found ourselves transformed from David to Goliath overnight. Israel had committed the dark sin of survival.34

Many members of the Israeli elite could think only in military terms and displayed little appreciation for the political dimension of the challenge. After the Yom Kippur War (1973), an uneasy awareness emerged that it was possible to win militarily but lose politically. At the same time, with the 1982 incursion into Lebanon, Israeli strategists painfully discovered that they had to deal with the ­ ­political fallout from operating within densely populated areas and the ensuing reaction of hostile foreign media. Decades later, Operation Cast Lead (December 2008–January 2009) presented a similar challenge. Although it was possible to achieve certain well-defined (but not decisive) military goals in Gaza, Israel suffered a serious setback with the Goldstone Report (2009). After world opinion became a critical factor, many who had become ­complaisant and o ­ verconfident sank into a state of fatalistic demoralization and defeatism. Israel’s political class could not face up to the type of conflict in which the country was engaged. They lacked the ­imagination to adapt to the new situation. The preeminent Prussian military theoretician Carl von Clausewitz stated, “War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.”35 According to his definition, public diplomacy is 34 Abba Eban, An Autobiography (New York: Random House, 1977), 453. 35 Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Peter Paret et al. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), item 24, 87.

400

The Delegitimization—and Relegitimization—of Israel

CHAPTER 14

clearly another form of war. He added that “wars must vary with the nature of their motives and of the situations which give rise to them. The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish by that test the kind of war on which they are embarking, neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature.”36 He stated that evaluating the situation accurately and understanding the motives of the other side was the obligation both of the statesman and the commander. If, for example, either of them misperceived or misrepresented the situation, every decision that followed would be faulty. That is why it has always been necessary to form one’s ­judgment on the basis of hard facts and experience: “Strategy derives the means and ends to be examined exclusively from experience.”37 Sound strategy is based on the full understanding of historical facts. To dismiss the importance of past experience, as did the Israeli proponents of the so-called peace process, means effectively to ­advocate willful blindness and ignorance. Israel has an important fight on its hands. As Clausewitz ­admonished, the first obligation of the leader, military or civilian, is to recognize the type of war being fought. In this case, it is primarily a religious and cultural conflict, of which the war of delegitimization is a part. To reverse this process, a serious ­ campaign of relegitimization is necessary in order to retake lost ground and take new ground. There is a need to change the world consensus of public opinion, and doing so will be a decades-long project. A campaign of good news about Israel may be good marketing and branding, but it does not come to grips with the real problem. Such a campaign has commercial rather than ­political value. Israel may be the world’s “start-up nation.” It has wonderful beaches and a great nightlife in Tel Aviv. It is the home of glamorous supermodels and demonstrates a modern attitude toward homosexuals. Though all this may be heartwarming, even a torrent of such “good news” will not move elite public 36 Ibid., bk. I, chap. I, item 27, 88. 37 Ibid., bk. II, chap. II, 144.

401

PART 5

Contemporary Antisemitism: The Unending Threat

opinion—of intellectuals, newspaper and TV editors, professors, teachers, clergy, writers of textbooks, and policymakers. This group needs to be engaged, challenged, convinced, and, if needed, intimidated and shamed. If we carefully examine the examples mentioned earlier of social movements that influenced public attitudes over the long term, it should be possible to develop a strategy of concrete steps. The ­delegitimization process manipulates public attitudes over the long term, and to roll it back will require a major commitment on a much larger scale than ever before. It is possible to build on the work of several NGOs that have achieved important successes and to learn from the models of the Chabad movement and of the Birthright project, which have endeavored to cultivate a positive Jewish i­ dentity among the youth. The Hasidic Chabad movement seeks to draw Jews back to religion by working to reawaken an inner fervor that it believes every Jew must possess. The Birthright movement brings Jewish youth on well-planned tours to Israel that provide both a learning opportunity and a bonding experience. It is no longer sufficient for Israel to proclaim that it seeks peace and defensible borders, or that it is prepared to make “painful sacrifices.” Although the subject has been played down, and it is politically incorrect to use the term, we are engaged in a religious war—perhaps even a clash of civilizations. We must have a message for the world. Our enemies do, and there is no reason to keep silent any longer. Judaism is one of the great religions of the world and has been a civilizing force. We must remind the world, as did Josephus in his time, that Judaism gave mankind the Sabbath; the idea of equality before law (isonomia); human dignity; refined ideas of charity, r­ epentance, and redemption; and the rejection of infanticide and of cruelty to animals.38 At stake is the future of Western civilization. 38 These basic arguments are taken from Flavius Josephus (37–ca. 100), Against Apion, ca. 98–100 CE.

402

The Delegitimization—and Relegitimization—of Israel

CHAPTER 14

If Israel intends to regain its legitimacy, it must fight back. It must defend its historical claims aggressively and forcefully. The Jewish state cannot permit others to define its identity or distort its past. It is necessary to discredit the fraudulent claims of Israel’s enemies, including their well-intentioned allies, and expose their lies. Such an effort should include a long-term campaign of relegitimization. Israel must defend its ­sovereignty proactively and regain its rightful place in the community of nations. These are the responsibilities of nationhood.

403

CONTRIBUTORS

David Hirsh is a lecturer in sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London. He is the founding editor of the Engage website (EngageOnline.org.uk), a resource for the critique of, and opposition to, contemporary antisemitism. His first book, Law against Genocide: Cosmopolitan Trials, won the Philip Abrams Prize for the best first book in sociology in 2003, and his second book, on contemporary antisemitism on the Left, will be published in 2017. Neil J. Kressel is Director of the Honors Program in the Social Sciences and Professor of Psychology at William Paterson University. His books include “The Sons of Pigs and Apes”: Muslim Antisemitism and the Conspiracy of Silence; Mass Hate: The Global Rise of Genocide and Terror; and Bad Faith: The Danger of Religious Extremism. Rafael Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and author of sixteen books about Jewish history and the Holocaust. Stephen H. Norwood (PhD, Columbia University) is Professor of History and Judaic Studies at the University of Oklahoma. He is the author of five books, most recently Antisemitism and the American Far Left (Cambridge University Press, 2013) and The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower: Complicity and Conflict on American Campuses (Cambridge University Press, 2009), which was a Finalist for the National Jewish Book Award for Holocaust Studies. His book Labor’s Flaming Youth won the Herbert G. Gutman Award for American Social History. Norwood coedited (with Eunice G. Pollack) the prize-winning two-volume Encyclopedia of American Jewish History (ABC-CLIO, 2008). He is currently completing a book on American and British responses to Nazism from 1930 to 1936. Richard Landes is a retired professor of medieval history at Boston University and Chairman of SPME’s Council of Scholars. His work focuses on apocalyptic and millennial beliefs, now on the most potent such movement, Global Jihad. Recent

Contributors

publications include Heaven on Earth: The Varieties of the Millennial Experience (Oxford University Press, 2011) and The Paranoid Apocalypse: A Hundred-Year Retrospective on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (NYU Press, 2011). He is currently writing two books: While God Tarried: Disappointed Millennialism from Jesus to the Peace of God 33-1033, and They’re So Smart Because We’re So Stupid: A Medievalist’s Guide to the 21st Century. Jerold S. Auerbach is the author of eleven books, most recently Jewish State/Pariah Nation: Israel and the Dilemmas of Legitimacy (Quid Pro Books, 2014). Eunice G. Pollack (PhD, Columbia University) is a professor of History and Jewish Studies at the University of North Texas. Recent publications include Racializing Antisemitism: Black Militants, Jews, and Israel, 1950–Present (Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2013); “African Americans and the Legitimization of Antisemitism on the Campus,” in Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present, ed. Eunice G. Pollack (Academic Studies Press, 2011). She is the editor of Antisemitism on the Campus: Past & Present (2011) and coeditor (with Stephen H. Norwood) of the prize-winning two-volume Encyclopedia of American Jewish History (ABC-CLIO, 2008). Edward Alexander is emeritus professor of English at the University of Washington. Among his books are Matthew Arnold and John Stuart Mill (Columbia University Press, 1965); Matthew Arnold, John Ruskin, and the Modern Temper (Ohio State University Press, 1973); The Resonance of Dust: Holocaust Literature and Jewish Fate (Ohio State University Press, 1979); Isaac Bashevis Singer (G. K. Hall, 1980); The Jewish Idea and Its Enemies (Transaction, 1987); The Holocaust and the War of Ideas (Transaction, 1994); The Jewish Wars: Reflections by One of the Belligerents (Southern Illinois University Press, 1996); Irving Howe—Socialist, Critic, Jew (Indiana University Press, 1998); Jews against Themselves (Transaction, 2015). Benjamin Ginsberg (PhD, University of Chicago) is the David Bernstein Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Center for Advanced Governmental Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He is the author or coauthor of a number of books, including The Fall of the Faculty; Moses of South Carolina: A Jewish Scalawag during Radical Reconstruction; Politics by Other Means; The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State; and How the Jews Defeated Hitler. His most recent book is Presidential Government (Yale University Press, 2016).

406

Contributors

David Patterson holds the Hillel A. Feinberg Chair in Holocaust Studies in the Ackerman Center for Holocaust Studies at the University of Texas at Dallas. A winner of the National Jewish Book Award and the Koret Jewish Book Award, he has published more than 35 books and more than 200 articles, essays, and book chapters. His most recent books include The Holocaust and the Non-Representable (forthcoming); Anti-Semitism and Its Metaphysical Origins (2015); Genocide in Jewish Thought (2012); A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad (2011); and Emil L. Fackenheim: A Jewish Philosopher’s Response to the Holocaust (2008). Andre Oboler is CEO of the Online Hate Prevention Institute; Co-Chair of the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism’s Working Group on Antisemitism on the Internet and in the Media; member of the Australian delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; and a Distinguished Visitor for the IEEE Computer Society. He previously worked for the Zionist Federation of Australia, and served as National Secretary to the Union of Jewish Students (UK). While a student, he cofounded ZionismOnTheWeb.org. Ira Robinson is Chair in Quebec and Canadian Jewish Studies in the Department of Religion, and Director of the Institute for Canadian Jewish Studies, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec. His latest books are A History of Antisemitism in Canada (2015), which was short-listed for the Vine Awards for Canadian Jewish Literature, and History, Memory, and Jewish Identity (coeditor, 2016). Joel Fishman is a historian and a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He served as Chairman of the Foundation for Research on Dutch Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is coauthor (with Efraim Karsh) of La Guerre d’Oslo (2005) and is currently conducting research on political warfare, particularly media warfare and incitement. He is the editor of the Jewish Political Studies Review, a publication of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

407

Index

A

Abbas, Mahmoud, 341, 346 Abd al Malik ibn Marwan, 258 Abdul-Hadi, Auni Bey, 218 Abel, Lionel, 267 Abella, Irving, xxvi, 361–62 Abortion, 283, 285, 292–93 Abraham, xxii, 216–17, 243, 258–59 Admiral Scheer, 155 Afghanistan, 295, 305–6 Africa, 155, 236, 238, 288, 304–5, 387 Muslims in, 309 Protestant missionaries in, 305 See also North Africa; South Africa African-Americans, 225, 293 antisemitism among, xiv, 49, 62, 62n68, 63, 146, 406 ministers, 292 prejudice against, 32, 47, 54–55, 78, 310, 387 relations with Jews, 55 Afrikan Black Coalition Conference, xiv Ages, Arnold, 370 Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud, xiv, 12 Ahmed, Lord Nazir, 18–19 AIDS, 189–90 conspiracy theory, 344 air raid test, Boston (1943), 139 Al Aqsa mosque, 257–58 Al Azhar, Sheik of, 254 Al Azhar University, 254 Al Fatah, xxi, 270, 330, 390, 399 Al-Arabi, 222 Albrecht, Conrad, Vice Admiral, 174–75 al Dura, Mohammad, xxix, 192–95, 193n10, 205 Alexandria, Egypt, 221 Algeria, France’s war in, 389, 398

Jews from, 98, 246 president proclaims Israel should be liquidated, 241 Ali, Hirsi Ayaan, 37 Ali, Tariq, 16 al-Assad, Bashar, 326 al-Imam Al-Wiqidi, 258 Allies, World War II, 71, 139 Coughlinite hostility to, 119, 130, 136–37, 139, 147 Allis, Oswald, 299 Allport, Gordon, 46–47, 138 Allred, James, Governor, 174 Al-Manar, 29–30, 329 Al-Rahma TV, 328 America First Committee, 131 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 291 American Council for Judaism, 233 American exceptionalism, 393 American Federation of Labor (AFL), 153–54 American Irish Defense Association, 139 American Jewish Committee (AJC), 72, 153, 262 American Jewish Congress (AJCongress), 128, 153–54, 161n38, 164 American Legion, 160 American University in Beirut, 304 American University in Cairo, 304 American Values, 303 Ammoush, Sheikh Bassam, 30 Amsterdam, 7 Anderson, John, 74 Anglo-German Naval Agreement, 175–76 Anidjar, Gil, 327 Annapolis, Maryland, 179

Index Anschluss, 91, 242 Antichrist, 210, 284–85, 297, 302 Anti-Defamation League (ADL), 141–43, 346n64, 369 Antin, Mary, 49 antisemitic graffiti, 116 Applebaum, Michael, 382–83 Arab, xvii, xviii, xix, 15, 31, 42, 53, 63, 73, 126, 193, 195, 203, 212, 216–18, 220, 223, 229–30, 235, 237–40, 281–82, 299–300, 302–3, 397 antisemitism, 33–34, 42–45, 44n36, 47, 60–61, 65, 68 anti-Zionism, xvi, xix, xxix, xxx, 191, 204, 241, 228, 231, 394, 399–400 boycott of Israel, 275 efforts to block Jewish immigration to Palestine, 125 elite and leaders, 217, 346 expulsion of Jews, xix, 243–45, 375 French ties to, 398 Israelis, 240 Jewish communities in Arab lands, 35, 37 Palestinian, xxix, 191, 211, 217, 236, 298, 341, 346, 354, 375, 399 pogroms and rioting by, 198, 218 propaganda, 196, 213, 242–46, 349 prejudice against, ix, 17, 54–55, 61 quarter of Jerusalem, 219 refugees, 234, 236, 270 and September 11, 2001, 303 and Six-Day War, xiv, 218, 222, 301, 347, 399 states, xiv, xviii, 73, 236, 238, 243, 300, 306, 308, 335 terrorism, 275, 399, 195 welcome extended to Nazis, 232, 397 and West Bank, xvii, 218 Arab League Information Center, xiv Arab Legion, 236 Arabic, 36, 59, 201, 231, 238, 305 Mein Kampf in, 232 Arafat, Yasser, 222, 228 Arendt, Hannah, xx, 266–69 Argentina, 266n2, 267 Arizona, 169

Armageddon, battle of, 284–85, 294 Armistice Agreements, (1949), xiv Army and Navy Club, San Francisco, 170 Aron, Raymond, 398 assassinations, 213, 344 Associated German Societies of Massachusetts, 165–66 Association of Germans in Foreign Lands, 156 Association of University Teachers (AUT), 21–22, 328 Assyrians, 313 Aswan Dam, 299 Attias, Jean-Christophe, 367 Attlee, Clement, 235 Atzmon, Gilad, 335, 340 Auken, Wilbur van, Captain, 169 Auschwitz, xxi, 270, 273, 318, 321, 331 Austin, Texas, 174 Australia, 342 Austria, 91, 107n58, 165 Axis, 91, 114, 119, 126, 128, 130, 136–37, 139, 146–47, 297 Ayatollah Khomeini, 186, 257

B

Babylonian Exile, 259 Babylonians, 313 Baeck, Leo, 315–16, 323 Baghdad, Iraq, 232, 250, 257 Baker, Mona, 328 Balfour Declaration, 233, 242, 392–93 Baltic Sea, 154, 175–76 Baltic states, 142 Baltimore Federation of Labor, 181 Baltimore, Maryland, 179–81 Banu Qurayza Jews, 57 Bard, Mitchell, 34 Bar-Ilan University, 328, 392 Barron, Jennie Loitman, 164 Baruch, Bernard, 72, 81 Battle of Britain, 130 “battle practice firing,” US navy assists German navy in, 168–69 Bauer, Gary, 303 Bauman, Louis, 297

409

410

Index BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions), vii, xxvii, xxix, 14, 197, 204, 225, 337, 372, 375, 378, 380, 390–91, 396, 399 Beacon Hill, battle of, 162 beatings of Jews, in Boston, xi–xii, 113, 117–18, 123, 138, 140–44, 143n77, 146 by German-American Bund, 127 in New York, xi–xii, 113, 117, 119, 123, 146 in Philadelphia, xi–xii, 113, 123, 144–46 Begin, Menachem, 276n11, 278, 308, 392 Beichman, Arnold, xi, 140 Beinart, Peter, 275–78 Bell, Daniel, 267 Bellow, Saul, 269 Belsky, Max, 117 Benbassa, Esther, 367 Benda, Julien, 272 Ben-Gurion, David, xxii, 239–40, 310, 392 Benjamin, Jon, 23 Bergson, Peter (Hillel Kook), 276n11, 278 Bergson Group, 276–78 Beria, Levria, 254 Berlin, Germany, 115–16, 128–29, 149, 151, 169, 176–78, 347 Bethlehem, 205, 218 Bevin, Ernest, 235 Bible Belt, 291 Bible colleges, 289 Biddle, Francis, Attorney General, 136 Bilbao, Spain, 182 Birobidzhan, 93 birth control, 129 Birthright project, 402 Bismarck, Otto von, 391 Black Fuehrers, 146 Black, Edwin, 346 Blackstone, William, 216 Blackwell, Sue, 328 Blair, Tony, 15, 340 Blake, Eugene Carson, 292 Blitzkrieg im Westen (Blitzkrieg in the West), 134 blockade, British, of German ports, 154

Israeli, of Gaza, 390 Blomberg, Werner von, 155–56, 167 blood libel and ritual murder, xxix, 18, 27, 29–30, 40, 140, 147, 194, 230, 347 Bloomfield, Sara, 79 Blum, John Morton, 81–82 Blum, Léon, 129 B’nai Brith, 365–69, 374–75 Board of Deputies of British Jews, 23, 153, 348 Bodansky, Yossef, 34 Bode, H. D., 154, 156 Bolshevik Revolution, 132 book burnings, Nazi, 153 Book of Revelation, 297 Booth, John Wilkes, 231 Booth, Lauren, 340 Bosnia, 56 Bostom, Andrew G., 35 Boston, 118 anti-Nazi demonstrations in, 162, 164, 166–67 beatings of Jews in, xi–xii, 113, 117–18, 123, 138, 140–44, 143n76, 146 Christian Front, 113, 115–17, 119, 124–25, 128, 129n44, 130, 132–38 country clubs’ exclusion of, 71 defeatist sentiment in, World War II, 138–39 Fourteenth Ward, 71 German-American Bund, 127 opposition to antisemitism in, 115, 117, 137, 184 picketing of Alfred Duff Cooper, 133 police antisemitism, 117–18, 143 press silence about antisemitic violence in, 140 screening of Sieg im Westen, 133–34 visit of Nazi warship Karlsruhe, 157, 164–68, 184 Boston Jewish Advocate, 143n77, 152 Boston Navy Yard, 165 Boston Rabbinical Association, 117–18 Boston Tea Party, 177 Botts, Joshua, 94 Bouchard, Gérard, 383 Bouchard-Taylor Commission, 383 Bouchette, Bob, 172

Index Boumedienne, Hourari, Colonel, 241 Bowen, Jeremy, 212 Bowman, Isaiah, 100 boycott of German goods and services, xiii, xxviii, 127–28, 153, 161n38, 166–67, 376 boycott of Jewish stores and offices, in Germany, xii, xiii, xxviii, 116, 151–52 in United States, xii, 116–18, 125, 127, 146 boycott of Israel, Israelis, Israeli products, and Israeli universities, see Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Braudel, Ferdnand, 388 Breitman, Richard, 87–88, 88n28, 95, 98–100, 102, 104, 104n52 Bremen protest, 177 Brin, Alexander, 152 British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), xvi, 15, 19, 149, 188, 212 British Columbia, xxvii, 171–73, 370, 373 British Empire, 146 British National Party, 12 British Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, 15 Brodsky, Louis, Judge, 177–78 Brooklyn Tablet, 119, 127–28, 131 Brooklyn, New York, 94, 105 beatings of Jews in, 119 Coughlinism in, 115, 116n6, 119, 133, 137, 139 protest against Nazi emissary Hans Wiedemann, 162 Brophy, Edward F., the Rev., 121–22, 125 Brown University, 35 Buchanan, Pat, 340 Buensche, Franz, 232 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 83 Burning, a Jew, 385 the Talmud, 122 Buruma, Ian, 225 Bush, George H. W., 293 Bush, George W., 201, 293, 303 Bushnell, Robert, 117 Buy Christian campaign, 116

C

Cain and Abel, 124 Cairo, Egypt, 219–21, 246, 254, 304 California, xiv, 36, 84, 106, 170, 174, 199, 225, 290, 296 See also Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, University of California Caliphate, world, 186, 210 Calvinism, 287 Cambodia, 56 Cameron, David, 340, 348 Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, 18 Campus Crusade for Christ, 290 Canada, xxvi, xxvii, 33, 361–86, 397 German warship’s visit to, 171–73 Nazi war criminals and collaborators in, 362 Canadian Army and Navy Veterans, 173 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), xxvii, 381 Canadian Federation of Students, 379 Canadian Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, 366 Canadian Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, 366, 384 Canadian Islamic Congress, xxvii, 373 Canadian Jewish Congress, 365, 374 Cantwell, Alan, Jr., 344 Carr, Wilbur, 90 Carter, Billy, 72–74, 85 Carter, Jimmy, 72–74, 85, 287 cartoons, antisemitic, 125, 228, 374 Casablanca conference, 98–99, 99n43 Caterpillar, 14 Catholics and Catholic Church, xi, 18, 47, 49, 89, 101–2, 107, 111, 114, 118 bishop thanks suicide bombers, 197 and Christian Front, 113, 119, 126, 135, 137–38 in Fascist Italy, 129 German, 128–29, 131 invite Nazi warships’ officers and crewmen to services, 173 Irish, xi, 72, 114, 117, 123 on Jews committing deicide, viii, 57, 113, 119, 121, 231, 326 Latin American, 309 medieval antisemitism, 147

411

412

Index use of antisemitic textbooks, 123–24 CBS-TV, 83 Central Conference of American Rabbis, 80, 136 Central Council of Irish County Clubs, 137 Central Powers, 155 Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), 364–65, 383 Century of Progress Exhibition, Chicago, 162 Chabad movement, 402 Chalmers, Alex, 355, 357 Chambers of Commerce, 179 Chancellor, John, 73 Charleston, South Carolina, 168, 173–74 Chatterly, Catherine, 384–85 Chesler, Phyllis, 34 Chomsky, Noam, 340, 348 Christian Bible, 108, 119, 123–24, 282, 284–89, 292–94, 297, 300–1, 305, 308, 393 Bible, xx, xxiii, 254, 282 Christian Coalition, 293 Christian Front, xi–xii, 113–47 Christian Index, 116, 127 Christian Zionists, xx, xxii, 216, 259 Christians United for Israel (CUFI), 281 Christie Pits riots (Toronto), 364 Church of England, 14 Churchill, Winston, 35, 92, 100 on appeasement, 148, 175 Christian Front hatred of, 130, 134–35 support for Israel, 268 circumcision, 383–84 Clark, Worth, Senator, 130 Clausewitz, Carl von, xxx, 400–1 Cleveland, Ohio, 122, 124, 153 Clinton, Bill, 277, 308 Clinton, Hillary, 277 cluster bombs, 230 CNN (Cable News Network), 193, 195 Coffin, William Sloane, 292 Cohen, Ben, 34 Cohen, Benjamin V., 110 Cohen, Michael, 78–79, 82 Cohen, Naomi, 72 Cohen, Rivka, 342, 347 Cohn, Werner, xxi, 275

Colby, Bainbridge, 154 Cold War, 297, 304, 336, 394, 398 Columbia University, xviii, 218–19 Communists, American, xiii, 97, 139, 161–62, 275 protests against Nazi warships in US ports, xiii, 161–64, 166–67, 179–80, 184 Compiègne, France, 134 concentration camp, German, 141, 181, 348 Concordia Student Union, 377 Concordia University, 377–78 Congregationalists, 289 Congress, U.S., 92, 136, 235 Conscription, 135–36 Conservative Party (Canada), xxviii, 375, 377, 380 Cook, Blanche Wiesen, 108 Cooks, Carlos, 146 Cooper, Alfred Duff, 133 Copley Plaza Hotel, 166 Coptic Church, 212, 304 Corbyn, Jeremy, 14 Costigliola, Frank, 98 Cotler, Irwin, 377 Coughlin, Charles, xi–xii, 113–14, 118–23, 125–28, 131–33, 137, 142, 144, 147 Covenantalists, xxii, 287–88 Crimean War, 216 Cross, Samuel H., 97 Crossman, Richard, 235 Curran, Edward Lodge, the Rev., 119, 133, 137, 139 Current Psychology, 45 Custer’s Last Stand, 319 Czarist secret police, 40, 120 Czechoslovakia, German takeover of, 133 and Munich Conference, 132–33, 242 and Slansky trial, 13 Czolgosz, Leon, 231

D

Dalyell, Tam, 15 Dar al Harb, 202, 246 Dar al Islam, 186, 200, 202, 246 Darby, John Nelson, 283–84, 294

Index Darwish, Nonie, 36 Davies, the Rev. W. Ellis, 123 Dawkins, Richard, 349–50 de Clermont-Tonnerre, Count Stanislas, 326 de Gaulle, Charles, 135, 397–98 de Genova, Nicholas, 327 de Tocqueville, Alexis, 393 Decter, Midge, 267 Defensive Shield campaign (2002), 390 deicide accusation against Jews, viii, xii, xviii, 57, 113, 119–21, 123–24, 205–6, 231, 260 Dell, Robert, 149–50 Democrats (US), 84, 94, 105, 107, 153, 275, 277, 283, 309 Denmark, 134 Department of State, US, 32–34, 90–94, 97–98, 168, 177, 183, 276 Der Angriff, 347 Der Tog (The Day), 117 desecration of Jewish cemeteries and graves, 113 Detroit Jewish Chronicle, 120 Deuteronomy, 260 Deutsch-Amerikanischer WirtschaftsAusschuss (DAWA) (German-American Business League), 127 dhimmi and dhimmitude, 202, 210–14, 245–254 Dillinger, John, 120 Dirksen, Herbert von, 71 dispensationalists, xx–xxiii, 282–87, 295, 297–98, 300–1, 303 displaced persons (DPs), 141–42, 234–36 Displaced Persons Act, 235 disputed territories, vii, 14, 16, 192n9, 218, 223, 275, 281, 301, 303, 308, 330 Dissent, 267 Dorchester Record, 117 Dreyfus Affair, 267 Drum, Hugh, Major General, 180 Duke of Windsor (Edward VIII), 130 Duke, David, 12 Dunkirk, 134–35 Durban Conference, xxix, 337, 389, 399

Dwork, Deborah, 79 Dzhirkvelov, Ilya, 391

E

Eban, Abba, xxx, 399 Egypt, 36, 258, 377 ancient, 44, 261, 313 antisemitism in, 38, 40, 246, 255, 328–29 Aswan Dam, 299 dictatorship, xxi, 270 and formation and dissolution of United Arab Republic, 300 harboring of Nazi war criminals, 397, 399 low life expectancy in, 256 peace treaty with Israel, 254 and Sinai campaign, 299–300 in Six-Day War, xxi, 282, 300–1 turn to Soviet Union, xxiii, 299–300 Ehrlichman, John, 84 Eichmann in Jerusalem, xx, 266–69 Eichmann, Adolf, 266n2, 267, 347 Einstein, Albert, 343 El-Ibrahimi, Morad El-Hattab, 37 Ellis, Hayne, Rear Admiral, 165 Elmasry, Mohamed, xxvii, 373 Elmer Gantry, 292 Ely, Joseph, 164–65 Emden, 155, 176, 179–82 Emergency Committee for an Anti-Nazi Protest, 181 “end times,” xxii, 284, 286, 288 Enderndorf, Harsdorf von, 156 England, viii, 2–28, 71–92, 197, 227, 254, 284 Coughlinite hostility to, 119, 128–30, 133, 137 Entente, 148 Episcopalians, 107n58, 289 Estrin, Paul, 372 Euphrates River, 25 Evacuation Day, 139 evangelical Christians, xxii–xxiii, 280–310 Evans, Richard, 345 Everson v. Board of Education, 291 Exodus refugee ship, 79 Ezekiel, 297

413

414

Index

F Fabi, Jacques, 381 Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, antisemitism on, xxvi, 14, 350, 352–53, 356–58 Fackenheim, Emil, 311, 313, 321, 324 Falk, Richard, 366 Fallaci, Oriana, 196 Falwell, Jerry, xxii, 281–82, 292, 306, 308–9 Family Research Council, 303 Farley, Jim, 107 Farrakhan, Louis, xiv, 146–47 Farsi, 59 Fascism, 9, 115, 346 in Italy, 115 Fatah, Tarek, 36 Feder, Elah, 368 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 118 Feingold, Henry L., 86, 104n51, 270 Fenner, Edward, Rear Admiral, 174 Finegold, Oliver, 9, 15 Finkel, Samuel, 164 Finkelstein, Daniel, 19–20 Finkelstein, Norman, 15 Finkler Question, The, 273 firebombings, antisemitic, 374 First Amendment, 291 Fish, Hamilton, 139 Flanders Hall, 136 Flynn, Paul, 6 Focus on the Family, 293 Ford Hall Forum, 162 Fort Banks, 165 Fort Moultrie, 174 Fort Rosecrans, 162 Fort Sam Houston, 173 Fort Shafter, 180 Fort Sumter, 174 Fortas, Abe, 110 Foxman, Abraham, 79 France, 130, 148–49, 175, 182, 238, 386, 398 French Revolution, 326, 393 German conquest and occupation of, 129, 133–35 German hostility to, 1930s, 148 Jewish refugees in, 152 Muslim hatred of Jews in, 194–95, 197, 200 Popular Front government, 129 in Suez War, 299

television in, 193, 195, 212 Third Republic, 135 France2 network, 193, 212 Frank, Anne, 7 Frank, Hans, 177–78 Frankfurt School, 140 Fraser, Ronnie, 23–25 Free French, 135 Freidel, Frank, 101, 108 French Revolution, 326, 393 Freud, Sigmund, 343 Friedman, Saul S., 86 Friends of Father Coughlin, 141–42 Friends of the New Germany, 127, 171 Fry, Stephen, 273 Fuller Theological Seminary, 300

G

Gaelic-American, 119, 129–30, 134 Gagnon, Lysiane, 383 Galloway, George, 340 Galveston, Texas, 173 Garment, Leonard, 85 gays. See homosexuals Gaza, xxvi, 18, 198n18, 204n30, 207, 223, 301, 308, 330, 340, 348–49 Israeli blockade of, 390 Israeli settlements, 281 Operation Cast Lead (2008-9), 17, 381, 390, 400 Operation Protective Edge (2014), xxvii, 212–13, 308, 348, 352, 372, 382 General Union of Arab Students, 237 Genesis, 259, 282 Genocide Watch, xxix, 395 George, J. Don, 306 Geras, Norman, 17 German consuls, in Canada, 171, 173, 183 in United States, 161, 163–64, 170–71, 173, 179–81, 183 German Democratic Republic (East Germany), 398 German Educational Societies, 167 German-American Bund, 119, 127, 137, 139, 146 Germany, contemporary, 50 opened to Muslim immigrants, 200 Germany, Nazi, x, xi, xiii, xiv, xxix, 32, 48, 50, 72, 84, 91, 99, 114, 127,

Index 129, 140, 267, 276, 341, 346–47, 394, 399 boycott of Jewish stores and offices, 116 cold pogrom, 151–52 Christian Front dissemination of propaganda from, 126, 136–37 conquest of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, 133–34 Coughlinite support for, 128–35, 146 invasion and conquest of Poland, 130, 133, 242 invasion of Soviet Union, 135 Kristallnacht, 131 and Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 120 rearmament and expansionism, 128-30, 132-35, 146, 148–84 takeover of Czechoslovakia, 132–33 Gilbert, Sir Martin, 35, 175 Gilmour, Richard, the Rt. Rev., 124 Glubb, Faris, 236–37, 241 Goebbels, Josef, 151, 156, 162, 232, 347 Göring, Hermann, 131n48, 156 Gog and Magog, 297 Golan Heights, 222. 301 Gold, Nora, xxvii, 29, 66, 379 Goldhaber, Emil, 144–45 Goldmann, Nahum, 276 Goldstein, Yoni, 380 Goldstone Report, xxiv, 390, 390n6, 400 Gospels, 121, 260, 262, 289–91, 294, 301, 304, 306 Graham, Billy, 290, 305–6 Graham, Franklin, 305–6 Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Haj Amin al-Husseini), 258, 346, 397 “great Satan,” xxiii, 303 Greece, 39 Greek Orthodox Church, 212 Greeks, 79, 313 Green Party (Canada), 372 Green Party (UK), 17 “green/brown” alliances, vii, 280 Griffin, Nick, 12 Grosse, Karald, Lieutenant, 170–72 Guardian, xvi, 5, 19, 188

Gulf of Mexico, 168 Gyssling, Georg, 163–64

H

Ha’aretz, 88n28 Habash, Sakhr, 330 Hadith, 36, 38, 247 Hagee, John, 281, 308–9 Haifa, Israel, 197 Haifa University, 328 Haldeman, H. R., 83–84 Halpern, Ben, 265 Hamas, xxvii, 30, 198, 202, 204n30, 212–13, 274, 312, 325, 328–29, 348, 378, 381, 386, 390n6 Hamdan, Osama, 30 Hanfstaengl, Ernst, 184 Hari, Johann, 17 Harper, Stephen, xxviii, 375–77, 380 Harrison, Bernard, 34 Harrison, Pat, 103 Harvard University, 97, 108, 114, 138, 224 antisemitism at, 100, 102, 105 Ernst Hanfstaengl at, 184 National Student League, 166 Hasidim and Hasidic, 324, 374–75, 402 Haavara Agreement. See Transfer Agreement of 1933 Hazaz, Haim, 272 Hebrew language, 236–37, 272, 323, 392 Hebrew Bible/Torah, xxiv, 247, 253, 257, 259, 263, 271, 281–82, 311–17, 323, 326, 339–40, 374, 392–93 Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 394 Hecht House, 142–43, 143n77 Herut party, 278 Herzl, Theodor, 126, 334 Herzog, Yaakov, 397 Heschel, Abraham Joshua, 320, 323 Heuser, Gustav, 170–71 Hezbollah, 29, 273, 329 and 2006 Lebanon War, 15, 308 Hickey, Tom, 24 Hicks, Tyler, 212 Hijab, 383 Hilberg, Raul, 267 Hillman, William, 82

415

416

Index Hispanics, 32, 54–55 Hitler, Adolf, 116, 127–28, 137, 146, 150–51, 153, 226, 268, 271–72, 276, 335, 341, 351, 386 annexation of Austria, 91 attack on Versailles Treaty, 128 Coughlinite admiration for, 128, 131–32, 135 invasion and conquest of France, 135 invasion and conquest of Poland, 133 and Kristallnacht, 131–32 Madison Square Garden mock trial of, 154 and Munich Conference, 133 occupation of Rhineland, 115 rearmament and expansionism, 128–30, 132–35, 146, 148–84 in Sieg im Westen, 134 views Jews as a cancer, 151 youth group in Philadelphia, 146 Hollywood, 293 Holocaust, vii, 24, 27, 43–44, 46–47, 49–53, 55–56, 65, 80, 141, 205, 241, 255, 265, 301, 311, 319, 335–37, 353–54, 362, 364, 381 Allied response to, ix–xi, 86–112, 276–78 denial, xiv, 12, 56, 147, 215, 312, 331, 340–42, 344–48, 353, 358–59, 374, 382, 397 inversion, xxv, xxix, 4–5, 191n7, 205, 208, 325–27, 331, 339–42, 345–46, 348–51, 353, 394 New York intellectuals’ response to, 267–71 survivors, 80, 234–35, 362 Holy Land, xxii, xxiv, 215–16, 231, 241, 255, 262, 282–83, 285, 307, 311–32 homophobia, viii, 25, 54–55 homosexuals, 276, 283, 310, 387, 401 Honolulu Advertiser, 160 Honolulu, Hawaii, 157, 159–60, 179–80 Hoover, J. Edgar, 118 Hopkins, Harry, 97 Horkheimer, Max, 140 Horst Wessel Lied, 148, 166 Houdini, Harry, 343

House of Commons, Canada, xxviii, 377, 380 UK, 126 House of Lords (UK), 2, 176 Houston, Texas, 168, 173 Howe, Irving, xxi, 267, 270 Howe, Louis, 96 Hughes, Lesley, 374 Hull, Cordell, 107, 178, 180, 182 Humes, James, 75 Humphrey, Hubert, 84 Hungary, 30, 121, 200 antisemitism in, 50, 342 Husain, Ed, 37 Hushail, Sason, 244 Hyde Park, Boston, “Jew-hunting” gangs from, 142–43 Hyde Park, New York, 99n43, 100 Ibn Saud, 93 Ickes, Harold, 72, 110 Immigration, 50, 84 anti-immigrant prejudice in Quebec, 383 Arab efforts to prevent Jews from entering Palestine, 125, 232, 244 Arab immigration to Palestine, 217, 256–57 Asian, to United States, 106, 111 Coughlin’s opposition to Jewish immigration to Palestine, 125–26 Franklin D. Roosevelt’s restrictionist views in 1920s, 105–6 Jewish, to United States, 49, 89, 107n58 mini-pogroms by Arab immigrants, 198 Muslim immigrants in France, 194 restriction by Canada, 361 Roosevelt administration and State Department suppression of Jewish, x, 90–92, 105, 111–12

I

In the Heat of the Night, 293 Independent, The, 14, 17 Independent Jewish Voices Canada, 367 Ingrams, Richard, 15

Index Inherit the Wind, 292 Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), 34 Institute for Historical Review, 345 International Catholic Truth Society, 133 International Holocaust Remembrance Day, United Nations, 354 International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, The, 44 International Longshoremen’s Association, 169 Internet, xxv, 38, 52–53, 334–60 Intifada, 194–95, 308 call for third, xxix, 399 second, 389 Iran, xiv, 12, 30, 40, 186, 192, 257, 274, 328, 366, 389, 395 Holocaust denial conference (2006), 342 Iraq, 39, 77, 196, 217, 244, 246, 257, 295, 305, 308, 328, 373 Irish-Americans, 55, 72, 114, 117 antisemitism among, xi, 113–14, 117, 119, 122–23, 133, 137–38, 141–43, 143n77 “Jew-hunting” gangs, 113, 117, 119, 123, 138, 141, 143–46 press, 119, 129–30, 134 Irish neutrality, World War II, 137, 139 Irving, David, 7 Isaac, 216, 258, 261, 282 Ishmael, xxii, 261 ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq), 29–30 Islamic antisemitism, theological and racial, ix, xii, xv, xix, xx, xxiv, xxv, 29–68, 186–214, 227–264, 397 Islamic organizations, xxvii, 30, 373 Islamic Studies, 378 Islamic terrorism, xxvii, 38, 195, 197, 213, 270, 274–75, 299, 303, 308, 319, 373, 394 Islamophobia, viii–ix, xi, 61, 189–90, 203 Israel Apartheid Week, xxvii, 378–79 Israel Defense Forces (IDF), xxix, 192, 195–96, 208, 341, 390n6 Israel, Edward, Rabbi, 180–81 Isseroff, Ami, 359 Italian-Americans, 78

Italy, contemporary, 197 Fascist, 115, 129, 129n4 Jews in, 129 Iyad, Abu, 330

J

J Street, xxi–xxii, 274–75 Jabotinsky, Ze’ev, 239 Jacob, 203, 216, 261, 282 Jacobson, Bluma, 75 Jacobson, Eddie, 75, 78, 85 Jacobson, Howard, 273 Japan, 127, 137, 297 Japanese-American internment, 105, 111 Jaspal, Rusi, 36 Jay, Martin, 272 Jehoshaphat, Valley of, 285 Jenin, xxix, 195–97, 205, 390 Jerusalem, xx, xxiii, 212, 217–18, 235, 262, 266, 269, 312, 314, 316–19, 346, 397 Arab slaughter of Jews at, 197 Edward Said and, 219–21 and evangelical Christians, 282, 285, 301, 303 Islam’s claim to, 257–58 Jihadist claim to, xxiv and Six-Day War, 301 See also Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 390 Jesus, xii, xxii–xxiii, 77, 120–22, 124, 127, 231, 260, 262, 282, 284–87, 294, 298, 301, 305–7, 309, 326 Jewish quota at Harvard, 102 Jewish reprisals against street beatings, US, 142–44 Jewish self-hatred, xv, 208, 224 Jewish Studies, 33, 273 Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), 73, 79, 127 Jewish Tribune, 366 Jewish Voice for Peace, 340 Jewish War Veterans of the United States (JWV), 142n75, 153, 161n38 “Jews for Jesus,” 307 Jihad and Jihadists, xv–xviii, xxiii–xxv, 16, 186–214, 312, 320, 325, 328–32, 378

417

418

Index Jikeli, Günther, 34, 39 jizya, 249, 254 Jobbik, 342 Joel, 317 Johnson, Alfred, Rear Admiral, 163 Jordan, antisemitism in, 30–31, 38, 253–54 bans Jews from Old City of Jerusalem, xxiv blood libel in 30–31 pilot burned alive by ISIS, 30 rule over West Bank, xvii, 218 and Six-Day War, 218, 282, 301 television, 30 see also Trans-Jordan Jordan River, 301 Jordan, Robert, 146 Journal for the Study of Antisemitism, 66 Journal of Historical Review, 340, 345–46 Judt, Tony, xxi, 199n22, 222–26, 272 Julius, Anthony, 396

K

Kaci, Rachid, 37 Karlsruhe, 155–57, 159–74, 176, 178–79, 182–84 Karsh, Efraim, 239, 256–57, 392 Kay, Jonathan, 367 Keefer, Michael, 370–71 Keith, Alexander, the Rev., 216–17 Kennedy, John F., 71–72, 85, 231 Kennedy, Joseph P., 71–72, 75, 85 Kent, Bruce, 18 KGB, 391 Khadir, Amir, 372 Khaibar. See Khaybar Khalidi, Rashid, 218–19 Khawaja, Irfan, 37 Khaybar Jews, 249, 254 Khazars, 237, 261 Khomeini, Ruhollah, 330 Kibbutzim, 222 Kiel, Germany, 156, 167 King Abdullah, 31 King Hussein, 218 King Louis IX, 122 King, Martin Luther, 343 kippot/yarmulke, xii, 383 Kissinger, Henry, 85–86 Kite, Mary E., 46, 54 Klaff, Lesley, 5

Klein, A. M., 386 Knesset, xxviii, 240, 375 Knickerbocker, H. R., 149 Kook, Abraham Isaac, 343 Koppel, Andrea, 195 Koppel, Ted, 195 Koran, see Qur’an Korff, Baruch, 83n20 kosher food, 40, 140, 146, 383–84 Kraut, Alan M., 87 Kressel, Neil, 324, 328 Kristallnacht, 114, 131–32, 242 Krock, Arthur, 72 Ku Klux Klan, 12, 50 Küntzel, Matthias, 34 Kuerti, Anton, 381 Kuhn, Fritz, 127, 139 Kuhn, Loeb, 132 Kuhnt, Bernard, 151

L

La Guardia, Fiorello, 118, 154 La Stampa, 206 Labour Party (UK), 6, 14–15, 18, 235 Lacerte, Pierre, 375 LaHaye, Tim, 285 Land, Richard, 281 Lash, Joseph, 80, 86, 109 Lash, Trude, 109 Lasky, Victor, 72 Late Great Planet Earth, The, 285 Le Temps, 149 League of Nations, 149 Lebanon, 73, 220, 229, 306, 308, 377 1982 war, 191, 191n7, 400 2006 war, 207n33, 210 Leers, Johann von, 397 Leese, Arnold, 140 “left behind” series, 285 Lend-Lease legislation, 131 Lerner, Michael, 274, 277 Levi, Primo, 269, 322 Levick, Adam, 19 Levinas, Emmanuel, 314–16, 318–19, 321, 323 Levitt, Cyril, 362 Levy, Daniel, 274 Lewis, Bernard, 34 Liberal Democrat Party (UK) 2, 4 Liberal Party (Canada), 377 Liberty University, 56 Libya, 73, 98, 246

Index Lichtman, Allan, 87–88, 88n28, 95, 98–100, 102, 104 Likud party, 239 Lincoln, Abraham, 231 Lindbergh, Charles, 13 Lindsey, Hal, 285 Linnehan, Thomas, 137 Littell, Franklin, 319, 325 “little Satan,” xxiii, 303 Livingstone, Ken and Livingstone Formulation, 2–28 Locarno Pact, 178 Loeve, Yehuda, 315 Lombardi, Federico, the Rev., 348 London, England, 9, 18, 37, 92, 132, 135, 241, 396 London Observer, 177 Londonistan, 388 Long Island, New York, 127 Long, Breckinridge, 90 Lord Halifax, 130 Lord Lloyd, 176 Lord Palmerston, 216 Lord Shaftesbury (Anthony AshleyCooper), 216 Los Angeles, California, anti-Nazi riot in, 164 German-American Bund in, 127 Karlsruhe visit, 163–64, 168–69, 179 Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, 64 Lowenthal, Leo, 140–41 Lucas, Caroline, 17 Luetjens, Guenther, Captain, 169–74 Luther, Hans, Ambassador, entertains US Naval Academy superintendent, 181 received at US Naval Academy, 179, 181 visits Karlsruhe in Boston, 167

M

Macdonald, Dwight, 267 MacShane, Denis, 34 Madison Square Garden, 153–54 Maggid of Mezeritch, 324 Maginot Line, 134, 187 Mailloux, Louise, 383–84 Maimonides, Moses, 245 Man Called Peter, A, 292 Manchester Guardian, 149, 151

Manji, Irshad, 36 Mansfield, Frederick, 164–66 Margoshes, Samuel, 117 Marine Industrial Workers Union, 166 Martino, Renato, 340, 348 martyrdom, Jihadist, xxv, 320, 331 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 166 McDonald, James G., 77–78 McGill University, 364 McKinley, William, 231 Mecca, xxiv, 255, 257–58, 261–62, 317 media bias against Israel, xxvii, 191–214, 381–82 Medina, 247, 262 Mediterranean Sea, xxi, 269, 301 Mein Kampf, 176, 183, 232 meme, xxvi, 6, 349–58 Memmi, Albert, 246 Menefee, Selden, 138 Merkel, Angela, 200 Merlin, Samuel, 278 Methodists, 289 Metulla, Israel, 308 Middle East Studies, 33, 64–67 Midrash, 323 Mildenstein, Leopold Edler von, 347 Miliband, David, 15 Miller, Merle, 75 mine sweepers, 169 missionaries, Protestant, 229, 304–7 Modern Orthodox, 343 mohel, 384 Molloy, Thomas E., Bishop, 119 Molotov, Vyacheslav, 97 Montreal, 372, 374, 381–82 Moral Majority, 281, 293 Moran, Francis, 117, 122–26, 128, 129n44, 130–37, 139, 147 Morgan, Ted, 86 Morgenthau, Elinor, 86, 90 Morgenthau, Henry III, 81, 110 Morgenthau, Henry, Jr., 79, 81–82, 96–97, 101–2, 110, 120 Mormons, 47 Morocco, 98, 245–46, 250 Morrison-Grady plan, 77 Moses, 247, 262, 271, 305 Moskowitz, Belle, 86, 90 Mossad, 350 Mothers’ Groups, 119 Mount Sinai, 321, 331

419

420

Index Muhammad, xii, 241, 247–49, 252, 254–55, 257–59, 306 Muhammad, Khalid Abdul, 147 Muhsin, Zuhair, 218 Muir, Diana, xvii, 217 Mulcair, Thomas, 377 Munich Conference and Pact, 133, 175, 242 Muskie, Edmund, 84 Muslim Brotherhood, 329, 390–91 Mussolini, Benito, 115, 127, 129, 129n44, 297

N

napalm, xviii, 230 Nasser, Gamal Abdel, 220 determination to destroy Israel, 241, 254, 269, 301 retains Nazi propagandist, 397 turn to Soviets, 299 and Suez, 299 Nation of Islam (NOI), 146–47 National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), 290, 298 National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE), 21 National Council of Churches (NCC), 292–93 National Socialist Navy League, 174 National Student League, 166 Nature of Prejudice, The, 46 Naval War College, US, xiii, 158 naval war games, German, 156 Nay, Catherine, 194, 205 Nazis, x–xv, xviii, xxv, xxix, 5, 7–8, 10, 12–13, 32, 43, 46, 48, 50, 56, 71, 91, 111, 113–16, 119–20, 125–84, 190–91, 191n7, 194, 205, 205n32, 208, 232–34, 239–40, 266n2, 267, 267n3, 268, 281, 312, 322–25, 330–31, 337–42, 346–47, 350–51, 353–54, 362, 385, 394, 397–99 NBC-TV, 73 Neher, André, 314, 320 neo-Nazis, vii, 50, 281, 337, 358 Nestorian Christians, 304 Netanyahu, Benjamin, xxvi, 274, 277, 281, 308, 351, 377 Netanyahu, Benzion, 277 Netherlands, 7 Neturei Karta, 339–40, 342, 350

New Democratic Party (NDP), 375, 377 New Jersey, 127, 144n80 New Orleans, Louisiana, 173 New York City, 76, 78, 86, 105, 123, 231 anti-Jewish boycott in, 127 anti-Nazi rallies in, 153–54, 161n38, 162, 177 antisemitic violence in, 113, 117–19, 142 Christian Front and Coughlinism in, xii, 114–16, 116n6, 119, 121, 125, 140, 144 German-American Bund, 127 Jews, 77, 95–96, 115 September 11, 2001 slaughter, 197 World’s Fair, 1939-40, 125 New York Evening Post and New York Post, 76, 116, 118–19, 150 New York Herald Tribune, 151, 153–54 New York intellectuals, 267–69 New York Review of Books, 219, 221, 223–24, 271 New York Times, 72, 83, 88–89, 93, 96, 102, 154–55, 157, 221, 271, 275 New York University, 223, 272 New Yorker, 266–67, 271, 340 Newmark, Jeremy, 23 NGOs, xv, 337, 402 Nicholas II, Czar, 277 Niekro, Phil, 73 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 211 niqab, 383 Nirenstein, Fiamma, 34 Nixon, Richard M., 111 antisemitism of, x, 82–85 appointment of Henry Kissinger, 85–86 and Yom Kippur War, x, 86 Noël, Eric, 385 Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League (NSANL), 115 North Africa, 98, 100, 105 North Lloyd Shipping Line, 162 Northern Ireland, 137 Nostra Aetate, 231 nuclear war, 297 Nuremberg laws, 176–77, 341

O

Oakland, California, 168, 171 Obama, Barack, 31, 213, 274–77

Index Oberlin College, 225 occupation. See disputed territories Ochs, Adolph, 102–3 Ochs-Sulzberger family, 102 Oklahoma, 169 Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, 384 Operation Cast Lead, 17, 381, 390, 400 Operation Protective Edge, 348, 382 Oren, Michael, 335 Organization of American Historians, 346 Organization of Arab Students (OAS), xiv Orwell, George, 227–28, 231, 277 Osirak nuclear reactor, Israeli bombing of, 308 Oslo accord, 1993, 330 Ottoman Empire, 126, 217 Oxford University Labour Club, 355 Ozick, Cynthia, 269

P

Paassen, Pierre van, 123, 152 Pact of Umar, xix, 248–49 Pakistan, 18, 31 Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), xvii, 228, 388 Palestinian Authority (PA), 218, 389 Palestinian Genocide website, 340, 348 Panama Canal, 164 Paris, France, 149, 246 attacks on Jews, 40 parochial schools and antisemitism, xii, 123 Parti Québécois, 383–84 Partisan Review, 267–68 Partition Plan, 1947, xiv, 51, 242, 255 Patch of Blue, A, 293 Pearl, Daniel, 59 Pearson, Drew, 76 Peel Commission, 218, 239, 256, 392 Penkower, Monty N., 86, 87n25 Pentecostals, 284, 287, 290, 292 People’s Navy Week, Germany, 174–75 Perkins, Frances, 90–91, 131n48 Persians, 313 Pétain, Philippe, Marshal, 135 Pew Global Attitudes Project, 38–39

Phalange (Lebanon), 191 Philadelphia, antisemitic assaults, 144–45 attempt to firebomb synagogue, 145–46 Coughlinism and Christian Front in, 113–14, 144 Jewish Community Relations Council, 144 Phillips, Melanie, 388 Phillips, William, 267–68 Phillips, William, Undersecretary of State, 169 Pike, Jon, 10 PM, xi, 113, 137, 140 Podhoretz, Norman, 267, 267n3 Pogroms, 72, 123, 138, 140, 242, 335 by Arabs and Arab immigrants, 198, 246, 274 Berlin, 1935, 176 cold pogrom, Germany, 151–52 Kristallnacht, 114, 131–32, 242 post-World War II Europe, 235 Russian, 216 Poland, 105 antisemitism in, 39, 95n36, 152 German invasion and conquest of, 130, 133, 242 Pope John Paul II, 326 Pope Paul VI, 231 Postmaster-General, US, 114, 136 Potocki, Count Jerzy, 103–4 Potsdam conference, 81 Powell, Adam Clayton, 123 Prague, 315 Presbyterians, 263, 289, 292, 304, 326 presidential elections, US, 74, 286, 293 Princess Diana, 344 Princeton Theological Seminary, 299 Private Eye, 15 Protestant Film Commission, 293 Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, xii, 27, 40, 120, 124–25, 147, 208, 228, 324–25, 337, 344 Proulx, Gilles, 382

Q

Quebec, 383 anti-Israel media bias in, 382 anti-Israel movements in, 372 antisemitism in, xxvii, 381–85

421

422

Index Court of Appeals, 375 National Assembly, 372 Québec Solidaire, 372 Queens, New York, 116n6, 140 Qur’an, xix, xxvii, 38, 40, 213, 240, 246–48, 254, 257–58, 262, 312, 312n2, 373 Qutb, Sayyid, 329

R

Rabbi Hillel, 122 Radio Cairo, 241 Radio-Canada, xxvii, 381 Raeder, Erich, 156, 167 rape, 189, 201n25, 250, 383 Rapture, 284–85, 294–95 Rasputin, 277 Ravary, Lise, 382 Reagan, Ronald, 74, 293, 298, 303, 308 Reeves, Joseph, Admiral, 169 refugees, 187, 219–20 European Jewish, x, 79, 87, 89–92, 100, 115, 129, 136, 140, 152, 170, 234–35, 270, 276, 375 from Fascist Italy, 115 from Muslim-majority lands, 200 Jews from Arab lands, xix, 243–44 non-Jewish Social Democratic, from Germany, 181 Palestinian, xviii, 191, 195, 198, 219, 234, 236, 241, 270, 375 Reinhardt, Walther, 161 Rense.com, 341 Republicans (US), 110, 283 Benzion Netanyahu’s ties with, 277 and Christian Zionists, 309 and evangelicals, 293 and Yalta, 92 Revere, Massachusetts, 141 Revolutionary War, 139 Rhineland, German occupation of, xiv, 115, 178 Richmond, Virginia, 326 Rickman, Gregg, 34 Riesel, Victor, 118 Roberts, David, 216 Roberts, Oral, 281 Robertson, Pat, 281, 307–9 Robinson, Greg, 105 rocket attacks against Israel, 198, 212, 308, 318 Roed-Larsen, Terjed, 196

Romanelli, Samuel, 245 Romania, 285 Romans, ancient, 121, 124, 313 Roosevelt, Curtis, 96 Roosevelt, Eleanor, 80, 89n31 Roosevelt, Franklin D., x, 72, 77, 81, 86–87, 90–112, 131, 134–35, 234–35, 270, 276 Roosevelt, Sara Delano, 86–89, 108–9 Rosen, Ehud, 390 Rosen, Robert, 99, 102 Rosenzweig, Franz, 311 Rosetta Stone, 344 Rosh Hashanah, 322 Rothschild, Baron L. W., xii Rothschilds, xii, 120, 125, 130, 134 Rotterdam, Netherlands, 134 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 214n44 Royal Canadian Mounted Police Hate Crimes Unit, 373 Royal Navy, 175 Royal Oak, Michigan, 114 Rubenovitz, Herman, Rabbi, 118 Rubenstein, Eli, 362 Rudoren, Jodi, 212 Russia, xxix, 50, 121, 131, 151, 261, 277, 300, 303, 336, 394 czarist secret police, 120 Jews in, 216, 336 Pogroms, 216 Rwanda, 56, 390n6, 395 Ryerson University, 379

S

Sabra and Shatila, 191 Sacks, Jonathan, 325, 371 Sadat, Anwar, 254, 392 Said, Edward, xviii, 219–25 Samaritan’s Purse, 305 San Antonio, Texas, 173 San Diego, California, 157, 162–65, 178–79 San Francisco, California, 164, 168–71 Saramago, José, viii, 327 Satan, xxiii, xxiv, 121, 285, 302–3, 330 Satmar, 337 Saudi Arabia, 93, 96, 262 Schneider, Frederick, 181 Schlesinger, Arthur, Jr., 109 Schlesinger, Miriam, 328 Schoenemann, Friedrich, 162 Schoenfeld, Gabriel, 33

Index Scholem, Gershom, 266 Schreiner, Lieutenant Commander, 168 Schultz, Sigrid, 176–77 Scopes Trial, 292 Sderot, Israel, 274 Searls, Hank, 72 Seattle, Washington, 161–62 Second Coming, 259, 282, 284, 286, 294, 297, 301–3, 309 Seger, Gerhart, 181 Sellers, David, Rear Admiral, 181 Semites and Anti-Semites, 34 Senn, Thomas, Admiral, 170 Sephardic Jews, 251 September 11th terrorist attack by Islamic militants, xvii, 14, 35, 192, 303, 344, 350, 372–73 Serendipity website, 339–41, 344 Sergio, Lisa, 115, 123 sexual battery on Jewish girls, 113 Shaffir, William, 362 Sharansky, Natan, 32–33 Sharia law, 211, 313 Sharon, Ariel, 9, 15, 272, 281 Shati refugee camp, 198n18 Shaw, Martin, 16–17 Sheikh Younus Kathrada, 373 Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Yaqoub, viii, 328 Sheikh Taha al-Sabounji, 329 Shirer, William, 175n80, 178 Shoebat, Walid, 218 Shoei’b, Hussam, 29–30 Shubow, Joseph, Rabbi, 184 Shukeiry, Ahmed, 346 Shuler, “Fighting” Bob, 290 Sieg im Westen (Victory in the West), 133–34 Sikhs, 383 Sinai Peninsula, 216, 275, 300–1, 319 Sira, 38 Sisters of Notre Dame, 124 Six-Day War, xiv, xvii, xviii, xxi, xxiii, xxx, 218, 221–22, 241, 254, 257, 269, 273, 301–2, 317, 347, 398 Sizer, Steven, 14 Slansky, Rudolph, 13 Small, Charles, 34 Smith, Al, 153–54 Smith, Alson J., 115–16 Smith, Walter Bedell, 94, 95n36 Smith, Wilbur, 300 Snoops website, 350

Social Gospel, 289, 294–95 Social Justice, 114, 118–23, 125–29, 131n48, 132, 135–36 social media, xxv, xxvi, 14, 338, 348–51, 354–60 Society of German Naval Architects, 168 Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR), 377–78 Somalia, 37 Soros, George, 274 South Africa, xxix, 238, 240, 337, 389, 390n6, 394 South Korea, 39 Southern Baptists, 287, 305 Soviet Jewry, 93, 273, 336 Soviet Union, 131, 269, 297, 300, 302–3, 307, 337, 394 anti-Zionism of, 336 arms supplier to Arabs, xxiii, 299 collapse of, xxiii, 303 German invasion of, 135 Jewish emigration from, 85 and Six-Day War, 398 and Suez War, 299 supports partition, 51 use of Nazi propagandists, 399 Spanish Civil War, 182 Sprinzak, Ehud, xxix, 394–96 St. Louis refugees, 91–92 Stalin, Joseph, 13, 79, 92–93, 95, 336 Standard, The, 9 Standley, William, Admiral, 180 Stanford University, 170 Stanton, Gregory H., 395 State Department, US, see US Department of State Statistics Canada, 363 Statue of Liberty, 125 Stegner, Wallace, 118 Steiner, George, 273 Stern, Sol, 276 Steuben Society of America, 166 Stimson, Henry, 81–82 Stirling, Yates, Rear Admiral, 157 Stoddard, John Lawson, 216–17 Stoddard, Lothrop, 158 storm troopers, 114, 116, 146, 151 Strait of Tiran, 301 Strauss, Robert, 84 student exchange programs with German universities, US, 183 submarines, 157, 159, 175–76

423

424

Index Sudetenland, 133 Suez Canal, 125 Nasser’s nationalizing of, 299 in Six-Day War, 301 Suez crisis, 1956, 299–300 Sullivan, Thomas, 118 Sultan, Wafa, 37 supersessionism, xvi, 207n33 Christian, 127, 206, 263, 287, 332 Islamic, xxiv, 206, 209, 257, 261, 332 and secular Left, xvi, 206–8 surveys measuring antisemitism, xxvi, 39–40, 49n46, 50, 52, 54, 54n58, 192n9, 362–63, 367, 369, 382 Susskind, David, 75 Sutton, Matthew Avery, 297 swastika, xiii, xxvi, 145, 155, 161, 163–66, 170–71, 177–80, 183, 194, 197, 341, 351 Sweden, 200, 207n34 Sweeney, Frances, 114–15, 137, 139 syllabi, course, ix, 42, 52–56 synagogues, 109, 142, 145, 249, 375 attempted firebombing of, Philadelphia, 145–46 blowing up of, Baghdad, 232 burning of, France, 197 burning of, Germany, 131 desecration, US, 113, 123, 144 protection of, Canada, 364 Syria, 40, 200, 204n30, 216–18, 282, 301, 326, 328, 377 as Soviet client, xxiii, 300 Syriac Christians, 304 Syrkin, Marie, 266–67

T

Tacoma, Washington, 157, 160–61 Taguieff, Pierre-André, 34 Taliban, 207n34, 306 Talmud, 316, 318, 374 Christian attacks on, 122–23 Muslim attacks on 30, 253 Tanenbaum, Marc, Rabbi, 262 Tarrant, William, Rear Admiral, 163, 179 Teheran, Iran, 257 Tel Aviv, xxi, 197, 270, 328, 401 Temple, Second, xx, 124, 236, 262, 319 Temple Mount, 317 Temple of Solomon, 284

Terry, Pat, 171 Texas state legislature, 174 Textbooks, ix, xii, 29–68, 123–24, 238, 241, 244, 253, 402 Thackery, Ted, 76 Third Period, 161 Third Reich. see Germany, Nazi Third Republic, 135 Thompson, Dorothy, 152 Tibi, Bassam, 37 Tillich, Paul, 123 Titus, vii, 226 Tobin, Gary A., 45 Tolischus, Otto, 178 Tonge, Jenny, 2–6, 8 Topham, Arthur, 370 Torah, xxiv, 311–24, 326, 339–40, 369, 374 Toronto, 363–64, 366, 369, 373–74, 378–79, 384 Toynbee, Arnold, 233, 397 Transfer Agreement of 1933, 341, 346 Trans-Jordan, 217 Trials of the Diaspora, 396 tribulation, 284–86, 294–95, 297, 309 Troper, Harold, xxvi, 361, 364–65 Trotskyists, 268, 347 Trudeau, Justin, 377 Trudeau, Pierre Elliott, 385 Truman presidential library, 78 Truman, Bess, 75–76, 78 Truman, Harry S, x, 75–82, 83n20, 85–86, 94, 109, 111, 235 Truman, Margaret, 77 Tunisia, 98, 195, 246 twenty-one gun salutes by American shore batteries for Nazi warships, xiii, 162, 165, 174 Twitter, spread of antisemitism on, 352–53, 356, 358 Tydings, Millard, 154

U

UK Mediawatch, 19 Ukraine, 267 antisemitic Ukrainian DPs, 142 ultra-Orthodox Jews, 337, 342 UN General Assembly, xiv, 336–37, 394 UNGA Resolution 3379 (Zionism is Racism), xxix, xxx, 337, 394–95, 399

Index Union of Jewish Students, 355 Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, 307 United Arab Republic (UAR), 300 United Church of Christ, 304 United Kingdom (UK), 6, 14, 16, 19, 237, 355 United Nations (UN), 51, 76, 242, 255, 285, 376 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 79 United Talmud Torah school, 374 University and College Union (UCU), 20–26 University of California at Berkeley, xiv, 272 University of California system, 199 University of Cambridge, 223, 345 University of London student union (ULU), 241 University of Ottawa, 366 University of Oxford, 355 University of Pennsylvania, 56 University of Virginia Institute of Public Affairs, 150 University of Waterloo, 373 University of Windsor, 379–80 Uppal, Tim, xxviii, 380 Urdu, 18, 31, 59 US army, 75, 78, 134, 151, 158–59, 165, 170–71, 174, 183–84 US marine corps, 170, 179 US Naval Academy, xiii, 157–58, 179, 181 US naval intelligence, 154–55, 163, 167–68, 176 US navy, xiii, 137, 155, 157–60, 165, 168–71, 174, 179–80, 183–84 Usury, 121

V

Vajda, Georges, 251 Valentine, Lewis, 118 Vancouver, British Columbia, German warship visits, 171–73 mosque, xxvii, 373 Vatican, 126, 129, 231, 340, 348, 399 Versailles Treaty, xiv, 128, 132–33, 148, 155, 157, 175, 178, 182 Veterans of Foreign Wars, 166 Vichy government, 135 Vienna, Austria, 115

Vietnam War, xxiii, 16, 298, 302, 387, 389 Virgin Islands, 92 Voigt, Frederic, 149 Vorse, Mary Heaton, 151

W

Waco siege, 344 Wadsworth, George, 77 Wagner, Robert, 92, 153 Wagner-Rogers bill, 92 Waldron, Jeremy, 357 Wallace, Henry, 77, 79, 100 Wallace, Madge Gates, 75–76 War Department, U.S., 138 War Refugee Board, 234 Warburgs, 120 Ward, David, 4–5 Ward, Geoffrey, 96, 101 Warsaw Ghetto, 191, 194 Uprising, 140 Warshal, Bruce S., 80, 83n20 Washington, George, 70 Waterloo, battle of, 319 Weber, Mark, 340–41 Weber, Timothy, 294 Wechsler, James, 118 Wehrmacht, 129, 133–34 Weidemann, Hans, 162 Weinfeld, Morton, 364 Weizmann, Chaim, 217, 235 Wente, Margaret, 372 Werth, Alexander, 151 Weschler, Lawrence, 340 West Bank, xvii, 192n9, 218, 281, 301, 303, 308, 330 West Indian antisemitic demagogues, 146 Western Wall, 301 Wheeler, Burton, 107, 107n58, 108–9 white slave trade, 172 White, Michael, 19–20 Whitley, Bernard E., 46, 54 Wiesel, Elie, 320, 322 Wiesenthal, Simon, 399 Wilkinson, Burke, 94 Winnipeg, Manitoba, 171, 374, 384–85 Wise, Rabbi Stephen S., 103–4, 128, 152–54, 177, 276–78 Wisse, Ruth, xvii, 225, 265–66, 270 Wistrich, Robert, xxv, 34, 256, 327, 338, 346–47, 360

425

426

Index

Woll, Matthew, 154 Woodward, C. H., Rear Admiral, 178 World Council of Churches 305–6 Assembly, 296 World Jewish Congress, 343 World War I, 150, 155, 183, 217–18, 297, 311 World War I revisionism, 150 World War II, xxiii, 13, 46, 51, 71, 95n36, 98, 105, 114–15, 119, 123, 126, 128, 136, 138, 140–42, 146–47, 182, 221, 232, 234, 242, 268, 271, 276n11, 289, 295–98, 336, 345–46 World’s Fair, New York, 1939-40, 125 Wyman, David S., 86, 99n43, 184, 270

Y

Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism (YIISA), 34, 65 Yale University Law School, 309 Yalta conference, 92–95

Yaqoub, Sheik Muhammad Hussein, viii, 328 Yarnell, Harry, Rear Admiral, 160, 180 Yathrib, 247 Ybarra, Dennis R., 45 Yemenite Jews, 237, 245, 250 Yom Kippur War, x, xxiv, xxx, 86, 314, 400 York University, 378 Yorkville, New York City, 127 YouTube, antisemitic and anti-Zionist material on, xxvi, 356, 358

Z

Zangwill, Israel, 217 Zant, Abd Al-Mun’im Abu, 30 Ziedan, Youssef, 258 Zionist Congress, First, Basel, 120, 126, 334 Zionist websites, 359 Zündel, Ernst, 344 Zyklon B, xviii