Salo Baron, 1940, The World War and European Jewry

What follows are some selected extracts of an article published in the Contemporary Jewish Record, vol. 3, July-August 1940 and based on Address delivered at the joint session of the National Conference of Jewish Social Welfare meeting in Pittsburgh May 25, 1940.

World War II had begun eight months earlier, Kristalnacht happened  18 months previously, the Nuremburg Laws were promulgated four and a half years before this meeting.

Salo Baron was the outstanding Jewish historian of Jewish history at the time and, as has been noted:

Baron opposed the "lachrymose conception of Jewish history"...[that] the main elements of Jewish experience through the ages to be suffering and spiritual scholarship. In a 1975 interview, Baron said "Suffering is part of the destiny [of the Jews], but so is repeated joy as well as ultimate redemption."

What was his view of the present and the future? Was a Holocaust forseen? Did his thinking overly influence the lack of activism in American Jewry's practical response? What did he expect would happen during the war?

I purposely employ PDF copy of the article to indicate no change or editing was made.

Such was the mindset of organized American Jewry leadership in 1940.

The end result was vastly different and, quite probably, this mindset facilitated the poor response to what later happened to European Jewry.

^

American Jews Divided into Rwo by One Goldberg

Jeffrey Goldberg divides the sea of American Jewry:

...here are all the usual Goldblog caveats: AIPAC is too unthinkingly rightist to me, J Street is too naively leftist, etc. etc., but both groups represent legitimate streams of Jewish pro-Israel thought in America, and both are worthy of the President's attention.

So, rightwingers don't think but they are not naive but leftwingers think but are naive?

If so, do you like someone who can think, or pretend he's a thinker, but can't do anything really with his thought because in the real world, he's a loser?

Is that what you want for your Jewish leadership?

(k/t=BT)

^

Pied Piper Peter Beinart

Peter Beinart has written a new book, The Crisis of Zionism. In it he attempts to tear apart the relationship of admiration, support and defense that has existed between Israel and American Jewry for over a century. According to his ideological worldview, there is a “deep chasm” between the Jewish social justice tradition, as he understands it, and the American Jewish Establishment when it comes to Israel. That community sent its children to the American South to help the blacks and balances that with the assertion that “millions of West Bank Palestinians are denied rights simply because they are not Jews.” He pits Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against President Barack Obama as one who rejects the tradition revered by Obama. He warns against the dying of a dream of a democratic Jewish state while American Jews watch. Coincidentally, the book will be released at this year's J Street National Conference which is also promoting an "we doubt Iran's threat" theme.


For Beinart, “only by giving Palestinians their own country in the West Bank and Gaza Strip can Israel again become a Jewish state that offers the right of citizenship to all the people within its domain.” He portrays himself, his agenda and his polices as upholding the ”honor of the Jewish people in our time.”

Beinart, of course, does not only write books but pens op-eds and recently tried to deny Iran’s threat to Israel, trying to parallel the situation America went through with the Iraq war and the no weapons of mass destruction, although he leaves himself an escape route by adding “The point is not that an Iranian nuclear weapon poses no threat to Israel”. What bothers him is that there seem to be security experts who deny Iran’s threat but that no one is listening to them, that there is “a struggle between people who think practically and people who think ideologically, between people trying to soberly assess a given adversary”.

I am not sure who is scaring Beinart more, Netanyahu or US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta who declared last week that if Iran does not change course, the US is "prepared to respond if we have to", reiterating that all U.S. options are on the table, implying the possibility of using military force.

Beinart, to my mind, is a reborn version of the coercive utopian, so ably described and criticized in the 1984 book by Rael Jean Isaac and her husband Eric. He broke into public consciousness at the debate conducted on April 29th with Yossi Klein Halevi which followed the publishing of his New York Review of Books piece in May 2010. In that essay he posited that mainstream American Jewish organizations hew to a liberal vision of Zionism but willingly support a near-fascist Israel where democracy is crumbling. His target is American Jewish youth who are the real victims of that establishment having been under-educated to the history of Zionism and its conflict with the Arabs of Eretz-Israel.

Beinart is a Pied Piper who himself is ideological. His hooking up with J Street is most natural. Unfortunately, he is playing a tune that is detached from the reality of the Middle East as it is from what genuine Jewish nationalism is. Beinart’s claims of loyalty to Israel notwithstanding, he fealty, I am convinced, is to his liberal and American identity foremost. In the end, his music is quite off-key.

___________

Reminds us of Joe Klein:

It’s one thing to just adore Israel, as the evangelical Christians do; it’s another thing entirely to send American kids off to war, yet again, to fight for Israel’s national security.”

UPDATE

Harsher IAEA report on Iran nuclear program expected next month

Upcoming follow-up report apparently includes new details about efforts by Tehran to develop nuclear warheads for ground-to-ground missiles.

UPDATE II

“Beinart,” Pollak added, “is not actually outraged that the Palestinians don’t have a state. He’s cynically using them—just as J Street does—as a means to spread lies and hatred against Israel and sell copies of his book.”

“So long as J Street and Beinart and their allies on the left employ rhetoric that draws parallels between Israel and the segregated South, they will not be taken seriously by people who matter on the Hill, in the [Obama] administration, or within the mainstream pro-Israel community,” said a source on Capitol Hill. “It is sad that Peter Beinart went from a respected intellectual on these issues to someone who provides cover for fringe ideas on the left.”

^

Jewish US Establishment Stifling

As you can imagine, I have had a long confrontation, going back to the 1960s, with Jewish establishment groups.  So when this next item came my way, there was no surprise.

The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee have issued a joint "pledge" calling on Jewish and Israel groups not to criticize President Obama's record on Israel (it can be viewed here and if still not working, go here).

Here's the JTA report:

The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee are co-sponsoring a pledge for unity on Israel...to rally bipartisan support for Israel while preventing Israel from becoming a wedge issue during the next election season.

..."America’s friendship with Israel is an emotional, moral and strategic bond that has always transcended politics," it reads in part. "Support for Israel has never been merely a plank in a Republican or Democratic Party or candidate’s platform. It is a core American policy that serves our nation’s most fundamental national interests.

...Abraham Foxman, ADL's national director, said that “We want the discourse on U.S. support for Israel to avoid the sometimes polarizing debates and political attacks that have emerged in recent weeks, as candidates have challenged their opponents’ pro-Israel bone fides or questioned the current administration’s foreign policy approach vis-a-vis Israel. The last thing America and Israel need right now is the distractions of having Israel bandied about as a tool for waging political attacks.”

The pledge reads, in part:

...the United States must continue to project to the world the solid support of the American people and their elected representatives for Israel’s rights and quest for peace and security. U.S. leadership in the efforts to achieve an agreement resolving the conflict that results in two states—the Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peaceful coexistence—is more critical than ever.

and

We salute the long line of American leaders who have moved beyond their often bitter policy differences over issues of the day to stand shoulder to shoulder together on the side of a strong and enduring U.S.-Israel relationship.

The two-state solution is not the only one on the negotiating table.

The Emergency Committee for Israel will not sign the pledge. ECI's chairman, William Kristol, issued the following statement:

"Here's the Emergency Committee for Israel's answer to Directors Abe Foxman and David Harris: You must be kidding.

"Indeed, this attempt to silence those of us who have 'questioned the current administration's foreign policy approach vis-a-vis Israel' will re-energize us. Nor, incidentally, should those who support the administration's approach to Israel be bashful about making their case. Directors Harris and Foxman need a refresher course on the virtues of free speech and robust debate in a democracy. Their effort to stifle discussion and debate is unworthy of the best traditions of America, and of Israel."

Stifling is so Jewish establishment.

___________

UPDATE

Foxman retreating?

JTobin thinks so:-

The controversy over the pledge was not the result of what Foxman calls “distortion” by his critics; the fact is, he was caught red-handed in a thinly veiled partisan ploy.

The problem with the “Unity Pledge” is it echoed Jewish Democratic demands we have been hearing for years about shutting down Republican efforts to point out left-wing animus for Israel as well as the Obama administration’s predilection for picking fights with Israel. Obama’s decision to distance the United States from Israel, his stand on Jerusalem and his ambush of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in May were all factors in the Republican victory in the special election in New York’s 9th Congressional District last month. That result and polls showing a decline in Jewish support for Obama have panicked Democrats. The decision of the ADL and the AJC to issue a statement that would serve to legitimize efforts to silence debate about Israel by condemning its use as a “wedge issue” departed from not only their non-partisan status but also undermined their stance as Jewish defense organizations.

...As for the pledge, it should be amended to remove the line about “wedge” issues or scrapped entirely. We can only hope the disaster the ADL and the AJC have created for themselves will serve to deter Jewish groups from ever playing politics in this manner again.

^

Beinart, Ben-Ami and Polls

From CAMERA's post:

...three different recent polls have disproven claims promoted by Peter Beinart and Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street that the American Jewish community is increasingly alienated from Israel and that the traditional pro-Israel organizational establishment does not represent mainstream American Jewry...

In his Aug. 3 column, entitled "Seeking Balance on the Mideast," Kristof tenaciously grasps at Beinart/Ben-Ami's sinking ship of American Jewish diminishing support for Israel, writing:

Ben-Ami argues that "the loudest eight percent" have hijacked Jewish groups to press for policies that represent neither the Jewish mainstream nor the best interests of Israel. . .There's also some evidence that young American Jews are growing disenchanted as Israeli society turns rightward. . . ."What happens as Israel continues to become more religious and conservative, more isolated internationally and less democratic domestically?" Ben-Ami writes. "What happens to the relationship between American Jews and Israel as the face of Israel shifts from that of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres to that of the national religious settlers and the ultra-Orthodox rabbis?"

Is it true, as Beinart, Ben-Ami and Kristof claim, that American Jews, mostly liberal, are better represented by J Street than by AIPAC? Is it true that the population is increasingly distanced from the Jewish state? Not according to three recent polls.

A May 16-17, 2011 poll of more than 1,000 American Jews conducted by Luntz Global on behalf of CAMERA found continuing, deep support for the Israel. CAMERA Executive Director Andrea Levin noted that the poll found: "The overwhelming majority of American Jews are cognizant of threats to Israel, protective of the country, cautious about risks and strongly opposed to such measures as boycotts, including boycotts of settlements."

...A second poll, carried out June 20-7, 2011 by the Dick Morris Poll revealed similar findings demonstrating strong Jewish American attachment to Israel and deep concern for its security. In particular, the poll found:

...Finally, a third poll of American Jews, carried out by Pat Caddell and John McLaughlin and release July 12, 2011, affirmed similar findings. Notably:

...81% are against Israel being forced to return to its pre-1967 borders [sic; they were armistice lines]
73% believe Jerusalem should remain the united capital of Israel and only 8% support that the US should force Israel to give away parts of Jerusalem

So much for Kristof 's fictional "hijacking" of American Jewish organizations by a loud fringe of hawks.

Who says that leftwing progressive liberal Jewish intelletuals know anything?

^

The American Jewish Washout

Seems that the Jewish Council for Public Affairs endorsed for the first time a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

You all know that I have explained that we're facing a four-state solution, though.

At its annual plenum Tuesday in Atlanta, this umbrella organization representing 14 national Jewish groups and 125 local Jewish community relations councils, resolved that "the organized American Jewish community should affirm its support for two independent, democratic and economically viable states -- the Jewish state of Israel and a state of Palestine -- living side-by-side in peace and security."

The resolution also included compromise language reflecting American Jewry's "diverse views about current and future policies of the Israeli government towards settlements," and blamed the standstill in the peace process on Palestinian intransigence as opposed to 'terror' or specifically noting the Qassam/Grad rocket attacks, e.a l.

I was informed that the resolution passed unanimously, though the Orthodox Union, which has been outspoken in objecting to any deal to share or divide Jerusalem, had considered abstaining. According to one of its officers, David Luchins, the O.U. was satisfied with the final text, but still felt it represented an attempt to "micromanage" the peace process.

Sorry, but that's not enough.

Too bad that the OU's rep there was David Luchins. David is nowhere near reflecting the majority mood and thinking of the OU membership. And he knows it and has admitted such to me, describing himself as liberal/center.

Members of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs

American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
Anti-Defamation League
B’nai B'rith
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life (???)
Hadassah
Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Life
Jewish Labor Committee
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
Jewish War Veterans
National Conference on Soviet Jewry
National Council of Jewish Women
National Jewish Coalition for Literacy ???
ORT America
Union for Reform Judaism
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
United Jewish Communities
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Women's League for Conservative Judaism

=================

UPDATE

CLARIFICATION: OU POSITION AND ROLE ON JCPA
February 28, 2008

The Orthodox Union is a member agency of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) and participated in its annual conference this week.

As reported in the media, the JCPA debated and adopted a resolution with regard to the Israeli - Palestinian peace process. The media report, however, did not fully and accurately present the Orthodox Union's position and activities with regard to the resolution; we do so here.

The OU delegation engaged in the debate over this resolution by proposing and/or opposing provisions of or amendments to the resolution text. The following were the actions of the OU on this matter:

> The OU attempted to remove the resolution's text which would have, for the first time, put JCPA on record in support of the "two state solution" - but we were defeated by a vote of the delegates to the JCPA.

> The OU succeeded in inserting into the resolution's text the statement that "Israel's repeated offers to establish 'two democratic states living side by side in peace and security' have been met, time after time, by violence, incitement and terror."

> The OU attempted to remove the resolution's text calling for American Jewish support for any negotiations by the Israeli government over the re-division of Jerusalem - but we were defeated by a vote of the delegates to the JCPA.

> The OU succeeded in inserting into the resolution text which calls upon the American Jewish community to support Israel's insistence upon being recognized by the Palestinian Authority as a "Jewish state."

> The OU succeeded in defeating a proposed amendment to the resolution text which would have stated that the American Jewish community views the establishment or expansion of Israeli settlements as an "impediment to peace."

At the conclusion of the debate and amendment process, the OU delegation abstained from the vote on final passage of the resolution and informed the JCPA of our intention to file a formal, written dissent from the portions of the resolution with which the OU disagrees.

Er, so, the OU is still part and parcel of a body with which it disagrees and from which it dissents.

Why is the OU membership in such a body more important than such a basic and principled political issue?