Ideas and Quotations
of Jewish Interest
Judaism & Religion
Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, examples, etc.
My Jewish Background
On Judaism & Religion,
Israel and Anti-Semitism
God said to Abraham, "Leave your country, your family, your father's house, and walk inward to the land
I will show you." This is what true spirituality demands: to leave everything we know; to relinquish everything
we are; to wander without a goal, path or teacher or teaching , simply trusting that when we get "there" we will
know. Buddha did that. So did Lao Tzu, Jesus and Mohammed. They all left home....
.... Does it matter that Jews sit zazen or Buddhists keep Shabbat? No. What matters is that for just one
moment, we heed the call "lech lecha, walk inward," and leave home for the unknown
Rabbi Rami M. Shapiro quoted in Utne Reader, July-August, 1998
If I am not for myself, who will be?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
If not now, when?
Being a Jew is like walking in the wind or swimming: you are touched at all
points and conscious everywhere.
The force of the battle against idolatry is not in promoting a positive idea of God but in the negative
idea of rejecting false gods. Central to the biblical struggle against idolatry is that there are sinful illusions
that make us take the wrong attitude toward the world and cause us to lead lives that are deeply wrong.
Worship is an indication of an attitude toward the world: it singles out what deserves our veneration
and what does not.
The biblical criticism of idolatry can be seen as a forerunner of the criticism in modern times of ideology
as based on illusions that cause great damage to our lives. Whether in the form of idolatry or ideology,
the error is one of ascribing absolute value to what has very limited value or no value at all.
Avishai Margalit, After Strange Gods
Reviewing Podhoretz, The Prophets: Who They Were, What They Are.
New York Review of Books, October 9, 2003
Don't be too sweet lest you be eaten up; don't be too bitter lest you be spewed out.
The only truly dead are those who
have been forgotten.
Worries go better with
soup than without.
To educate a man is to educate an individual.
To educate a woman is to educate a whole family.
No matter how corrupt, greedy,
and heartless our government,
our corporations, media, and our religious and charitable institutions may
become, the music will still be wonderful....
If I should ever die, God
let this be my epitaph:
Proof He Needed
For The Existence Of God
Einstein on God,
in 25 words or less....
[In 1929] New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein asked Albert Einstein by telegram:
"Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words."
In his response, for which Einstein needed but twenty-five (German) words, he stated his beliefs succinctly:
"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world,
not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
The rabbi cited this as evidence that Einstein was not an atheist, and further declared that:
"Einstein's theory, if carried to its logical conclusion,
would bring to mankind a scientific formula for monotheism."
Einstein wisely remained silent on that point.
However, elsewhere, Einstein elaborated his ideas:
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion.
It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology.
Covering both the natural and the spiritual,
it should be based on a religious sense arising from
the experience of all things, natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity.
In the Church, considered as a social organism, the mysteries inevitably degenerate into beliefs.
Does anybody really think it is harder to stand up in public...and say
"I believe in God" than it is to stand up and say "I don't"?
Michael Kinsley, reviewing Steven Carter's The Culture of Disbelief
Beyond logic or the
intentional or unintentional anti-Semitism of the movie, "The Passion of
The Christ," I became troubled by something else. ....An
intelligent Jewish man ... asked me with earnestness, "Rabbi, how do we
answer it? Did the Jews kill their god? Why do we Jews reject Jesus? Why did
we not appreciate his suffering?" The depth of his questioning revealed
that something more than anti-Semitism was at stake. ... The root of the
question is ... "Why can't we be Christians?" ....
... Every religion has its
root story which expresses the purpose and meaning of life who we are, what
we hope our children will become, how we regard those who may not accept our
story. ... Mine is not superior to yours, nor yours to mine. Without
understanding what Judaism affirms, we are left only with what others consider
our rejection. ...
My friend echoes their
question, whether or why we killed the son of God. ... The question derives
from their story, their premises and presuppositions. What does it mean to
torture and murder God? In my story, the question makes no sense. In my story,
God is not a person, not incarnate, not made of flesh and blood. In my story,
God is not visible, not mortal, not victim, not capable of being killed. God
is not a sacrifice. In my story, we bring sacrifices in the name of God, but
God is not our sacrificial lamb. Abraham's sacrificial ram is not Isaac, the
son of Abraham, nor the son of God. In our story, when Abraham believes that
God would have him sacrifice his son Isaac, the angel of God in the Bible
contravenes: "Do not raise your hand against this child or do anything to
The accusation "Why did
Jews kill God?" begs the question. It makes sense only if you accept the
theological premises and presuppositions of another story. I feel trapped, [as
in the loaded question], "And when did you stop beating your wife?" It
wrongly assumes that which is to be proven. In my story God is not to be made
into any image: "You shall not make me into any image or any likeness that
is in the heavens above or in the earth beneath." We sing it in our
liturgy: "God is not a body, nor the semblance of a body."
We must respect the
uniqueness of each other's story, but we cannot impose our story upon the
other. Am I to respond to your question "Why did you reject Jesus as the
son of God?" with "Why did you reject the tradition of Moses? Why did
you reject the mother faith?"
In our story, the
affirmation of our faith, we...do not single out Jesus for rejection. no
one, neither Abraham nor Isaac nor Jacob nor Moses nor David is accepted as
divine, perfect or infallible. There is no rejection of any priest or prophet,
only an affirmation expressed in the book of Ecclesiastes: "There is no
person who has walked the face of the earth and has done good and who has not
sinned." In our story, no one who walks the face of the earth is divine.
In our story, the struggle is against apotheosis, making of anyone a god. No
priest, patriarch, rabbi is worshipped. We have no saints; we have no
beatification or canonization of any patriarch, priest or prophet. In our
story, we do not even know where Moses was buried lest his burial place become
a shrine. In our Passover story, the name of Moses is not to be found in the
Haggadah, lest we deify a human being. This is our affirmation, not our
rejection. Our affirmation of the One-ness of God is prior to the claim of the
Trinity of God.
We are asked why we do not
accept a savior to save our souls from the burning coals of hell and
perdition. Here again the question is loaded: The question makes sense
from the point of view of their story that is based upon the belief that every
human embryo is stigmatized by an original sin, not a consequences of free
choices, but, like DNA, an involuntary sin inherited from conception. In that
story, sin is supernatural and therefore cannot be overcome, erased or
expiated by human deeds or human efforts. In that story, vicarious atonement,
the death of God's son, can wipe out my sins. But that never was our story. In
our story, no sin is original, no sin is supernatural. My sins are not
inherited, they are chosen by me and I am responsible to expiate for my
transgressions. There is something I can do to apologize, forgive and repair
for the hurt.
In my story, neither God, nor
priest nor rabbi can stand in my place. In my story, there is no vicarious
atonement, no surrogate for my doing teshuvah. If I sin, it is I who must pay,
I who must appease. No one else, neither father, nor mother, nor saint can
suffer for the hurt I have inflicted on others. It is I who must bind the
wounds, set aright the broken bones. In our story, no one can fast for us, no
one can pray for us, no one can beg forgiveness for us.
When you speak of saving our
souls from hell and perdition, you impose another story upon ours. In our
story, hell is not "down there." Hell is not an eternal torture for people who
don't believe in our story. In our story, hell is here on earth starvation
is hell, slavery is hell, genocide is hell, terror is hell, prejudice is hell,
hatred is hell. In our story, in the Talmud, in the name of Rabbi Jacob it is
taught that "One hour of repentance and the practice of good deeds are
better than the entire world to come."
You cannot read your story
into mine and then question my fidelity. Out of your story comes the belief
that souls must be saved, that "extra ecclesia nulla salus", "outside
of the Church nobody is saved." That story is not ours. In our story, no
one who does well, no one who lives a good and decent life, is excluded from
the world to come. In our story, the sages declare: "I call as witnesses
heaven and earth that be it an Israelite or Gentile, a man or a woman, only
according to the deed does the Holy Spirit rest upon him." In your story,
souls are saved. In our story lives not souls, are to be saved.
Rabbi Harold Schulweis,
After "The Passion " (2004),
responding to Mel Gibson's
controversial -- arguably anti-Semitic -- retelling of the crucifixion of
Jesus: "The Passion of The Christ" .
This I Believe: How Is It Possible to Believe in God?
I've always liked the exchange featuring the excited young Darwinian
at the end of the 19th century. He said grandly to the elderly scholar,
"How is it possible to believe in God?" The imperishable answer was,
"I find it easier to believe in God than to believe that Hamlet was deduced
from the molecular structure of a mutton chop."
That rhetorical bullet has everything -- wit and profundity. It has more than once
reminded me that skepticism about life and nature is most often expressed
by those who take it for granted that belief is an indulgence of the superstitious --
indeed their opiate, to quote a historical cosmologist most profoundly dead.
Granted, that to look up at the stars comes close to compelling disbelief --
how can such a chance arrangement be other than an elaboration -- near infinite --
of natural impulses? Yet, on the other hand, who is to say that the arrangement of the stars
is more easily traceable to nature, than to nature's molder? What is the greater miracle:
the raising of the dead man in Lazarus, or the mere existence of the man who died
and of the witnesses who swore to his revival?
The skeptics get away with fixing the odds against the believer, mostly by
pointing to phenomena which are only explainable -- you see? -- by the belief that
there was a cause for them, always deducible. But how can one deduce
the cause of Hamlet? Or of St. Matthew's Passion? What is the cause
This I believe: that it is intellectually easier to credit a divine intelligence
than to submit dumbly to felicitous congeries about nature.
As a child, I was struck by the short story. It told of a man at a bar who
boasted of his rootlessness, derisively dismissing the jingoistic patrons to his left
and to his right. But later in the evening, one man speaks an animadversion
on a little principality in the Balkans and is met with the clenched fist
of the man without a country, who would not endure this insult to the
place where he was born.
So I believe that it is as likely that there should be
a man without a country
as a world without a creator.
William F. Buckley, Jr.:
National Public Radio's Morning Edition, May 23, 2005
Is this interesting exposition Persuasive to you? Not to me.
Tel Aviv from Yafo
copyright, 1985, Jimmy Winokur
The only bit of news here -- and I guess in Israel it is a big deal -- is that we are expecting snow here
in Jerusalem tonight or tomorrow morning. ....
....I must admit, that when our fair city is blanketed
in pure, white, snow, its a lovely, tranquil, sight. Defying present circumstances, Jerusalem
almost lives up to its namesake and almost looks like a peaceful city. It's a change from the gold
and it gives us a temporary reprieve from the red. . When it snows, we know the terrorists can't
move around freely... a strange association for snow.
(email to me),
Jerusalem, January, 2002.
I don't mind the wolf
dwelling with the lamb as long as I am the wolf.
at Camp David II (2000-01):
and Robert Malley:
The Tragedy of Errors,
New York Review of Books,
August 9, 2001
has had an active part in Israeli-Palestinian relations for 30+ years and
Mr. Malley, Special Assistant to President Clinton for Arab-Israeli
Affairs, member US peace team at the Camp David summit.
In accounts of what happened at the
July 2000 Camp David summit ..., we often hear about Ehud Barak's
unprecedented offer and Yasser Arafat's uncompromising no. Israel is said to
have made a historic, generous proposal, which the Palestinians, once again
seizing the opportunity to miss an opportunity, turned down. ...
....For a process of such complexity,
the diagnosis is remarkably shallow. It ignores history, the dynamics of the
negotiations, and the relationships among the three parties. In so doing, it
fails to capture why what so many viewed as a generous Israeli offer, the
Palestinians viewed as neither generous, nor Israeli, nor, indeed, as an
Each side came to Camp David with very different perspectives, which led, in
turn, to highly divergent approaches to the talks.
was convinced that the Israeli public would ratify an agreement with the
Palestinians, even one that entailed far-reaching concessions, so long as it
was final and brought quiet and normalcy to the country. But Barak and his
associates also felt that the best way to bring the agreement before the
Israeli public was to minimize any political friction along the way. Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin had paid a tremendous political (and physical) price by
alienating the Israeli right wing and failing to bring its members along
during the Oslo process. Barak was determined not to repeat that mistake.
Paradoxically, a government that believed it enjoyed considerable latitude
concerning the terms of the ultimate deal felt remarkably constrained on the
steps it could take to get there. ...
...saw as his best route to the negotiations], to present all
concessions and all rewards in one comprehensive package that the Israeli
public would be asked to accept in a national referendum. [He reasoned
that] on the one hand, if Israelis and Palestinians reached a final
agreement, all ... minor steps [sought by Arafat] would be taken;
on the other hand, if the parties failed to reach a final agreement, those
steps would have been wasted. ... Concessions to the Palestinians would cost
Barak precious political capital he was determined to husband until the final,
In Gaza and the West Bank,
Barak's election was greeted with mixed emotions. Benjamin Netanyahu, his
immediate predecessor, had failed to implement several of Israel's signed
obligations .... But during his campaign, Barak had given no indication that
he was prepared for major compromises with the Palestinians
Palestinians were looking for
early reassuring signs from Barak; his first moves were anything but. His
broad government coalition ..., his tough positions on issues like Jerusalem,
and his reluctance to confront the settlers all contributed to an early
atmosphere of distrust....Seen from Gaza and the West Bank, Oslo's legacy read
like a litany of promises deferred or unfulfilled. Six years after the
agreement, there were more Israeli settlements, less freedom of movement, and
worse economic conditions.
obligations did more than cast doubt on Israel's intent to deliver; in
Arafat's eyes, they directly affected the balance of power that was to prevail
once permanent status negotiations commenced. ...To take the
simplest example: if Israel still held on to land that was supposed to be
turned over during the interim phase, then the Palestinians would have to
negotiate over that land as well during permanent status negotiations.
And while Barak claimed that unfulfilled interim obligations would be quickly
forgotten in the event that the summit succeeded, Arafat feared that they
might just as quickly be ignored in the event that it failed.
the superficial snapshot— Barak's offer, Arafat's rejection—lies a picture
that is both complex and confusing. Designed to preserve his assets for the
"moment of truth," Barak's tactics helped to ensure that the parties never got
there. [Barak saw everything] through the prism of an
all-or-nothing negotiation over a comprehensive deal [so that] any
confidence-building measure [would be seen as a weakness.... Obsessed with
Barak's tactics, Arafat spent far less time worrying about the substance of a
deal than he did fretting about a possible ploy. Fixated on potential traps,
he could not see potential opportunities. He never quite realized how far the
prime minister was prepared to go, how much the US was prepared to push, how
strong a hand he had been dealt. ...
been, in hindsight, a generous Israeli offer? Ask a member of the American
team, and an honest answer might be that there was a moving target of ideas,
fluctuating impressions of the deal the US could sell to the two sides, a work
in progress that reacted (and therefore was vulnerable) to the pressures and
persuasion of both. Ask Barak, and he might volunteer that there was no
Israeli offer and, besides, Arafat rejected it. Ask Arafat, and the response
you might hear is that there was no offer; besides, it was unacceptable; that
said, it had better remain on the table.
New York Review of Books, September 20, 2001:
Dennis Ross, US Ambassador
to the Middle East:
Response to Camp
David: The Tragedy of Errors
I contend that the ...the
failure lies in the willingness and the capacity of the respective leaderships
to seize a historic opportunity at a high political cost and not in tactical
and methodological mistakes.
On the Palestinian side, a
fragmented leadership was consumed by brutal internal struggle over succession
and political and economic power. ...Anyone who sought to advance the
negotiations was soon delegitimized. It was a messy collective paralysis.
The peace process in its entirety was the victim. The Palestinian side
repeatedly retracted from understandings reached during the negotiations. ...
New claims kept surfacing even in the most critical moments of the Camp David
summit. In the aftermath of Camp David the Palestinian side retracted from
many of its tacit understandings. Even the uprising is partially related to
On the Israeli side, Prime
Minister Barak, guided by a coherent and comprehensive strategy, assumed full
and direct responsibility by engaging in substance and tactics avoiding
opportunities to abort the process altogether. This is not to say that the
Israeli side or, for that matter, the American side, did not make significant
tactical and other mistakes. Notwithstanding, the major structural obstacle
remained with the Palestinian side.
It is not, as Abba Eban said,
that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It is
that in always feeling victimized they fall back on blaming everyone else for
their predicament. It is never their fault. History may not have been kind or
fair to the Palestinians. They have suffered and been betrayed by others. They
are, surely, the weakest player with the fewest cards to play. But by always
blaming others, they never have to focus on their own mistakes. And that
perpetuates the avoidance of responsibility, not its assumption.
Hussein Agha and
Robert Malley ,
Response to Ambassador Ross:
The fact is that Camp David
and the talks that followed demonstrated that, at their core, Israeli and
Palestinian interests are compatible. For Israel those interests include its
continued existence as a Jewish state; genuine security; Jewish Jerusalem as
its recognized capital; respect and acknowledgment of its connection to holy
Jewish sites. For the Palestinians they include a viable, contiguous
Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza with Arab East Jerusalem as its
capital and sovereignty over its Muslim and Christian holy sites; meaningful
sovereignty; and a just settlement of the refugee issue. In short, both sides
share a fundamental interest in realizing their national right of
self-determination within internationally recognized borders on the basis of
the two-state solution.
This may not suggest that a
deal was readily at hand. But can we, on this record, maintain that it was out
of reach? And that, on the basis of a hurried, unsuccessful six-month effort,
we are better off giving up on the current Palestinian leadership and placing
our hopes on a gamble that as yet unknown but presumably more flexible leaders
will somehow emerge?
To solve a one-hundred-year
conflict in a matter of months is a daunting task even under the best of
circumstances—without the miscalculations, missteps, and mismatched timetables
that occurred before and during Camp David. In this sense, paradoxically, this
tragedy of errors contains a message of hope. For it points to the possibility
that things can turn out differently if they are done differently.
The Balfour Declaration
November 2nd, 1917
I have much pleasure in
conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following
declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been
submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a
for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to
facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood
that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious
rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and
political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if
you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Arthur James Balfour
Of note is theBalfour Declaration's, obscure phrasing
"the establishment in Palestine of a
national home for the Jewish people.
What is a "National home"?
Jewish return -- going up -- to
"Unhindered Jewish Aliya!
Tel Aviv: Defus ha-Arets,
This election poster for
the 21st Congress, held on the eve of World War II, opposes
the MacDonald White Paper of May, 1939 (see
immediately below) ,
the Po‘alei Ziyon and the Marxist Circles (list yod-dalet).
MacDonald White Paper of
May, 1939 severely
Jewish aliya and land transfer.
Britain’s final betrayal of the principles laid out in the historic
provided for the
establishment of a Palestinian (Arab) state within ten years and the appointment
of Palestinian ministers to begin taking over the government as soon as "peace
and order" were restored to Palestine; 75,000 Jews would be allowed into
Palestine over the next five years, after which all immigration would be subject
to Arab consent; all further land sales would be severely restricted.
1939 White Paper met a mixed Arab reception and
was rejected by the AHC. The Jewish Agency rejected it emphatically, branding it
as a total repudiation of Balfour and Mandate obligations.
September 1939, at the outset of World War II, David Ben-Gurion, then chairman
of the Jewish Agency, declared:
fight the war against Hitler as if there were no White Paper, and we shall fight
the White Paper as if there were no war."
US Library of
Congress, Country Study of
in World War II
This Zionist Shekel certificate
was issued in 1925 to a member of
the Mizrachi (religious Zionist) movement in Poland.
Girona, Spain, photo (c) jimmy Winokur, 2004
Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism: Examples, etc.:
Defaced Medieval Synagogue,
photo (c) jimmy Winokur, 2004
The law of dislike for the unlike will always prevail. And whereas the unlike is normally situated at a
safe distance, the Jews bring the unlike into the heart of every milieu, and must there defend a
frontier line as large as the world.
The Koran pointed to a contemptible characteristic of the Jews; their craven desire to live,
no matter at what price and regardless of quality, honor and dignity.
Sayyid Qutb, Egyptian Islamist, hanged in 1966 in Cairo for sedition,
quoted in Paul Berman, Terror and Liberalism (2003 )
"Saudi-Arab Scholar Keeps Alive Ancient Anti-Semitic
Blood Libel Against Jews, 2002":
Special Ingredient For Jewish Holidays is Human
Blood From Non-Jewish Youth
For this holiday, the Jewish people must
obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare the holiday pastries.
In other words, the practice cannot be carried out as required if human
blood is not spilled!!
The Jews' spilling human blood to prepare
pastry for their holidays is a well-established fact, historically and
legally, all throughout history. This was one of the main reasons for the
persecution and exile that were their lot in Europe and Asia at various
How the Jews Drain the Blood From Their Young
I would like to tell you how human blood
is spilled so it can be used for their holiday pastries. The blood is
spilled in a special way. How is it done? For this holiday, the victim
must be a mature adolescent who is, of course, a non-Jew -- that is, a
Christian or a Muslim. His blood is taken and dried into granules. The
cleric blends these granules into the pastry dough; they can also be saved
for the next holiday. In contrast, for the Passover slaughtering, about
which I intend to write one of these days, the blood of Christian and
Muslim children under the age of 10 must be used, and the cleric can mix
the blood [into the dough] before or after dehydration.
The Actions of the Jewish Vampires Cause Them
Let us now examine how the victims' blood
is spilled. For this, a needle-studded barrel is used; this is a kind of
barrel, about the size of the human body, with extremely sharp needles set
in it on all sides. [These needles] pierce the victim's body, from the
moment he is placed in the barrel.
These needles do the job, and the
victim's blood drips from him very slowly. Thus, the victim suffers
dreadful torment -- torment that affords the Jewish vampires great delight
as they carefully monitor every detail of the blood-shedding with pleasure
and love that are difficult to comprehend.
Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al-Jalahma ,
Professor, King Faysal University in Al-Dammam,
in the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh (March 10, 2002)
Translation by memri.org
JLW: This notorious blood libel dates as far back, at least, as the Middle Ages,
and was prominently restated, for example, as justification during the Spanish Inquisition.
For further in-depth explanation, see e.g., the widely respected site for hoaxes and
Urban Legends at: http://22.214.171.124/religion/blood.htm
For discussion of an even more recent Anti-Semitic declarations by prominent Arabs, see
the New York Times, Editorials/Op-Ed, Islamic Anti-Semitism (October18, 2003),
voicing concern about
* an October 16, 2003 speech by Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, to the 57-member
Organization of the Islamic Conference;
* reaction thereto by delegates from Egypt, Afghanistan and Yemen; and
* the European Union Summit's decision not to condemn Mahathir Mohamad's statement:
"Jews are the most
worthless of men - they are lecherous, greedy, rapacious - they are perfidious
murderers of Christians, they worship the devil, their religion is a sickness
... The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing god there is no
expiation, no indulgence, no pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance. The
Jews must live in servitude forever. It is incumbent on all Christians to hate
John Chrysostom, the
Patriarch of Constantinople,
an "early father of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,"
quoted in Allan Gould, What Did They Think of the Jews?
No one knows the real Hermann Goering I am a man of many parts. [The
Holocaust] violated my chivalric code: I revere women and I think it
unsportsmanlike to kill children. That is the main thing that bothers me
about the extermination of the Jews.
Leon Goldensohn & Robert Gellately, The Nuremberg Interviews (2004).
all the beauty still left around you and be happy.
As long as Nazi violence was
unleashed only, or mainly, against the Jews, the rest of the world looked on
passively and even treaties and agreements were made with the patently criminal
government of the Third Reich.... The doors of Palestine were closed to Jewish
immigrants, and no country could be found that would admit those forsaken
people. They were left to perish like their brothers and sisters in the occupied
countries. We shall never forget the heroic efforts of the small countries, of
the Scandinavian, the Dutch, the Swiss nations, and of individuals in the
occupied part of Europe who did all in their power to protect Jewish lives.
Click here for a 114 K .mp3 file.
this is a Protestant country, and the Catholics and Jews are here under
Delano Roosevelt, said privately to Henry
Morgenthau, Jr. (a Jew, primary Jewish advocate within FDR's private circle,
also Treasury Secretary under FDR and Truman, see
below) also in the presence of a Catholic FDR appointee, Leo Crowley -- as
reported by Michael Beschloss in "
Auschwitz Secret," Newsweek,
October 14, 2002
[He is] a Jew, but entirely
without the usual qualifications of his race. He is a tall, well set-up
young man, with
a rather engaging diffidence of manner, and I think you need have no hesitation
whatever for any reason of
this sort in considering his application.
Percy W. Bridgman,
Nobel laureate in physics, to Ernest Rutherford
recommending his Harvard
J. Robert Oppenheimer.
(Rutherford nonetheless declined to take Oppenheimer into his laboratory.)
America and the Jews:
Azareli Towers, Tel Aviv, 2001
lit in Solidarity with 9/11
[Though less than 3 % of America's population, Jews make up]
* 50 percent of
the top two hundred intellectuals,
* 40 percent of American Nobel Prize winners in science and
* 20 percent of professors at the leading universities,
* 21 percent of high level civil servants,
* 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York
Jews now attend Ivy League
colleges at twelve times their presence in the general population. They
constitute approximately one-third of the students at those eight institutions.
Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab, Jews and the New
American Scene (1995)
"Harry Truman's Jewish Problem";
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."
^^click pages to enlarge ^^
Diary of Harry S Truman, July 21 1947.
criticizing the views of Henry Morgenthau, the Secretary of the Treasury,
who was Jewish, and who had phoned to discuss the fate of Jewish refugees.
Although Truman supported recognition of Israel in 1948, he was known to use
anti-Semitic language. In a letter written years before he entered the White
House, Truman referred to New York City as "kike town."
There are three basic types of anti-Semites. First,
there are anti-Semites whose hatred of Jews translates into action against
Jews. In this category go such notables as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Yasser
Arafat and Osama Bin Laden.
Then, there are anti-Semites who don't like Jews but
also refuse to let that dislike alter their decisions on what is moral and
what is not.
Truman was clearly the second kind of anti-Semite. As
David McCullough notes in
In private, Truman was a man who still, out of
old habits of the mouth, could use a word like 'kike,' or, in a letter to
his wife, dismiss Miami as nothing but 'hotels, filling stations, Hebrews,
Yet it was Truman who overruled his State Department
and recognized the legitimacy of the State of Israel. It was Truman who, in
April 1943, traveled to Chicago to deliver a speech before a huge rally to
urge aid for besieged Jews in Europe and implicitly criticized President
Roosevelt for not doing enough. It was Truman who lobbied for change in the
Displaced Persons Act to end discrimination against Jews as well as Catholics.
There is also a third type of anti-Semite: the
practical anti-Semite. This is the person who does not hate Jews
stereotypically but always acts against the interests of Jews. Perhaps this is
the most dangerous anti-Semite of all because while an all-around anti-Semite
can be labeled as merely anti-Jew, the practically anti-Jew person cannot be
labeled as such.
Truman's predecessor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was
such a man. Though FDR was careful never to belie any personal anti-Semitism,
his immigration policy before and during World War II played a crucial part in
allowing the Holocaust to reach its unimaginable magnitude. To the larger
Jewish community, the idea that FDR's policies were anti-Semitic is anathema.
Harry Truman, the anti-Semite?
, July 16, 2003
Now Truman's statements are being used by some Arabs
to justify their hostility to Israel. According to an intellectual, writing in
the London-based Al-Hayat, the recent rise of anti-Semitism, especially
in Europe, is very much attributed to Israeli practices against the
Palestinians, practices that allegedly parallel those used by Nazis. He
Israel is a shame to the Jews everywhere.
Everyone who supports it is a partner in the crime, for it has been
transformed from a country for the survivors of the Nazism to a new Nazi
state that is practicing what Truman predicted over half of century ago."
This intellectual insists that anti-Semitism must be
denounced. Yet, he emphasizes that
A government comprised of war criminals in Israel
explains the rise of anti-Semitism in every country.
This line of reasoning speaks volumes of the
predicament of the Arab mindset and constitutes the mortal threat to
Arab-Jewish peaceful co-existence. Why? Because at the heart of
this reasoning is an implicit claim that Jews are evil and that their
integration as a distinct group into the region is dangerous and thus
Arabs generally think that Truman admired and
sympathized so much with the Jews that he was the first president to recognize
and thus legitimize the state of Israel. His diary statements, however, reveal
a very different opinion of the Jews. Arabs' reaction was that "we have
been telling you so about the Jews, just read Truman's statements."
Truman was not the first president to entertain
anti-Jewish ideas. Two other presidents come to mind: Thomas Jefferson and
Richard Nixon. But all three presidents did not allow their personal opinions
of Jews to affect their actions. Indeed, Truman recognized the state of
Israel. Nixon worked for peace in the Middle East and filled key positions in
his administration with Jews. Jefferson approved of the American Constitution
that guaranteed the protection and equal rights of mankind including Jews.
Now Anti-Semites Are Citing Harry
Rabil is former project manager of Iraq Research and
Documentation Project, Washington.
The steward tells me that most of the Jewish passengers are
sick. Imagine taking these Jews in addition to those we already have. There
are too many in places like New York already. A few Jews add strength and
character to a country, but too many create chaos. And we are getting too
many. This present immigration will have its reaction.
Charles A. Lindbergh (1939),
while sailing across the Atlantic.
April 9, 2002 - At the
University of Denver, an anti-Israel rally
was held. One speaker, Val Phillips, claimed that "right now, Israeli soldiers
are rounding up every Palestinian male in Jenin, and dividing them into two
groups. One group to be arrested, and the other to be killed." Speakers compared
Zionism to Nazism and a member of the Colorado Campaign for Mideast Peace
called one of the Jewish students present a "kike."
Anti Defamation League,
At the University of Denver College of Law, I was personally
involved in the attempt to Palestinian speakers during Diversity Week without
including Jews or Israelis.! The panel was postponed until the Israeli
perspective could be added to the panel. The discussion eventually drew
Therefore be on your guard
against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is
found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy,
and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his
eyes on them.
Accordingly, it must and dare
not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel
against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and
from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:
First, that their synagogues be
burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be
good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...
Second, that all their books--
their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken
from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those
who may be converted...
Third, that they be forbidden on
pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly
among us and in our country...
Fourth, that they be forbidden
to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good
conscience listen to this or tolerate it...
-Martin Luther, On the
Jews and Their Lies (1543)
or "The Jew & the Gentile"
Thomas Rowlandson (London, 1803)
The print and
explanation of its title:
The operatic play
Family Quarrels was
first performed at Covent Garden in December 1802.
Prior to the first
performance, a song from the play about three Jewish whores circulated in an
inexpensive booklet of popular songs. A large number of Jews were grossly
offended and bought tickets to the opening performance in order to make their
dissatisfaction known. Trouble occurred, however, before the offensive song
was even heard. In the second act, one of the characters, on being offered
some goods by another character disguised as a Jewish peddler, replied,
"I never deal with your
people." The Jews in
the audience instantly raised a clamor and kept it up until the end of the act
so that it was impossible to hear a single sentence. They continued to protest
in a similar fashion during the remainder of this performance and several
(Todd Endelman, The
Jews of Georgian England, at 217(1979, ).
Comment on this:
The Jews' behavior was widely
condemned by contemporary commentators who expressed outrage that such
"a barbarous howl"
could have been raised by
"a parcel of old cloathsmen and pedlars"
(The Monthly Mirror, 1802).
Jew and Gentile,
may refer to the depiction of the two famous figures in the print. On the right,
is a caricature of a Jew, recognizable as John Braham (considered the greatest
tenor of his age) and on the left, a gentile.... The Jew's singing is
characterized by a musical notation marked
and his supporters, two bearded figures to the bottom right, show their
appreciation, one of them remarking
Mine Cod, How he shing.
He appears exhausted at the physical effort of sustaining his note and is
hunched forward. By contrast, the gentile is singing
Moderato con expressione
and the ease of his performance is encouraged by the encores of his English
supporters. The print is a graphic representation of some of the tensions
between Jew and gentile in a period when political emancipation was beginning to
enter the agenda.
from "The Jew as Other: A
Century of English Caricatures: 1730-1830"
A Jewish Theological Seminary Exhibit.
(The JTS is the seminary of
the "Conservative" Rabbinate)
to Return to Website homepage/index