How Two Jewish Publishers Who Privately Opposed Zionism Folded
"He was not a Zionist, however, believing strongly that he was an American citizen first and foremost."
That's odd. Her father, the financier Eugene I. Meyer Jr., who bought the Washington Post in the 1930s, is a figure in Zionist history. Behind the scenes, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis turned to Meyer again and again for money to support the Jewish settlement in Palestine. Meyer met with Brandeis's Zionist klatches, personally lobbied his friend FDR on their account, and agreed to head the University Zionist society—an organization to build support among Jews on campus (per Brandeis's letters, edited by Melvin Urofsky and David W. Levy, and Peter Grose's Israel in the Mind of America).
So was Katharine Graham lying about her father?
Well, no. Despite Meyer's support, even Brandeis conceded late in life that "his heart was never in Zionism and he did this largely on my account." So Meyer was merely tithing—to something he didn't believe in. This speaks to an interesting feature of the Israel lobby: It has long counted on support from assimilationist Jews who were lukewarm on the idea but went along under pressure from their nationalist Jewish friends.
Consider Meyer's counterpart at the NYT: former publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger. When Sulzberger died in 1968, the Times obit was emphatic about his views. "[Jewishness] was to him a religion, not a nationality. He did not believe Jews to be a race or a people, and, like Mr. Ochs [his father-in-law], was deeply opposed to the Zionism movement..."
Deeply opposed. Successful assimilating German Jews like Sulzberger and Meyer loved America. They were becoming big deals in the land of opportunity, they didn't quite see the point of Zionism—though they knew that Eastern European Jews who had fled pogroms were excited by it.
Sulzberger flirted with public declarations of his anti-Zionism. According to Thomas Kolsky's splendid history, Jews Against Zionism, in the 1940s, Sulzberger helped draft the mission statement of the anti-Zionist Jewish organization, the American Council for Judaism—which opposed "all philosophies that stress the racialism, the nationalism and the homelessness of the Jews, as injurious to their interests." Wow.
But in the end Sulzberger dithered and didn't sign on publicly. He wanted to, he told the Reform rabbis who headed the group. But till it got a big following, he just couldn't do so. It would hurt the integrity of the newspaper. Chicken.
Besides, the nascent Israel lobby was already on the Times' case, accusing it of being "a transmission belt for anti-Zionist propaganda." This ticked Sulzberger off. He said the viciousness of the Zionists' attacks were a big reason he had converted to anti-Zionism!
What is my point? Here are two powerful Jews, one a non-Zionist, the other anti-, controlling two of the most important newspapers, and both are afraid to express their views. Some may call that professionalism, I call it abdication: they were holding back on a central issue of the time. The publishers of the New Republic and the New York Sun and Commentary would never cheat their readers of their views of Israel, that's their raison d'etre.
Why didn't these men express their views? I think they were ashamed of their assimilation. And they were outplayed by the nationalists in their community. Kolsky says that the Zionists beat the anti-Zionists not on the issues, but by outsmarting them. They put them on the defensive by saying they were unrepresentative or "self-hating." They allowed them to piously play by the rules—no lobbying! the anti-Zionists declared— while the Zionists were working the White House. Give them credit. Today the Israel lobby works the cloakrooms and paints anyone who criticizes the intimacy of the U.S.-Israel relationship as an anti-Semite; and liberal Jews sigh and walk away.
Lately Richard Cohen of the Washington Post admitted regretfully that the creation of Israel was a "mistake." Sixty years ago a group of Reform anti-Zionist Jews were saying just that: that a Jewish state was an anachronism, it would result in endless violence in the Middle East, and would require support from Jews here, which would make those Jews confused about their allegiance. The two publishers evidently shared many of these views but couldn't take a stand.
So what was the position of liberal assimilating Jews in the Zionist movement? Just what Stokely Carmichael said the position of women was in the black power movement: prone.
Israel bashers like Weiss should consider the possibility that the vast majority of Americans support Israel's right to exist in peace and security because they really do understand the situation and not because of the machinations of some nefarious political lobby. The Israel bashers of the Left will continue to be politically marginalized and irrelevant because most Americans simply don't buy the nonsense that the Israel bashers like Mr. Weiss are peddling.
Interesting thing though, there are currently no more Jewish Mayers or Sulzbergers. Has there will be no more Jewish Weiss's. The upper class German Jews were always deeply ambivalent about being Jewish and the liberal assimilating Jews that Phil thinks of has his crowd generally line up for the Palestinians.
So, Ok Phil your a groveling little assimilating Jew, and your not alone. Mazel Tov.
It reminds me a little bit of a situation with Howard Stern's kids. He is not religious in any sense yet he allowed his children to be brought up in the faith with religious training. Was this to please the wife or the family? Probably. Yet doing so provides a legitimacy of sorts for views he himself ridicules.
I know a lawyer involved in atheist activism. His father was a rabbi who on his deathbed said to the son, "Be a good Jew. It's all bullshit, but be a good Jew."
My other secular Jewish lawyer friend agreed at least in this regard as he explained that it actually represents that aspect of the faith and culture that has been abandoned by so many which he saw as a commitment to justice and learning.
Greg, the vast majority of Americans are Christian goys who defeated the Zionist attempt to stop Mel Gibson's film The Passion and have begun to resent profoundly, among other things, the insulting, smearing attack on an ex-American president for speaking his very knowledgable mind in his own free country! making his new book a run away best-seller, echoing the Passion's great success. Most profoundly the patient and generous American people resent the death of their children for the cause of a country, not their own. When the utter horror that now awaits the world, from the impending attack on Iran being pushed by Israel then I fear the shit will hit the fan....... again and again the innocent will suffer for the MANIACS. As for The American Council for Judaism
Rene, I'm not feeling the love here. By the way the American Council for Judaism can hold their meetings in a phone booth.
Here is an excerpt from Ynet News by Israeli Brigadier General (Res) Oded Tira, published 12/30/06. (Title: What To Do With Iran)
For those harboring any doubts about the existence and perfidity of the Israel Lobby, read the second paragraph over twice. (Wouldn't it be nice if our government was left unencumbered to address the urgent problems of peak oil energy crisis and global climate change which have already begun to affect this country)
For those concerning themselves with the intricacies of Jewish bloodline laws instead of the awful backlash which awaits, read the responses from Americans, the first response is printed at the end of the piece.
"And finally, Iran will continue to pursue its nuclear program while the world continues to "babble." If American and European actions continue in the current pace and quality, there will be no change in the Iranian nuclearization path. Instead of allotting several months for diplomatic activity and preparing for a military strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, the world continues to talk nonsense and play with illusions regarding the success of moderating diplomatic moves.
"President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure.
"We must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran. We should also approach European countries so that they support American actions in Iran, so that Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again.
"We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran. For our part, we must prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the US. We should also coordinate with Azerbaijan the use of airbases in its territory and also enlist the support of the Azeri minority in Iran. In addition, we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack.
"The Americans must act. Yet if they don't, we'll do it ourselves, because there are no free rides and our existence isn't guaranteed. Addressing Iran would have positive implications for us in terms of the strategic balance in our region and when it comes to Hizbullah, stability in Lebanon, and Syria's power.
"The situation assessment I provided is difficult. At the same time, if we act in the face of these challenges soberly and without illusions such as the imaginary peace-with-Syria ideas, we'll be able to win and bring about comprehensive peace. Peace is pursued from a position of power and is maintained through the backing of power. Peace cannot be pursued when your enemy feels it defeated you."
Brigadier General (Res.) Oded Tira is the former IDF chief artillery officer
Bookmark to del.icio.us
73 Talkbacks for this article. See all talkbacks
1. US is not going to do the same mistake as in Iraq My Friend. If you feel Iran is a threat to Israel, please feel free to go and hit them ALONE, we are not going to be fooled by Israel again !!
Kleavin , NY (12.30.06)
Like most arguments here, this one revolves around the hopelessly tangled multivalence of "being a Jew".
Phil is just as entitled to believe that "being a Jew" means being a constructive member of the world community, as Bill is to believe the opposite.
;-)
Excellent, Rowan. :)
By the way, I'm a little worried that all Phil's agonizing over the implications of Zionism for assimilating Jews, while interesting and astute and useful for countering the lobby, can be a distraction from the one essential point about Zionism: that it is a racist ideology. An ideology holding that the Jews' claim to the land takes priority over all others should be opposed whether or not it causes "confused allegiances" among diaspora Jews.
The Brownshirts for Zion are whipping anti-semitism into a froth.
This won't end well. Least of all for Jews.
Gil, 'the brownshirts of zion" so I guess that makes us the nazi's. And what, the Palestinians are the new Jews. but to you guys the nazi's weren't so bad and the holocaust really didn't happen.
It definitely a relief to live in a country that has the right to bear arms with assholes like you runing around.
BP - That same logic makes a good case for Palestinians to be armed to the teeth.
re: details about Nazis and Holocaust - demanding accuracy is the very opposite of denial.
Actually Lance, no, because after all the holocaust really didn't happen, and even if it did the Jews deserved it, right. And by the way, I would wager that the Palestinians in Gaza are armed too the teeth. Look at the pictures and it seems like every guy is waving around his AK 47. So, head back to the neo -nazi sites that you seem found of providing liks too.
BP - Your "knowledge" of 'arms' is as lacking as almost everything else you bloviate on.
The nemeses of the Palestinians have tanks, jet aircraft, helicopter gunships, gunboats, heavy artillery, a ready military reserve operating openly, an industrial population largely backing the crimes of the IDF and Zionist government, unhindered travel across the realm while at the same time control their enemies borders, coast, and airspace, the ability to harass the population at every level in their daily life and commerce, seemingly inexhaustible financing from the US, the ability to upgrade and restock all armaments on credit (often w/o repayment), and rumor has it on good authority that the warlords of this little fiefdom possess nuclear weaponry and suitable means of delivery throughout the region.
They have signed no treaties regarding these nukes and should rightfully be considered a rogue nation. It is a wonder that their neighbors have not rationalized a pre-emptive strike to mitigate the danger of further bloodshed against their peoples, Their actions are like that of a bully with an equally unpleasant big brother who is always willing to bail the little bully out.
Your golden boys and girls did not do so well against a team more evenly matched (and even then at an incredible disadvantage). What they were able to do (as is their wont) was to murder thousands upon thousands of Lebanese civilians and attempt to destroy their societal infrastructure. The hundereds of thousands of bomblets left behind were Israel's version of "scorched earth" meant to make the region uninhabitable (or at least indiscriminently deadly) for generations.
That anyone would be willing to take up a rifle against these odds speaks to the determination of the Palestinian people to breathe free. As many here may know, despite Israel's lies, they have had a partner for peace all along, but chose merely to try to take what they could not bargain for.
"Armed to the teeth" is only an idiom originating from pirate days when having a back-up weapon to a single-shot black powder musket was quite prudent. In your world of dementia, I suppose Israel is not considered 'armed to the teeth' because you don't see IDF troops conducting their operations with combat knives in their mouths.
Lance, it's good to know you have Jewish friends, because otherwise someone might think you were an anti-Semite. But you're not as unprincipled as them. The anti-Semites, I mean.
Brad R - You can't really control what people think when they're filtering those perceptions through a distorted lense. Under those conditions, someone might think Pearlman makes some sort of sense.
Not sure what to make of the backhanded compliment of "not *as* unpricipled." I call them as I see them and try to provide my rationale for holding those viewpoints.
I consider it a sign of respect to be frank with one's opinions. This does not strike me in any way as unprincipled. My lawyer friend was the main influence on me in altering my views on Israel and Zionism. He has an uncanny ability to make predictions on global affairs based on how it fits into a Zionist agenda.
Ha! A Froth! Q.E.D.
Oh, and don't forget Pearlman, it's capital Haytch Holy Caust. The One. The Precious.
Gil: What are you talking about. get off the crystal meth buddy.