How the Jewish Lobby Helped Save My Family
Some day someone should make a Schindler's List-like movie of the guy who helped bring us out. It was Jacob Henry Schiff (1847-1920). Schiff was a great Jewish hero, there should be statues to this guy. He was the head of Kuhn, Loeb, and rivaled J.P. Morgan, and Lord Rothschild, and Bleichroder, as the most powerful banker in the world.
I'm reading a great book, To Free a People (1982), by Gary Dean Best, a professor of history emeritus at University of Hawai'i. It's about the efforts by American Jewish leaders to stop the pogroms in Europe and to ease the situation of Jews there. It's about the birth of the Jewish lobby. "In the quarter century between 1890 and 1914 the American Jewish leaders forged the foundation for a strong American Jewish lobby which significantly influenced American foreign policy toward eastern Europe...and served as the basis for the powerful present-day American Jewish lobby," Best writes.
The lobby then comprised Schiff and a few other bankers, who gained access to the president whenever they wanted it, and also Simon Wolf, of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. These bankers were warned early on that it was better to operate "diplomatically," i.e. behind closed doors, than for Jews to have mass meetings—rallies, which would piss off the Russians and Roumanians who were persecuting my ancestors. So that's what they did generally, they had private meetings. (Though rallies would play a role over the years.)
Best shows that while American Jews were able to influence American policy, American statements, they were only moderately successful in actually influencing Russia. Though, yes, they kept up the flow of emigration. At one point, Simon Wolf made the following boast, to a Russian diplomat:
Russia at this juncture needs two important elements to inspire its future prosperity and happiness: money and friends. The Jews of the world, as citizens of their respective countries, control much of the first and would make a magnificent army of the latter. There is no use disguising the fact that in the United States especially the Jews form an important factor in the formation of public opinion and in the control of finances... By virtue of their mercantile and financial standing in this country they are exercising an all potent and powerful influence...
This was not an idle boast. Best says that in the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-05, Schiff played a powerful role in defeating the Russian forces by acting to block their access to capital in Europe and America, and meantime floating bond after bond, into the hundreds of millions, for the Japanese.
All because of Russian persecution of Jews. I love this guy.
Obviously I am bringing this up to talk about the present day. Schiff waffled on Zionism, as so many German Jews did. Ultimately he helped out. Today the Israel lobby is devoted not to stopping the persecution of the Jews but to the militarization of the Jewish state and defense of the occupation. Toughdove and other Peace Now Jews are against that lobby, and good for them. They know better than I do the horrors of the occupation, and are trying to end it. Where we differ is that I think the Israel lobby has profoundly influenced American foreign policy, and hurt it. They say that's preposterous, Jews don't have that kind of power. Gary Dean Best, a scholar, says that we do.
Antisemites have scorched the earth for any intellectual discussion of this—that is the belief of the toughdoves. I take their point. I don't want more Jewish persecution to emerge from what Albert Lindemann, another fine scholar, calls the "rise of the Jews." But I'm betting that we can have that conversation in America without persecution, and we need to. Undeceiving ourselves about our rise, undeceiving ourselves about our influence on policy seem to me essential elements of an essential conversation: Why Are We In Iraq?
Thank you for a remarkably interesting post. I for one agree with your point that we can & should have this discussion here.
(How are your dogs doing? We haven't seen a picture of them in ages. Are you afraid one of your interlocutors might poison them?)
"Where we differ is that I think the Israel lobby has profoundly influenced American foreign policy, and hurt it. They say that's preposterous, Jews don't have that kind of power."
No one in their right mind would say the Israel lobby hasn't profoundly influenced American foreign policy. Of course it has. I, for one, and ready and willing to talk about the adverse impact the lobby and Israel itself has had on American foreign policy. As far as I can tell, we just disagree about the extent to which the "lobby" or Israel were responsible for the decision to invade Iraq. They played a role. I just don't see enough evidence that it was the decisive role that Mearsheimer claimed.
ToughDove wrote: "I, for one, am ready and willing to talk about the adverse impact the lobby and Israel itself has had on American foreign policy."
This might be a good time then for you to explain to us all why you reportedly tried to get Phil to drop the subject of the Jewish lobby's power.
Of course, you are entitled to the opinion that the prospect of pogroms for American Jewry is more pressing than any damage the lobby may be doing to America and the world. But if that's what you really think you should be open about it, because many of us consider it a highly controversial (if not neurotic) position.
ToughDove wrote: "I, for one, am ready and willing to talk about the adverse impact the lobby and Israel itself has had on American foreign policy."
This might be a good time then for you to explain to us all why you reportedly tried to get Phil to drop the subject of the Jewish lobby's power.
Of course, you are entitled to the opinion that the prospect of pogroms for American Jewry is more pressing than any damage the lobby may be doing to America and the world. But if that's what you really think you should be open about it, because many of us consider it a highly controversial (if not neurotic) position.
Eating, socialising and pogroms in Russia.
__________
There is no hint as to why the persecution of the Jews of Russia was particularly bad. Dostojewsky writes that even in prison the Jews refused to eat at the same table with the non-Jewish inmates. Even today in a Frankfurt Jewish-German old-age home, the Jews there are told to leave their plates of kosher food on their trays in case they sit at the same table with the elderly Germans.
Well, the kosher laws do not account for the violent progroms but I think they are the social root of the animosity.
Klaus
Eating, socialising and pogroms in Russia.
__________
There is no hint as to why the persecution of the Jews of Russia was particularly bad. Dostojewsky writes that even in prison the Jews refused to eat at the same table with the non-Jewish inmates. Even today in a Frankfurt Jewish-German old-age home, the Jews there are told to leave their plates of kosher food on their trays in case they sit at the same table with the elderly Germans.
Well, the kosher laws do not account for the violent progroms but I think they are the social root of the animosity.
Klaus
I think this is a great post.
Two points:
1. The jewish lobby by itself would not have gotten the US into Iraq. Karl Rove's desire to paint Bush as a War President, various corporations desire for profits, armchair stratagists desire to prove their manhood by embarking on war (since they missed the one in Vietnam), the neo wilsonian myth that America has a destiny to bring democracy to the benighted all played their part. However, without the Likudnik wing in the pentagon and in the right wing think tanks, this unnecessary and disasterous war would have been much more unlikely. So I suggest we view the role of the Jewish lobby in causing the Iraq war as "necessary but not sufficient".
2. Anti-semitism has a long history. Who would have predicted 100 years ago that Germany, a center of Jewish culture and life would try to exterminate such a vital part of its people? Today, Jews play a huge role in American life, in many ways not dissimilar to the role they played in Germany before World War I. The fear that it could happen again, that it could happen here, although unlikely, is understadable.
However, it is precisely the sense amongst non Jewish Americans that Jews have a greater loyalty to Israel than to the United States that is most likely to spark a rise in antisemitism here. Not discussing the subject will not make it go away. What is needed is for more Jews to recognize that their interests as Americans and as Jews do not coincide with those of the settlers.
"rise of the Jews"
Persecution of Jews does not emerge from the 'rise of Jews'. To the contrary. The Russian/Polish Jews were the most downtrodden, backward, superstitious, worst integrated and uninfluential Jews compared to the German Jews around 1900. Germany at the time (till the advent of the Nazi movement) was to the East European Jews what America was to become after WW II. If you wanted - as an Eastern Jew - to get ahead the advise was: go to Berlin. The rise of Jews (educationally, economically, politically) usually went along with assimilation (more socialising with the Gojim, more intermarrige etc.) - thus lessening social tensions. In Russia and Poland (which was part of Russia till WW I) there had been no 'rise of the Jews'.
Klaus
ToughDove wrote: "I, for one, am ready and willing to talk about the adverse impact the lobby and Israel itself has had on American foreign policy."
This might be a good time then for you to explain to us all why you reportedly tried to get Phil to drop the subject of the Jewish lobby's power.
Of course you are entitled to the opinion that the prospect of pogroms for American Jewry is more pressing than any damage the lobby may be doing to America and the world. But if that's what you really think you should be open about it, because many of us consider it a highly controversial (if not neurotic) position.
Judging by the comments of some of your regular posters here, there is good reason for people to question whether you can have that conversation without persecution. This is not to say that you shouldn't have the conversation, but you shouldn't fool yourself as to the forces that are then put into play.
The article by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" would not be taken seriously if not for the reputations and associations of the authors. They have each written respected scholarly works on government and international relations and occupy important positions at their universities.
The article itself, which was first posted in full on the Kennedy School Web site and then published in executive summary form by the London Review of Books, is a 41-page, amateurish and biased critique of Israel, American Jews, and American policy. It addresses in a perfunctory and all-knowing fashion some of the most important and complicated issues surrounding the Middle East conflict. Nowhere in evidence is a sense of complexity, balance, an examination of the variety of factors that cause an event, or of putting individual comments in perspective
I know the founder of libertarianism, or one of it's founders, murray rothbard came from poland during that period or his family did. the jews in poland were not at all part of the society. they spoke yiddish and kept to themselves. it's not like today in the US.
Rothbard felt zionism was another ism lke communism and socialism and he opted out.
ToughDove wrote: "I, for one, am ready and willing to talk about the adverse impact the lobby and Israel itself has had on American foreign policy."
Then this might be a good time for you to explain to us all why you reportedly tried to get Phil to drop the subject of the Jewish lobby's power.
Of course, you are entitled to the opinion that the prospect of pogroms for American Jewry is more pressing than any damage the lobby may be doing to America and the world. But if that's what you really think you should be open about it, because many of us consider it a highly controversial (if not downright neurotic) position.
So you think on balance that the results (1917 revolutions, Stalin, WW2, etc.) were all worthwhile?
You should compare notes with Stephen 'Suleyman' Schwartz, the Muslim Trotskyist neocon.
ToughDove wrote: "I, for one, am ready and willing to talk about the adverse impact the lobby and Israel itself has had on American foreign policy."
Then this might be a good time for you to explain why you reportedly tried to get Phil to drop the subject of the Jewish lobby's power.
Of course, you are entitled to the opinion that the prospect of pogroms for American Jewry is more pressing than any damage the lobby may be doing to America and the world. But if that's what you really think you should be open about it, because many of us consider it a highly controversial (if not downright neurotic) position.
Would you prefer that Jews kept quiet, and let everyone else decide the fate of Israel?
Interesting story. Phil should tell us something about the way his people lived in Russia/Poland around 1900.
Here is what the Berlin Jew Dr. Jakob Frommer wrote in 1911: "When one wants to see an ethnological sensation one doesn't have to roam far-flung lands. One just has to take a day-trip from Berlin. Go east, cross the Russian border and you find a race nearly unknown to the civilized world, a race full of enigma and wonders."
Klaus
Phil, you continue to delight and amaze me -- the way you persistently continue to ask the hard questions. It's like watching a man take a graceful leap into a deep river gorge, not knowing exactly what lies at the bottom. Of course no one would do a foolhardy thing like this in ordinary times, but what we are living through now is extraordinary and fraught with peril. So you can do no other and I admire you for that.
Reading through the extensive excerpts from 'Esau's Tears' -- an engaging short trip through a lot of history told from the point-of-view of the anti-Semitic impulse -- here are some of my impressions.
First, I'm glad you introduced this book to the discussion because it cuts us right to the chase -- I am convinced that the right-wing Israel Lobby is holding us in thrall, Jew & Gentile alike, by continuously conjuring up the European/Russian exterminations and pogroms of the last two centuries. I am also convinced that what the Zionists are presenting us with is a distortion of this history -- the very essence of really effective propaganda -- I am also convinced that it is propaganda which drives all wars, and that ordinary people if left to themselves would never go to war except in cases of true national defence to drive out an invading/occupying foreign army.
So historical 'anti-semitism' does have to be seriously looked at if The Question about today's Iraq war is to be addressed. Charges of anti-semitism is modern Zionist stock-in-trade, now a little shopworn but still effective, American Jewish fears of anti-semitism are important, and so are gentile fears of being labeled anti-semitic.
Here are some quotes from 'Esau's Tears' that resonated with me:
"America is our Palestine: here is our Jerusalem." Rabbi Max Lillienthal, 1867
"The British case, like the American, does not offer much support for Hertzl's beliefs." p.356, circa late 19th/early 20th centuries
"Jewish leaders claimed that not only was America a land of unusual freedom and toleration but also that American ideals and Jewish ideals had a deep kinship, exceeding that of any modern nation." p. 371, circa 1914
Also noted on that same page/time was widespread American moral indignation toward the Russian pogroms of 1903.
My comment on this excellent history is this -- America is not and has never been Europe or Russia. America has never persecuted Jews. America's shame is the historic genocide of indigenous peoples, and black African slavery followed by apartheid. Today in America, it is not Jews who are the vulnerable ethnic group -- it is blacks.
So finally, getting to The Question: why are we in Iraq? When the war first began, and before the war began, I did not believe any of the Bush Administration reasons for it. I knew about the decade of killing sanctions on Iraq which followed the destruction of that country during the Gulf War 1991. The 'real reasons' I settled on were: first oil, second Israel, in that order of priority. But lately I have been wondering if 'oil' carries any weight, despite the fact that the Iraq Ministry of Oil was the only element of Iraqi civilization and infrastructure protected by the American army. So where does that leave me?
Phil, you continue to delight and amaze me -- the way you persistently continue to ask the hard questions. It's like watching a man take a graceful leap into a deep river gorge, not knowing exactly what lies at the bottom. Of course no one would do a foolhardy thing like this in ordinary times, but what we are living through now is extraordinary and fraught with peril. So you can do no other and I admire you for that.
Reading through the extensive excerpts from 'Esau's Tears' -- an engaging short trip through a lot of history told from the point-of-view of the anti-Semitic impulse -- here are some of my impressions.
First, I'm glad you introduced this book to the discussion because it cuts us right to the chase -- I am convinced that the right-wing Israel Lobby is holding us in thrall, Jew & Gentile alike, by continuously conjuring up the European/Russian exterminations and pogroms of the last two centuries. I am also convinced that what the Zionists are presenting us with is a distortion of this history -- the very essence of really effective propaganda -- I am also convinced that it is propaganda which drives all wars, and that ordinary people if left to themselves would never go to war except in cases of true national defence to drive out an invading/occupying foreign army.
So historical 'anti-semitism' does have to be seriously looked at if The Question about today's Iraq war is to be addressed. Charges of anti-semitism is modern Zionist stock-in-trade, now a little shopworn but still effective, American Jewish fears of anti-semitism are important, and so are gentile fears of being labeled anti-semitic.
Here are some quotes from 'Esau's Tears' that resonated with me:
"America is our Palestine: here is our Jerusalem." Rabbi Max Lillienthal, 1867
"The British case, like the American, does not offer much support for Hertzl's beliefs." p.356, circa late 19th/early 20th centuries
"Jewish leaders claimed that not only was America a land of unusual freedom and toleration but also that American ideals and Jewish ideals had a deep kinship, exceeding that of any modern nation." p. 371, circa 1914
Also noted on that same page/time was widespread American moral indignation toward the Russian pogroms of 1903.
My comment on this excellent history is this -- America is not and has never been Europe or Russia. America has never persecuted Jews. America's shame is the historic genocide of indigenous peoples, and black African slavery followed by apartheid. Today in America, it is not Jews who are the vulnerable ethnic group -- it is blacks.
So finally, getting to The Question: why are we in Iraq? When the war first began, and before the war began, I did not believe any of the Bush Administration reasons for it. I knew about the decade of killing sanctions on Iraq which followed the destruction of that country during the Gulf War 1991. The 'real reasons' I settled on were: first oil, second Israel, in that order of priority. But lately I have been wondering if 'oil' carries any weight, despite the fact that the Iraq Ministry of Oil was the only element of Iraqi civilization and infrastructure protected by the American army. So where does that leave me?
I figure you have to be in the middle of this one Rowan
Attacks on Britain's Jews
have risen to the highest level since records began.
A study published today shows the number of reported anti-Semitic incidents has almost tripled in 10 years, with more than half the attacks last year taking place in London.
The findings prompted the report's authors to warn of a "wave of hatred" against Jews.
The number of incidents increased to 594 last year, up by 31 per cent on the previous year.
Violent assaults soared to 112, up by more than a third on 2005.
Incidents ranged from the unprovoked stabbing of a Jewish man in north London to the sending of hate mail and the vandalism of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues.
The Anti-Semitic Incidents Report 2006, compiled by the Community Security Trust (CST), responsible for combating anti-Semitism in the UK, blames the huge rise on a number of factors ranging from Israel's invasion of Lebanon last summer to the jailing of the historian David Irving in Austria for denying the Holocaust.
The threatened suspension of Ken Livingstone as Mayor for comments made to a Jewish Evening Standard reporter triggered 11 anti-Semitic incidents, according to the report.
When the figures were first compiled in 1984, there were just 154 reported incidents, about a quarter of the total for last year.
Mark Gardner, CST spokesman said of the level of hate crimes: "This is unacceptable racism, that many Jews had hoped and believed was a thing of the past.
"Today's anti-Semitism is a wave of hatred, intimidation and abuse against British Jews, who are stupidly blamed and randomly attacked over international tensions for which they bear no responsibility."
Incidents last year include:
Hard to match this one for complete drivel. First, how does he know what Simon Wolf said to an unknown Russian diplomat or is it another made up Phil Weiss factoid. Second, the Russians lost that war because the Japanese sank their fleet at Trushima. Third, Weiss is a German name, sometimes Jewish sometimes not. Although Phil is the last of the line. Their will be no more Jewish Weiss's from this deseased family. Next, my grandparents were off the boat too. I don't recall them mentioning any help from Schiff. And in fact to him they were probably "ostjuden". Next, the United States had a fairly liberal immigration policy up until 1924. It had nothing to do with the LOBBY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! one way or another. And in fact if we are so fucking powerful how come we weren't able to open up the gates anywhere from 1933-45. Lastly, if Jacob Schiff were alive and could see Phil Weiss in action he would proably blow his brains out.
In assessing the impact of any group over American foreign policy, one should recognize that obtaining significant influence over American foreign policy may not be that hard to come by.
Despite its global power, most Americans (including reasonably well educated ones) have remarkably little interest in or knowledge about international affairs and even its politicians are remarkably (inexplicably, really) unserious about it. As a result a vaccuum develops which can be pretty easily filled by any group with strong convictions and the ability to exert political influence.
One can see this with the decisive influence of Cuban-Americans on U.S. policy towards Cuba as well as with the Israel lobby. In both cases I am annoyed with the ill-advised policy that results, but at this point I worry more about the Israel lobby because I believe the consequences of its influence are much more pernicious in the current environment in terms of its consequences for America (and for Israel and the rest of the Middle East as well).
While I don't think the lobby's role was decisive in the invasion of Iraq, its influence was extremely important. More importantly, fear of the lobby's influence prevented any serious discussion or reevaluation of the U.S. role in enabling Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and the expansion of settlements there. The logical step after ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan would have been, at minimum, a more balanced rhetorical approach to Middle East peace. Unfortunately, this was not regarded as a realistic option by either political party -- and fear of the lobby (justified or not) was almost certainly the principal factor for this judgment. A war with Iraq was somehow seen as the more viable option.
In assessing the impact of any group over American foreign policy, one should recognize that obtaining significant influence over American foreign policy may not be that hard to come by.
Despite its global power, most Americans (including reasonably well educated ones) have remarkably little interest in or knowledge about international affairs and even its politicians are remarkably (inexplicably, really) unserious about it. As a result a vaccuum develops which can be pretty easily filled by any group with strong convictions and the ability to exert political influence.
One can see this with the decisive influence of Cuban-Americans on U.S. policy towards Cuba as well as with the Israel lobby. In both cases I am annoyed with the ill-advised policy that results, but at this point I worry more about the Israel lobby because I believe the consequences of its influence are much more pernicious in the current environment in terms of its consequences for America (and for Israel and the rest of the Middle East as well).
While I don't think the lobby's role was decisive in the invasion of Iraq, its influence was extremely important. More importantly, fear of the lobby's influence prevented any serious discussion or reevaluation of the U.S. role in enabling Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and the expansion of settlements there. The logical step after ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan would have been, at minimum, a more balanced rhetorical approach to Middle East peace. Unfortunately, this was not regarded as a realistic option by either political party -- and fear of the lobby (justified or not) was almost certainly the principal factor for this judgment. A war with Iraq was somehow seen as the more viable option.
There are many observations i would like to make here but for the last 24 hours at least I have not been able to post any comments.
There's a real three-hankie weeper playing at the American Jewish Committee site. First there's "Anti-Semitism Today". Then "Anti-Semitism a Christian Disease". And if you can still see through the tears, there's--
"'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism" by Alvin Rosenfeld
This is where it gets interesting: it's not just about David Duke any more. Alvin Rosenfeld goes after Tony Judt, Adrienne Rich, Tony Kushner, and Richard Cohen (not sure how he got in there) for not toeing the tribal line on the homeland.
http://www.ajc.org
Here's a NY Times article about it
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/arts/31jews.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
Phil Weiss was not mentioned, but there can be no doubt he's on their list of "bad Jews".
"Alvin Rosenfeld" sounds almost too good to be true, as a name.
It figures that douchebag Weiss doesn't even know that his last name is German- Weiss= white
AJC won't download the Rosenfeld product unless you join their mailing list - what chutzpah.
They have a snitty rejoinder to the NYT though.
"Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Antisemitism" by Alvin Rosenfeld was submitted to an earlier thread (Judt Responds to Dershowitz, Jan.26) by Mader Abu Faqar and I addressed it there, picking up on one of my favorite themes:
There's a lot of different things I could say about Rosenfeld's piece but here's the money quote:
"Apart from the United States, to which Israel is almost always linked by its enemies, no country on earth is as vilified as the Jewish State."
And here's my question:
How come the universal vilification of the United States is not a cause of concern for the author?
He mentions this only in passing and only to help make his alarming case for 21st century anti-Semitism.
Alvin Rosenfeld is an Indiana University professor writing this piece for the American Jewish Committee, so obviously an American. Do you notice how universal anti-Americanism is not treated as a cause for concern, but a (perceived) renewal of anti-semitism is?
I am not impressed with most examples of 'the new antisemitism'. None are related to national state policies/laws relating to Jews and other ethnic groups in the 1930's. Some of these examples have already been discounted, having been found to have been initiated by Jews themselves. But the torture/murder case in England is absolutely a cause for concern -- an individual Jewish scapegoat was found to satisfy an individual citizen's frustration with Israeli war crimes in Palestine. I think this is the kind of thing we can expect here if the Iraq war continues much longer, with the growing perception -- true or false -- that Jewish neocons were/are behind the war for the benefit of Israel.