Uncategorized
Hating Israel Isn’t New; How the CIA and State Department Undermined the Jewish State
“Teddy Roosevelt’s great-great-great grandson is an anti-Israel protester at Princeton,” blared a New York Post headline on May 4, 2024.
The Post reported that Quentin Colon Roosevelt, an 18-year-old freshman, and descendant of the 25th President, is an anti-Israel activist at the Ivy League university. But far from being hip and new, Quentin’s brand of anti-Zionism is old hat — he is merely continuing a long family tradition of anti-Israel activism.
There is an abundance of literature on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s views on Jews and Zionism, the belief in Jewish self-determination. Both FDR and his wife Eleanor had made antisemitic remarks. In a private conversation in 1938, then-President Roosevelt suggested that by dominating the economy in Poland, Jews were themselves fueling antisemitism. And in a 1941 Cabinet meeting, FDR remarked that there were too many Jewish Federal employees in Oregon. In his final days, FDR promised Saudi leader Abdul Aziz Ibn al Saud that he would oppose the creation of Jewish state in the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland.
FDR is the president who led the United States to victory against Adolf Hitler. He also employed Jews in high-ranking positions in his government. But he is also the president whose administration failed to save more Jews fleeing Nazism, and who refused to bomb the railway tracks leading to Auschwitz and other death camps where millions of Jews met a ghastly end. Accordingly, it makes sense that his beliefs regarding Jews have been the subject of books and belated study.
Less examined, however, is the Oyster Bay branch of the Roosevelt clan, and their beliefs regarding Zionism. In part, this is easily explained by the unique place that FDR holds in American history. He is the only president to serve four terms, and presided over both the Great Depression, World War II, and arguably the beginning of the Cold War. His branch of the family, the Hyde Park Roosevelts, were Democrats and remained active in public life for decades after his 1945 death.
At first glance, the Oyster Bay Roosevelts were more of a turn of the 19th century affair. They were Republicans, and their scion was Teddy Roosevelt, a war hero turned governor of New York state who, thanks to an assassin’s bullet, found himself as the nation’s leader in 1901.
The famously ebullient Roosevelt helped redefine the country’s idea of a president, and served as an inspiration for his cousin Franklin. But Teddy largely presided over an era of peace and tranquility, not war and upheaval.
Teddy was a philosemite. He was the first occupant of the Oval Office to appoint a Jewish American to the Cabinet. He championed the rights of Jews, both at home and abroad, and was harshly critical of the numerous pogroms that unfolded in czarist Russia.
As Seth Rogovoy has noted, Roosevelt’s “special relationship with Jews was forged during his time serving as police commissioner in New York City, a post he assumed in 1904.” When an antisemitic German preacher named Hermann Ahlwardt gave speeches in the city, Roosevelt assigned a contingent of Jewish police officers to guard the man.
Roosevelt was also a Zionist. In 1918, shortly after the Balfour Declaration, he wrote: “It seems to me that it is entirely proper to start a Zionist state around Jerusalem.” He told Lioubomir Michailovitch, the Serbian Minister to the United States, that “there can be no peace worth having … unless the Jews [are] given control of Palestine.” Six months later Roosevelt died in his sleep.
Not all his descendants would share his belief in Jewish self-determination, however.
Two of Teddy Roosevelt’s grandchildren, Kermit and Archie, served their country in the CIA during the early years of the Cold War. Both were keenly interested in Middle East affairs, and were fluent in Arabic. Both were well read and highly educated, authoring books and filing dispatches for newspapers like the Saturday Evening Post, among others.
They were also prominent anti-Zionists.
Kermit Roosevelt, known as “Kim,” played a key role in anti-Zionist efforts in the United States and abroad. He was not, by the standards of his time, an antisemite. But he was ardently opposed to the creation of Israel.
As Hugh Wilford observed in his 2013 book America’s Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East: “the anti-Zionism of the overt Cold War foreign policy establishment is well known” but “less widely appreciated is the opposition to Jewish statehood of the individuals responsible for setting up the United States’ covert apparatus in the Middle East.”
This began with the OSS, the CIA’s precursor. And it included men like Stephen Penrose, a former American University of Beirut instructor, and Kim Roosevelt’s boss during his wartime service in the OSS.
“Documents among Penrose’s personal papers reveal him engaged in a variety of anti-Zionist activities at the same time that he was commencing his official duties with the OSS,” Wilford notes.
Like many of his fellow Arabists, Penrose was the son of American missionaries who, failing to convert the native population to Christianity, sought to foster Arab nationalism instead. Penrose described himself as a “chief cook” who was “brewing” opposition to Zionism. He became one of Kim Roosevelt’s mentors.
In a January 1948 Middle East Journal article entitled, “Partition of Palestine: A Lesson in Pressure Politics,” Kim called the 1947 UN vote in favor of a Jewish state an “instructive and disturbing story.”
Roosevelt believed that the US media was unduly supportive of the creation of Israel, and claimed that almost all Americans “with diplomatic, educational, missionary, or business experience in the Middle East” opposed Zionism.
Kim’s pamphlet was reprinted by the Institute for Arab American Affairs, a New York-based group whose board he sat on. He also began working with the Arab League’s Washington, D.C., office and “turned elsewhere for allies in the anti-Zionist struggle, starting with the Protestant missionaries, educators, and aid workers.”
This nascent group soon received financial support from the American oil industry, which maintained close links to Kim’s OSS/CIA colleague, William Eddy.
As Wilford noted, the Arabian consortium ARAMCO “launched a public relations campaign intended to bring American opinion around to the Arab point of view.”
In addition to missionaries and big oil, Kim gained another important ally in the form of Elmer Berger, a rabbi from Flint, Michigan. Berger served as executive director of the American Council for Judaism, an anti-Zionist group that, among other things, opposed the creation of a Jewish army during World War II at the height of the Holocaust. Berger and Roosevelt became drinking buddies and close collaborators on their joint effort against the Jewish State.
Kim eventually became “organizing secretary” for a group called The Committee for Justice and Peace. The committee’s original chair, Virginia Gildersleeve, was both a longtime friend of the Roosevelts of Oyster Bay and the dean of New York City’s Barnard College, which today is part of Columbia.
Gildersleeve was “also a high-profile anti-Zionist” who “became involved with the Arab cause through her association with the Arabist philanthropist Charles Crane and the historian of Arab nationalism George Antonius.”
Crane, a wealthy and notorious antisemite, had lobbied against the creation of a Jewish state since the beginning of the 20th century, even advising then-President Woodrow Wilson against supporting the Balfour Declaration.
By 1950, the Committee had managed to recruit famed journalist Dorothy Thompson to their cause. Thompson was reportedly the basis for actress Katharine Hepburn’s character in the 1942 movie Woman of the Year. A convert to anti-Zionism, Thompson’s extensive network of reporters and celebrities proved crucial to Kim and Berger’s efforts to rally opposition to the Jewish State. In a 1951 letter to Barnard College’s Gildersleeve, Thompson wrote: “I am seriously concerned about the position of the Jews in the United States.” People, she claimed, “are beginning to ask themselves the question: who is really running America?”
Another ally emerged that year: the Central Intelligence Agency.
The CIA began funding the Committee, as well as its successor, the American Friends of the Middle East (AFME). Beginning in June 1950, Kim’s correspondence with Berger began making veiled references to the ACJ head taking on “official work” in Washington. This, Wilford believes, is a reference to working with the CIA. Indeed, the well-connected Kim and Archie Roosevelt had known top CIA officials like Allan Dulles since childhood.
With support from figures like Eddy, AFME also began encouraging Muslim-Christian alliances — ostensibly to counter Soviet influence, but also to attack the Jewish state. This led to some awkward alliances, including with Amin al-Husseini, the founding father of Palestinian nationalism and an infamous Nazi collaborator.
Husseini had ordered the murders of rival Palestinians, incited violence against Jews since the 1920s, and had led forces, equipped with Nazi-supplied arms, to destroy Israel at its rebirth in 1948. Now, along with the Secretary General of the Arab League, and Saudi King Ibn Saud, he was meeting with Eddy to discuss a “moral alliance” between Christians and Muslims to defeat communism. Kim himself knew Husseini, having interviewed him for the Saturday Evening Post after World War II.
AFME lobbied for the appointment of anti-Zionist diplomats and in favor of Eisenhower administration efforts to withhold aid from Israel. And both Berger and Thompson pushed for favorable coverage of the new Egyptian dictator, Gamal Nassar, who would wage war on the Jewish state for nearly two decades. Initially, they were successful, with TIME magazine writing that Nasser had the “lithe grace of a big, handsome, all-American quarterback.” Of course, there was nothing “all-American” about Nasser, who would become a Soviet stooge.
AFME officials like Garland Evans Hopkins would draw rebukes after claiming that Jews were bringing violence against themselves — a staple of antisemitism. Hopkins claimed that Zionists “could produce a wave of antisemitism in this country” if they continued acting against “America’s best interests in the Middle East.”
AFME itself would eventually lose influence, particularly after its boosting of figures like Nasser was revealed as foolhardy. Berger would go on to advise Senator J. William Fulbright (D-AR) in his efforts to get pro-Israel Americans to register as foreign agents.
In 1967, as Arab forces gathered to annihilate Israel, Berger blamed the Jewish State, accusing it of “aggression” and its supporters of “hysteria.” Top ACJ officials resigned in protest. That same year, Ramparts magazine exposed CIA support, financial and otherwise, of AFME.
Kim and Archie Roosevelt, however, would continue their careers as high-ranking CIA officers before eventually starting a consulting business and making use of their extensive Middle East contacts.
For some college protesters, attacking Israel — and American support for Israel — might seem new and trendy. Yet, both the CIA and big oil were precisely doing that, decades ago, forming alliances with anti-American dictators, antisemitic war criminals, the press, Protestant groups, academics, university administrators, and fringe Jewish groups claiming to represent “what’s best” for American Jewry.
As William Faulkner once wrote: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
The writer is a Senior Research Analyst for CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis
The post Hating Israel Isn’t New; How the CIA and State Department Undermined the Jewish State first appeared on Algemeiner.comhttps://www.algemeiner.com/.
Uncategorized
Why Are Jews Called ‘The Chosen People’? Misunderstanding, Misuse, and a Convenient Distortion
A Torah scroll. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
From Ana Kasparian’s claim that Israelis are despised worldwide for “thinking you’re G-d’s chosen people” to Roger Waters’ unhinged assertion that Israelis seek to first take over the Middle East and then rule the world because they see themselves as the “chosen people,” you have likely come across similar screeds on social media.
Few phrases in Judaism have been so persistently misrepresented as “the Chosen People.”
It is routinely weaponized against Jews and Israel, invoked as supposed proof of Jewish supremacism or racial hierarchy.
In this telling, Jewish identity is reduced to a claim of inherent superiority, in direct contradiction to the Bible’s core teaching that all humans are created in God’s image.
This distortion is not accidental. It reflects a broader tendency to force Jewish history and theology into categories that do not fit, particularly a modern racial lens that is both historically and conceptually misplaced.
That lens becomes especially grotesque when applied in the shadow of the Holocaust, which is itself often misappropriated in contemporary discourse. The accusation is inverted: the victims of a racial ideology are recast as its inheritors, with “chosenness” presented as evidence of exclusion, purity, or dominance.
First, this argument ignores a basic reality: Jews are not a race. Jewish communities span continents and cultures, from Ethiopian to Indian to European and Middle Eastern, bound not by racial homogeneity but by shared history, law, and tradition.
More fundamentally, it misunderstands the meaning of the term itself.
So what does it actually mean to be “chosen”?
The concept originates in the Torah, most explicitly in Exodus 19:6, at Mount Sinai, where the Israelites are described as a “holy nation” and enter into covenant with God through the giving of the Ten Commandments. It is reiterated in Deuteronomy 7:6, where they are called a “treasured people.”
But “chosen” in this context does not denote privilege in the modern sense. It denotes obligation.
It is a designation tied to covenant, a binding commitment to a specific set of laws, ethical demands, and responsibilities. Far from elevating Jews above others, it imposes a burden: to live according to a demanding moral and religious framework, and to serve as a model of ethical conduct.
The idea reaches back to Abraham in Genesis and to the emergence of the Israelites. In Jewish tradition, Abraham is the figure who recognizes one God and rejects the pagan world around him. That matters because the ancient Near East was overwhelmingly polytheistic. Egyptians worshiped a vast pantheon of gods with different powers and domains; Mesopotamian religion centered on multiple deities embodied in cult statues housed and served in temples, and the Greeks likewise appealed to different gods for different realms of life and nature.
In Jewish tradition, Abraham is the first great monotheist, the figure who recognizes one God in a world dominated by idol worship. That belief becomes the foundation of Jewish faith and practice, expressed most clearly in the central declaration of God’s oneness that underpins Jewish prayer.
The God Abraham recognizes is not a local or limited deity, but the Creator of everything: heaven and earth, day and night, and all living things. That idea alone marked a radical break from the religious norms of the ancient world.
Abraham is also understood to have paid a price for that belief. He rejected the idols of his time, broke with the society around him, and left his homeland in response to God’s command, entering into a life defined by faith and uncertainty.
And this is the crucial point often missed. The Biblical story is not one of a people passively selected as superior, but of a family, and later a nation, entering into a binding relationship with one God and accepting the obligations that come with it.
That obligation has had consequences far beyond the Jewish people themselves. Two of the world’s largest faiths, Christianity and Islam, emerge from this tradition. Both are rooted in the idea of one God and draw directly on core elements of the Hebrew Bible. The concept of ethical monotheism, first articulated in Jewish tradition, did not remain confined to one people. It reshaped the religious landscape of much of the world.
“Chosenness,” then, is not an abstract or inward-looking idea. Its influence has been global.
In the Bible, the relationship between God and humanity is not static. It is dynamic, and at times contested. God is not presented as distant or arbitrary, but as a being with whom humans can argue, plead, and reason.
We see this most clearly in the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where Abraham challenges God’s initial judgment, pressing the case that the innocent should not be destroyed alongside the guilty. The episode is striking not because Abraham “wins,” by reducing the threshold to ten righteous individuals, but because he argues at all. It establishes a model of moral engagement, not passive submission.
Elsewhere, the Bible repeatedly shows that covenant comes with conditions. The Israelites are not portrayed as unconditionally elevated, but as accountable. In the story of the spies, their lack of faith leads to a generation being barred from entering the Promised Land. Even Moses is not exempt from consequence.
The message is consistent. “Chosen” does not mean guaranteed. It means bound by responsibilities. In a modern context, that responsibility includes building a just society, resisting oppression, and protecting the vulnerable; to honor human dignity in law, economics, and war; to safeguard creation rather than exploit it; and to pursue truth and integrity in public life, even when it is costly.
Nor is this covenant entirely closed. The Hebrew Bible recognizes righteous individuals outside the Jewish people, and Jewish law has long held that converts are fully part of the nation, with no lesser status. Entry into the covenant is not racial, but defined by commitment.
The phrase “Chosen People” has become a rhetorical weapon, deployed to accuse Jews of the very worldview their tradition rejects.
A covenant of obligation is recast as a claim of superiority. A system built on law, restraint, and accountability is twisted into something racial and exclusionary.
But the distortion does not hold. “Chosen” in Judaism does not mean elevated. It means obligated.
And the refusal to understand that is not an intellectual failure. It is a choice.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Flyers for ‘IsraelFest’ at New York high school ended up in a urinal. Now the school board president is facing calls to resign.
(JTA) — The school board president in a heavily Jewish suburb of New York City is facing calls to resign after flyers promoting a student-led Israeli culture club event were torn down and later found in a boys’ bathroom urinal last week.
The flyers advertised an “IsraelFest” event to celebrate Israel’s 78th Independence Day this week at Scarsdale High School. Among those posting photographs of the vandalism was the daughter of the board president, James Dugan. She added a caption: “Keep up the good work.”
The incident quickly drew condemnation from leaders within the school district of the heavily Jewish New York City suburb, including Superintendent Drew Patrick, who wrote in a letter to the community that the vandalism “places our collective sense of community in jeopardy.”
“We live in a time of rising antisemitism, political polarization, and a degraded civil discourse,” Patrick wrote. “I want the community to know that we take these complex challenges seriously and work to confront them every single day.”
Patrick said the district had already been developing a “clear, written set of guidelines regarding student speech and dress at school sponsored student activities,” which will be introduced at a Board of Education meeting on May 11.
Scarsdale High School Principal Kenneth Bonamo also decried the incident in a letter to the community on Friday, adding that the student government’s Instagram post advertising the event received “two replies criticizing the event using vulgar language.”
Bonamo said the school’s investigation into the incident was “active and ongoing,” and that officials were “currently interviewing students and reviewing camera footage to identify those involved.”
“The Israeli Culture Club was well within its right to plan this type of an event, for which they sought and received administrative approval,’ Bonamo wrote. “Denigrating the club’s efforts in this way is wholly inconsistent with our values, both as a matter of basic fairness to support appropriate and approved student activities and because these actions constitute antisemitism.”
The event promised “Israeli food (and pizza), drinks and desserts alongside Israeli music and games,” suggesting no focus on current events or geopolitics.
The incident comes as younger Americans increasingly adopt anti-Israel stances, setting up clashes in places like Scarsdale, where many Jewish families have connections to the country and to Jewish communities. In 2024, two stores in a Scarsdale shopping plaza, one of which had a sign reading “We stand with Israel” in its window, were targeted with anti-Israel graffiti.
In his letter, Bonamo added that the school had received “concerns that the unlabeled map in the flyer seems to include disputed territories as part of the State of Israel.” The map did not delineate the West Bank and Gaza.
“This is a core conflict in this debate, one that is worthy of exploration in civil discourse, but responding in this way is still not appropriate,” Bonamo wrote of the map.
An online petition calling for the students responsible for the vandalism to face “meaningful disciplinary action” as well as for Dugan’s ouster nearly 1,000 signatures by Tuesday morning.
“When a Board member’s immediate family is directly connected to the approval, encouragement, or defense of antisemitic behavior, it undermines public confidence in the Board’s ability to lead fairly and credibly during moments of crisis,” the petition read. “For that reason, we call for the resignation of any Board of Education member whose household is implicated in supporting these acts.”
A separate petition calling for the school board to reject calls for Dugan’s resignation drew over 100 signatures.
Dugan appeared to address his daughter’s post in a letter to the school community on Friday, writing, “Recent events have provided a profound teaching moment for me as a parent and have impacted me and my family.”
He added, “As a parent, I will focus on healing my family. But as a school board member, my focus will continue to be on our students, our schools, and our educational program.”
The incident follows others at high schools in the region that have unsettled Jewish students and watchdogs. In February, a New York City high schooler was arrested for allegedly sending an email threatening to “kill all the Jews in this school,” and earlier this month, students at a Connecticut Catholic school were punished for making antisemitic posts about a rival hockey team.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Flyers for ‘IsraelFest’ at New York high school ended up in a urinal. Now the school board president is facing calls to resign. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Isaac Accords, Wave of IRGC Terror Designations Signal Deepening Israel–Latin America Ties
Argentina’s President Javier Milei receives Presidential Medal of Honor from Israel’s President Isaac Herzog in Jerusalem, April 20, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
As Israel deepens its diplomatic outreach across Latin America, a quiet but notable convergence is taking shape, with regional governments tightening security cooperation and increasingly aligning efforts to counter Iranian-linked terrorism and illicit networks operating across the hemisphere.
During a state visit to Israel on Sunday, Argentine President Javier Milei and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally signed the Isaac Accords, a new framework aimed at deepening ties between Israel and Latin American governments while jointly addressing antisemitism and terrorism.
According to Toby Dershowitz, senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a Washington, DC–based think tank, this initiative builds on rising regional momentum for closer cooperation with the Jewish state and sets in place a framework for intelligence-sharing and coordinated law enforcement efforts aimed at countering Iranian proxy networks operating across the hemisphere.
Latin America has long been regarded as a hub for Iran-backed Hezbollah’s illicit drug trafficking and other criminal activities, which have been used to finance its broader terrorist operations worldwide.
“While just formally signed in recent days, there is already momentum behind some of the Isaac Accords’ goals,” Dershowitz told The Algemeiner. “Several countries have taken steps – including terrorism designations – to counter the Islamic Republic’s threat.”
“The Western Hemisphere has been plagued by Iran-backed terrorism for decades and countries are increasingly leveraging support from allies in the region to address the threat,” she continued.
Modeled after the Abraham Accords — a series of historic, US-brokered normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab countries — this new initiative aims to strengthen political, economic, and cultural cooperation between the Jewish state and Latin American governments.
During the signing ceremony, Milei described the launch of the accords as “a historic moment for our nations,” saying they are intended to advance peace through efforts to strengthen long-term regional stability, security, and economic prosperity.
The Isaac Accords “will not only strengthen the relationship between Argentina and Israel, united by shared values, but also mark a step toward a freer and more prosperous hemisphere,” the Argentine leader said.
According to a joint statement between the two leaders, the new initiative will focus on technology, security, and economic development, with an emphasis on deepening cooperation in innovation, commerce, and cultural exchange.
It will also seek to encourage partner countries to relocate their embassies to Jerusalem, formally designate Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, and shift longstanding voting patterns on Israel at the United Nations.
Dershowitz explained that the push to formally designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its proxy groups as terrorist organizations — an approach already adopted by several Latin American countries — is central to strengthening states’ ability to investigate and prosecute terrorism networks.
She also noted that such designations facilitate cooperation with global financial intelligence units, expanding the legal tools available to track and disrupt illicit financing.
“Iran has a concerning footprint in Latin America. Some countries in the region face major Hezbollah-linked drug trafficking challenges and, as a result, exposure to illicit financial flows,” Dershowitz said. “It is no doubt part of the calculus that led to these designations.”
Since the start of the war in Gaza, and even more so amid the broader confrontation with Iran, Latin American countries have increasingly sought to align their domestic legislation with international sanctions frameworks targeting Hezbollah, Hamas, and the IRGC — all of which are designated by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.
Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Paraguay are among some of the countries that have designated Hamas, Hezbollah, and the IRGC as terrorist organizations.
More recently, Costa Rica and Trinidad and Tobago have also followed suit, proscribing all three Iranian and Iran-backed entities.
Once a formal designation is in place, authorities can immediately freeze a wide range of assets belonging to designated entities without the need for a prior criminal conviction.
The designation also makes it a criminal offense to provide such entities with material support — such as funding, transportation, housing, or false documentation — while giving authorities additional tools to track and map a group’s logistical and financial networks.
Last month, Argentina also designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization, after previously designating the Palestinian group Hamas in 2024 and the Lebanese group Hezbollah in 2019.
After Iran accused Buenos Aires of “siding with the aggressors” and violating international law with its latest designation, the Argentine government declared Iranian chargé d’affaires Mohsen Tehrani “persona non grata” and gave him 48 hours to leave the country.