Connect with us

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

How the Haskalah Changed the Way Jews Experienced Judaism

A Torah scroll. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

The word “Haskalah” conjures up a period of upheaval in 18th century European Jewish life. If you were to ask anybody what the term Haskalah refers to nowadays, in Israel you will be told that “Haskalah Gevoha” means higher education. But once upon a time, Haskalah was a scandalous word to some, and stood for intellectual freedom to others.

It was Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786) who was (perhaps unfairly) regarded as the founder of Haskalah — the attempt to combine the Jewish religion and its scholarship with secular cultural and scientific advances.

Mendelssohn was given permission to settle in Berlin, where he came into contact with non-Jewish scholarship. His brilliant philosophical mind soon led to him being accepted into the German cultural elite.

Mendelssohn saw the danger of Jews moving out of the ghetto to assimilate. He believed that by translating the Torah into German, the danger could be averted. He argued that Judaism did not conflict with modern states. It is worth reading his book, Jerusalem: Or on Religious Power and Judaism. In it, he claimed that Jews were not a threat to established societies and religions, and should be granted equality.

Sadly, although he remained completely Orthodox himself, within a generation, all his children married out and abandoned Judaism. At the time, this seemed to negate his position. But his position found support and admirers in much of Central Europe, even in rabbinic circles.

Back in Eastern Europe and Russia, the leaders of the Jewish world saw this trend of accepting and studying secular subjects as a threat to their Jewish life.

When Napoleon attacked Russia, many rabbis sided with the antisemitic tzar against Napoleon, because they feared that if Napoleon brought equality to the Jews, many would abandon Judaism altogether. They also believed that loosened restrictions in Central and Western Europe were leading to assimilation.

This era was described as a “Kulturkampf” (culture war) between the old and the new. And either way, Jews were seen as outsiders. This is why Theodor Herzl believed that Jews would always be alien, and only a Jewish state could keep the Jewish people safe.

Within the Jewish world, the desire for wider knowledge in the realms of medicine, mathematics, and philosophy had always been encouraged by great rabbinic authorities from Maimonides to the Vilna Gaon. But they were not approved for mass consumption.

The movement to open up to the cultural world became known as the Haskalah — with rival camps supporting their own systems of education, language, literature, drama, and ideology. But it often turned into an anti-religious mindset.

At the same time, the Reform movement began in Germany and headed in a different direction. The rivalry between rabbis of different persuasions fractured and altered Jewish communities fundamentally.

In the past, if you wanted to abandon Judaism, your only option was to become a Christian or a Muslim. Now, for the first time, there was a third option — embrace a different strand of Judaism. The cohesion that had been forced on the Jewish people since the Roman exile began to fragment.

Secular Judaism is strong and manifest in Israel. On the other hand, the Haredi world has doubled down on its separatism as the only way to combat the attraction of Western civilization.

Today, there are so many other factions and sects that have developed. And what is called Modern or Open Orthodoxy still adheres to the dream of combining two worlds that generated the Haskalah originally.

The Jewish people face constant challenges from the outside and within. Nothing reflects this more clearly than the history of Haskalah. I can only conclude that this division can be regarded as creative, forcing us to cope with different challenges and to examine our own lives and our own relationship with Judaism.

The author is a writer and rabbi based in New York.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

US Intelligence Raises Doubts About Venezuela Leader’s Cooperation

Venezuela’s interim president Delcy Rodriguez speaks during a press conference, more than a week after the US launched a strike on the country and captured President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, at Miraflores Palace in Caracas, Venezuela, Jan. 14, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria

US intelligence reports have raised doubts about whether interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez will cooperate with the Trump administration by formally cutting ties with US adversaries, four people familiar with the reports said in recent days.

US officials have said publicly they want the interim president to sever relations with close international allies like Iran, China, and Russia, including expelling their diplomats and advisers from Venezuela.

But Rodriguez, whose swearing-in ceremony was attended by representatives of those countries early this month, has yet to publicly announce such a move. She became president after the US captured former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Jan. 3.

The US intelligence reports said it was not clear if she is fully on board with the US strategy in her country, according to the sources, who declined to be identified by name.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled on Jan. 15 to Caracas, where he discussed the country’s political future with Rodriguez. Reuters could not determine if those conversations changed the intelligence agencies’ opinion.

Washington wants to rein in its foes’ influence in the Western hemisphere, including in Venezuela, where Trump seeks to exploit the OPEC nation’s vast oil reserves.

If Rodriguez were to break ties with the US rivals, it would open more opportunity for US investment in Venezuela’s energy sector. But failure to control Rodriguez could undercut Washington’s efforts to direct the country’s interim rulers from afar and avoid a deeper US military role.

The Central Intelligence Agency and the Venezuela government did not respond to requests for comment.

Asked for comment, a senior Trump administration official, who declined to be identified, said US President Donald Trump “continues to exert maximum leverage” over Venezuela‘s leaders and “expects this cooperation to continue.”

ABANDON LONGTIME ALLIES?

The CIA has previously assessed that officials loyal to Maduro, including Rodriguez, were best positioned to govern the country following his ouster.

But critics of Trump’s Venezuela strategy have expressed doubts about the wisdom of keeping Maduro’s loyalists in place as the country’s interim leaders. The concerns about Rodriguez’ reliability were present prior to the US military operation, said two sources.

For Venezuela, the US directive means abandoning its closest allies outside the region. Iran has helped Venezuela repair oil refineries while China has taken oil as repayment for debt. Russia has supplied weaponry, including missiles, to Venezuela‘s military.

Trump has also cited communist-led Cuba as another US foe he wants Venezuela to abandon. Havana has provided security and intelligence support while receiving cut-rate Venezuelan oil.

Since Maduro’s removal, Rodriguez, whose deep ties to the oil sector are crucial to keeping the country stable, has taken steps to stay in favor with Washington including releasing political prisoners and authorizing the sale of 30 million to 50 million barrels of oil to the United States.

In a speech on Sunday, Rodriguez said she has had “enough” of US intervention. Still, US officials have also held positive calls with her in recent days, according to two of the sources.

The Trump administration does not see an immediate alternative to working with Rodriguez, given it has publicly backed her so strongly, two of the sources said.

But US officials are developing contacts with senior military and security officials in case they decide to change their approach, a source briefed on Venezuela policy said.

MACHADO CONSIDERED A LONGER-TERM OPTION TO RUN VENEZUELA

The recent intelligence reports also found that opposition leader Maria Corina Machado is not currently able to run the country successfully in part because she lacks strong ties to the country’s security services or oil sector, the sources said.

Some observers and Machado’s movement say it won a 2024 election that year by a huge margin, though the state backed a Maduro victory. She remains popular with Venezuelans.

Trump told reporters last week he wanted Machado “involved” in the country’s leadership, without providing details.

One person familiar with the administration’s discussions with Machado said she is well-liked by the White House and is considered a longer-term option for a leadership position in Venezuela.

The separate source briefed on Venezuela policy suggested that for now, Machado could be considered for an advisory role but no firm decision had been made. Representatives for Machado did not respond to a request for comment.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

UN Experts Denounce Switzerland for Sentencing Students Over Anti-Israel Protest Activity

Illustrative: Youths take part in the occupation of a street in front of the building of the Sciences Po University in support of Palestinians in Gaza, during the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Paris, France, April 26, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes

UN human rights experts said on Tuesday they had protested to Switzerland after a group of students were sentenced for trespassing after taking part in anti-Israel sit-ins at a Swiss-funded university during the war in Gaza.

The students who took part in the protests in May 2024 were opposing the Swiss university ETH Zurich’s partnerships with Israeli universities, the UN experts said.

“Peaceful student activism, on and off campus, is part of students‘ rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and must not be criminalized,” the UN experts said, adding that they had written to the Swiss government and the university to raise the issue.

A spokesperson for the Swiss Foreign Ministry confirmed it had received the message and said it would respond in due course.

An ETH Zurich spokesperson said it had received the letter. It said that of the 40 people that were reported for trespassing, 11 were ETH members, including nine students and two employees.

“The claim that the two sit-ins were peaceful and aimed at dialogue does not match our perception,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson also said that the university and the police communicated to the sit-in protesters the potential consequences regarding charges and prosecution for trespassing and gave the demonstrators several deadlines to leave without consequences.

Five students have so far been sentenced for trespassing, resulting in suspended fines of up to 2,700 Swiss francs ($3,516), legal fees of over 2,000 Swiss francs and a criminal conviction on their records which could discourage future prospective employers, the UN experts said.

Ten others who appealed the charges await sentencing and two others were acquitted, they said.

($1 = 0.7679 Swiss francs)

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News