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

US Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Resolution Condemning Antisemitic Rhetoric by Candace Owens, Hasan Piker

Right-wing political commentator Candace Owens speaks during an event held by national conservative political movement ‘Turning Point’, in Detroit, Michigan, US, June 14, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

US Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) introduced a bipartisan resolution on Wednesday that condemns “antisemitic, hate-filled rhetoric and content” promoted by online streamer Hasan Piker and podcaster Candace Owens.

The resolution addresses the growing influence of online personalities around the world, as well as the global rise in antisemitism in recent years fueled partially by “online disinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremist rhetoric.” It calls on social media platforms and public leaders to denounce and take action against hatred.

“The rise of digital media platforms has enabled individuals with large audiences to disseminate disinformation, commentary, and political viewpoints to millions of viewers worldwide,” the resolution states. “Such influence carries a heightened responsibility to avoid rhetoric that promotes hatred, violence, or discrimination against any group, including Jewish individuals and communities.”

The resolution lists several hateful comments from both Piker and Owens.

Piker has repeatedly expressed support for Hamas and even said “it doesn’t matter” if sexual assault took place during the terrorist group’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.

Owens is notorious for promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, tropes, and blood libels about Judaism, Jewish figures, and Israel. She has claimed, for example, that Israel controls the US government and has also downplayed and denied verified details about the Holocaust.

The resolution states that efforts to “downplay or excuse antisemitic rhetoric under the guise of political commentary should be rejected.”

“Piker has openly applauded Hamas’ terrorism, downplayed the mass rape of civilians on Oct. 7, and dehumanized Orthodox Jews as ‘inbred,’” Lawler said in a statement. “Owens has trafficked in vile conspiracy theories, promoted blood libels, and platformed Holocaust deniers. With an audience of millions, they have a responsibility to confront hatred and bigotry in every form, not to amplify it to the masses. So, if they won’t call it out, I will.”

“Hatred is hatred, period,” Gottheimer added. “It doesn’t matter whether it comes from the far right or the far left. We cannot be selective in calling out antisemitism. When influential voices spread conspiracy theories, promote terrorism, or dehumanize Jewish people, it fuels real-world violence and intimidation. We must stand up and speak out.”

“I get that speaking up is not easy, but our constituents didn’t elect us to always take the easy path,” he noted. “That’s what principled leadership is all about.”

Owens has not publicly commented on the resolution, but Piker condemned it in a statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA).

“They are once again conflating legitimate critics of Israel with actual antisemites,” he said. “They would rather complain about fake antisemitism in defense of Israel than call out the real sources of Jew hatred with a full chest. I have spent my entire career combating all forms of bigotry including antisemitism and will continue to do so in spite [of] this cynical ploy to satisfy donors.”

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Peru’s President Under Fire Over Antisemitic Remarks Blaming Jews for ‘Pushing’ Germany Into World War II

José María Balcázar was elected as acting president of Peru on Feb. 18, 2026, and will serve until July 28, when the winner of the presidential elections takes office. Photo: ULAN/Pool / Latin America News Agency via Reuters Connect

Peru’s interim president, José María Balcázar, has sparked global outrage after claiming that Jews helped “push” Germany into World War II, drawing mounting calls from world leaders and advocacy groups to retract his remarks and issue a formal apology over what critics condemn as deeply antisemitic.

During a speech marking the 138th anniversary of the Chamber of Commerce of Lima, the Peruvian leader — who assumed power after Congress appointed him to replace ousted former president José Jerí amid corruption allegations — cited The Enemies of Commerce by Antonio Escohotado, invoking its arguments while amplifying long-discredited antisemitic tropes.

“It is a monument to the history of commerce: how bills of exchange were born, how international trade moved, what role Jews played in Germany’s national and international trade, how Germany was pushed into World War II, also partly because of the Jews, because they controlled all the banks, all the commerce, and practiced usury,” Balcázar said.

“All these historical details need to be remembered through Escohotado, so that we can better prepare ourselves and understand the history and hardships of those dedicated to commerce. It is truly interesting,” the left-leaning lawmaker and former judge continued.

Shortly after Balcázar’s remarks gained widespread media attention, leaders of Peru’s Jewish community, opposition figures, and officials from Israel and Germany, as well as other foreign diplomats, swiftly condemned his statements, demanding that he retract them and issue an unequivocal public apology.

In a joint statement, the embassies of Israel and Germany in Peru condemned Balcázar’s claims as “absurd, historically untenable, and a violation of the memory of millions of German Jewish citizens murdered by the Nazis.”

“It should be remembered that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime initiated World War II with the invasion of Poland in 1939. Nazi ideology, rooted in racism and antisemitism, not only discriminated against Jewish citizens but also led to the murder of six million Jews in concentration camps,” the statement read. 

“The Holocaust must never be trivialized under any circumstances,” it continued.

The Jewish Association of Peru (AJP) also denounced the remarks, describing them as a dangerous revival of “outdated antisemitic theories,” and warning against the spread of such narratives.

“It is shocking that, in the 21st century, arguments reminiscent of the darkest medieval eras are still being used to blame victims of the Holocaust for their own persecution,” AJP said in a statement.

Amid growing domestic and international pressure, the government issued a statement expressing regret that the comments had “created a mistaken perception regarding the Jewish people in the context of the outbreak of World War II.”

“The Peruvian state has consistently maintained that Nazi fanaticism was the driving force behind the war and the perpetrator of the unforgivable genocide against the Jewish people. This longstanding position, which also led Peru to firmly support the creation of Israel, remains unchanged,” the statement read.

“President José María Balcázar strongly condemns the genocide perpetrated against the Jewish people during World War II, reaffirms his rejection of antisemitism and all forms of discrimination, and expresses his solidarity with the victims of the Holocaust,” it continued.

Balcázar will serve as interim president until July 28, when the winner of this year’s presidential election takes office.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Lebanon’s Internal Splits Over Talks With Israel Trip Up Saudi Mediation Efforts

An Israeli military vehicle drives past destroyed buildings in Lebanon, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, April 30, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Shir Torem

A growing rift between top Lebanese officials has thrown a wrench into Saudi efforts to help Lebanon’s leaders forge a united position over historic negotiations with Israel, Lebanese sources and foreign officials told Reuters on Thursday.

Saudi Arabia, which sponsored the 1990 agreement that ended Lebanon’s 15-year civil war, has deepened its engagement in recent days with Lebanon, where a shaky US-brokered ceasefire has failed to fully halt the nearly two-month war between Israel and Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.

Ties between Riyadh and Beirut had been strained for years due to Hezbollah’s power over Lebanese politics and security, but the Sunni kingdom sees an opening after the group was severely weakened by war with Israel in 2024.

The US intended for the April 16 truce between Israel and Lebanon to allow for direct talks on a peace deal, potentially shaking up Lebanon’s internal dynamics and its role in the region. But Lebanese leaders remain at odds over the negotiation format and ultimate goal.

Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun has defended face-to-face talks with Israel in Washington, and has said the ceasefire should be transformed into “permanent agreements.” Although he has stopped short of explicitly calling for a peace deal, two sources familiar with Aoun’s position told Reuters he had privately expressed his readiness to normalize ties with Israel to stop the war.

Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally, is opposed to direct talks, reflecting the Shi’ite terrorist group‘s position. Berri believes Lebanon should seek a non-aggression pact with Israel but not a full peace deal, two Lebanese sources familiar with his position told Reuters.

PLANS DERAILED

Last week, Saudi envoy to Lebanon Prince Yazid bin Farhan visited Beirut to encourage Aoun, Berri, and Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to set out a single position on the talks and to signal their unity through a tripartite meeting, according to two senior Lebanese political sources who met with bin Farhan and a Western official briefed on the talks.

But plans to hold such a meeting this week were derailed by rising tensions, all three sources said, after Berri publicly accused Aoun of making statements about negotiations that were “inaccurate, to say the least.”

There was no immediate response to requests for comment from Aoun’s office or from the Saudi government media office. Aoun met Salam on Thursday, the presidency said in a statement, without mentioning Berri.

The splits between Aoun and Berri, who hold their positions according to a power-sharing system that divides Lebanon’s top posts by religion, reflect broader divisions within Lebanese society over the negotiations with Israel.

Some Lebanese see direct talks and a swift peace deal as the only way to end a long history of Israeli invasions into Lebanon.

But Hezbollah and much of its broader Shi’ite Muslim constituency, who have borne the brunt of Israel‘s attacks, are firmly opposed to face-to-face talks and to normalizing ties. Some people protesting against talks earlier this month called for the government to be toppled.

Saudi Arabia’s intervention with Lebanese leaders was driven by the risk of such instability – as well as its concern that Lebanon was moving towards peace with Israel too swiftly, according to a Gulf source with knowledge of the matter, the two senior Lebanese political sources and the Western official.

Bin Farhan sought and received reassurances that Hezbollah would not seek to topple the Lebanese government, and cautioned Lebanese leaders last week that Beirut’s progress towards peace with Israel should not outpace Saudi Arabia’s, the four sources said.

Riyadh’s longstanding position has been that it will only sign up to the Abraham Accords normalizing ties with Israel if there is agreement on a roadmap to Palestinian statehood.

SAUDI KEEN FOR ‘DETENTE’ BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL

US President Donald Trump, keen to expand the accords, said this month he would invite Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for talks.

Bin Farhan advised Lebanese authorities against Aoun meeting Netanyahu soon, the two senior Lebanese political sources said.

However, Saudi Arabia does want Lebanon to work towards a “detente” with Israel that would halt instability, the Gulf source and one of the Lebanese sources said.

Israeli strikes have killed more than 2,500 people in Lebanon and displaced more than 1.2 million since the latest round of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah began on March 2, according to Lebanese authorities. Israel says the vast majority of those killed have been Hezbollah terrorists, who started the conflict by firing drones and rockets at the Jewish state.

The April 16 truce, which facilitated separate negotiations over the Iran war, stopped strikes on Beirut and its southern suburbs but not on other parts of Lebanon.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News