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
Itamar Ben-Gvir draws criticism from Netanyahu for video taunting detained flotilla activists
(JTA) — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has joined a chorus of Israelis and Jews denouncing his national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, for posting a video that showed Ben-Gvir taunting detained activists from a Gaza-bound aid flotilla that had been intercepted by the Israeli navy.
“Welcome to Israel, we are the masters,” Ben-Gvir said in the video as he waved a large Israeli flag above the detained activists, who could be seen blindfolded and kneeling on the ground with their hands behind their backs.
Roughly 430 activists that took part in the Global Sumud Flotilla, which set sail from Turkey last Thursday, were brought to the city of Ashdod aboard Israeli naval ships on Wednesday, marking the latest in a long-running series of confrontations between Israel and activists seeking to break its naval blockade of Gaza.
In a second video posted on social media, Ben-Gvir said that the activists “came here all full of pride like big heroes. Look at them now,” appealing to Netanyahu to grant him permission to imprison them.
ככה אנחנו מקבלים את תומכי הטרור
Welcome to Israel 🇮🇱 pic.twitter.com/7Hf8cAg7fC
— איתמר בן גביר (@itamarbengvir) May 20, 2026
Netanyahu said in a statement that he had instructed authorities to deport the activists “as soon as possible.” But he also offered a public rebuke of Ben-Gvir.
“Israel has every right to prevent provocative flotillas of Hamas terrorist supporters from entering our territorial waters and reaching Gaza,” Netanyahu said. “However, the way that Minister Ben Gvir dealt with the flotilla activists is not in line with Israel’s values and norms.”
The foreign ministers of several countries, including Canada, Spain, France, the Netherlands and Italy, also condemned the videos and summoned their Israeli diplomats to answer for the display.
But some of the sharpest criticism came from within Israel, where Ben-Gvir plays a crucial role in maintaining the governing coalition while also engaging in antics that threaten to flare tensions and undercut the country’s claims that it behaves in accordance with international law.
Ben-Gvir is “not the face of Israel,” tweeted Foreign Minister Gideon Saar in English.
“You knowingly caused harm to our State in this disgraceful display — and not for the first time,” Saar wrote. “You have undone tremendous, professional, and successful efforts made by so many people — from IDF soldiers to Foreign Ministry staff and many others.”
Ben-Gvir’s videos come as his antics and rhetoric have drawn new scrutiny in recent days. Last week, he departed from longstanding norms and waved an Israeli flag on the Temple Mount, a Muslim holy site, in a show of Jewish supremacy. His oversight of Israeli prisons, where he has said he wants to see prisoners given only the minimum of food and comfort as required by law, also drew attention because of a New York Times column alleging sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners.
Progressive groups heavily criticized Ben-Gvir’s video, saying that it was inappropriate for him to be part of the Israeli government.
“The disgusting images of Israel’s National Security Minister abusing detainees from the Gaza flotilla are not just bad optics,” tweeted Mickey Gitzin, the acting CEO of the New Israel Fund. “A government that gives a Kahanist this kind of power has already abandoned any notion of decency. These grotesque images are the real face of current Israeli policy.”
Ben-Gvir’s videos showing the treatment of participants in the latest flotilla offered a contrast to other recent interceptions in which Israel has released footage appearing to show activists being treated without force. When past arrestees from flotillas have alleged abusive treatment, Israel has denied it.
The organizers of the Global Sumud Flotilla said all of its boats had been intercepted by Israel by Tuesday evening, accusing Israel of employing “illegal, high-seas aggression.” The Israeli Foreign Ministry said no live munition was used during the operation, which it said was necessary because it will “not permit any breach of the lawful naval blockade on Gaza.”
Among the activists aboard the more than 50 boats in the flotilla was the sister of Irish President Catherine Connolly. On Tuesday, Connolly, who was elected in October and has a record of anti-Israel rhetoric, called the detention of Irish activists aboard the flotilla “unacceptable.”
The post Itamar Ben-Gvir draws criticism from Netanyahu for video taunting detained flotilla activists appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
What Tuesday’s primaries tell us about Democrats, Republicans and the Israel issue
(JTA) — Reading the polls and listening to conservative podcasts, you would understandably think that Republicans are souring on Israel and poised to start voting like Democrats on the issue. At least a little. But the congressional primary results Tuesday in Philadelphia and northern Kentucky tell a more nuanced story (at least for now).
Chris Rabb’s win in the Democratic primary for a congressional seat representing sections of Philadelphia reinforced the view that staunch anti-Israelism is arguably the most potent force in Democratic politics today. The Pennsylvania state representative executed the progressive playbook perfected by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, showing how tough talk on Israel and AIPAC can galvanize the party’s left-wing base.
In Mamdani’s case, however, he was running against several candidates with strong pro-Israel records and deep pro-Israel support – for a position that has long served as a key public cheerleader for Israel in the United States. Rabb, on the other hand, proved that the strategy can be the winning ticket in a race ostensibly having nothing to do with Israel or AIPAC.
Unlike the New York mayor’s race, Tuesday’s primary in Philadelphia consisted of candidates with similar views on affordability issues, while Rabb’s opponents weren’t exactly waiving the pro-Israel flag or raking in major pro-Israel dollars. But, to borrow from 1964 GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, for an increasing swath of Democratic voters (and D.C. lawmakers), when it comes to standing up for the Palestinians and rejecting U.S. support for Israel, extremism is no vice and moderation is no virtue.
On the Republican side, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie’s flameout in the GOP race for Kentucky’s 4th District suggests that while there may be a gathering storm of discontent over Israel, the main force that matters when it comes to the ballot box remains Donald J. Trump.
Massie tried his best to make his race a referendum on Israel and the influence of pro-Israel money, rather than Trump’s decision to go all in for challenger Ed Gallrein. It didn’t work.
“I’m walking to an airplane to rejoin the most expensive congressional race in U.S. history. It’s turned into a referendum on whether Israel gets to buy seats in Congress,” Massie said a few days before an election that saw record spending by groups both supportive and critical of the Jewish state. After Massie’s defeat, he quipped: “I would have come out sooner but I had to call my opponent to concede and it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv.”
Despite such rhetoric, the biggest reason Massie will be leaving Congress in January is that Trump wanted him gone – in part over his criticism of the Iran war, but more generally over a range of issues that the Kentucky lawmaker has broken with Trump on. A string of other Republican primary results suggest that the first rule of GOP politics is: If Trump wants you out, you’re cooked – even without a dollar of pro-Israel money going to your opponent.
In his concession speech, Massie lamented that most GOP voters seem to want somebody who will “go along to get along.” But, he added, one group – young voters – stayed with him.
Unfortunately for Massie, the GOP for the time being belongs to Trump and his loyal followers, not the growing number of young conservatives who want an end to U.S. support for Israel. On the bright side for Massie and his fans, they already hold the power in at least one key area. As one popular pro-Trump conservative social media poster put it: “Don’t think of it as losing a Congressman. Think of it as gaining a podcaster.”
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.
The post What Tuesday’s primaries tell us about Democrats, Republicans and the Israel issue appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
AOC and other leading Democrats condemn Texas congressional candidate Maureen Galindo over antisemitic rhetoric
(JTA) — Rabbi Mara Nathan says watching an antisemitic conspiracy theorist emerge as a serious contender for a U.S. House seat in her Texas district has been “very disorienting.”
Nathan lives and works in San Antonio, where Maureen Galindo, a local activist who has vowed to turn a local immigrant detention center “into a prison for American Zionists,” was the top vote-getter in a Democratic primary in March and now faces a runoff on Tuesday.
“It seems shocking that someone who is so virulently antisemitic and anti-Zionist has not only been given a voice, but is even now in this primary runoff,” Nathan, the senior rabbi of Temple Beth El, a 150-year-old Reform congregation, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Galindo’s extreme rhetoric has drawn national attention as the runoff in Texas’ 35th Congressional District nears — and increasingly has also drawn condemnation from other Democrats, including some who are themselves critical of Israel and its supporters in the United States.
Last week, the Texas Senate candidate James Talarico revealed to JTA that he would not back or campaign with Galindo if she wins the runoff against sheriff’s deputy Johnny Garcia.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive leader who has been strongly critical of Israel, threw her support behind Garcia in a post on X Tuesday, calling Galindo’s rhetoric “absolutely disgusting.”
“This bigoted garbage and antisemitism should be nowhere near our politics. If you’re in TX-35, vote for @johnnygarciatx,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.
Also on Tuesday, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Washington Democratic Rep. Suzan DelBene issued a joint statement condemning Galindo’s rhetoric, writing that the “vile language by her is disqualifying and has no place in American politics, and certainly not in the Democratic Party.”
The two Democratic leaders also accused Republican leadership of propping up Galindo in the race through the newly launched Lead Left PAC, which has spent nearly $600,000 on ads and mailers bashing Garcia and boosting Galindo.
While the PAC has not had to disclose its donors, the metadata on its website previously linked it to WinRed, a Republican donation platform, according to a Punchbowl News report. Ocasio-Cortez made the connection in her statement, saying, “The donors behind the Republican super PAC funding her should be exposed.”
Jeffries and DelBene called on Republican leadership to “immediately cease propping up this antisemitic candidacy, pull spending in the race and forcefully condemn these comments,” adding that “MAGA extremists should be ashamed of themselves.”
In a statement to The New York Times regarding funding for a mailer supporting her candidacy, Galindo suggested that the funds had come from “a billionaire zionist who made the pac to sabotage candidates.”
“Dems and Republicans uniting against me in the same week with the same message is evidence that theyre working together for the zionist billionaires that control our government and tax money,” Galindo told The Times.
Galindo, WinRed and the National Republican Congressional Committee did not immediately respond to JTA requests for comment, and attempts to reach Lead Left PAC and the Republican National Committee were not successful.
The head of Democratic Majority For Israel, Brian Romick, whose organization has launched a new six-figure ad campaign backing Garcia, also took aim at Lead Left PAC’s spending on Galindo in a statement, calling on Republicans to “explain why they’re paying to keep her viable.”
“Republicans aren’t doing this by accident,” Romick said. “They are deliberately elevating one of the most grotesque antisemites in American politics this cycle because they think it helps them win.”
Several Jewish Democrats, including Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada and Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Jared Moskowitz of Florida, also decried Galindo’s rhetoric. In a joint statement Wednesday, Gottheimer and Moskowitz said that, if Galindo wins the election, they would force votes to expel her from Congress “every single day we are here.”
The Jewish Federation of San Antonio did not immediately respond to a request for comment from JTA. But the federation appeared to weigh in on Galindo’s remarks in a post on Facebook last week, calling on “candidates and elected officials” to “refrain from bigoted and offensive attacks.”
The widespread condemnation has reassured Nathan that opposition to Galindo’s rhetoric extends across the Democratic party.
“It is heartening that those folks who are clearly no fan of Israel understand that you can be critical of a government without saying you’re going to put Jewish people in internment camps,” Nathan said.
Nathan said she hoped the growing attention surrounding the race would help Texans “wake up and step up for a more sane perspective in how one is going to lead our community.”
“On both sides of the aisle, what we need is for both our elected officials and people who are running to speak out against that kind of antisemitic rhetoric,” Nathan said. “Beyond the political position, the idea that you want to attack any faith or any religion, any race is really abhorrent and goes against American values and certainly Texan values.”
The post AOC and other leading Democrats condemn Texas congressional candidate Maureen Galindo over antisemitic rhetoric appeared first on The Forward.