Uncategorized
What I learned about antisemitism from a remarkable new archive about Jewish Civil War soldiers
(JTA) — Max Glass, a recent immigrant from Hungary, had an unhappy Civil War.
Tricked out of his enlistment bonus when he joined the Eighth Connecticut Infantry — recent arrivals were soft touches for scam artists — Glass was then “abused for reason [sic] that I never understand” by men in his regiment. “It may have been,” he speculated,
becaus I did not make them my companions in drinking, or as I am a Jew. If I went in the street or any wher I was called Jew. Christh Killer & such names. I also had stones, dirt thrown at me.
He complained to his commanding officer, begging to be transferred, because “no man that had feeling could stand such treatment,” but to no avail. Finally, Glass fled his regiment, hoping to receive better treatment if he enlisted in the Navy. Instead he was tried as a deserter and sentenced to hard labor.
Glass was not the only Jewish soldier to be cruelly mistreated when serving in the Union Army. But as the new Shapell Roster of Jewish Service in the Civil War demonstrates, his experience was far from typical.
I explored the Shapell Roster while working on my new book, on the experience of Jewish soldiers in the Union army. What I learned from the vast collection of documents and data was that indifference, benign curiosity and comradeship appear to have been much more common than conflict for the majority of Jewish soldiers in the Union army.
For every Max Glass there was a Louis Gratz. Born in Posen, Prussia, Gratz scraped by as a peddler before the war. Enlisting in April 1861 — just days after the war started — he took to military life. By August he had become an officer. As he proudly wrote to his family,
I have now become a respected man in a respected position, one filled by very few Jews. I have been sent by my general to enlist new recruits so I am today in Scranton, a city in Pennsylvania only twenty miles from Carbondale, where I had peddled before. Before this no one paid any attention to me here; now I move in the best and richest circles and am treated with utmost consideration by Jews and Christians.
In contrast to Max Glass, his letters whisper not a word about prejudice. As my new book on the experience of Jewish soldiers in the Union army demonstrates, Gratz’s experience was not unusual.
Max Glass ultimately escaped his sorry start in the army through the intercession of General Benjamin Butler. After reading Glass’ tale of woe, the general pardoned the hapless Hungarian. In doing so, Butler seemingly followed Abraham Lincoln’s lead when confronted by antisemitism within the Union army. The president, after all, had quickly countermanded Ulysses S. Grant’s General Orders Number 11 expelling Jews from the districts under his command, the “most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history,”
But alas this story does not have a redemptive ending. Beyond the rank and file, Jews felt the sting of prejudice. The damage done in wartime left a legacy of antisemitism that continues to this day.
For even as General Butler was pardoning Max Glass, he was locked in a heated public exchange that reveals how wartime warped attitudes towards Jews. The imbroglio began when Butler took special note of the fact that a small group of smugglers, recently detained by the Union army, were Jewish. When challenged, the combative general refused to apologize. Instead, he countered that deceit and disloyalty were among the defining characteristics of Jews, and that avarice was a particularly Jewish avocation. According to his logic, Jews could never become loyal Americans because they preferred profit to patriotism.
An 1877 cartoon from the satirical newspaper Puck illustrates the antisemitic practices of the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga, New York. The cartoon compares the corrupt gentile clients favored by the hotel, center, with respectable (albeit stereotypical) Jewish figures, including Jesus. (Library of Congress)
Butler’s corrosive claims reflected a steady drip of acid on the home-front that began in 1861. In the first year of the war, Jews felt the sting of prejudice as the “shoddy” scandals captured the public imagination. Military contractors were publicly accused of fleecing the army by supplying substandard uniforms and gear, even as soldiers shivered in the field for want of decent clothing.
In seeking to explain the profiteering and corruption that attended the rush to war, the press summoned the specter of the venal and disloyal Jew. Cartoonists delighted in identifying Jews as the archetypal cunning contractors, who not only refused to enlist but also actively undermined the war effort. Jews were also imagined as the speculators who profited at the expense of the common good and as smugglers who traded with the enemy. Butler, in other words, was drawing on calumnies that became common currency during wartime.
The contractor, smuggler, speculator and shirker, however, were more than just figures of scorn. Jews and other “shoddy aristocrats” came to be seen as the creators and beneficiaries of the new economic and social order produced by the war. This “shoddy aristocracy” — whose morals and manners marked them as undesirable, whose profits were ill gained, and whose power derived from money alone — was imagined to lord it over a new and unjust social heap summoned into being by the chaos and disruption of war.
Even as the heated rhetoric of the war years receded after 1865, these ideas remained primed for action. They were returned to service in the Gilded Age.
It was no coincidence that the episode traditionally identified as initiating modern antisemitism in America — the exclusion of Joseph Seligman by Henry Hilton from the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga Springs on May 31, 1877 — had at its center a man who had made a fortune as a contractor and banker during the Civil War. Seligman, a friend of President Grant, was viewed as an exemplar of the new capitalism that was remaking America.
Henry Hilton slandered Seligman as “shoddy—false—squeezing—unmanly,” a social climber who “has to push himself upon the polite.” Hilton drew upon themes familiar from wartime antisemitism: the Jew as speculator who trafficked in credit and debt; the Jew as obsequious ingratiator who attached himself to the powerful; the Jew as profiteer who advanced by improper means; the Jew as vulgarian who flaunted his (and her) obscene wealth and did not know his (or her) place; and the Jew as overlord whose money allowed him (or her) to displace others. In short, the “Seligman Jew” was the “shoddy aristocrat” by another name.
In an age of inequality and excess, the antisemite imagined the Jew as embodying all that was wrong with American capitalism. And during an age of mass immigration from Romania and the Russian Empire, they soon added another theme familiar from General Butler’s wartime diatribe: The Jew could not be trusted to become fully American.
Sadly, even as Louis Gratz, Max Glass and many other Jewish soldiers became American by serving in the Union army, the Civil War produced a range of pernicious ideas about Jews that have proven remarkably durable. We have escaped the everyday torments that afflicted Max Glass, but are still haunted in the present by the fantasies of Benjamin Butler and Henry Hilton.
—
The post What I learned about antisemitism from a remarkable new archive about Jewish Civil War soldiers appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
The exceptional translator Barbara Harshav has died
פֿון אַבֿיה קושנער און שחר פּינסקער
באַרבאַראַ הרשבֿ, פֿאַררעכנט פֿאַר איינעם פֿון די וויכטיקסטע איבערזעצערס פֿון דער העברעיִשער און ייִדישער ליטעראַטור, איז אַוועק אין דער אייביקייט צו 85 יאָר.
הרשבֿ, באַקאַנט ווי באָבי בײַ אירע פֿרײַנד און קאָלעגעס, האָט איבערגעזעצט און אַרויסגעגעבן מער ווי 40 ביכער פּאָעזיע, דראַמע, בעלעטריסטיק, פֿילאָסאָפֿיע, עקאָנאָמיק, סאָציאָלאָגיע און געשיכטע. צווישן אירע איבערזעצונגען זענען געווען די ווערק פֿונעם נאָבעל־לאָרעאַט שמואל יוסף עגנון און די פּאָעטן אַבֿרהם סוצקעווער, מענקע קאַץ און יהודה עמיחי.
אַחוץ דעם וואָס זי איז געווען אַן ערשט-ראַנגיקע איבערזעצערין איז זי אויך געווען שטאַרק באַליבט בײַ אַנדערע אַקאַדעמיקער און איבערזעצער איבער דער וועלט, סײַ ווי אַ וועגווײַזערין אינעם געביט פֿון איבערזעצערײַ סײַ צוליב איר מענטשלעכקייט און ברייטהאַרציקער שטיצע פֿאַר אירע קאָלעגעס.
אַ צענטראַלער אַספּעקט פֿון איר קאַריערע איז געווען איר ברייטע און פֿרוכפּערדיקע צוזאַמענאַרבעט מיט איר מאַן, בנימין הרשבֿ (אַ העברעיִזירונג פֿונעם נאָמען הרושובסקי). צוזאַמען האָבן זיי איבערגעזעצט און רעדאַקטירט אויף ענגליש אַ ריי וויכטיקע טעקסט־זאַמלונגען ווי למשל דעם אייגנאַרטיקן באַנד „אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישע פּאָעזיע: אַ צוויישפּראַכיקע אַנטאָלאָגיע“ (1986), וואָס האָט אַרײַנגענומען סײַ דעם אָריגינעלן ייִדישן טעקסט סײַ די פּרעכטיקע ענגלישע איבערזעצונגען. אַזוי אַרום האָט דער לייענער געקענט אָפּשאַצן די קוואַליטעט פֿון די ווערק אויף ביידע שפּראַכן.
איינער פֿון הרשבֿס גרעסטע אויפֿטוען איז געווען דאָס וואָס זי האָט נישט פֿאָרגעשטעלט די ייִדישע פּאָעזיע סתּם ווי נאָסטאַלגישן פֿאָלקלאָר, נאָר האָט זי געשילדערט אינעם קאָנטעקסט פֿונעם גלאָבאַלן מאָדערניזם. דער באַנד האָט אַרײַנגענומען סײַ אַוואַנגאַרדישע עקספּערימענטן סײַ שטאָטישע טעמעס, צוזאַמען מיט די וויזועלע קונסטווערק פֿון בען שאַהן און ראַפֿאַעל סויער, וואָס האָבן געהאַט אַן ענלעכן הינטערגרונט ווי די פּאָעטן.
מיט איר מאַן האָט זי אויך אַרויסגעגעבן דאָס בוך, „זינג, פֿרעמדער: הונדערט יאָר פֿון אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישער פּאָעזיע“, וואָס האָט אַרײַנגענומען ווערק פֿון די „סוועטשאַפּ“־פּאָעטן מאָריס ראָזענפֿעלד און דוד עדעלשטאַדט, ווי אויך „אינזיכיסטן“ ווי ציליע דראָבקין.
הרשבֿ איז געבוירן געוואָרן אין דעטרויט, מישיגען, אין 1940. זי איז נישט געווען קיין נאַטירלעכע רעדערין פֿון העברעיִש אָדער ייִדיש. „איך בין געווען 34 יאָר אַלט ווען איך האָב אָנגעהויבן זיך לערנען העברעיִש און איך האָב זיך ממש פֿאַרליבט אין דער שפּראַך,“ האָט זי דערציילט בעת אַן אינטערוויו אין 2012. מיט דער צײַט האָט זי אָנגעהויבן איבערזעצן די וויכטיקסטע העברעיִשע ווערק.
דערנאָך האָט זי זיך גענומען צו ייִדיש. „ייִדיש איז די לעצטע שפּראַך וואָס איך האָב זיך אויסגעלערנט. צוליב דעם וואָס איך האָב שוין געקענט דײַטש און העברעיִש, האָב איך שוין פֿאַרשטאַנען אַרום 90% פֿון ייִדיש.“ כאָטש אירע טאַטע־מאַמע האָבן געקענט ייִדיש האָבן זיי עס בלויז געניצט צווישן זיך ווען זיי האָבן נישט געוואָלט אַז די קינדער זאָלן פֿאַרשטיין. „דערצו בין איך סײַ ווי נישט געווען אַזוי פֿאַראינטערעסירט אין וואָס זיי זאָגן,“ האָט זי געזאָגט.
איין סיבה פֿאַר וואָס זי איז געוואָרן אַן איבערזעצער — האָט זי דערקלערט — איז „ווײַל די איבערזעצונגען וואָס איך האָב געלייענט זענען געווען אַזוי שלעכט. כ׳האָב דעמאָלט געוווינט אין ירושלים און כ׳האָב זיך באַקענט מיט אַ שרײַבער וואָס האָט זיך באַקלאָגט פֿאַר מיר, און טאַקע מיט רעכט, וועגן די אומגעלומפּערטע איבערזעצונגען וואָס מע האָט געמאַכט פֿון זײַנע ווערק. האָב איך אָנגעהויבן לייענען יענע איבערזעצונגען און דערפֿילט אַז איך קען דאָס טאָן בעסער. ס׳איז מיר אָבער געווען אַ חידוש, ווען מײַן ערשטער פּרוּוו איז טאַקע פּובליקירט געוואָרן אין אַן אַקאַדעמישן זשורנאַל.“
אַחוץ איר אַרבעט ווי אַן איבערזעצער האָט הרשבֿ אויך געדינט ווי די פּרעזידענטין פֿון דער אַמעריקאַנער אַסאָציאַציע פֿון ליטעראַרישע איבערזעצער, און האָט געפֿירט איבערזעצונג־וואַרשטאַטן אינעם דעפּאַרטמענט פֿון פֿאַרגלײַכיקער ליטעראַטור אין יעל־אוניווערסיטעט, דערבײַ שטיצנדיק יונגע איבערזעצער זיך צו פֿאַרנעמען מיט דער ייִדישער און העברעיִשער ליטעראַטור. זי האָט זיך אויך איבערגעגעבן צום קאַמף פֿאַר געשלעכט־גלײַכקייט און פֿאַר שלום און גערעכטיקייט אין ישׂראל/פּאַלעסטינע.
אין 2018 איז הרשבֿ געוואָרן די ערשטע העברעיִשע און ייִדישע איבערזעצערין צו באַקומען די „פּען/מאַנהײַם מעדאַל פֿאַר איבערזעצונג“.
פֿאַר אונדז וואָס האָבן זי געקענט, איז באָבי געווען אַ בריליאַנטענע, ברייטהאַרציקע פֿרײַנדינע און קאָלעגע, שטענדיק גרייט צו העלפֿן אַנדערע מיט עצות און הדרכה.
The post The exceptional translator Barbara Harshav has died appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Rahm Emanuel: Pursuit of Greater Israel as ‘fanatical’ as the chant ‘from the river to the sea’
(JTA) — The pursuit of Greater Israel is a corrosive fantasy, veteran Democratic politician Rahm Emanuel is expected to tell a Tel Aviv audience on Wednesday, calling it as “destructive and fanatical” as the chant “from the river to the sea.”
Emanuel, who has held multiple top roles in the Democratic Party, in Congress and in the Obama White House, is a potential 2028 presidential candidate.
He will warn that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is leading the country to a “dead-end” that has turned the country into a “pariah” and is threatening Israel’s historic alliance with the United States, according to an advance copy of his speech shared with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on Tuesday.
He blamed as “our mistake” America’s assumption that “the best thing Washington could do for Jerusalem was to blindly and silently stand behind your government, without conditions, without demands, and without consequences.” That path has led to policies including Israeli extremists terrorizing West Bank Palestinians and Gazans suffering from a lack of food that means “Israel has never been so isolated,” a situation that he terms “a countdown clock” for Israel’s security.
Instead, his remarks state, “we need a fundamentally new and different approach to the alliance.”
At the same time, he criticized the Palestinians for what he said were mistakes and obstacles to peace over the years. He lambasted their supporters in the United States who support replacing Israel with a Palestinian state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
“Those chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ need to hear this loud and clear: they will never have their way,” he declares in his prepared remarks. “But those calling for a greater Israel must also hear this loud and clear: you’re never going to have your way, either. Both are fantasies chanted by fanatics.”
Emanuel, who is a former U.S. congressman from Illinois as well as a former Chicago Mayor and served as White House Chief of Staff under President Barack Obama, is considering a presidential run in 2028. His trip has garnered media attention given that his ideas on Israel could signal the direction of his party on the issue, particularly as they come from a Jewish politician with close ties to the country. Emanuel once volunteered as a civilian with the Israeli army and his father was an Israeli citizen.
His trip to Israel to underscore the importance of the Israeli-U.S. alliance and to advocate for a new regional diplomatic initiative comes at a time when politicians in his Democratic Party are increasingly disavowing Israel to gain an edge in upcoming elections as the country’s reputation plummets.
A Pew Research Center Poll published in April found that 60% of Americans had an unfavorable view of Israel, but its standing was worse among Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents, where 8 out of 10 had negative views about Israel.
According to his prepared speech, Emanuel is set to highlight his deep connection to the Jewish state and his family’s sacrifice in bringing about its creation, noting that his uncle, who was a member of the pre-state underground, is buried on Jerusalem’s Mt. of Olives. His father, Benjamin, was born in Jerusalem in 1927 and fought in Israel’s 1948 War of Independence before immigrating to the United States, where he raised his family in Chicago.
Emanuel plans to recount Israel’s history of overtures in the name of peace and in the face of Palestinian violence during the second intifada and the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on southern Israel. He will explain that he understands Israel’s cynicism regarding any future arrangement with the Palestinians since Israel’s past offers of Palestinian sovereignty in exchange for security were frequently met with violence.
“I understand why, even if you oppose the Netanyahu government, you’re so prone to dismiss criticism from the outside world,” Emanuel wrote, underscoring that a “corrupt Palestinian leadership has never lived up to the Palestinian people’s legitimate aspirations for sovereignty and self-determination.”
Still, he wrote, Israel’s future can’t be “held hostage to a past defined exclusively by recriminations,” warning that such a stance will endanger its “historic alliance with the U.S.,” which is now “at a crossroads.” Israel must embark on a path that pairs military and diplomatic efforts, rather than relying solely on military prowess, he wrote.
“Israel will be alone if its leaders choose to attempt to annex the West Bank and pursue the fantasy of a greater Israel,” Emanuel plans to say.
“America will not and cannot be complicit or complacent in that endeavor,” he wrote, explaining that it has erred in the past by “blindly and silently” supporting Netanyahu’s government.
The speech calls for an end to the “American taxpayer’s subsidy of Israel’s defense budget,” maintaining that Israel should buy U.S. arms with the same financial terms and restrictions as every other ally “that abides by our laws.”
The speech laid out a broad-based policy with regard to a two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that rejects extremist Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians and illegal West Bank settlement building but does not spell out prescriptions for divisive issues such as the future of Jerusalem or using the pre-1967 lines for determining the borders of a Palestinian state.
Emanuel does not mention the U.S.-based political advocacy group J Street in his speech, but the text picks up on the 23-state policy idea that J Street put forward last year, involving 21 Arab states, alongside Israeli and Palestinian ones, that would include recognition of Israel by the Arab League.
Such a regional integration would allow for Israel and the larger Middle East to become a technological and transit hub for trade between Europe and India, he plans to say.
To achieve this regional peace, Emanuel continues, the Arab states would have to support a Palestinian governing entity that would accept the Jewish historic connection to Israel, stop teaching its children to hate Israel and end the “heinous practice” of financially rewarding terrorists who kill Jews.
Israel, he wrote, would have to halt unilateral actions in the West Bank, stop nurturing harmful organizations and support “real partners in pursuit of peace.”
This scenario rests on a three-part U.S. policy in the region that would leverage the Arab world’s desire for stability, Israel’s need for security, and Palestinian demands for sovereignty.
“The political benefits for all parties would be far greater than a two-state solution could ever offer. But to get there, everyone would need to make good on their piece of the bargain,” he wrote in his speech.
The alternative path, he wrote, is one that has seen Israel isolated and turned it into a pariah state.
“Israel has failed to convert its military wins into strategic advantages,” Emanuel is expected to say, noting that the country has “lost Europe” and its support in the U.S. is plummeting. U.S. unconditional support for Israel without demands and consequences has been a mistake, he added in his speech, in which he blamed Israel’s poor global standing on Netanyahu’s policies.
A centrist Jewish Democrat embracing a policy promulgated by J Street, a group founded in 2008 to counter the influence of what was then the mainstream pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, illustrates the degree to which the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its credo of creating a bipartisan consensus of support for Israel has eroded.
Emanuel plans to recall his own tensions with Netanyahu, who during his time as White House Chief of Staff labeled him a “self-loathing” Jew for opposing West Bank settlement construction.
Netanyahu, he wrote in his prepared remarks, “cannot fight indefinitely against a world that has stopped believing you have the right to fight. You must instead find a new sustainable path to peace, security, and prosperity.”
Alternatively, he wrote, the United States would stand “shoulder-to-shoulder” with Israel as it pursued peace and security.
The post Rahm Emanuel: Pursuit of Greater Israel as ‘fanatical’ as the chant ‘from the river to the sea’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
US launches ‘powerful strikes’ against Iran
(JTA) — The U.S. military announced that it had launched strikes against Iran Tuesday evening, marking the latest exchange of blows between the countries amid a fragile ceasefire.
In a post on X, U.S. Central Command announced that American forces had begun launching a “series of powerful strikes against Iran to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway.
“The U.S. strikes are in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz,” the post continued. “Iran’s demonstrated aggression was unwarranted, dangerous, and a clear violation of the ceasefire.”
The latest round of violence could further imperil U.S. negotiations over fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz and reviving talks over Iran’s nuclear program.
Israel has treated the U.S.-Iran negotiations warily, chafing especially at the proposed imposition of terms of engagement with Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Iran has not claimed responsibility for the attacks on commercial vessels. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Majed Al Ansari wrote in a post on X that the country held Iran “fully legally responsible” for an attack on the Qatari ship Al-Rekayyat in the strait.
“We demand that the Islamic Republic of Iran immediately cease all practices that undermine regional security or threaten the safety of international maritime navigation, & refrain from endangering global energy supplies & the resources of the countries of the region in pursuit of narrow interests,” Al Ansari wrote.
Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Affairs Ministry also condemned Iran’s alleged attack on a Saudi tanker, in a post on X shortly before the U.S. strikes were announced.
“The Kingdom affirms that these reprehensible attacks constitute an assault on the security and safety of international navigation and on the security of global energy supplies,” the post read.
The strikes come over a week since the last known round of U.S. strikes on the country late last month, which followed Iranian attacks on both Bahrain and Kuwait.
The post US launches ‘powerful strikes’ against Iran appeared first on The Forward.
