A Rude Awakening for the Palestinian DREAM

A Rude Awakening for the Palestinian DREAM


The invented national ethos of the Palestinian Authority is about to collapse, now that the PA has canceled the two agreements that allow its tottering government to survive.

By Dr. Mordechai Kedar

When something is built on an unstable foundation, it is only natural for its long term survival to be at risk. It is also natural for it to be in need of constant support just to keep from falling. The belief that it will eventually be able to stand on its own two feet causes people to lend their support, but only egregious fools continue to do so if there is no hope of its ever being independent, because in that case, everythiing those supporters have invested is doomed to be irretrievably lost.

The Palestinian Authority is in exactly that position today and this article will expound on the reasons it has no hope of every being able to become a viable and independent entity. 

The prime reason for this situation is the very reason the PA was founded. In 1993, the Israeli government tried to find someone who would accept responsibility for eliminating the terror network created by the Hamas and Islamic Jihad movements in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, someone willing to be rewarded for anti-terrorist activity by being granted the authority to rule the area and administer the lives of the Arabs living there. This was the "deal" concocted by the Israelis, and the "contractor" who accepted the challenge was the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) headed by arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat. The Israeli government actually believed that Arafat was serious about eliminating terror and establishing an autonomous administrative system for running those territories.

Of course, this deal was doomed to failure from the start due to the residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza and also the government of Israel. The Arab residents considered  the Palestinian Authority (PA), the governing arm of the PLO, to be the operative arm of Israeli policy, an organization collaorating with Israel by means of the coordinated security system that exists up until this very day.

"Security coordination" to the Palestinian Arab mind is a laundered word for cooperation, meaning PA security forces attempt to apprehend the terrorists that belong to organizations other than their own and hand them over to Israel. Many of the Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza see this as no less than treason. 

In order to cover up that perceived betrayal and silence its critics, the PA employs thousands in both real and artificial jobs (the kind where the worker does not have to do anything in order to be paid) . For the sake of earning a livng, people are willing to shut their mouths and utter not a word about what they really think of the PA and the reasons for its existence.

No matter, members of the PA know exactly in what esteem the authority is held by the public. To combat this and in order to create legitimacy for themselves and the PA,  they invented a national ethos whose purpose was establishing a state under conditions to which Israel could never agree: the "right" of return for millions of "refugees" to Israel and insistence on Israel's relinquishing Jerusalem. These impossible demands were raised knowing full well that Israel would never agree to them, and that there would never be a Palestinian Arab state, so that Israel could continue to remain the eternal enemy.  Anyone who thinks that a Palestinian Arab state adjoining Israel would live in peace with it does not comprehend the basic tenet of the Palestinian dream - fanning the flames of Israel-hatred, encouraging terror against its citizens and blaming it for all the ills of Arab society.

That is why - according to the PA media - Israel is the result of a European colonialist venture originating in Europe's desrie to rid itself of the Jews, the Jews are nothing but cosmopolitan communities with no homeland, Judaism is a dead, not living religion, the Jews have no history in the lands belonging to "Falestin." In addition, the Palestinian Arabs are victims of a Euroean conspiracy and their legitimate goal is to free all of "Falestin" from the "river to the sea." Therefore "peace" with Israel can never be more than a temporary ceasefire, with the final goal the destruction of the Jewish state.

Over the past 25 years, more and more Israelis have begun to understand the failed "Oslo Accords" deal their government signed, and that is why the Israeli left, which engineered this fatal mistake, has gradually lost much of the public support it had during the initial euphoric period after the agreements were signed. The "Arab Spring" - which is more reminiscent of a wintery swamp filled with fire, blood and tears - helped the Israelis awaken from the dream of "a new Middle East" described in utopian terms by Oslo Accords master architect, the late Shimon Peres.  

Today, it is clear that all Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas wanted and Abbas still desires is the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state on the ruins of the Jewish one. It is hard to find any enthusiasm among Israelis for continuing to pump oxygen into the artificial entity known as the Palestinian Authority, whose only source of life is the money it gets from other countries and pours into salaries for its employees and the murderous terrorists serving sentences in Israeli prisons.

The second reason for the PA's failure is its lack of success in establishing a political entity with acceptable administrative norms, the kind whose existence is supported by the people's recognition of the importance of keeping the rules governing the political game, commonly known as "the rule of law."

The PA created various systems and bodies meant for outside consumption only, while their actual existence lacks any substance whatsoever. For example: The PA has a voting system, and in 2006 it elected a legislature and president, both for four year terms. If the PA would keep its own laws, there would have been new elections in 2010, 2014, and 2018, every four years, and we would have observed political parties acting to build a power base during those four years - and possibly even witness a change of leadership. None of this ever happened. There were elections, Hamas won most of the seats in the legislature, but all that body's authority was stripped from it by the PLO, so that Hamas would not succeed in attaining any chance of control in the Palestinian Authority.  

In September of this year, the Hamas members elected to the PA legislature sent a letter to the UN Secretary General in which they demanded he not allow Mahmoud Abbas to speak before the General Assembly due to his not being the chairman of the PA anymore, since his term expired years ago, in 2010, and he was never reelected. Abbas heard of the letter and was enraged, accused the Hamas movement of pulling the rug from under his feet and then blamed the poor attendance at his speech in the General Assemly on that letter. To teach Hamas a lesson, he dissoved the PA legislature.

The elected chairman's term ended almost nine years ago, but PA leader Mahmoud Abbas extends his own presidential term annually by administrative decree. Do you get it? This is the system established by the "nascent state" because Israel, Europe and the US are in favor of it and will do anything - including stomping on the rules of the game - to keep Hamas from running the show. Is there any way for the Arab public to accept this as a legitimate way to play the game of running a government? Not a chance, so the PA, with its ridiculous rules and laws, is seen as an illegitimate entity by the vast majority of the Arab public residing in Judea and Samaria. Most of this public hates Mahmoud Abbas anyway, because his birthplace was Safed, a city not located in Judea or Samaria, and his two sons, Yasser and Tarik, spend their time stealing vast sums from the PA's dwindling public purse.  

The Hamas movement realized where the PA was headed back in 2007 and decided to take matters into its own hands by means of a violent takeover of the Gaza Strip. Hamas refuses to collaborate with Israel and continues the Jihad against it because without the anti-Israel Jihad, Hamas has no raison d'etre.

The fact that Hamas runs the Gaza Strip prevents the PLO from realizing its dream, because Israel rightly fears that complete independence for the PA in Judea and Samaria means a Hamas takeover there on the lines of what occurred in Gaza. That is what lies behind Mahmoud Abbas' efforts to put down Hamas: He refrains from giving them the rehabilitation funding for Gaza granted them by various world donors, does not cover their fuel and electricity bills, and holds on to the salaries of PLO members in Gaza in order to keep the taxes on them out of the hands of Hamas.  Is this not a betrayal of over one and a half million subjects suffering in Gaza under Hamas rule? 

The PLO is on the verge of ideological bankruptcy. On the one hand, it cannot control Hamas and force that Islamist movement to accept its agenda, while on the other hand, Israel is not exactly enthusiastic about helping it establish a state that will threaten the Jewish one. Accordingly, the PA Central Committee came out with a recommendation to cancel PA recognition of Israel and end security cooperation with Israel. This week the Central Committee repeated its demand to end all cooperation with Israel on matters of security and to cancel the economic agreements the PLO and Israel signed - those very agreements allowing the PA to function. 

These recommendations were designed to end the accusation hurled repeatedly by Hamas at the PLO, that of cooperation with the Zionist enemy, except that without security and economic cooperation with Israel, the PA is set to collapse within a few days. This no-way-out situation is about to bring the PLO and PA to a state of economic and ideoogical collapse, showing the world the utter failure that constitutes the Palestinian dream.

What is the alternative? The Emirate Plan, as we have previously expounded on from this very podium. 


Written for Arutz Sheva, translated from Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky, Op-ed and Judaism Editor.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22949

O Come All Ye Jew Haters

O Come All Ye Jew Haters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Hu2-uZCE4&bpctr=1538063609

The day the rabbis marched in Washington right before Yom Kippur

The day the rabbis marched in Washington right before Yom Kippur


They came in 1943 to plead for the rescue of Europe's Jews, when so many could still have been saved, but FDR left the White House by a back door and refused to meet with them. And millions more died.


By Dr. Rafael Medoff

In an era that has seen more than 400,000 people take part in a Women’s March on Washington, it may not sound very impressive that 400 rabbis marched in the nation’s capital in 1943. But numbers alone don’t always tell the whole story.

This week marks the 75th anniversary of the rabbis’ march, which took place three days before Yom Kippur. The ten days between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are among the most hectic periods for a pulpit rabbi, who has major sermons to prepare and countless logistics to arrange for the most well-attended services of the year.

So there was no small inconvenience involved for the rabbis who in the autumn of 1943 answered the call of the political action committee known as the Bergson Group and the Orthodox rescue advocates of the Va’ad ha-Hatzala, to come to Washington to plead for the rescue of Europe’s Jews.

And their journey likely was made more than a little jittery by the fact that just one month earlier, a new high-speed train on its way from New York City to Washington, DC had derailed, killing 79 passengers.

Nevertheless, more than four hundred rabbis put down their books, left their communities and congregations, and headed for Washington. Most came from the New York City area, but others traveled from as far away as Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Worcester, Massachusetts.

As the station master shouted, “Clear the way for those rabbis!,” the protesters emerged from Washington, DC’s Union Station and made their way toward the cluster of buildings known as the Capitol.

It was not only their numbers, but also their stature, that was noteworthy. The marchers were led by Rabbis Eliezer Silver and Yisroel Rosenberg, co-presidents of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis. There were notable hasidic rebbes, such as the Boyaner Rebbe, Rabbi Shlomo Friedman, and the Melitzer Rebbe, Rabbi Yitzchok Horowitz. And there were a number of younger rabbis who would soon become leaders of their generation, in particular Moshe Feinstein and Joseph B. Soloveitchik.

A columnist for the Yiddish-language newspaper Der Tog (The Day) was impressed by the reaction of passers-by. As the rabbis in their “long silk and gabardines and round plush hats, moved along Pennsylvania Avenue…there [were] absolutely no snickers, no smirks on the faces of the onlookers,” he wrote. “They did not gape or guffaw as almost any crowd in a Central or East European land most decidedly would have. They watched in wonderment and in respect. The traffic stopped, and here and there a burgher removed his hat. I myself saw many a soldier in snap in salute…”

Fear of East European-style anti-Semitic mockery actually was a large part of the reason that the rabbis’ march was so unusual. It was, in fact, the only march in Washington for the rescue of the Jews during the Holocaust years. Many American Jews, as immigrants or the children of immigrants, were extremely anxious to be seen as fitting in. They worried that noisy Jewish protests might be perceived as unAmerican.

In fact, one Jewish member of Congress, Rep. Sol Bloom (D-New York), reportedly sought to persuade the rabbis to cancel the march on the grounds that “it would be very undignified for a group of such un-American looking people to appear in Washington.” The Jewish communal leader Cyrus Adler once referred to that attitude as “the ghetto crouch”—the phenomenon of Jews walking with their heads bowed so as not draw the attention of non-Jews.


The rabbis were greeted on the steps of the Capitol by Vice President Henry Wallace and members of Congress. After brief remarks, the rabbis proceeded to the Lincoln Memorial to recite prayers and sing the national anthem.

Then they marched to White House. While most of the rabbis waited across the street in Lafayette Park, their leaders approached the gates of the White House to ask if President Roosevelt could “accord a few minutes of his most precious time.” They wanted to present him with a petition calling for creation of “a special agency to rescue the remainder of the Jewish nation in Europe.”

A White House staffer informed the rabbis that the president was unavailable “because of the pressure of other business.” Actually, FDR’s schedule was clear that afternoon. But a presidential meeting would have conferred legitimacy on the protesters’ pleas for U.S. rescue action. And Roosevelt’s policy was that there was nothing that could be done to help the Jews except to win the war. So, in order to avoid seeing the marchers, the president quietly left the White House through a rear exit. 

That move backfired. “Rabbis Report ‘Cold Welcome’ at the White House,” declared a Washington Times-Herald headline the next morning.  A leading Jewish newspaper columnist angrily asked: “Would a similar delegation of 500 Catholic priests have been thus treated?”  The editors of the Jewish daily Forverts (Forward) reported signs of a new mood among some American Jews: “In open comment it is voiced that Roosevelt has betrayed the Jews” —a shocking sentiment in a community that repeatedly cast 90% of its ballots for FDR.

The publicity from the march helped galvanize a congressional resolution urging creation of a rescue agency. A Roosevelt administration official gave widely misleading testimony at the hearings on the resolution. The embarrassing publicity that followed, combined with behind-the-scenes pressure from Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and his aides, convinced President Roosevelt to establish the War Refugee Board. 

Although handicapped by the small size of its staff and the measly level of funding it received from the Roosevelt administration (private Jewish groups supplied 90% of its budget), the War Refugee Board accomplished near-miracles in its brief existence. It provided funds to hide Jewish refugees, bribe Nazi officials, and move tens of thousands of Jews out of the way of the retreating German armies. It also recruited Raoul Wallenberg to go to Nazi-occupied Budapest, and financed his rescue missions there. Historians calculate that the Board played a crucial role in saving the lives of some 200,000 Jews in Europe during the final fifteen months of the war. 

There is no straight line from the rabbis’ march to Raoul Wallenberg pulling Jews off trains bound for Auschwitz. But the march was an important part of the series of events which eventually led to that outcome. Seventy five years ago this week, the rabbis proved that you don’t always need 400,000 people in the streets of Washington to have an impact—sometimes 400 will do the trick.

Dr. Rafael Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and the author of The Jews Should Keep Quiet: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and the Holocaust, forthcoming from The Jewish Publication Society in 2019.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22755

The American government confronts the PA house of cards

The American government confronts the PA house of cards


It seems that the proverbial penny has dropped in Washington and the US government has begun behaving rationally with regard to the delusionary Palestinian State.

By Dr. Mordechai Kedar

There are times when a state, especially a world power, realizes that it has been played for a fool over a long period of time and, infuriated, acts like anyone who is sick and tired of blackmail and chicanery. That is exactly what has been happening lately to the relationship between the US government and the PLO, the organization in charge of the Palestinian Authority.


President Trump, who thinks like a businessman, keeps on asking himself: Is there anything to be gained from continuing the present situation?  Or is maintaining it causing more damage? The answer to his question is what gave rise to his recent decisions. In other words, if something is worthwhile, he is willing to fund and back it, but if nothing is going to come of it, the thing to do is abandon it as soon as possible and stop throwing good money after bad.

That is how Trump views a good many international issues: The nuclear agreement with Iran, signed during his predecessor’s term, the understandings with North Korea which previous governments kept up for the benefit of a string of dictators who ran that strange country, the trade agreements with China and North American states and others. He feels totally free to “recalculate,” to paraphrase Waze, on a cost-benefit basis. This is his businessman’s contribution to American foreign policy – and that is exactly what happened with regard to the Palestinian Arab issue.

When it came to Jerusalem, Trump realized that more than twenty years have gone by since Congress passed a law mandating the US embassy move to Jerusalem, and although every president elected since then – Clinton, Bush and Obama – postponed the move again and again, there has been no progress on Jerusalem . In fact, Jerusalem has become the insurmountable bone of contention blocking any agreement between Israel and the PA. 

He also realized that the Palestinian demand to make Jerusalem the capital of its proposed state does not make sense historically, because there has never been a king, Caliph, Sultan or Emir, Arab or Muslim, who made Jerusalem his capital. In contrast, there are Jewish, Greek and Roman sources documenting Jerusalem's being the capital city of the Jewish people. Trump came to  the conclusion that putting off the embassy move serves no purpose, and moved the embassy to Jerusalem without exacting (at least so far) any price from Israel.

Trump then realized that the money the US has invested in the refugees since the late 1940s is being used to perpetuate the Palestinian refugee problem. Every other country with a refugee problem in the 1940s, after WWII,  solved it by means of returning to former homes, settling in their new location or immigrating to another. The only refugees still extant from that period are the Arab ones from Israel's 1948 War of Independence, and they are also the only ones who passed on their refugee status to three generations of offspring with no end in sight. No one understands why the American taxpayer should continue funding a problem that will never be solved especially as this funding is what allows it to continue on forever. Trump said to himself: Let's stop funding the refugees and they will realize that each one of them is responsible for solving his own problems, and putting an end to the issue. The Arab states that invaded Israel one day after it declared its independence are those who brought about the 1948 war and the resulting refugee problem, so why should the US pay for an Arab problem caused by the Arab nations?

It is quite possible that Trump received reports describing what UNRWA does with the money it gets – for example, payng the salaries of workers in Gaza who give part of their wages to Hamas, meaning that American taxpayers are funding a body their government designated as a terror organization  

This means that instead of investing the American money in development and improving the lives of Gazans, it is being invested in digging tunnels and producing rockets meant to attack Israel, a US ally. Can there be anything more absurd?  Previous US governments allowed this absurdity to continue and purposely ignored the information they received about what was being done with American taxpayers' money.

In case no one remembers, Hamas is a terror organization which ran in the January 2006 elections for the Palestinian legislative council, garnering the majority of its seats. There have been no elections since that date, so that Hamas still has the - democratic! – right to pass laws in the Palestinian Authority, despite being defined as a terror organization. Is there any reason for the US to fund an authority whose laws are passed by terrorists? And why does Europe continue to do so?

When discussing Palestinian elections, it is useful to remember an important sentence penned by Shimon Peres in his book "A New Middle East" (1996), p. 154: "The only way open to the Palestinian organizations if they want to overcome Hamas is through elections. An armed, extremist minority must be met by the authority of an elected majority." Peres, who held key offices in the State of Israel – Foreign Minister, Minister of Defense, Prime Minister and President – did not even consider the possibility that Hamas would use the elections to take over the Palestinian Authority of which he was a major founder and for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize. If someone so blind to reality and to what the future might hold served in such important positions in the State of Israel, what does that say about Israeli wisdom?

In addition, Trump is not happy with the transfer of US funds to cover Palestinian Authority activities because of the rampant corruption in its every governmental department and because Mahmoud Abbas' two sons, Yasser and Tarek, have become "partners" in every PA business deal. Funding the PA security operations is even worse – they do the minimum demanded by Israel, leaving the IDF to deal with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other terrorists. If the IDF is the real PA defense force, why should America fund security operations that do not provide security?

Interestingly, Trump also stopped supporting so-called Palestinian "Peace organizations" which run activities for Palestinian Arab and Israeli youth meant to create an "atmosphere of peace" between the two sides. It seems that Trump understood that these organizations are an entire industry whose raison d'etre is to provide jobs and collect donations from well-meaning Europeans and Americans who have little understanding of the situation.

These donors are willing to hand over millions of euros and dollars to create something that is impossible to create as long as the official Palestinian Authority media spews incitement, delegitimization and dehumanization of Israel in particular and all Jews in general. 

Do you get it? The PA creates an atmosphere of hate so that Palestinian organizations can hold meetings to create an atmosphere of peace – with US and European money, of course. About a year ago, a reliable and well known source told me that there are hundreds of these Palestinian "peace" groups as anyone who wants an easy income establishes an organization, prints promotional material using texts taken off the internet and approaches the Europeans and Americans for monetary aid. If a woman runs the organization, her chances are even better, and what is strangest of all, it seems that American Jewish organizations are the first to give money to these income-generating organizations.

Trump also stopped funding hospitals serving the Arab population in Eastern Jerusalem. He may have felt that if Jerusalem is a united city and Israel's capital, the responsibility for running these hospitals is Israel's. Perhaps Trump is telling the Israelis: You wanted a united Jerusalem? Well, you've got it now, so pay for the hospitals which are now under your jurisdiction." This is a healthy and proper, purely business attitude based on the concept of responsibility: whoever is responsible has to foot the bills.

In essence, with the moves he has taken against the PLO and PA, Trump is intimating that he has done his part, and now wants to know what Israel is going to do to put the PLO and PA where they deserve to be. Is Israel going to continue giving artificial respiration to these dead bodies? Is Israel going to continue keeping the hallucinatory agreements with terrorists signed by people like Peres and Beilin? Or is it going to join Trump and begin thinking rationally?  

The Palestinian issue has direct bearing on the Iranian problem, because Trump is surely asking himself: If Israel, justifiably, is constantly warning about the danger facing it from Iran, how does it allow a terrorist organization to control the mountains overlooking Israel from Dimona and Beer Sheva in the south all the way up the coastal plain to Afula and Beit Shean in the  north? Every schoolchild knows that the Palestinian Arabs will launch rockets against Israeli communities as soon as they are able to. Isn't there a contradiction between Israel's vehemence against Iran and its attitude towards the Palestinians? And if Israel creates dangerous situations for itself, why should America act against Iran and the agreements signed with that country?

It seems that the proverbial penny has dropped in Washington and the US government has begun behaving rationally with regard to the delusionary Palestinian State, putting it out to dry economically and ending decades of keeping it alive by artificial means.  The Palestinian State can now find its rightful place in the history books as another march of folly.

The only problem is that all this is reversible and a different US government can easily turn back the clock and begin pressuring Israel to leave Judea and Samaria in favor of a judenrein Palestinian Arab state. Israel, therefore, must take advantage of the Trump era by creating a new reality, one that is almost impossible to change or dismiss:  Israel must cancel the Oslo Agreements and all the others that followed those Accords,  knock down the Palestinian house of  cards, send the criminals it brought from Tunisia back to where they came from, starting with Mahmoud  Abbas and his sons – and create independent emirates in every Arab city in Judea and Samaria  run by local clans and their natural, local leaders.

Israel must remain in the village areas forever and offer Israeli citizenship to those living in those areas who make up about 10% of the Arabs in Judea and Samaria.

This is the only solution based on local sociological reality. Only this solution can bring stability, growth and peace to the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria, security to Israel. This is the solution to which Trump's steps can lead. 

Tranlated from Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22764

Anti-Semitism Is a Mental Disease

Anti-Semitism Is a Mental Disease

By Shoula Romano Horing

As a Jew and an Israeli, every time I write an online article about Israel and the Middle East, Jew-haters come out of the woodwork or the sewer like cockroaches, with a barrage of comments full of hatred, prejudice, bigotry, fake news, and fake history against Jews in general and the Jewish state in particular.

For me as an Israeli, the world's sick obsession with the world's only Jewish state, which constitutes a tiny area of around ten thousand square miles, including the disputed territory of the West Bank, compared to the 13 million square miles of the Arab world, 3.79 million square miles of the U.S., and the 3.931 million square miles of Europe, is bewildering, irrational, and outrageous.  

For me as a Jew, the world's repeated attempts to scapegoat and blame the Jewish people for many of world's ills have been sad and revolting, knowing that the Jewish population worldwide totals just 14.5 million, including the 6.5 million in Israel and the 5.7 million in the U.S., who make up only less than 2% of the country's population of approximately 325 million.  In contrast, the population of the Muslim world totals 1.3 billion, which includes 423 million Arabs, and the world's Christian population numbers 2.1 billion.  

Obviously, anti-Semitism is not a new phenomenon for Jews.  It has been called history's oldest hatred and mental disease, and it has shown itself to be remarkably adaptable, stretching back thousands of years.  But what is worrisome to me now is that it seems that 73 years after the Holocaust, Jew-hatred is re-emerging in Europe and the Western world as the barbarous events of World War II recede from collective memory and the cultural and political taboo of being an anti-Semite has disappeared.

Moreover, it includes anti-Semites from the far right and the far left, Christians and Muslims, including those in private and public life, many in the political establishment and leadership positions and many individuals in academia.  It manifests itself in physical attacks on synagogues in Sweden; arson attacks on Jewish institutions in France; and a spike in hate crimes against Jews in the U.K., France, Germany, and the U.S.


At its base, Jew-hatred is a neurotic condition based on irrational fear of the Jews and a lack of personal responsibility for one's failure to achieve success and happiness.  Anti-Semites fear Jews because they perceive them as all-powerful individuals who control the U.S. government and the world as well as the banks and economic systems.  This neurotic worldview makes rational analysis impossible for anti-Semites.  Everything is a Jewish plot and conspiracy for them in business and politics.  Through circular reasoning, anti-Semites see Jewish fingers in everything bad that happens to them.

Historically, anti-Semitism has taken the form of a double standard of labeling certain characteristics as specifically Jewish when they are in fact common to all of humanity: Jews are greedy, tricky, ambitious, rich, and clannish, as though Jews were uniquely or disproportionately guilty of all these.  Since Israel was established, in 1948, Jews and the Jewish state have been condemned whenever they claim or exercise the right to do things that all other people are accorded without question, like having a state and defending its security and borders.

Today, similar double standards are evident in the fact that 86 percent of U.N. resolutions single out Israel while ignoring human rights abuses in countries such as Syria, North Korea, and Iran. 

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said in a new report in February 2018 that the number of anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. is nearly 60 percent higher in 2017 than 2016, the largest single-year increase on record and the second highest number reported since the ADL started tracking incident data in the 1970s.  There were 1,986 anti-Semitic incidents reported across the United States in 2017, including physical assaults, vandalism, and attacks on Jewish institutions.  Every part of the country was affected, with an incident reported in all 50 states for the first time in at least a decade. 

One of Britain's most senior Jewish leaders alleged last week that Jeremy Corbyn, the head of the Labor Party, the main opposition party, has anti-Semitic views and associates himself with anti-Semites delegitimizing Israel's existence, and that he is causing British Jews to question their future in the country.

Last week, Turkish state-controlled media blamed the "Jewish lobby" for the sudden drop of the value of the country's currency.

In a recent May 2018 survey conducted by Ifop polling company in France, some 53 percent of the French respondents agreed with the statement that "Zionism is an international organization that seeks to influence the world and societies to the Jews' benefit."  Furthermore, in the poll, Israel was described as a "threat to regional stability" by 57 percent of respondents, while in reality, all the wars Israel was involved in were due to Arab, Palestinian, and Muslim attacks and threats.  In the same poll, Israel was described as a "theocracy" by 51 percent, even though in reality it is the only vibrant democracy in the Middle East.

In Germany, there were 1,453 anti-Semitic incidents reported in 2017, including 947 in Berlin, and these came at a time when Germany is grappling with an influx of more than one million mostly Muslim migrants, along with the rise of a right-wing nationalistic parties.

Concerning European Jewry, I believe that there is no solution for European Jews other than to come and live in Israel.  Anti-Semitism has never gone from the hearts of the Europeans for over 2,000 years, and now it has evolved into anti-Israel hatred.  Jew-hatred is here to stay and has even worsened as Europe continues to decline economically and morally.

In the U.S., anti-Semitism is mostly limited to universities and the liberal media on the far left, and to Nazi groups on the far right, but it has never been embraced by a majority of the American people and has never evolved into anti-Israeli hatred.  On the contrary, Israel's favorability score is the highest in the country since 1991.  According to a 2018 Gallop Poll, over 74 percent of Americans view Israel favorably versus the Palestinians.

The only way to fight those outlier groups is by confronting them head-on with facts and true history, in every public stage, forum, newspaper, magazine, school, and university.  There must be zero tolerance for any fake news provided by the leftist media, as well as legislation sidelining those groups calling for boycotting or divesting from Israel.  

Increased education in high schools and colleges telling the truth about Jewish history and the evil of anti-Semitism will hopefully guarantee that being an anti-Semite remains a taboo in the United States.   

Shoula Romano Horing is an Israeli-born and raised attorney.  Her blog: www.shoularomanohoring.com.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/antisemitism_is_a_mental_disease.html

How to defeat Hamas without firing a shot

How to defeat Hamas without firing a shot

The people who organize and participate in current riots on the Gaza fences, are UNRWA employees.

By David Bedein

How to defeat Hamas? Deprive Hamas members of their prime source of income, which is UNRWA, the largest employer of Hamas in Gaza.  

The people who organize and participate in current riots on the Gaza fences, are UNRWA employees - 20,000 proud members of Hamas who control the UNRWA workers association and the UNRWA teachers association since 1999, all of whom incite for a mass invasion of Israel under the slogan of the "right of return by force of arms"

The "return" they refer to is to villages that Arabs left  three generations ago, most expecting to return after the Arab armies destroyed the fledgling Jewish state, between 1948 and 1953, in the wake of the Israel War of Independence - in which the Arabs attacked Israel. 

UNRWA has kept 5 million descendants of Arab refugees in "temporary" conditions, while Hamas ads fuel to the fire.. 

What can be done to douse the flames of Hamas?

Donor nations to UNRWA can demand the cut off of their paying UNRWA salaries, which would transform Hamas into beggars who would starve for lack of cash.

US, Canada, the UK and Australia all have tough laws on the books which clearly state that  their respective nations must condition aid to UNRWA with a strict requirement that, in order to receive aid, no member of an FTO, a  Foreign Terrorist Organization, can receive a salary.

Indeed, Canada cut off its aid to the general fund of UNRWA in 2009 after Hamas gained control of the UNRWA workers union and UNRWA teachers association, as documented in a study that our agency  published that was commissioned by the European Parliament.

Canada renewed funding of the UNRWA general fund in 2016, after UNRWA lied to Ottawa that it no longer employs members of Hamas..

Since no Hamas members  were removed from the staff of UNRWA, this would be an  opportune time for donor nations to demand  that UNRWA conduct a review of its employees for terror connections.

The next logical step is to demand that UNRWA indeed dismiss any and all Hamas members on staff. 

At an UNRWA policy symposium held in Geneva in 2004, I asked Peter Hansen, then head of UNRWA, how he could justify Hamas members on his staff. His answer was that UNRWA does not look at the religious affiliation of its staff members and he went on to say that he had no problem employing Hamas members on the UNRWA  payroll.  

As a result of that answer, donor nations forced UNRWA to fire Hansen. 

Hansen's dismissal provides a precedent that UNRWA donor nations could easily invoke.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22284

REWRITING HISTORY AT THE HOLOCAUST MUSEUM: Why FDR abandoned the Jews

REWRITING HISTORY AT THE HOLOCAUST MUSEUM: Why FDR abandoned the Jews


The U.S. Holocaust Museum's new exhibit on America and the Shoah tries to show that FDR did the best he could to help Jews during the Holocaust. Part 3 of a special 3 part series.

By Dr. Rafael Medoff

Did President Franklin D. Roosevelt do the best he could to help Jews during the Holocaust? That’s the surprising made claim made in a controversial new exhibit at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Mainstream historians are calling the exhibit misleading and biased.

Below is the final installment of our 3-part series, adapted from the essay “Walls of Paper,” by Dr. Rafael Medoff, which was published in the spring 2018 issue of PRISM: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Holocaust Educators, published by the Azrieli Graduate School of Jewish Education, at Yeshiva University. It is reprinted here by permission of the journal and the author. (For a full list of the footnotes from the essay, write to: info@wymaninstitute.org)

Dr. Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and author or editor of 19 books about Jewish history and the Holocaust. His latest book is Too Little, and Almost Too Late: The War Refugee Board and America’s Response to the Holocaust.

PART 3:  WHY FDR ABANDONED THE JEWS

Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long, a personal friend of President Roosevelt, was in charge of 23 of the State Department’s 42 divisions, including the visa section. In a June 26, 1940 memo, Long advised his colleagues: 


“We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States…by simply advising our consuls to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices, which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas.” 

The German invasion of Poland the previous September, followed by the rapid conquest of Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, and France in the spring of 1940, provoked a wave of fear—among the general public and within the administration—of Nazi spies reaching the United States. Newspapers frequently published wild stories about Hitler planning to send “slave spies” to the United States. Attorney General Robert Jackson complained to the cabinet that “hysteria is sweeping the country against aliens and fifth columnists.”  

The president’s rhetoric fanned the flames. FDR warned about “the treacherous use of the ‘fifth column’ by persons supposed to be peaceful visitors [but] actually a part of an enemy unit of occupation.” In fact, there was only one instance in which a Nazi disguised as a Jewish refugee reached the Western hemisphere; he was captured in Cuba and executed. 

Three days after Long’s June 1940 memo, the State Department ordered consuls abroad to reject applications from anyone about whom they had “any doubt whatsoever.” The new instruction specifically noted that this policy would result in “a drastic reduction in the number of quota and nonquota immigration visas issued.” It worked as intended: In the following year, immigration from Germany and Austria was kept to just 48% of the quota.

JEWISH SPIES FOR HITLER?

In the spring of 1941, with Roosevelt’s approval, Long devised what has come to be known as the Close Relatives Edict. On June 5, 1941, he instructed all US consuls abroad to reject visa applicants who had a “parent, brother, sister, spouse, or child” in any territory occupied by Germany, Italy, or the Soviet Union. The rationale was that the relatives might be taken hostage in order to force the immigrant to become a Nazi or Soviet spy. 

Refugee advocates were horrified. The political weekly The Nation (July 19, 1941) denounced the new regulation as “brutal and unjust.” The October 1941 issue of Workmen’s Circle Call, a Jewish immigrant laborers’ publication, described it as “cruel and unimaginative.” B’nai B’rith’s National Jewish Monthly (December 1941) asserted that the new policy could be called “Keep Your Tired, Your Poor”—a reversal of the famous poem inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. 

Protests were to no avail: The administration refused to budge. Actualization of the quota from Germany fell to less than 18% in 1942; only 14% of the quota for immigrants from German-occupied Poland was filled that year. In 1943, less than 5% of the German quota was used, as was only 16% of that for German-occupied France. A total of almost 190,000 quota places from Axis-controlled European countries were left unused during the Hitler years. 

MOTIVES 

What motivated senior State Department officials to take such positions regarding Jewish immigration? Anti-Semitism certainly played a role. Wilbur Carr, an assistant secretary of state in the Roosevelt administration, wrote in a 1934 diary entry that he preferred a particular summer resort because it was so “different from the Jewish atmosphere of the Claridge.” Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle confided to his diary in 1940, “The Jewish group, wherever you find it, is not only pro-English, but will sacrifice American interests to English interests…It is horrible to see one phase of the Nazi propaganda justifying itself a little.” Undersecretary of State William Phillips, in his diary (on May 18, 1923), once described a Soviet official as “a perfect little rat of a Jew.” It is no exaggeration to say that anti-Semitism was rife in Roosevelt’s State Department. 


Such sentiments also were common among the consular officials in Europe who directly decided the fate of visa applicants. Prof. Bat-Ami Zucker, in her book In Search of Refuge, the definitive study of US consular officials in Nazi Germany, found that the consuls “often commented on the danger of permitting a flood of Jewish immigration into the US,” warned of “its potentially dangerous impact on American society,” and suspected “a Jewish conspiracy in the United States to pressure the administration into facilitating immigration.”

In a similar spirit, William Peck, at the US consulate in Marseilles, wrote to a colleague that he “deplore[d] as much as anyone the influx into the United States of certain refugee elements.” He was open to immigration by “aged people,” because they “will not reproduce and can do our country no harm.” On the other hand, “the young ones may be suffering, but the history of their race shows that suffering does not kill many of them.”  

However, anti-Semitism within the State Department alone does not suffice to explain US immigration policy, because it was President Roosevelt, not Breckinridge Long, who was the final authority. Ignorance was not the issue: President Roosevelt’s correspondence makes clear that he was aware the quotas were underfilled. Many references in the correspondence and diaries of Breckinridge Long allude to his regular briefings of the president on immigration policy, to which FDR responded positively. 

Some historians have explained Roosevelt’s strict policy as anticipating the likely electoral consequences (that is, the strong public opposition to immigration) and congressional opposition to liberalizing the immigration quotas, but those factors do not reflect that what is under discussion here is immigration within the existing quotas, not any effort to change the immigration system. An unpublicized instruction from the White House to the State Department to permit the existing German quota to be filled would have saved numerous lives while likely causing only the tiniest of political ripples. 

THE JAPANESE AND THE JEWS

A more plausible explanation is Roosevelt’s attitude toward minority groups that he regarded as unassimilable. FDR in general exhibited little sympathy for immigration, expressed concern about what he saw as immigrants’ resistance to assimilation, and harbored racist sentiments about the dangers of “mingling Asiatic blood with American blood.” His conviction that the Japanese were biologically different, undesirable, and untrustworthy made Roosevelt was receptive to the proposal by some of his military advisers, after Pearl Harbor, to incarcerate Japanese Americans lest their “undiluted racial strains” inspire them to secretly assist the Japanese war effort. By order of the president, more than 110,000 Japanese Americans were rounded up throughout California and shipped to internment camps in Arizona, Wyoming, Arkansas, and elsewhere in 1942, even though there was not a single documented case of a Japanese American spying for Japan in World War II 

Roosevelt’s private remarks about Jews in many ways echoed what he wrote and said about Asians. Jews, he believed, tended to overcrowd specific geographical locations, dominate certain professions, and exercise undue influence. At a White House luncheon in May 1943, FDR told British Prime Minister Winston Churchill that “the best way to settle the Jewish question” would be “to spread the Jews thin all over the world.” According to Vice President Henry Wallace’s account of the conversation, Roosevelt said he had “tried this out in Marietta [Meriwether] County, Georgia, and at Hyde Park…adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that.” 

Roosevelt resented what he perceived as excessive Jewish representation in a variety of institutions. As a member of Harvard’s Board of Overseers in 1923, he helped institute a quota to limit the number of Jews admitted to 15% of each class, and still boasted about doing so two decades later. In 1941, FDR remarked at a cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. 


The president was concerned about Jewish influence abroad, too. In 1938, FDR privately suggested to Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, the era’s most prominent American Jewish leader, that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were to blame for provoking antisemitism there. 

In the same spirit, President Roosevelt remarked at the 1943 Casablanca Conference that in governing the 330,000 Jews in North Africa, “the number of Jews [allowed to enter various professions] should be definitely limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population,” which “would not permit them to overcrowd the professions.” He said this “would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a small part of the population, over fifty percent of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors, etc., in Germany were Jews.”

Certain individual, assimilated Jews could be useful to FDR as political allies or advisers, but the presence of a substantial number of Jews, especially the less assimilated kind, was, in his view, undesirable. Roosevelt’s private views help explain the otherwise inexplicable policy of suppressing refugee immigration far below the legal limits. His vision of America was of a nation that would be overwhelmingly white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant, with no room for any substantial number of others. 

WHAT OPTIONS EXISTED? 

Realistically, what options existed for President Roosevelt to assist Jewish refugees without endangering his political position or risking a difficult, and probably unsuccessful, clash with Congress? 

First, filling the existing quotas. The policy of almost never allowing the quotas to be filled “cost Jewish lives directly,” and “the restrictionist policy also played a crucial role in Nazi Germany’s decision to solve its ‘Jewish problem’ by more radical means,” Prof. Henry Feingold has argued; “The visa system became literally an adjunct to Berlin’s murderous plan for the Jews.”

Next, permitting more non-quota immigration. The existing law permitted professors, college students, and members of the clergy and their families to enter the United States outside the quotas. Yet from 1933 to 1941, the US admitted only 698 students identified as “Hebrews,” 944 professors (not all of them Jews), and 2,184 “ministers” (not all of them rabbis). With a more humane attitude, the administration could have taken advantage of this legal loophole and granted haven to many more endangered Jews. 

Finally, offering temporary admission to US territories. The determination as to whether an applicant for a tourist visa had a valid return address was strictly arbitrary; a more generous approach would have looked past that technicality and granted Jewish refugees temporary haven in an American territory, such as the Virgin Islands, whose governor offered to take them in, a move that would likely not have provoked any substantial domestic opposition. 

Tragically, the Roosevelt administration opted to turn its back on traditional American attitudes toward the downtrodden and chose instead, as Albert Einstein wrote to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, “to make immigration impossible by erecting a wall of bureaucratic measures.”

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22102

U.S. HOLOCAUST MUSEUM EXCUSES FDR’S SILENCE: Jews are inconvenient

U.S. HOLOCAUST MUSEUM EXCUSES FDR’S SILENCE: Jews are inconvenient

Part 2 of a special 3-part series: It is inconvenient to rescue Jews.

By Dr. Rafael Medoff

Controversy continues to grow over the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s new exhibit, which claims that President Franklin D. Roosevelt did the best he could to help Jews during the Holocaust. 

Mainstream historians say that the exhibit’s claims fly in the face of decades of historical research. 

Below is part 2 of our 3-part series adapted from the essay “Walls of Paper,” by Dr. Rafael Medoff, which was published in the spring 2018 issue of PRISM: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Holocaust Educators, published by the Azrieli Graduate School of Jewish Education, at Yeshiva University. It is reprinted here by permission of the journal and the writer. (For a full list of the footnotes from the essay, write to: info@wymaninstitute.org)

Dr. Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and author or editor of 19 books about Jewish history and the Holocaust. His latest book is Too Little, and Almost Too Late: The War Refugee Board and America’s Response to the Holocaust.

PART 2:  THE INCONVENIENCE OF RESCUING JEWS

When the world-famous German Jewish chemist Fritz Haber approached US Ambassador to Germany William Dodd in July 1933 to ask about “the possibilities in America for emigrants with distinguished records here in science,” Dodd told him (according to Dodd’s diary) “that the law allowed none now, the quota being filled.” In fact, the German quota was 95% unfilled that year. 

Ten-year-old Herbert Friedman was denied permission to accompany his mother and brother to the United States in 1936 after an examining physician at the Stuttgart consulate claimed he had tuberculosis. Tests all proved negative, and an array of German and American specialists who reviewed his X-rays likewise concluded that he did not have the disease. Yet the consulate would not budge. The family eventually managed to enlist the help of Albert Einstein, who, in a letter to the surgeon general about the case, reported: 

“I have spoken to a reliable young man who recently emigrated from Germany; when I told him about the Stuttgart Consulate’s refusal to issue the visa for the child, without giving the young man the reason for the refusal [that is, Einstein did not tell him about the claim of tuberculosis—RM], he immediately said, ‘That is an old story. Tuberculosis!’ This shows clearly that this case is not an isolated case but that it is becoming a dangerous practice. “

THE KETUBAH DILEMMA

Some applicants in Germany ran into trouble when they presented a ketubah, the traditional Jewish religious wedding certificate, as evidence of their marital status. Some of these Jews had been married in a religious ceremony only, and not according to civil law, while others simply found it impossible to obtain evidence of their marital status from a Nazi government office, or else had been married in Russia before the Soviet takeover and could not enter the USSR to retrieve documentation. 

US consular officials refused to recognize a ketubah as proof of marriage and therefore deemed the applicants’ children “illegitimate” and rejected the family on the grounds of low moral character. In these cases and many others, consular officials used their discretionary abilities to achieve what one consul characterized as “the Department’s desire to keep immigration to a minimum.”  

In late 1936, there was a modest increase in the number of German Jews admitted to the United States. By the end of 1937, a total of 11,127 immigrants from Germany had arrived, representing 42.1% of the available spaces.

Consuls in Germany had complained that they were short-staffed, so Foreign Service Inspector Jerome Klahr Huddle was sent to Germany to assess the situation. In his report, Huddle recommended that more-distant relatives could be relied upon to provide support because they undoubtedly felt genuine sympathy for their persecuted family members. Eliot Coulter of the Visa Division agreed, in an internal memorandum, that “the Jewish people often have a high sense of responsibility toward their relatives, including distant relatives whom they may not have seen.” 

Yet the majority of the German quota remained unfilled. John Farr Simmons, chief of the State Department’s Visa Division in the 1930s, was proud to note, in 1937, “the drastic reduction in immigration” that “was merely an obvious and predictable result of administrative practices.” 

SPURNED OPPORTUNITIES 

Germany’s annexation of Austria in 1938 (the Anschluss) marked a significant intensification of the Jewish refugee crisis. Now a second major European Jewish community was in need of a haven. The well-publicized scenes of anti-Jewish brutality accompanying the German army’s entrance into Austria, including Jews being forced to scrub the streets with toothbrushes, showed that the problem was reaching crisis proportions. 

Although polls showed most Americans still opposed relaxing immigration restrictions, a handful of members of Congress and journalists began urging US intervention. Senior State Department officials decided to—in the words of the department’s internal year-end review—“get out in front and attempt to guide” the pressure before it got out of hand. They conceived the idea of an international conference on the refugee problem, to create an impression of US concern while coaxing other countries to assume responsibility for the bulk of the refugees. 

On March 24, 1938, President Roosevelt announced he was inviting 32 countries to send representatives to a conference in the French resort town of Évian-les-Bains. FDR emphasized in his announcement that “no nation would be expected or asked to receive a greater number of emigrants than is permitted by its existing legislation.” He did permit the German and Austrian quotas, now combined, to be filled that year, the only year that happened. 

With one exception, the delegates at Évian proclaimed their countries’ unwillingness to accept more Jews. Typical was the Australian delegate, who bluntly asserted that “as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one.” The only exception was the tiny Dominican Republic, which declared it would accept as many as 100,000 Jewish refugees. 

Scholars have chronicled the sad fate of that offer. After the first several hundred refugees were settled in the Dominican region of Sosua, the “biggest problem” the project encountered—according to historian Marion A. Kaplan—was the “unrelenting US opposition” to bringing in more refugees and “the State Department’s hostility and obstructionism.” Prof. Allen Wells found that Roosevelt administration officials harbored paranoid fears that some German Jewish refugees entering Sosua would serve as spies for the Nazis and pressured the Dominican haven organizers to refrain from bringing in more Jews. 

Several additional opportunities to assist Jewish refugees in 1938 and 1939 likewise were spurned by the Roosevelt administration. The president refused to support the Wagner–Rogers bill of 1939, which would have admitted 20,000 German children outside the quota. The legislation went nowhere, thanks to the sentiments of nativists such as Laura Delano Houghteling, a cousin of FDR and wife of the US commissioner of immigration, who complained that “20,000 charming children would all too soon grow up into 20,000 ugly adults.” 

In the spring of the same year, 930 German Jewish refugees aboard the MS St. Louis was turned away from Cuba and the United States. The German–Austrian quota was already filled, and any proposal to Congress to admit them likely would have been defeated. However, they could have been admitted as tourists to the US Virgin Islands, as Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr., proposed at the time. Secretary of State Cordell Hull, after conferring with the president, rejected Morgenthau’s proposal on the grounds that the passengers could not demonstrate they had permanent residences in Nazi Germany to which they would return after their visas expired. 

EMERGENCY VISAS 

In the aftermath of the German conquest of France in June 1940, thousands of refugees, including many exiled German Jews, fled to southern France to avoid capture by the Nazis. Many refugee families included members who were prominent artists, scientists, and intellectuals. On June 22, Marshal Petain’s Vichy regime, the ruling authority in the southern part of the country, signed an agreement with the Nazis agreeing to “surrender on demand” anyone sought by the Germans. 

In the days to follow, American friends and colleagues of the refugees established the Emergency Rescue Committee, hoping to bring renowned cultural figures to the United States. With help from the First Lady, the committee secured President Roosevelt’s authorization of emergency visas for several hundred artists and intellectuals and their families. The president was receptive to the proposal precisely because it was not a typical request to admit ordinary Jewish refugees. The world-famous exiles in France were the cream of European civilization; the fact that most of them were Jewish was incidental. 

American journalist Varian Fry volunteered to lead the mission. He arrived in Marseille in August 1940 with a list of 200 endangered individuals and $3,000 taped to his leg to hide it from the Gestapo. During the months to follow, Fry’s network—which included a dissident US consul, Hiram Bingham IV—rescued an estimated 2,000 refugees, in many cases by smuggling them over the Pyrenees into Spain disguised as field workers. 

Catching wind of the Fry operation, furious German and French officials complained to the State Department. Secretary of State Cordell Hull responded with a telegram, in September 1940, to the American ambassador in Paris, instructing him to inform Fry that “THIS GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REPEAT NOT COUNTENANCE ANY ACTIVITIES BY AMERICAN CITIZENS DESIRING TO EVADE THE LAWS OF THE GOVERNMENTS WITH WHICH THIS COUNTRY MAINTAINS FRIENDLY RELATIONS.”

Hull also sent a telegram to Fry, pressing him to “return immediately” to the United States in view of “local developments,” meaning in opposition of the Germans and French. When Fry failed to heed that demand, the Roosevelt administration refused to renew his passport, thus forcing him to leave France. It also transferred Bingham to Portugal, then to Argentina. 

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22094

US HOLOCAUST MUSEUM TRIES TO RESCUE FDR: Keeping the Jews out

US HOLOCAUST MUSEUM TRIES TO RESCUE FDR: Keeping the Jews out


Part 1 of a 3 part series on the U.S. and the Holocaust, currently the subject of an exhibition at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. in which the facts brought here are obscured.

By Dr. Rafael Medoff

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, in Washington, D.C, recently opened a controversial new exhibit which claims that President Franklin D. Roosevelt did his best to help Jews during the Holocaust. The Washington Post described it as “a posthumous makeover for FDR at the museum.” 

Mainstream historians are challenging the museum’s revisionist approach. To explore these issues further, we present a three-part series adapted from the essay “Walls of Paper,” by Dr. Rafael Medoff, which was published in the Spring 2018 issue of PRISM: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Holocaust Educators, published by the Azrieli Graduate School of Jewish Education, at Yeshiva University. It is reprinted here by permission of the journal and the author. (For a full list of the footnotes from the essay, write to: info@wymaninstitute.org)

Dr. Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and author or editor of 19 books about Jewish history and the Holocaust. His latest book is Too Little, and Almost Too Late: The War Refugee Board and America’s Response to the Holocaust.

PART 1:  KEEPING THE JEWS OUT

“It is a fantastic commentary on the inhumanity of our times,” wrote journalist Dorothy Thompson in 1938, “that for thousands and thousands of people, a piece of paper with a stamp on it is the difference between life and death.” 

For over a century, the United States had an open-door immigration policy, welcoming newcomers from around the world in almost unlimited numbers. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, however, a number of prominent American anthropologists and eugenicists began promoting the idea that Anglo-Saxons were biologically superior to other peoples. This racialist view of society reshaped the public’s view of immigration in the years following World War I. 

The shift in attitudes took place at the same time that Americans were becoming increasingly anxious about Communism, as a result of the establishment of the Soviet Union. The combination of racism, fear of Communism, and general resentment of foreigners created strong public pressure to restrict immigration. 

CLOSING THE DOORS

In 1921, Congress passed—and President Warren Harding signed into law—the Immigration Restriction Act. This legislation stipulated that the number of immigrants admitted annually from any single country could not exceed 3% of the number of immigrants from that country who had been living in the US at the time of the 1910 national census. If, for example, there were 100,000 individuals of Danish origin living in the United States in 1910, the maximum number of immigrants permitted from Denmark in any future year would be 3,000. 

The Johnson Immigration Act of 1924 tightened these regulations in two important ways. The percentage for calculating the quotas was reduced from 3% to 2%, and instead of the 1910 census, the quota numbers would be based on an earlier census, the one taken in 1890. The restrictions were intensified in order to reduce the number of Jewish and Italian immigrants, since the bulk of Jews and Italians in the US had arrived after 1890. 

The sponsors of the legislation made no secret of their motives. The Johnson Act was submitted to Congress with a report by the chief of the United States Consular Service, Wilbur Carr, that characterized would-be Jewish immigrants from Poland as “filthy, un-American, and often dangerous in their habits…lacking any conception of patriotism or national spirit.”

A BAD SYSTEM MADE WORSE 

In the public debates over immigration that took place in the 1920s, Franklin D. Roosevelt came down squarely on the side of the restrictionists. As the Democratic nominee for vice president in 1920, Roosevelt gave an interview to the Brooklyn Eagle in which he expressed concern that immigrants tended to concentrate in urban areas and retain their ethnic heritage: “The foreign elements…do not easily conform to the manners and the customs and the requirements of their new home.” 

The solution he proposed was dispersal and rapid assimilation: “The remedy for this should be the distribution of aliens in various parts of the country.” Writing in the Macon Daily Telegraph in 1925, FDR said he favored the admission of some Europeans, so long as they had “blood of the right sort.” He urged restricting immigration for “a good many years to come” so the United States would have time to “digest” those already admitted. 


The immigration system that was adopted in the 1920s was made even more restrictive by President Herbert Hoover in 1930. Responding to the onset of the Great Depression, Hoover instructed consular officials to reject all applicants who were “likely to become a public charge,” that is, dependent on government assistance. It was left to the consuls to make that determination on a case-by-case basis.

The Roosevelt administration inherited this harsh system and made it worse. When Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany in 1933, large numbers of German Jews urgently began looking for countries that would shelter them from the Nazis —and US consular officials in Germany urgently looked for ways to reject their applications. By crafting a maze of bureaucracy and unreasonably rigorous requirements, these officials ensured that most Jewish refugees would never reach America’s shores. Prof. David S. Wyman characterized those restrictions s “paper walls” in his 1968 book of that name. 

Those walls ensured that the quotas would almost never be filled. The German quota was 25,957. Just 5.3%, or 1,375, of the quota places were used in 1933, Hitler’s first year in power. Of the next 12 years, the German quota was filled in only one. Places that were unused at the end of the year did not spill over into the next year; they simply expired. In 1934, a total of 3,515 immigrants filled 13.7% of the quota; the next year, 20.2% of the quota was filled (4,891 immigrants); and in 1936, the total was 24.3% (or 6,073 immigrants). 

In most of those 12 years, less than 25% of the quota was filled. As the Nazi persecution of Jews intensified, the US quota system functioned precisely as its creators had intended: It kept out all but a relative handful of Jews. 

THE PAPER WALLS 

The visa application form, which had to be filled out in triplicate, was more than four feet long. Its length, however, was the least of the difficulties applicants faced. To begin with, the “likely to become a public charge” clause posed a kind of Catch-22. The applicant had to prove he would have a means of support in the US—but foreigners were not permitted to secure employment while they still lived abroad. 

Typically, the way to satisfy this requirement was to provide an affidavit from an American citizen guaranteeing financial support until the immigrant found work. Obviously, many German Jews did not have American relatives or friends. Even for those who did, however, not just any relative would do. When New York Governor Herbert Lehman asked FDR in 1935 about the seemingly extraneous visa requirements, the president replied that guarantees offered by anyone other than a parent or child would be treated skeptically, because “a distant relative” might not feel any “legal or moral obligation toward the applicant,” as closer relatives presumably would. 

In the case of 19-year-old Hermann Kilsheimer, for instance, three relatives did not suffice. He presented the American consulate in Stuttgart with affidavits from his brother-in-law and two cousins, all gainfully employed American citizens, pledging to support him. The cousins’ affidavits were rejected on the grounds that they were not close enough relatives, and the consul decided that Hermann’s brother-in-law earned too little to both support his own family and pay for Hermann’s tuition if he chose to attend college. 

The reasoning behind other rejections of visa applications ranged from absurd to maddening. Numerous German Jewish refugee students, for example, were admitted to American universities but were prevented from entering the United States. As Raymond Geist of the US consulate in Berlin explained in turning down a student who had been accepted by Dropsie College (Philadelphia), “He is a potential refugee from Germany and hence is unable to submit proof that he will be in a position to leave the United States upon the completion of his schooling.”

Faculty members at accredited European universities who were offered positions at American universities were eligible for non-quota visas. However, when the Hebrew Union College established a college-in-exile and began inviting European Jewish scholars to its faculty, the Roosevelt administration threw up an array of roadblocks. One distinguished German Jewish scholar was disqualified on the grounds that he was primarily a librarian rather than a full-time professor. 

The State Department also accepted the Nazi regime’s downgrading of the Higher Institute for Jewish Studies, the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, from Hochshule (an institute of higher learning, or college) to Lehranstalt (a lower-level institution of learning; an academy), which made its faculty members ineligible for non-quota visas because their home institution no longer was considered to be at the level of a university.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22087