Showing posts sorted by relevance for query jewish question. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query jewish question. Sort by date Show all posts

Friday, December 20, 2019

The Jewish Question: History of a Marxist Debate By Enzo Traverso

Jay Rothermel at Marxist update - 1 week ago
Traverso's version of Marxism never rises above the level of caricature and academic kitsch. Neither Marx, Lenin, Engels, or Trotsky ever promoted the idea of linearity or inevitability in history in general or in the contemporary class struggle. They were conscious polemical opponents of such ideas; at their best, so were Kautsky, Labriola, and Plekhanov, not to mention Mandel and George Novack. Traverso, for a "man of the left," seems to be satisfied with a knowledge of Marxism obtained second-hand, not from the works of the movement's founders and leaders. To tackle subjec... more »

Reading notes on Conclusion of The Jewish Question: History of a Marxist Debate By Enzo Traverso

Jay Rothermel at Marxist update - 1 week ago
The Jewish Question: History of a Marxist Debate By Enzo Traverso Translated by Bernard Gibbons Brill, [2018] The below are my underlinings/highlightings of Traverso. My own thoughts appear, if at all, as [N.B.]. Jay Conclusion ....Classical Marxism was incapable of comprehending the nature of anti-Semitism, or of recognising the Jewish aspiration to a distinct separate identity. Actually, it shared this misconception with all intellectual and political currents that belonged to the tradition of Enlightenment, from democratic liberalism to Zionism. ....The movement founded... more »

Reading notes on Chapter 10 of The Jewish Question: History of a Marxist Debate By Enzo Traverso

Jay Rothermel at Marxist update - 1 week ago
The Jewish Question: History of a Marxist Debate By Enzo Traverso Translated by Bernard Gibbons Brill, [2018] The below are my underlinings/highlightings of Traverso. My own thoughts appear, if at all, as [N.B.]. Jay Chapter 10: Post-war Marxism and the Holocaust ....lack of a Marxist debate on the causes, forms and consequences of the destruction of the European Jews ....During the 1940s and 1950s Marxism became an essential component of anti-fascist culture, in which the Jewish tragedy was reduced to a marginal aspect of the gigantic conflict that had ravaged Eur... more »

Reading notes on Chapter 9 of The Jewish Question: History of a Marxist Debate By Enzo Traverso

Jay Rothermel at Marxist update - 1 week ago
The Jewish Question: History of a Marxist Debate By Enzo Traverso Translated by Bernard Gibbons Brill, [2018] The below are my underlinings/highlightings of Traverso. My own thoughts appear, if at all, as [N.B.]. Jay [N.B. There is no better place to understand Abram Leon's book The Jewish Question than the book itself, available in many places on the web, and for purchase here. Traverso in his chapter on Leon tries to have his cake and eat it, too on nearly every page: Leon is too dogmatic in his Marxism/he breaks from previous Kautsky dogmatism; Leon counterposes assi... more »

Reading notes on Chapter 8 of The Jewish Question: History of a Marxist Debate By Enzo Traverso

Jay Rothermel at Marxist update - 1 week ago
The Jewish Question: History of a Marxist Debate By Enzo Traverso Translated by Bernard Gibbons Brill, [2018] The below are my underlinings/highlightings of Traverso. My own thoughts appear, if at all, as [N.B.]. Jay Chapter 8: The Messianic Materialism of Walter Benjamin 3 Critique of Progress ....his acceptance of Marxism was critical and, so to speak, selective. What interested him about Marxism was its subversive and revolutionary dimension, of which there no longer remained any trace in social democracy. Educated by Bernstein and Kautsky, the latter conceived ... more »

Reading notes on Chapter 7 of The Jewish Question: History of a Marxist Debate By Enzo Traverso

Jay Rothermel at Marxist update - 1 week ago
The Jewish Question: History of a Marxist Debate By Enzo Traverso Translated by Bernard Gibbons Brill, [2018] The below are my underlinings/highlightings of Traverso. My own thoughts appear, if at all, as [N.B.]. Jay Chapter 7: From Weimar to Auschwitz: Anti-Semitism and the German Left ....Just as the German left in the nineteenth century had ignored the anti-Semitic propaganda of Richard Wagner, Heinrich von Treitschke and Hous-ton Stewart Chamberlain, under the Weimar Republic it did not pay attention to Mein Kampf. ....Nazi anti-Semitism, on the contrary, was charge... more »

Reading notes on Chapter 6 of The Jewish Question: History of a Marxist Debate By Enzo Traverso

Jay Rothermel at Marxist update - 1 week ago
The Jewish Question: History of a Marxist Debate By Enzo Traverso Translated by Bernard Gibbons Brill, [2018] The below are my underlinings/highlightings of Traverso. My own thoughts appear, if at all, as [N.B.]. Jay Chapter 6: Gramsci and the Jewish Question [Gramsci has zero to do with the continuity of revolutionary Marxism. He, like Benjamin and the Frankfurters, have been embraced by petty bourgeois radicals and academics who traded curiosity or support for independent working class political action for the companionable teat of bourgeois public opinion every time the wo... more »
SEE  https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=fascism 

SEE  https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=marxism

SEE  https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=jewish+question

Monday, January 29, 2024

Our Conventional Wisdom About the Origins of American Jewish Defense of Palestinian Rights Misses a Lot

Geoffrey Levin
Sun, January 28, 2024

On a cold and rainy November day, a 65-year-old American rabbi trudged down the muddy roads of a Palestinian refugee camp. When the rabbi and his colleagues stopped, refugees gathered around them in a scene of “disappointment, frustration, [and] despair.” Gaunt men and “children, big-eyed and thin,” walked up and clutched the rabbi’s raincoat. Several began chanting, in Arabic, “We want to go home!” Weary, broken women watched silently from their tents as rain and wind chilled their bare feet. Guilt overcame the rabbi. “In my deepest heart, I said the prayer of confession,” the rabbi wrote, referring to a prayer recited on Yom Kippur, the fast of atonement. “Anachnu Chatanu.” We have sinned.

One could imagine this scene taking place recently. Yet it was 1953 when Rabbi Morris Lazaron walked through the refugee camp—Shatila, located in Lebanon—where he witnessed firsthand the suffering of Palestinian families who had lost their homes during the war that accompanied Israel’s creation in 1948. The “illimitable misery” of the refugees, to use Lazaron’s words, had a decisive impact on the former head rabbi of the prestigious Baltimore Hebrew Congregation. After his trip, Rabbi Lazaron began calling on the Israeli government to recognize the right of Palestine’s Arab refugees to return to their prewar homes and urged the Jewish state to admit 100,000 of them into the country immediately.

Lazaron felt that the Jewish historical experience should compel all Jews to support the Palestinian refugees. As members of what he called “the tribe of the wandering feet,” Lazaron pressed fellow American Jews to remember that they, too, were once “strangers in the land of Egypt.” Jewish identity weighed heavily on the rabbi’s mind as he considered how to respond to Palestinian suffering. Yet the hidden context of the rabbi’s trip reveals that the stakes of his response extended far beyond the realm of Jewish ethics. Lazaron’s visit to Lebanon had been organized and financed by a secretly CIA-funded advocacy organization called American Friends of the Middle East, a group created to give Americans a more sympathetic picture of the Arab side of the Israeli-Arab conflict. AFME published Lazaron’s book about the trip in 1955, apparently as part of a broader public relations effort that aimed to make it easier for United States officials to pressure Israel to accept the return of 75,000 Palestinian refugees.

The CIA was far from the only government body interested in American Jewish responses to the Palestinian refugee crisis. Lazaron articulated his lament on a playing field where various governmental actors—Israeli, American, and Arab—all jockeyed to shape U.S. public opinion surrounding the Palestinian refugee question. Just as AFME was organizing Lazaron’s trip, Israeli diplomats were quietly working to undermine both the Jewish newspaper that Lazaron wrote for and the anti-Zionist Jewish group he represented, the American Council for Judaism, which in turn had begun fostering warm ties with Arab officials. The American Jewish debate over Palestinian rights involved a struggle over Jewish identity, as Lazaron’s words reflect. But as his broader story shows, the debate also is, and always has been, part of a high-stakes political struggle between government officials and others over the future of Israel, the fate of the Palestinians, and the orientation of American foreign policy toward the Middle East.

There is a narrative about the trajectory of the American Jewish relationship with Israel that pervades all corners of the organized Jewish community today. “For millions of secular-minded American Jews, Israel was the glue. Israel was the cause,” declared conservative commentator Bret Stephens at the American Jewish Committee’s 2022 Global Forum. “Zionism was an effective and powerful and emotionally satisfying substitute for religious observance,” he continued, bemoaning that in contrast, “at the height of last year’s war [the 2021 Gaza crisis], so many young American Jews were eagerly signing letters denouncing Israeli behavior.”

While young American Jewish letter-signers may not appreciate Stephens’ tone, they probably would not dispute the gist of his historical observation, which is considered common knowledge both in Jewish political commentary and in scholarly works. For decades, American Jews had rallied around the Jewish state, with Israel uniting American Jewry in a way that nothing else could, including religion. But then at some point, according to this telling, young left-wing Jews began criticizing Israel over its policies toward the Palestinians, breaking with past generations to shatter this once-sacred consensus and imperil any semblance of Jewish unity.

Despite its ubiquity, this narrative is flawed in its basic assumptions. Ever since an estimated 750,000 Palestinians lost their homes amidst Israel’s birth in 1948, there have been American Jews deeply unsettled by Israeli policies toward both the Palestinian refugees and Arabs living under Israeli rule. These critics of old consisted not only of a few stray rabbis like Morris Lazaron, but in fact extended well into the American Jewish establishment—including leaders and staff members of the AJC. The collective amnesia with regard to this history has been complete: None of the over 1,000 AJC members in Stephens’ audience likely had any idea that in 1957 their organization’s president confronted Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, urging him to liberalize Israel’s policies toward its Arab citizens. The audience would not have known that at an AJC gala 66 years before their own, the Jewish advocacy organization announced a plan to aid Palestinian refugees that it ultimately shelved in response to Israeli pressure. And unless they had sifted through faded yellow papers in their archives, they could not have known that the first Middle East expert on the AJC’s staff, Don Peretz, lost his job because Israeli diplomats did not like his research on the Palestinian refugee issue.

Stephens and his audience cannot be faulted for being unaware of these past events because they are, more or less, unknown. Histories of American Jewish life make almost no mention of any communal concern for the Palestinians in the years after Israel’s creation, implying that it emerged, at the earliest, in the 1970s. Even studies of Jewish anti-Zionism and non-Zionism during Israel’s early years have tended to neglect the Palestinian question, focusing instead on debates over the role of nationalism in Jewish identity.

The fact that this historical undercurrent is so unknown is, to some extent, the result of concerted campaigns. From the beginning, Israeli diplomats watched American Jewish interest in Palestinian rights issues with deep suspicion. Declassified Israeli foreign ministry files reveal that some of Israel’s most celebrated diplomats secretly plotted to undermine American Jews who wrote about the sensitive question of Palestinian refugees, often succeeding in getting them removed from positions of influence. These diplomats persuaded reluctant employers to drop “troublesome” employees whom they had once trusted, quietly sidelining various American Jewish efforts to highlight or resolve Palestinian rights issues in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

These findings call for a rethinking of the very nature of the early Israel-American Jewish relationship. So much written about this era focuses on the emotional affinities that American Jews held for Israel, but far less has been written on Israel’s views of American Jewry. Rather than acting from a place of emotional connection and intracommunal kinship, Israeli officials acted in pragmatic ways toward the American Jewish community in the context of a wider public relations battle that raged between them and pro-Arab voices, which included Arab diplomats and some in the U.S. government. Israel during its early years was in a precarious place as it faced an economic crisis, high security costs, and the expense of resettling hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants. To meet these budgetary needs, the Israeli government turned to American Jews, who between 1948 and 1956 sent Israel more than $700 million in charitable donations and over $270 million in cash from bond sales, a combined sum that would total over $10 billion in 2022 dollars. American supporters of Israel, including Jews, also lobbied elected officials on diplomatic issues and successfully urged the government to send economic aid to Israel, which totaled $450 million (around $5 billion today) in combined loans and grants during that same eight-year stretch. Since the young country was reliant on American Jewish support in so many ways, perhaps it should be expected that its officials acted to ensure that the question of Palestinian rights did not weaken American Jewry’s commitment to Israel, harm Israel’s public image, and damage the U.S.–Israel relationship more broadly. Israel was, in short, acting as any state might, given the circumstances.

To a certain extent, my new book shows that Israeli leaders instrumentalized American Jewish organizations, which highlights the power of the young state and the political savvy of its diplomats. But to focus only on that would be an oversimplification. American Jewish organizations first had to yield some of their autonomy to the Jewish state. Doing so involved American Jews beginning to conceptualize their interests and ideals not as distinct from those of Israel but as identical to them—a process that blurred crucial differences between the community and the state. This required that these organizations turn away from a distinctive American Jewish identity as a historically dispossessed minority that has thrived in a liberal secular state and instead adopt the values of Israel, a country premised on meeting the needs of an ethno-national majority. To frame the question underlying this shift in biblical terms, as Lazaron might have: Is the core of Jewish identity remembering that “we were once strangers in the land of Egypt”? Or is it all about maintaining a restored Kingdom of David?

American Jews of the 1940s, 1950s, and beyond often had remarkably deep conversations about the meaning of Israel’s power over Palestinians. In recovering this history, Our Palestine Question serves not so much as a starting point for discussion as a medium that will inform conversations that are already taking place today and engage them with lost voices from the past. From there, one can see how the path to the present involved not fate but crucial decisions made over the course of decades that have shaped the politics of today surrounding Israel, the Palestinians, and the nature of transnational Jewish politics.

This history sheds light on political dynamics that at times feel very distant from those of the present. The American Jewish establishment did not always view anti-Zionism as inherently antisemitic. Some Jewish community leaders considered themselves “non-Zionist” until years after Israel’s founding. American Jewish institutions that had been established long before 1948 took time to accommodate themselves to the reality of Jewish statehood, a process that involved countless discussions about what Jewish sovereignty overseas meant for Jewish citizens of the United States. Jews had been a perpetual minority, so many American Jewish institutions had mobilized around liberal and left-leaning ideologies designed to protect minority groups and those seeking refuge. Suddenly, after 1948, there was a Jewish state that not only ruled over a non-Jewish minority group but also denied the right of refugees to return to their homes on the basis of their ethnicity and religion. Israel’s birth created a sense of cognitive dissonance for these American Jewish organizations as they attempted to come to terms with Israel’s power over the Palestinians without abandoning the ideologies that they regularly used to protect the rights of Jews outside the Jewish state.

More than 75 years later, American Jews are grappling with new aspects of these same crises, an internal struggle that the bloody Israel-Hamas war in Gaza has made all that more urgent. These dilemmas will not be resolved easily, but perhaps the only way to start working through them is by reflecting on their long, forgotten history.

Excerpt adapted from the introduction of Our Palestine Question: Israel and American Jewish Dissent, 1948–1978, by Geoffrey Levin, published by Yale University Press, ©2023 by Geoffrey Levin. Refer to book for footnotes. All Rights Reserved.

Thursday, December 30, 2021

Can Vampires Be Jewish?
A quick and cursory look at an age-old hypothetical.


Anastasia Fein, Tzion Baruch and Amos Tamam in “Juda” (Promotional still: Hulu)

JUNE 1, 2021
GetJewishBoston 

I’m a big fan of hypothetical questions that spark debate within the Jewish community, and with the concept of vampires constantly floating (or hovering) in the back of my mind, I’ve found myself diving into the question of whether or not a creature of the night can be Jewish.

This topic has been debated hotly by generations of Jews, and its implications are explored in the Israeli television show “Juda,” where religion and vampirism meet. The consensus, as far as I can tell, is that due to their thirst for blood (human or otherwise), a vampire could not keep kosher. A counter argument to this is that a vampire would need to drink blood to stay alive, but then the question arises: Is a vampire life really a life? Can a vampire have a soul? And so forth.

Of course, the antisemitic implications of a Jewish vampire usually stop this debate (un)dead in its tracks. An incredibly flimsy but prolific excuse for violence toward Jewish people is accusations of blood libel, where Jews were accused of drinking the blood of Christian children. To what end? Your guess is as good as mine, since I’d personally prefer some water or a nice iced coffee. But the point still stands: to represent a Jewish person in media as a vampire carries some pretty weighty implications.

Related

“Juda” Is a Sharp, Enjoyably Weird Vampire Tale From the Holy Land

Miriam AnzovinIn “Juda,” making a Jewish person a vampire is considered a huge faux pas, not because of the guilt saddling someone with that kind of raw deal may instill, but because Jewish vampires become super powerful. I like to imagine, however, that if vampires were real, they would instill a moratorium on turning Jewish people because, truly, have we not suffered enough? This also brings into question the act of turning and whether it is voluntary. For argument’s sake, I’ll operate under loose “Interview with the Vampire” rules, which can also be found in what I believe is the best piece of modern vampire media: “What We Do in the Shadows” (both the film and the TV series, created by Jewish luminary Taika Waititi). In both depictions, turning someone into a vampire is voluntary, so a vampire choosing to turn a Jewish victim would be a major party foul, especially without their consent.

Now that we have our unfortunate Jewish vampire, the question remains: Could she continue to practice Judaism? Vampires cannot cross onto holy ground, though this often refers to Christian-specific ground, so entering a synagogue would be a bit difficult. In “Interview with the Vampire,” Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise are both able to say “God,” so praying privately may be an option. Vampires also can’t cross running water, and immersion in a mikvah relies heavily on living water. If our hypothetical vampire was Jewish before her turning, she may find many vital Jewish practices difficult due to her new rules.

On a more somber note, I’m also interested in how a Jewish vampire would mourn. Would she say Kaddish for herself or mark her own yahrzeit? What about for other vampires or Jewish people in her life? I’m inclined to lean toward a modified version, since a Jewish person is still Jewish even in death. These are all, of course, very silly questions, but questions are the backbone of faith. Though I can’t definitively say whether a vampire could be Jewish, the not-knowing is part of the fun, and fuel for many conversations among many, many Jews.

Arts & Culture

Corinne Engber is an Ohio native and recently completed her MA in publishing and writing at Emerson College.

Wednesday, December 23, 2020

 

In ‘Can Robots Be Jewish?’ rabbis weigh in on a Jewish pastime: disagreement

The questions in this collection, part of Moment Magazine’s long-running feature ‘Ask the Rabbis,’ offer a model for what is fundamental to Judaism.

(RNS) — It is an axiom of Jewish life that Jews love to disagree.

There’s the famous Jewish joke about a shipwrecked Jewish sailor on a desert island who builds two synagogues — the one where he prays and the one he won’t set foot in.

Or take Hanukkah, the eight-day holiday, which ends Friday (Dec. 18). Some Jews view it as theologically breezy, a “holiday of lights,” full of spinning dreidels and jelly doughnuts. Others view it more seriously, as a ponderous morality tale about the triumph of religious fundamentalism over assimilation.

Just in time for the holiday, a new book now showcases this range of Jewish disagreement on a variety of contemporary issues.

Can Robots Be Jewish And Other Pressing Questions of Modern Life” is a collection of 30 provocative questions, each answered in 200 words or less by 10 different rabbis from different quarters of the Jewish world.

The book is a compendium of some of the previously published “Ask the Rabbis” columns that have appeared in the pages of the Jewish magazine Moment. The magazine, which bills itself as a Jewish take on news, ideas and culture, has been around since the 1970s and continues to publish six print issues a year in addition to its newer web presence.

The “Ask the Rabbis” column, begun in 2005, continues to be one of its popular features.

The questions in the new compendium include: Should we edit our children’s genes? What does the Torah teach us about addiction? What guidance, if any, does Judaism offer transgender people? Is democracy a Jewish idea?

“Can Robots Be Jewish? And Other Pressing Questions of Modern Life” Courtesy image

“As I was editing this collection I realized it was a model of civil disagreement for our time,” said Amy E. Schwartz, Moment Magazine’s book and opinion editor who edited the volume. “There’s more and more distance between views and less and less willingness to argue in an open-hearted way. We like to model that that is fundamental to Judaism. It’s a great value and it’s still possible. “

In the title question, “Can robots be Jewish?” several rabbis begin by delving into Jewish arcana. They point out that the predecessor to the modern robot was created by the 16th-century Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague to protect the Jewish community from blood libels. It was called a golem — a clay creature magically brought to life and later destroyed. One rabbi even posits the golem was the inspiration for Mary Shelley’s novel, “Frankenstein.”

But mostly the rabbis — Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Humanist and others — argue about whether robots have souls. A Reconstructionist rabbi argues if the definition of a Jewish soul is someone who is loved and cared for by other Jews, then yes, robots attended to by Jews, may be called Jewish. Other rabbis disagree.

For the past 15 years, Schwartz said, the editorial team formulated the questions in staff meetings and then sent them off to a group of rabbis. A successful question, she said, is one that yields a variety of answers — or disagreements.

“I like to make the rabbis work a little bit,” she said.

Since many of the questions address modern-day issues, one might conclude the Hebrew Bible and subsequent rabbinic commentaries never considered some of the questions in this volume. Yet in many instances the contributing rabbis, steeped in Jewish texts, demonstrate that the ancient sages actually addressed some of them.

Take the question “What guidance, if any, does Judaism offer to transgender people?” Turns out, the Talmud, the extensive written body of interpretation and commentary by ancient rabbis, addressed “androgynos,” people who are both male and female, as well as those whose genitalia are indeterminate. They even allowed people could transition from one sex to the other.

Rabbi Haim Ovadia writes: “Religious leaders should rise to the task and find ways to welcome transgender or nonconforming people, and perhaps the first step will be to let them define themselves.”

And while the ancient Jewish texts preceded modern-day addiction treatment and recovery programs, the rabbis answering the question “What does the Torah teach us about addiction?” reach back to a host of biblical stories that can offer some lessons, including the story of the golden calf in the Book of Exodus, as well as Noah’s drunkenness in the Book of Genesis.

Conservative Rabbi Amy Wallk Katz writes that the entire Book of Exodus and the Israelite path from slavery to freedom can be viewed as a journey from addiction to recovery.

Reading through all the responses to particular questions won’t give anyone a definitive answer. But then, Judaism is not a top-down religion and there is no ultimate authority.

“If you read all 10 rabbis’ (responses) you come away with a starter-set of what the big arguments have been,” said Schwartz. “It’s a great way to get a casual familiarity with the tradition. You come away with entry-level literacy.”

For those curious about a particular issue, the volume offers “a way in.”

“Sometimes,” she said, “you need an entry book.”

Wednesday, March 06, 2024

How Israel Quietly Crushed Early American Jewish Dissent on Palestine

“Our Palestine Question,” an explosive new book by Geoffrey Levin, delves into American Jewish McCarthyism from the 1950s through late 1970s.
March 4, 2024
Source: The Intercept


At the State House, activists from the Providence community and the University gave speeches, decried Palestinian oppression, denounced Israel for its continued use of force and criticized the U.S. federal government for its financial support of the Israeli Defense Force. Media by Ashley Cai


The Israeli government covertly meddled into American Jewish politics from the 1950s to 1970s, and they did so to quash Jewish criticisms of the 1948 Nakba — the mass dispossession and expulsions of Palestinians during Israel’s founding — and Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. Israeli diplomats who oversaw the furtive campaign were at one point assisted by Wolf Blitzer — today the host of CNN’s primetime show “The Situation Room.”

These are some of the findings of “Our Palestine Question,” an explosive new book by Emory University scholar Geoffrey Levin that offers historical perspective on today’s crisis in Gaza, especially as it plays out today among American Jews.

Since the murderous October 7 attacks by Hamas against Israel, and Israel’s overwhelming retaliatory attacks against Palestinian civilians in Gaza, American Jews have organized dramatic protests. They have demanded everything from a ceasefire and to an end to U.S. military funding for Israel.

This diverse group of American Jews opposed to Israeli policy, and, at times, Israel itself, is drawing on a history of activism in the U.S. that has long since faded into obscurity — and they are bringing it from history into the present day.

Many of these activists explicitly cite earlier political movements as their inspiration. One was the socialist, anti-Zionist General Jewish Labor Bund, founded over a century ago in Eastern Europe, but which had been defunct for generations. The others are a post-1980 agglomeration of U.S. groups including the now-defunct New Jewish Agenda and liberal J Street, which is still around and lobbying politicians, albeit with fewer resources than the Zionist right. These smaller groups were formed after avowed Zionists and anti-Zionists stopped talking to each other, except to scream.

What few activists remark upon, however, is a time within living memory, in the 1950s, when the biggest Jewish organization in the U.S. — the American Jewish Committee, or AJC — was publicly critiquing the Nakba and pushing Israel to afford full civil and human rights to Palestinians. Less noted and lesser known is how this remarkable status quo was erased: From the 1950s to the late 1970s, Israel orchestrated the back-channel attacks on influential individuals and groups, including the AJC, who were pushing for Palestinian rights.

“Our Palestinian Question” pries the lid from this suppressed tale.


American Jewish McCarthyism

Levin picked up the scent of this hidden history a few years ago. He was a Hebrew and Judaic Studies doctoral student then, sifting through Jewish history special collections in Manhattan as well as the Israel State Archives in Jerusalem, when he dug up evidence of the sub rosa American Jewish McCarthyism. He was the first researcher to discover how the Israeli government, through its diplomats and a spy in the United States, pressured American Jewish institutions to ghost a prominent journalist, fire a brilliant researcher, and discredit an organization of Jews who were critiquing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and trying to open channels for discussion with Arabs.

Take the case of journalist William Zukerman. A respected Yiddish- and English-language writer in the 1930s and 1940s, with clips in Harpers and the New York Times, Zukerman started his own biweekly, the Jewish Newsletter, in 1948. It was highly critical of Jewish nationalism and its destructive effects in the new state of Israel and beyond.

In one story, Zukerman reported about a Holocaust survivor who had recently resettled in Israel, in the former home of an Arab family. The survivor became “openly obsessed” about her morality, Zukerman wrote, after her children found some of the evicted family’s possessions. “The mother was suddenly struck by the thought that her children were playing with the toys of Arab children who were now exiled and homeless,” Zukerman continued. “Is she not doing to the Arabs what the Nazis did to her and her family?”

By the early 1950s, the Jewish Newsletter had a few thousand subscribers, and its work was republished in many other outlets, Jewish and non-Jewish, with much larger circulations — Time magazine, for instance. Not all of Zukerman’s readers, however, opposed Zionism. Each of the hundreds of chapters of the Jewish student organization Hillel had a subscription to the Jewish Newsletter.

According to declassified Israeli Foreign Ministry files found by Levin, the Israeli government was alarmed by Zukerman’s influence on American Jews. It started a campaign to keep him from “confusing” Zionists about Israel and Palestinian rights. Israel aimed a letter-writing campaign at the New York Herald Post to discourage the paper from running more of Zukerman’s work, and hatched a scheme to distribute boilerplate text for Zionists to mail to other editors, asking them not to publish Zukerman anymore. The head of Israel’s Office of Information in New York worked to have the prestigious London-based Jewish Chronicle get rid of Zukerman’s column, and he lost the position. By 1953, his work no longer appeared in the Jewish press.

And there was Don Peretz, an American Jew with generationslong ancestral roots in the Middle East and Palestine. As a young man in the early 1950s, he’d written the first doctoral dissertation about the post-Nakba Palestinian refugee crisis. The study was considered so authoritative that it was published as a book that, for years, was used as a college text. Peretz’s work earned him attention from the AJC. Founded at the turn of the 20th century, the organization had spent decades advocating first for civil and human rights for American Jews and, later, for oppressed groups worldwide. Concerned about the plight of Palestinians and worried that their mistreatment by Israel would increase American antisemitism, the AJC in 1956 hired Peretz as a researcher.

Don Peretz, second from left, in Palestine in February 1949 with fellow volunteers for the Quaker group the American Friends Service Committee. The group was distributing aid to those displaced during the Nakba, the forced expulsion and dispossession of Palestinians during Israel’s founding. Photo: Courtesy of Deb Peretz

Peretz had extensive, friendly contacts with Palestinians. He began writing informational pamphlets and reports. In one, which an AJC leader personally gave to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, Peretz suggested that Israel might repatriate Palestinians expelled during the Nakba. After Israeli officials read the pamphlet, they asked a worker at AJC to send them on-the-sly intelligence about the author, with the aim of getting him fired. Then Israel asked the AJC to submit all Peretz’s Middle East-related work to the Israeli Embassy in Washington or the Consul General in New York, for pre-publication review. The AJC complied. When Peretz wrote a new book about Israel and Palestine, the Israelis strongly disapproved of it, communicating their displeasure to the AJC. The group demoted Peretz to half-time work. He quit.

It’s probably no coincidence that Peretz’s departure occurred in 1958, the year the novel “Exodus” debuted. It quickly became a blockbuster and, later, a movie starring blonde, blue-eyed Paul Newman as a steely, pre-independence Israeli paramilitary warrior. It seemed by then that Americans, Jewish or not, were loving Israeli Zionism more and caring about Palestinians less.

Meanwhile, diaspora Jews were triumphantly assimilating into mainstream America. Their acceptance came with problems. With weakening ties to traditional religious practice, increasing intermarriage, and mass suburbanization, they grappled with an identity crisis and sought new touchstones. One was communal enactment of Holocaust remembrance. Another was the celebration of Israel — no matter what.

It was a cultural coup for pro-Israel advocates — American Jews were coming around en masse — informed by societal changes in the diaspora, but also with organized elements, much of it orchestrated by Israel, that catalyzed and enforced the shifts. Over the next decade, the trend would only increase, as Israel’s unlikely victory against its Arab neighbors in the 1967 Arab Israeli war reinforced themes of both admirable, scrappy Israel, and a nation badly in need of support from fellow Jews across the world. In the U.S., American Jews increasingly answered the call.

Against Two States


Even as the ubiquity of American Jewish support for Israel grew, Israel and its advocates began to push back not just on anti-Zionism, but even what would become widely known in the U.S. as liberal Zionism. It was in this capacity that Blitzer, the CNN host, became involved in the sorts of efforts Levin covers in “Our Palestine Question.”

Levin discusses an incident from late 1976 where Blitzer, still a young reporter, and Israeli government sources worked together to kneecap an American Jewish peace group called Breira: A Project of Concern in Diaspora-Israel Relations. Breira means “alternative” in Hebrew. The group had first organized in 1973 to protest the hard-line Jewish organizational positions that emerged after the recent 1973 Arab–Israeli War.

Pro-Israel advocates in the U.S. were taking on more right-wing visions of Zionism and reacted to the war by embracing the ideas that Zionist settlements in the occupied territories and ostracization of the Palestine Liberation Organization were essential to Israel’s survival. Instead, Breira wanted to provide the “alternative” and called for Israel to recognize Palestinians’ desire for nationhood; it was the first American Jewish group to advocate for a two-state solution. The New York Times editorialized in early 1976 that Breira was overcoming “the misapprehension of many Jewish Americans that criticism of Israeli policies would be seen as a rejection of Israel.”

Then Israel pushed back.

In November 1976, a handful of people who worked at several American Jewish organizations met secretly and as private individuals with moderate representatives of the PLO. Attendees were affiliated with the American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith, the National Council of Jewish Women, and Breira. They would later insist that they had no wish to engage in diplomacy with the PLO, only informal dialogue to discuss peacemaking. One meeting took place in New York City; the other was in Washington. Afterward, some attendees wrote reports and sent copies for informational purposes to Israeli diplomats they knew personally. They trusted that the diplomats would not publicize the meetings.

At the time when the meetings occurred, Blitzer worked as Washington correspondent for the Jerusalem Post. His beat was reporting on how Middle East affairs played out in America, especially regarding Israel. The Jerusalem Post, however, was not his only employer. Blitzer also worked for two publications that, in effect, were the house organs of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.

Days after the Washington meeting, Blitzer wrote a hit job about the Washington meeting for the Jerusalem Post and named the American Jewish attendees. Based on details in his coverage and press that followed, attendees said it was clear that Blitzer had received a confidential report leaked by Israel. His piece quoted unnamed “Israeli officials” and an unnamed diplomat expressing “concern” about the meeting as part of novel “PLO propaganda tactics” with the aim of “the destruction of Israel.”

A firestorm ensued among American Jewish groups. All the organizations whose members had attended as individuals denounced the meetings — all, that is, except for Breira. Its continued defense of the gatherings prompted AIPAC to excoriate the group as “anti-Israel,” “pro-PLO,” and “self-hating Jews.” Virtually no influential Jewish organizations publicly countered these denouncements. Breira’s national convention in 1977 was disrupted and vandalized by intruders who left leaflets supporting the vigilante far-right Jewish Defense League. The group lost membership, and internal conflict led its major donor to withdraw funding. By 1978, Breira had sputtered out. Thanks to an AIPAC-linked journalist and Israeli officials, another vein of American Jewish dissent about Israeli policies had been stripped.

Though Levin’s book was already in press months before the October 7 attacks, the mothballed history it airs has become since especially apt. If the Jewish community decades ago had known about Israel’s meddling, “you could have had a broader conversation,” he speculates, “which maybe would have led to less discomfort discussing difficult issues now.”

Levin added that “a lot of really bright people were pushed out of the mainstream American Jewish establishment” for discussing issues that have today been furiously rekindled. Would Jewish America’s Palestine question have stronger answers now if not for Israel’s underhanded attempts, years ago, to silence its U.S. diaspora critics? “You have to wonder,” Levin said, “what the American Jewish community would have looked like if it had welcomed some of these voices.”

Sunday, December 15, 2024

TROTSKY ON ANTI-SEMITISM NEW TRANSLATIONS

Yuch-Bunar

Yuch-Bunar
Leon Trotsky
A new translation by Stan Crooke of an article by Trotsky on anti-semitism, from 1913

 12 December, 2024 - 
 Author: Leon Trotsky


Pic from Sofia Globe

“Luch”, number 77 (163), 2 April, 1913. 

Click here for other previously untranslated articles by Trotsky on antisemitism.

This is not a theatre of military activities. Nor is it an occupied province. There is therefore no need to look for this name on a General Staff map. Yuch Bunar is part of Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria.

We walk along the long Pirotsky Street. We turn into Dragoman Boulevard. From there into Saint Clementina Street. On the left is the magnificent Mount Vitosha, already covered by snow, but set against a background of fully springtime clouds. A few steps further on, we reach Paisius Street, named after one of the pioneers of the Bulgarian national revival, a monk-chronicler who rebuked Bulgarians for being ashamed to call themselves Bulgarian. Since that time much snow has melted on Vitosha, and now the spiritual heirs of Paisius violently convert to Bulgarianism those who do not want to do so ….

Paisius Street marks the beginning of a continuous empire of poverty. And as if to demonstrate that poverty does not engage in national favouritism, fate has dumped in Yuch-Bunar Jewish, Gypsy and Bulgarian poverty, as if swept together here by some great broom.

The centre of Sofia – from the station to the palace and parliament – is a thoroughly European city. Excellent and clean pavements, tall buildings, electricity, trams, promenades, elegant clothing, and women’s hats in greater numbers than in Paris. But this clean and fashionable, this thoroughly “European” Sofia has its horrifying, arch-Asiatic Yuch-Bunar. History has given too little time to the countries of the Near East, as too to the countries of the Far East and even to Russia to a significant degree, for them to be able to make a gradual transition from barbarism to capitalist civilisation. History obliged them to build railways and manufacture aeroplanes for their armies – before they had built highways. History adorned the heads of their possessing classes with shiny top hats – before those heads had been penetrated by European concepts. And, finally, History illuminated city centres with magnificent incandescent streetlights – before it had drained the repulsive pools, foul-smelling concentrations of disease, to be found on their outskirts.

Let us carefully walk along this street, through its pools and decomposing refuse – we are in Yuch-Bunar, its Jewish part. People have already noticed us and assume that we are bringing immediate assistance with us. Figures who seem to be an embodiment of poverty, horror and human indignity crawl out from doorways which resemble holes. With a mixture of fear and hope, they wretchedly gaze into our eyes. Elderly hunchbacked Jews in filthy rags which seem to have merged into their bodies, wearing large glasses which have turned green and sit askew their nose. Adolescents with bloodless gums and a sinister blueness around their eyes automatically hold out their hands for alms – hands which sometimes have clearly never known soap. And the women of Yuch-Bunar – beasts of burden of poverty, with large stomachs and misshapen legs, surrounded by bow-legged and scrofulous children with festering eyelids. Pushing each other aside, wearing wooden shoes which slip off their dirty heels, they mutter something pathetic to our guide in Spanish.

We long ago left houses behind us. What surrounds us here are not houses but mudhuts, with a single square window of a single “room”, accessed straight from the street, devoid of an entrance hall or even a threshold.

All this has been built of clay and mud, by the occupants’ own hands, on a stretch of ground which has been illegally seized from the city. Scarcely acquainted with sacred Roman law, the paupers of Yuch-Bunar arbitrarily decided that they too were entitled to a place for themselves, however small, on earth, known as our mother in epic poetry. On more than one occasion the city administration of Sofia has attempted to eliminate this naïve belief with the assistance of the hoses of the fire brigade. Just last year, Sofia firefighters diligently destroyed these pathetic mudhuts, illegally erected on municipal ground. The method they used was the same as that employed in the steppes of Novorossiya in order to eliminate ground squirrels, by flushing them out of their lairs with water. But to no avail: The incorrigible inhabitants of Yuch-Bunar did not allow themselves to be torn from the surface of the earth in this manner. And then came the war, and everyone was driven into the field of battle: the insolent “usurpers” and also the firefighters.

Let us have a look at one of the Yuch-Bunar habitats – located in this street, which carries the proud name “Slivnits Boulevard” but which in fact consists of a long row of puddles, bordered on each side by mudhuts. It consists of a single room with an iron stove – five arshins in length, and about four arshins in width. Eleven souls live here: an old man with a limp, an old woman, three daughters, a son, the wife of the son, and four small children. The earth floor is covered with rags for sleeping. In one corner there are some boards across two boxes which are also covered with rags. The window is a square arshin in size. Overhead is a mud ceiling. They are all like this, these dwellings – one just as much as the other. Taken together, they constitute Yuch-Bunar.

“But when will they be distributing a payment again?” the women ask our guide, comrade Yavo Leviev, a member of the Sofia City Council, elected in the main by the votes of the Jewish makhla (district) of Yuch-Bunar. They are referring to the city commission which has been given the task of distributing subsidies amounting to half a million francs (less than 200,000 roubles) among the poor of Sofia over a period of six months. Yako Leviev is one of the most active members of this commission.

“When will they distribute a payment again? … We cannot wait any longer?”

“There are five children in my family, and a husband in the war ….”

“There are nine people in my family, and a husband near Edirne (Adrianople).”

“They do not give us anything because my husband is not in the army. But do I actually ever see my husband? Do I actually know where he is? I have two children suffering from scarlet fever.”

“We’ll all meet up and go to the kmetstvo (city administration)!”

“No, we’ll all go with our children to the Empress herself and tell her that there is nothing to eat for us and our children. … Let her do with us as she wishes!”

There are now 700 soldiers from the Jewish district of Yuch-Bunar in the ranks of the Bulgarian army. There, they conquer new territories for the ruling dynasty and propertied classes of Bulgaria. But here, they stand to lose four square arshins from under their feet.

But in this maelstrom of poverty and degradation, a battle of ideas is underway. It can be followed even from the signage. Here is the “Krchmarnitsa i Kafene Ziyon” (“Tavern and Coffee-House of Zion”). But there, right next to it, is the “Kafene International”, run by Chaim S. Varsano. These are the two basic principles which sharply divide the Jewish makhla: Zion and the International.

Some, drowning in the putrid pool, find comfort in the fairy tale about a future kingdom of Zion. Others have freed themselves from the spell of religious melodies and national superstitions and have transferred their hopes to the socialist International of labour.

Just here, not far away, is the dwelling of comrade Solomon Isavov. Let us take a look there at his family for a few minutes: Isakov himself is currently near Chataldzha. A single room, the appearance of which is already known to us, but in this instance very clean and decorated with pictures on the walls. In the corner hangs a large framed portrait of Karl Marx. Isakov is a pechatar (typesetter) and editor of the newspaper of his trade union. He earns 80 francs (30 roubles) a month, and is unemployed for not less than two or three months each year. Here is his elderly mother, here is a young woman with a pleasant and lively face, his wife, and here is his nine-month-old child in a cradle on the ground. The child is called Karl – in honour of the person with the lion’s mane whose portrait hangs in the corner.

We are again out in the street. Here is the Yuch-Bunar club of social-democratic organisation. But not very far away a small and unsightly Jewish synagogue can be seen, a spiritual refuge for the brooding dreamers who long for Zion.

A small river – the Vladaika – separates Yuch-Bunar (in Turkish: three wells) itself from Dort-Bunar (“four wells”). There, in the main live Gypsies, but Jews as well.

When the Vladaika, which currently resembles a puddle, is swollen by rainfalls, it spills over and carries away the small rotting wooden bridges. Dort-Bunar is cut off from the town and is deprived of bread for several days. But even in normal times there is no abundance of foodstuffs. The gypsy mudhuts look a lot better and more spacious than the Jewish ones – probably because the Gypsies did not have to build by stealth: the city authorities forcefully resettled them from the central district, where they had been crammed into city squares, and gave them a free space on the outskirts. But, in general, Dort-Bunar is the blood brother of Yuch-Bunar. The same puddles, the same refuse of humans and animals, the same rotting piles in front of doors and garlands of paprika (red peppers) above windows. A legless Gypsy crawls on his hands through the dirt to meet us. Gypsy children hold out their hands and cry out “leb” (bread). On a clothesline, stretched between a toilet and a dwelling which scarcely differs from it, dirty linen made up of individual patches is hanging out to dry. Here is the “hairdresser”: in an empty and dark cubicle there is a single “armchair”, and scissors and a crude comb on a box. Next door is the “grocery store na drebno” and then “cigarettes na drebno”. In Bunar nothing is sold or bought wholesale – everything is “na drebno” (retail).

Coachmen, carters and Macedonians live in the Bulgarian part of Bunar – this is something halfway between a nation, a party and a profession. They are disliked – because of their coarseness and parasitism. This part of Bunar is called the stable, because of the coachmen’s horses – which, right now, by the way, cannot be seen. The horses, the carriages and the coachmen are all at the disposal of the requisition commission for war needs. Women and children have remained at home. Bunar serves the fatherland: the fathers spill blood, the children are bloated with hunger ….

Sitting in the carriage of a tram – in which the duties of a conductor are carried out by grammar school pupils (the conductors are in the army) – we cast an eye over Bunar. The eye comes across a shelter for “illegitimate” children, at the entrance to which stand two small “illegitimate” children, and a crowd of Macedonians wearing wide belts and lambswool hats with green tops. The eye pauses for a moment on the school building where reserve soldiers have now taken the place of school students, and alights upon a new monumental building, a majestic castle which rises imperiously above all three Bunars – the Jewish, Gypsy and Bulgarian – like a solemn embodiment of social justice and humanity – the Sofia prison!

“Luch”, number 77 (163),
2nd April, 1913.

Letters to Lazar Kling, from 1932

Letters to Lazar Kling, from 1932 
Leon Trotsky
A new translation, by Stan Crooke, of letters from Leon Trotsky to American journalist Lazar Kling about Jewish questions and antisemitism, from 1932


WOKERS LIBERTY
 12 December, 2024 - 
 Author: Leon Trotsky


Book cover image from Yiddish Book Center

Click here for other previously untranslated texts by Trotsky on antisemitism.

9 February 1932

Dear Comrade Kling!

Thank you for the books which you sent, one of which I am returning to you as I have a second copy.

It is very difficult for me to judge from here whether the League is devoting sufficient attention to work among not-“pure-American” workers, including Jews as well. Everything depends on the forces and resources available, and on their correct distribution. Looking at this from the sidelines and from afar, it is difficult to form an opinion about this.

The significance of foreign workers for the American revolution will be enormous. In a certain sense – decisive. There can be no dispute that, no matter what, the opposition must penetrate into the Jewish workers’ milieu.

You ask what is my attitude to the Jewish language? It is the same as my attitude to any other language. If I really did use the word “jargon” in my Autobiography, this was because in the years of my youth the Jewish language was not called “Yiddish”, as is the case now, but “jargon”. This was the expression used by Jews themselves, at least in Odesa, and there was certainly nothing demeaning about this word. The word “Yiddish” entered general usage, including, for example, in France, only in the past fifteen to twenty years.

You say that I am called an “assimilationist”. I really do not know what this word can mean. Of course, I am an opponent of Zionism and of all other forms of the self-isolation of Jewish workers. I appeal to Jewish workers in France to acquaint themselves as best as possible with the conditions of French life and of the French working class because, without that, it is difficult for them to participate in the workers’ movement of the country in which they are subject to exploitation. Given that the Jewish proletariat is scattered across different countries, it must strive to master the languages of other countries, in addition to the Jewish language, as tools of the class struggle. What has this got to do with “assimilationism”?

My attitude to proletarian culture is explained in my book “Literature and Revolution”. To counterpose proletarian culture to bourgeois culture is wrong, or at least not entirely correct. The bourgeois social order and, consequently, bourgeois culture as well developed in the course of many centuries. The proletarian social order is only a short-term transitional regime to socialism. In the course of this transitional regime (the dictatorship of the proletariat), the proletariat cannot create some kind of fully developed class culture. It can only prepare the elements of a socialist culture. The task of the proletariat resides in this: in the creation of a socialist culture, not a proletarian culture, on the basis of a classless society.

This, in brief, is my opinion on proletarian culture. It would not be difficult to demonstrate that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mehring, Rosa Luxemburg and others also viewed the question in this way.

Thank you again for the book. With profound comradely greetings.

L. Trotsky

23 May 1932

Dear Comrade Kling!

It turns out that I have been negligent with regard to yourself on this occasion, for which I apologise. In recent weeks a lot of work which could not be postponed has piled up, and I found myself obliged to postpone dealing with correspondence for some time.

Even so, I managed during that time to send “Unzer Kamf” a modest letter of greetings. I hope that it was received.

I have forwarded one copy of all the issues of the newspaper which have reached me to the group “Poale Zion” in Palestine. One of the members of its Central Committee, who signs off as Nathan, has started a correspondence with myself. Judging by his letters, this is a serious comrade who is gravitating towards the Left Opposition. Amongst them, there are sympathies with the Left Opposition. A good correspondent for “Unzer Kamf” can perhaps be found amongst them.

You ask whether it would be appropriate to propose in trade unions and other mass organisations motions which protest against the persecution of the Left Opposition. In my opinion, this depends on the concrete circumstances. In a reactionary union it is, of course, impossible to table such motions for voting on. But if a particular organisation is sympathetic towards the USSR, then it is entirely possible to try to win support for a resolution which pledges full support for the USSR and which demands at the same time: End the repression of the Left Opposition.

I must answer your second question – about the struggle against demoralised and unprincipled Communist Party activists – in the same terms. To build a solid campaign on this basis is, of course, impermissible, because this would create the atmosphere of a repugnant squabble, and would facilitate the use of methods of a pogromist nature by the Stalinist bureaucracy. But in those cases where the ground has been sufficiently prepared politically, it is possible to inflict an additional blow, exposing what kind of individuals stand for the defence of the “general line”. But the greatest accuracy, verification and conscientiousness are required in such blows of a personal nature. It is, of course, unacceptable in any instance to be guided by rumours and unverified information.

Thank you for the pamphlets.

With my greetings.

L. Trotsky

7 August 1932. Prinkipo.

Dear Comrade Kling!

I am very much gladdened by the news of the growth in influence of the newspaper “Unser Kamf”. Let us hope that in the near future the paper can become a weekly.

You write about the plan to publish a number of works by the Left Opposition, especially mine, in the Jewish language, in the form of brochures and books. Of course, I can only welcome this.

Comrade Nathan is not a member of the Left Opposition. He only sympathises with us and is attempting to clarify through correspondence a series of questions. I find his letters very interesting as they give me an idea of the situation in Palestine. As regards comrade Stein, he is fully a definite and active member of the Left Opposition.

As far as I can judge from comrade Nathan’s letters, the Left Opposition could achieve a significant influence in the left Poale Zion. It would be good if the American comrades were to devote the necessary efforts to this matter.

You are interested in my opinion of the organisation in New York of an international bureau of Jewish workers. It seems to me that it would be premature to begin work on this. At the present stage it suffices to energetically distribute “Under Kamf” in all countries where there are Jewish workers, to establish links, to conduct correspondence, etc. All this work will naturally become much broader and take on a more planned character when the newspaper becomes a weekly. Only on the basis of experience will it then be possible to judge how expedient the creation of a specific bureau would be.

With regard to the question about events in Palestine, I am currently only gathering materials. In particular, I am awaiting the arrival of an American, a Marxist, from Palestine. Comrade Nathan also sends me valuable materials. This provides me with the possibility of expressing myself more clearly about the movement of 1929 and to understand to what extent and in what proportions the Arab national-liberation (anti-imperialist) movement was combined with a reactionary-Islamist one and with a Jewish-pogromist one. I think that all these elements were visible.

I hope to write a book about America, but not immediately. I have been gathering materials for it for a long time.

With comradely greetings.

L. Trotsky

28 January 1934

Dear Comrade Kling

I was very pleased to learn from your letter that in the past year you have become an active worker of the American League and a member of the editorial board of “Unser Kamf”.

One of the most active representatives of our Polish Jewish organisation is currently in Paris. I have met with him once. I spoke with him in detail about the situation in Poland, and also about work among Jewish workers. In particular, I passed on to him your thoughts about a certain centralisation of the propaganda among Jewish workers. I speak of propaganda as it is of course impossible to centralise active political work in different countries. The Warsaw comrade promised to give some thought to this question and to present his suggestions to the EC. You will, of course, be informed of further developments in this matter.

As regards the Jewish question overall: less than any other question can it now be resolved through “reforms”. Now, as never before, the Jewish question has become an integral part of the world proletarian revolution.

As regards Birobidzhan: Its fate is tied to the entire eventual fate of the Soviet Union. In any case, it is not a matter here of the resolution of the Jewish question as a whole, but only an attempt to resolve it for a certain section of Jews living in the Soviet Union. As a consequence of the entire historical fate of Jews, the Jewish question is an international one. It cannot be resolved by way of “socialism in one country”. In the conditions of the current antisemitic persecutions and pogroms of the foulest and most despicable nature, Jewish workers can and must draw revolutionary pride from the consciousness that the fate of the Jewish people can be resolved only by the complete and final victory of the proletariat.

With communist greetings.

L. Trotsky