The spark that ignited this literary dust-up is an essay in the September issue of Commentary by Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, supporting freedom of worship for Jews at Judaism’s holiest site, the Temple Mount plaza.
One of America’s most prominent Reform rabbis is accusing one of America’s most prominent Orthodox rabbis of potentially provoking “a billion Muslims” to launch a jihad against Israel.
The spark that ignited this literary dust-up is an essay in the September issue of Commentary by Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, supporting freedom of worship for Jews at Judaism’s holiest site, the Temple Mount plaza. The Israeli authorities currently permit small groups of Jewish worshippers to gather in one corner of the 37-acre plateau.
Writing in Ha’aretz, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, former president of the Union for Reform Judaism, called Rabbi Soloveichik’s position “idiotic and potentially catastrophic,” because it “may lead to holy war between Jews and more than a billion Muslims.” The Al Aqsa mosque is situated in one part of the plaza, and Muslim leaders oppose Jews praying anywhere in the vicinity.
The accusation that Jews are to blame for provoking Arab violence has a long history.
The accusation that Jews are to blame for provoking Arab violence has a long history.
In 1929, for example, the American consul-general in Jerusalem, Paul Knabenshue, claimed that the Arab massacre of 67 Jews in Hebron was the result of “provocative acts” by Jews in Jerusalem, such as demonstrating for Jewish prayer rights at the Western Wall.
In her book “The Year After the Riots,“ Prof. Naomi Cohen described Knabenshue’s harsh position regarding the Wall in terms that echo some of today’s discussions about the Temple Mount: “Individual Jews only and not organized religious services should be permitted there.”
American Jewish anti-Zionists shared Knabenshue’s perspective. A headline in the Yiddish-language Communist newspaper Freiheit declared: “Zionist-Fascists Have Provoked the Arab Uprising.” Reform rabbi William Fineshriber of Philadelphia charged that the Zionist goal of a Jewish majority in Palestine was “enraging the Arabs” and “will lead to more massacres.” His colleague Rabbi Louis Wolsey claimed the “political” tone of “Zionist propaganda” provoked the Hebron pogrom.
Fear of possibly provoking Arab hostility played a significant role in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s wartime Palestine policy. In 1942, FDR rebuffed a proposal by World Zionist Organization president Chaim Weizmann to permit the Jews in Palestine to organize an army to defend against a German invasion; such a move, Roosevelt said, would antagonize Egypt. A frustrated Weizmann privately commented that Roosevelt was “trying to appease a rattlesnake.”
In 1943, President Roosevelt refused to let more than a handful of European Jewish refugees enter Allied-occupied North Africa, for fear that admitting more Jews would “stimulate the religious situation there” and “result in the death and destruction of several hundred thousand American soldiers.”
FDR even rejected a request to allow the Palestine (Jewish) Symphony Orchestra to name one of its theaters the “Roosevelt Amphitheatre,” lest that antagonize “the Arab peoples.”
The president specifically invoked the term “jihad” in 1944, when American Zionist leaders Stephen Wise and Abba Hillel Silver asked him to endorse a congressional resolution urging the British to permit the “free entry” of Jewish immigrants into Palestine. “Do you want to start a Holy Jihad?” FDR berated Wise and Silver. “If you people continue pushing this recommendation on the Hill, you are going to be responsible for the killing of a hundred thousand people”—because “enraged Arabs” might attack Americans in the Mideast in revenge.
Similar arguments were used by senior State Department and War Department officials in their attempts to persuade President Harry Truman to oppose the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Fortunately, Truman overrode them.
Similar arguments were used to persuade President Harry Truman to oppose the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Fortunately, Truman overrode them.
The task of navigating between which actions Israel or the Jewish people can take without significant risk of repercussions, and which actions would lead to a war with “a billion Muslims,” has never been a simple matter.
If fear of provoking a jihad had been the decisive factor in Zionist policymaking before 1948, the world would look very different today. Not only would Jews never have demanded prayer rights at the Western Wall, but also the State of Israel would never have come into existence.
These concerns have to be considered even when Diaspora Jewish leaders are merely staking out policy positions, since anything they write or say could wind up in the Arab news media the next day.
If fear of provoking a jihad had been the decisive factor in Zionist policymaking before 1948, the world would look very different today.
No doubt Rabbi Yoffie himself wrestled with the possible impact on Arab-Jewish relations before he spoke at a 2001 Reform conference about “the growing use of anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi language” in the Palestinian Authority’s media. He asserted that there is “a direct line” between that language and “Palestinian terror.”
Likewise, in 2018 Rabbi Yoffie denounced Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas as “ignorant” (after Abbas called Israel “a colonialist enterprise that has nothing to do with Judaism”), and Yoffie charged, later that year, that a remark by Palestinian spokesperson Hanan Ashrawi was “a damnable lie” that had “antisemitic overtones.” Was it wise to use such terminology to characterize two of the most revered leaders of the Palestinian Arabs, in view of the risk of provoking Arab animosity? Those were not easy calls for Rabbi Yoffie to make.
Perhaps even more relevant to the Yoffie-Soloveichik dispute regarding the Temple Mount is the position Rabbi Yoffie took following the relocation of the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. At the time, the Union for Reform Judaism expressed concern that the move could “undercut” peace efforts “and risk destabilizing the region.” That was not quite the same as saying it could cause “a holy war,” but it was pretty close.
Rabbi Yoffie, writing in Ha’aretz, dissented from his organization’s position. He called the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the relocation of the embassy “comforting and gratifying.”
Perhaps rabbis Yoffie and Soloveichik will yet be able to find some common ground on the Temple Mount issue. Or perhaps they will just agree to disagree. Either way, they have given the Jewish community a lot to think about, and an opportunity to reflect on how the lessons of history may be useful in grappling with today’s controversies.
Dr. Medoff is a historian and author who has written more than 20 books about Jewish history, Zionism, and the Holocaust.
Are Jews Provoking a Jihad? Debunking An Old Lie
Rafael Medoff
One of America’s most prominent Reform rabbis is accusing one of America’s most prominent Orthodox rabbis of potentially provoking “a billion Muslims” to launch a jihad against Israel.
The spark that ignited this literary dust-up is an essay in the September issue of Commentary by Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, supporting freedom of worship for Jews at Judaism’s holiest site, the Temple Mount plaza. The Israeli authorities currently permit small groups of Jewish worshippers to gather in one corner of the 37-acre plateau.
Writing in Ha’aretz, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, former president of the Union for Reform Judaism, called Rabbi Soloveichik’s position “idiotic and potentially catastrophic,” because it “may lead to holy war between Jews and more than a billion Muslims.” The Al Aqsa mosque is situated in one part of the plaza, and Muslim leaders oppose Jews praying anywhere in the vicinity.
The accusation that Jews are to blame for provoking Arab violence has a long history.
In 1929, for example, the American consul-general in Jerusalem, Paul Knabenshue, claimed that the Arab massacre of 67 Jews in Hebron was the result of “provocative acts” by Jews in Jerusalem, such as demonstrating for Jewish prayer rights at the Western Wall.
In her book “The Year After the Riots,“ Prof. Naomi Cohen described Knabenshue’s harsh position regarding the Wall in terms that echo some of today’s discussions about the Temple Mount: “Individual Jews only and not organized religious services should be permitted there.”
American Jewish anti-Zionists shared Knabenshue’s perspective. A headline in the Yiddish-language Communist newspaper Freiheit declared: “Zionist-Fascists Have Provoked the Arab Uprising.” Reform rabbi William Fineshriber of Philadelphia charged that the Zionist goal of a Jewish majority in Palestine was “enraging the Arabs” and “will lead to more massacres.” His colleague Rabbi Louis Wolsey claimed the “political” tone of “Zionist propaganda” provoked the Hebron pogrom.
Fear of possibly provoking Arab hostility played a significant role in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s wartime Palestine policy. In 1942, FDR rebuffed a proposal by World Zionist Organization president Chaim Weizmann to permit the Jews in Palestine to organize an army to defend against a German invasion; such a move, Roosevelt said, would antagonize Egypt. A frustrated Weizmann privately commented that Roosevelt was “trying to appease a rattlesnake.”
In 1943, President Roosevelt refused to let more than a handful of European Jewish refugees enter Allied-occupied North Africa, for fear that admitting more Jews would “stimulate the religious situation there” and “result in the death and destruction of several hundred thousand American soldiers.”
FDR even rejected a request to allow the Palestine (Jewish) Symphony Orchestra to name one of its theaters the “Roosevelt Amphitheatre,” lest that antagonize “the Arab peoples.”
The president specifically invoked the term “jihad” in 1944, when American Zionist leaders Stephen Wise and Abba Hillel Silver asked him to endorse a congressional resolution urging the British to permit the “free entry” of Jewish immigrants into Palestine. “Do you want to start a Holy Jihad?” FDR berated Wise and Silver. “If you people continue pushing this recommendation on the Hill, you are going to be responsible for the killing of a hundred thousand people”—because “enraged Arabs” might attack Americans in the Mideast in revenge.
Similar arguments were used by senior State Department and War Department officials in their attempts to persuade President Harry Truman to oppose the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Fortunately, Truman overrode them.
The task of navigating between which actions Israel or the Jewish people can take without significant risk of repercussions, and which actions would lead to a war with “a billion Muslims,” has never been a simple matter.
If fear of provoking a jihad had been the decisive factor in Zionist policymaking before 1948, the world would look very different today. Not only would Jews never have demanded prayer rights at the Western Wall, but also the State of Israel would never have come into existence.
These concerns have to be considered even when Diaspora Jewish leaders are merely staking out policy positions, since anything they write or say could wind up in the Arab news media the next day.
No doubt Rabbi Yoffie himself wrestled with the possible impact on Arab-Jewish relations before he spoke at a 2001 Reform conference about “the growing use of anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi language” in the Palestinian Authority’s media. He asserted that there is “a direct line” between that language and “Palestinian terror.”
Likewise, in 2018 Rabbi Yoffie denounced Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas as “ignorant” (after Abbas called Israel “a colonialist enterprise that has nothing to do with Judaism”), and Yoffie charged, later that year, that a remark by Palestinian spokesperson Hanan Ashrawi was “a damnable lie” that had “antisemitic overtones.” Was it wise to use such terminology to characterize two of the most revered leaders of the Palestinian Arabs, in view of the risk of provoking Arab animosity? Those were not easy calls for Rabbi Yoffie to make.
Perhaps even more relevant to the Yoffie-Soloveichik dispute regarding the Temple Mount is the position Rabbi Yoffie took following the relocation of the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. At the time, the Union for Reform Judaism expressed concern that the move could “undercut” peace efforts “and risk destabilizing the region.” That was not quite the same as saying it could cause “a holy war,” but it was pretty close.
Rabbi Yoffie, writing in Ha’aretz, dissented from his organization’s position. He called the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the relocation of the embassy “comforting and gratifying.”
Perhaps rabbis Yoffie and Soloveichik will yet be able to find some common ground on the Temple Mount issue. Or perhaps they will just agree to disagree. Either way, they have given the Jewish community a lot to think about, and an opportunity to reflect on how the lessons of history may be useful in grappling with today’s controversies.
Dr. Medoff is a historian and author who has written more than 20 books about Jewish history, Zionism, and the Holocaust.
Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.
Editor's Picks
Israel and the Internet Wars – A Professional Social Media Review
The Invisible Student: A Tale of Homelessness at UCLA and USC
What Ever Happened to the LA Times?
Who Are the Jews On Joe Biden’s Cabinet?
You’re Not a Bad Jewish Mom If Your Kid Wants Santa Claus to Come to Your House
No Labels: The Group Fighting for the Political Center
Latest Articles
Passover 2024: The Four Difficulties
Israel Strikes Deep Inside Iran
NSFW – A Poem for Parsha Metzora
Israel War Room Launches in Spanish
Modern Book Bans Echo Past Atrocities and Further Silence Marginalized Voices
The Power of the Passover Seder to Unite Jews
Culture
Make Felt Seder Plate Elements
Oct. 7 Events to Be Depicted in New Stage Show
Shani Seidman: Manischewitz, Passover Memories and Matzo Brei
Was Spinoza a Victim of Cancel Culture?
Dr. Nicole Saphier Reflects on Motherhood and Jewish Advocacy
Just in time for Mother’s Day, Saphier has put out a new book called, “Love, Mom: Inspiring Stories Celebrating Motherhood.”
Israel’s David Moment
How Iran’s attack on the Jewish state could help unify a fractured Middle East
Beit Issie Shapiro Gala, David Labkovski Exhibit, de Toledo College Signing Day, JFSLA Shabbat
Notable people and events in the Jewish LA community.
Is Aaron’s Haroses the New Hummus?
Aaron Weiner, Founder of Aaron’s Haroses, wants to make haroses – aka charoset – a year-round treat.
A Bisl Torah – Ask These Questions
The shackles of ancient Egypt feel ever present. The nightmare isn’t over.
Hollywood
Spielberg Says Antisemitism Is “No Longer Lurking, But Standing Proud” Like 1930s Germany
Young Actress Juju Brener on Her “Hocus Pocus 2” Role
Behind the Scenes of “Jeopardy!” with Mayim Bialik
Podcasts
Shani Seidman: Manischewitz, Passover Memories and Matzo Brei
Joan Nathan: “My Life in Recipes” and Pecan Lemon Torte
More news and opinions than at a
Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.