fbpx

December 26, 2013

This week in power: Bronfman legacy and Christmas fracas

A roundup of the most talked about political and global stories in the Jewish world this week:

Bronfman death
He as chairman of the Seagram company, but Edgar Bronfman's life may be bets remembered for his Jewish communal work. “Edgar's bold leadership and visionary philanthropy changed the Jewish world,” ” target=”_blank”>added JTA.

Other reflected on Bronfman's personality. “His laughter and disarming, ribald humor; his joyful generosity; his steely realism and unparalleled support of youthful innovation in Jewish life; his constitutional inability to do anything other than tell the truth as he saw it; his love of learning–Torah, Talmud, philosophy, music, and art with his beloved Jan–which kept his mind open to the endless well of Jewish civilization's greatest ideas; his pride in family, his children, and grandchildren:  all these and more still don't adequately approximate the measure of the man,” ” target=”_blank”>Christmas music that's relevant to Jews, while others have compiled the best Jewish moments in ” target=”_blank”>wrote Marc Tracy at The New Republic. But not everyone is so jubilant over crossing religious divides and embracing the Christian holiday season. “'Merry Christmas' is a dark and hateful greeting, combining the celebration of a king of Israel that defiles the laws of Torah with the Eucharist substitute for the Jewish Temple sacrifices, to connote a final message of the much anticipated death of Judaism,” ” target=”_blank”>reminded Ryan Torok at the Jewish Journal: “Whether we are aware of it or not, as Jews living in a predominately Christian country, this tribalism-versus-universalism dilemma is something we all cope with, at all times of the year.”

This week in power: Bronfman legacy and Christmas fracas Read More »

The Cold War Exchange, Part 3: Learning from Israel’s Past Dealings with Iran

Dr. Howard Patten is a teaching fellow in Middle East & Mediterranean Studies at King's College in London. Howard is a graduate of UCL, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he was awarded the Golda Meir Fellowship, Cambridge University and King's College London. His fields of interest are Israeli history, politics and society and US and British Policy in the Middle East. His PhD examined Israel's peripheral policy at the UN.

 This exchange focuses on his book Israel and the Cold War: Diplomacy, Strategy and the Policy of the Periphery at the United Nations (Tauris, 2013).

(Part one of the exchange can be found here and here.)

 

Dear Dr. Patten,

Thank you again for your interesting answer. For our final round I'd like to ask you another topical Iran question-

The recent rebirth of US-Iranian dialogue has made some commentators reminisce about the normalization of US-China relations in the Nixon era, about Kennedy and Castro, and about the cold war in general. US Hawks, and Benjamin Netanyahu, have been portrayed by supporters of the deal as extremists which are still stuck in a kind of outdated pre-72 cold war mentality, as people who have still not understood some sort of valuable lesson from the cold war (namely, that we have to talk with our enemies and that they might be more rational and pragmatic than we think). Netanyahu's doomsday scenarios about Iranian hardliners deciding to blow up Israel once they feel they have nothing to lose might sound to liberals like inflated horror stories about the Soviets, taken straight out of the 1950s (Netanyahu, of course, would say that they simply sound like the threats made by Ahmedinejad not too long ago).

Now, in your book (we touched on this subject in round one) you describe how Israel was still able to reach a series of clandestine agreements with- and even sell weapons to- Khomeini's Iran, even after it declared Israel to be 'the Small Satan'. This might seem to some like further evidence of how even the worst regimes, even early 80s Iran- which was arguably more zealous and violent than the country that elected Rouhani- can sometimes be reasoned with about certain issues. Recent reports about limited security co-operations between Israel and the Hamas leadership might be cited as another example of this.

My final question- What do you think Israel's current leaders could learn from the history of Israel's dealings with the early Khomeini regime and from the cold war period? Is there anything they can learn from them, or have both countries, and the circumstances, changed so much that the early 80's are not pertinent in the current debate?

Thank you again for the book and for this exchange.

Shmuel.

***

Dear Shmuel

The relationship between Iran and Israel in the early Khomeini period contains events that Israeli policy makers have, I am sure, considered and internalized for some decades now. For example, Saddam Hussein took advantage of the turmoil inside Iran in the aftermath of the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war by launching a large-scale military offensive against Iranian forces and, initially, the Iraqi army was successful, prompting Tehran to turn to Israel for help. For many in Jerusalem, this was manifest proof that the Policy of the Periphery was working, as not only had Iran looked for aid, but it had also forced Iraq to commit entire legions of its soldiers around the Shatt al-Arab, thereby neutralizing a potential front against Israel. In fact, the Iran-Iraq war was periodically successful in averting Iraqi anti-Israel rhetoric at the UN. On 3 February 1982, for example, Iranian UN Representative Said Rajaie-Khorassani announced that the Iraqi condemnation of the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights was a ‘statement of self-condemnation, because Iraqis have already occupied a part of our land’. Mini-hiatuses such as this in the Arab anti-Israel rhetoric at the UN were, however, rare.  

For many, it appeared paradoxical that Israel would sell weapons to the regime in Tehran, whose armies had pledged to liberate Jerusalem after conquering Baghdad. However, a partial explanation may be found in the fact that Persian Jewry had been largely well treated under the Pahlavi dynasty, with many Jews reaching the upper echelons of Iranian society. However, Israel withdrew its diplomatic staff from Tehran soon after the revolution, and became concerned that harm would befall Persian Jewry. The concern was justified, as in the months after the revolution there were several executions of members of the Jewish community, including Habib Elghanian, its president. In Jerusalem, it appeared that the animosity now shown towards Israel by Iran at the UN was being transferred to the Jews of Iran. Moreover, many Iranians thought that Iranian Jews had been pro-Shah, pro-US and pro-Israel, and the animosity within Iranian society towards its Baha’i community, whose members were seen as both heretics and pro-Western, was swiftly applied to the Jews.

With Israel no longer having representation in Tehran, the Jewish state could do little to influence the situation. Moreover, there was concern in Israel that too much pressure from Jerusalem may enflame the situation, whilst too little may invite further attacks. A solution presented itself in the form of the arms embargo that the US placed on Iran after the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran. In this scenario, Israel, in return for assurances from Tehran that Iranian Jews would be allowed to leave Iran, would supply Iran with the spare parts it needed for its US manufactured weapons.  For Israel, this was an ideal opportunity to both develop the Iranian pillar of the Policy of the Periphery and assuage the predicament of Iranian Jews.

I would also like to mention two events concerning Turkey that, although transpiring during the Cold War, serve as examples of possibly timeless pragmatism and a future basis for political opportunity. Firstly, Turkey, after initially recalling its ambassador to Israel in the wake of the Suez War, went on to reject Arab demands to sever its ties with Israel, even though the Arabs were offering diplomatic support at the UN over Turkey’s stance on Cyprus. Reinforcing this were the military and financial aspects of the Policy of the Periphery. Secondly, after closing its consulate in Jerusalem in 1980, Ankara gladly accepted Israeli intelligence garnered during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, detailing anti-Turkish organizations operating in the country.

I do not think that the events I have mentioned over these exchanges need necessarily be cast into the annals of the Cold War, and I do think that the current Israeli leadership is dealing with a particularly challenging set of circumstances. I would suggest that Jerusalem look back to its Cold War past, understand the power that its relationships with Iran, Turkey and Ethiopia once had, and that that same power was based on concepts that will and do outlast political regimes. However, I would also warn against dogmatic adherence to a certain concept, even one that was once successful. I do not believe Israel can afford to do that again.

Thank you for this exchange,

Howard.

The Cold War Exchange, Part 3: Learning from Israel’s Past Dealings with Iran Read More »

How culpable were Dutch Jews in the slave trade?

On a busy street near the Dutch Parliament, three white musicians in blackface regale passersby with holiday tunes about the Dutch Santa Claus, Sinterklaas, and his slave, Black Pete.

Many native Dutchmen view dressing up as Black Pete in December as a venerable tradition, but others consider it a racist affront to victims of slavery. With Holland marking the 150th anniversary of abolition this year, the controversy over Black Pete has reached new heights. Hundreds demonstrated against the custom in Amsterdam last month, and more than 2 million signed a petition supporting it.

Through it all, Dutch Jews — some of whom celebrate their own version of the Black Pete custom, called “Hanukklaas” — have largely remained silent.

But that changed in October, when Lody van de Kamp, an unconventional Orthodox rabbi, wrote a scathing critique about it on Republiek Allochtonie, a Dutch news-and-opinion website. “The portrayal of ‘Peter the slave’ dates back to a period when we as citizens did not meet the social criteria that bind us today,” Van de Kamp wrote.

Speaking out against Black Pete is part of what van de Kamp calls his social mission, an effort that extends to reminding Dutch Jews of their ancestors’ deep involvement in the slave trade. In April, he is set to publish a book about Dutch Jewish complicity in the slave trade, an effort he hopes will sensitize Jews to slavery in general and to the Black Pete issue in particular.

“I wrote the book and I got involved in the Black Pete debate because of what I learned from my Dutch predecessors on what it means to be a rabbi — namely, to speak about social issues, not only give instructions on how to cook on Shabbat,” van de Kamp told JTA.

“Money was earned by Jewish communities in South America, partly through slavery, and went to Holland, where Jewish bankers handled it,” he said. “Non-Jews were also complicit, but so were we. I feel partly complicit.”

Though he holds no official position in the Dutch Jewish community, van de Kamp, 65, is among the best-known Orthodox rabbis in the Netherlands, a status earned through his several books on Dutch Jewry and frequent media appearances.

His forthcoming book, a historical novel entitled “The Jewish Slave,” follows an 18th-century Jewish merchant and his black slave as they investigate Dutch-owned plantations north of Brazil in the hope of persuading Jews to divest from the slave trade. In researching the book, van de Kamp discovered data that shocked him.

In one area of what used to be Dutch Guyana, 40 Jewish-owned plantations were home to a total population of at least 5,000 slaves, he says. Known as the Jodensavanne, or Jewish Savannah, the area had a Jewish community of several hundred before its destruction in a slave uprising in 1832. Nearly all of them immigrated to Holland, bringing their accumulated wealth with them.

Some of that wealth was on display last year in the cellar of Amsterdam’s Portuguese Synagogue, part of an exhibition celebrating the riches of the synagogue’s immigrant founders. Van de Kamp says the exhibition sparked his interest in the Dutch Jewish role in slavery, which was robust.

On the Caribbean island of Curacao, Dutch Jews may have accounted for the resale of at least 15,000 slaves landed by Dutch transatlantic traders, according to Seymour Drescher, a historian at the University of Pittsburgh. At one point, Jews controlled about 17 percent of the Caribbean trade in Dutch colonies, Drescher said.

Jews were so influential in those colonies that slave auctions scheduled to take place on Jewish holidays often were postponed, according to Marc Lee Raphael, a professor of Judaic studies at the College of William & Mary.

In the United States, the Jewish role in the slave trade has been a matter of scholarly debate for nearly two decades, prompted in part by efforts to refute the Nation of Islam’s claim that Jews dominated the Atlantic slave trade. But in Holland, the issue of Jewish complicity is rarely discussed.

“This is because we in the Netherlands only profited from slavery but have not seen it in our own eyes,” van de Kamp said. “The American experience is different.”

The slavery issue is not van de Kamp’s first foray into controversial territory. In Jewish circles, he has a reputation as a contrarian with a penchant for voicing anti-establishment views.

That image was reinforced last year when he spoke out against a compromise the Dutch Jewish community had reached with the government over kosher slaughter. Designed to avert a total ban, the compromise placed some restrictions on kosher slaughter that Holland’s chief rabbis said did not violate Jewish law. Van de Kamp denounced the deal as an unacceptable infringement on religious freedom.

More recently, he angered Dutch activists by suggesting that vilifying Dutch Muslims helped generate anti-Semitism. He also advocated dialogue with professed Muslim anti-Semites at a time when Jewish groups were calling for their prosecution.

But his reputation as a maverick rabbi in a consensus–oriented community has also endeared van de Kamp to some supporters.

“He is in a league of his own,” says Bart Wallet, an Amsterdam University historian and expert on Jewish history. “From the sideline, he is free to criticize and does not have to conform to anything.”

How culpable were Dutch Jews in the slave trade? Read More »

Congressman pledges to end delay to U.S. gift for Auschwitz-Birkenau preservation

Auschwitz-Birkenau, the Nazi death camp where 1.1 million Jews and other victims were murdered, was not built to last forever. But that’s exactly what the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation is charged with doing, and it is collecting $160 million from a group of 28 countries to make that possible.

Germany has pledged $80 million; Poland has committed $12 million; Israel has paid half of its $1 million pledge. The United States joined the group of countries in 2010, when then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said her department would give $15 million to the endowment.

But because of technicalities in the legislative budgeting process, none of that money has been sent to the foundation to date, making the United States the only country not to have made good on any part of its pledge.

As recently as mid-December, the State Department was reportedly asking Jacek Kastelaniec, the director general of the foundation, if he could be more “flexible,” informing him that it could not release these funds except as a grant for particular projects, not a gift to the endowment.

The State Department did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment, but according to a congressional staffer briefed by a department employee, the State Department believes it needs specific Congressional authorization before it can release the funds – in addition to the vote Congress took in 2010 to appropriate the funds.

The clock is ticking. Payments from 2011 and 2012 – $6 million that has already been appropriated – plus an additional $3 million for 2013 must be explicitly authorized by Congress before the 2013 fiscal year ends on September 30, 2014, according to Kastelaniec. Given the normal progress of budgeting in Washington, that means a legislative fix needs to be found in the first two months of next year.

“There is a lot of good will in the State Department, but there is a problem in the Congress and in the Congressional appropriations,” Kastelaniec said. “Now we have to spend our time on an issue that should not exist.”

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D – Ill.), who persuaded 45 of his colleagues to sign onto his letters to Clinton and President Obama in 2009 urging the U.S. to join this international effort, has pledged to make that fix.

“Our office was not aware that there was any hold up for the U.S. contribution to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation until the Jewish Journal made an inquiry,” Douglas Rivlin, Gutierrez’s director of communications, said in a statement. “Our office was under the impression that the money was authorized, appropriated, and had been spent in the way that Congress intended.”

Because the State Department did not brief Gutierrez on its decision, Rivlin said, “the issue got lost in the shuffle,” but he expressed optimism that the budget deal crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan (R – Wisc.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D – Wash.) and unveiled earlier this month would allow Congress to get “back to ‘normal’” budgeting.

Gutierrez, Rivlin said, would ensure that the “small adjustment to legislative language” gets made next year, which will allow the money to flow as intended.

For decades, it’s been apparent that Auschwitz-Birkenau, the larger section of the Nazi death camp, would deteriorate without a concerted effort to rehabilitate its buildings. The Nazis demolished the gas chambers and crematoria at Auschwitz in an effort to cover up their crimes; those remains have been further compromised by groundwater seeping into the structures. The freezing and thawing of the ground at Auschwitz — not to mention the winter weather in southern Poland, where temperatures can range between 0 and negative 20 degrees Celsius — has further weakened buildings that were frail to begin with.

The 45 brick barracks at Auschwitz-Birkenau, constructed by prisoners during the war, are in dangerously unstable condition.

“Ten years ago, three of them were closed because of the bad shape,” Kastelaniec said, speaking to the Journal from his home in Warsaw via Skype on Dec. 16.  “Today, three of them are open and 42 are closed. And we are putting up some temporary wooden installations to make sure the walls don’t fall.”

The foundation’s $160 million endowment fund will be managed by a six-member committee, tasked with preserving the capital while generating a 4 percent annual return, which will help support the $5.5 million worth of restoration work that will be required to keep the structures standing in their current condition.

Pledges from governments around the world add up to about $137 million, almost half of which has already been transferred to the foundation. The foundation has launched a campaign to raise the balance from 18 individuals, each of whom will contribute €1 million ($1.37 million) to the fund.

Were the U.S.’s $15 million contribution to fall through, the impact on the foundation could be disastrous, and the Polish embassy in Washington has been in touch with the State Department about the matter.

“We are fully aware of how complicated the appropriations process can be, but we still remain very hopeful,” Maciej Pisarski, deputy chief of mission at the Polish embassy told the Journal on Dec. 20. “This is a noncontroversial issue.”

Rabbi Andrew Baker, director of international Jewish affairs at American Jewish Committee, remembered the 2009 push to get the U.S. on board as not being particularly fraught.

“I don’t think it was a hard sell,” Baker, who served for a time on the International Auschwitz Council, said. “I think everyone recognized that it was the right thing to do.”

The consensus that Auschwitz must be preserved — as a reminder of the attempted genocide of the Jews of Europe, and as a refutation of those who would deny the facts of that Holocaust — extends far beyond Washington.

“Most countries all recognized the power of this place and felt it was important as a country, as a government, to be supportive of this international effort,” Baker said.

Gifts by federal departments to outside organizations for investment purposes appear to be somewhat unusual, and it’s understandable why a governmental body might be more inclined to make a grant to support a specific project rather than hand money to the endowment of an outside organization.

Still, given the broad base of agreement about the worthiness of the cause, it seems strange that the U.S. funds to help preserve this site of mass murder have been held up for so long. It might have something to do with the relatively small sum of money in question — $3 million is less than .01 percent of the State Department’s 2013 budget. The department appears to have failed to inform Congress of its opinion about the legislation; Congress itself may have dropped the ball, by operating these past two years without a new budget.

Whatever the reason, Rivlin said that in 2014, Gutierrez would make certain that the money gets to its intended destination.

“Congressman Gutierrez will reach out to his colleagues in both parties as soon as Congress reconvenes to get this matter addressed as soon as possible,” Rivlin said.

Congressman pledges to end delay to U.S. gift for Auschwitz-Birkenau preservation Read More »