"How Einstein Divided America’s Jews," an article by Walter Isaacson in the current Atlantic magazine is a curious little piece, inaccurate by what it says and perhaps moreso by what it omits.
The headline is simply untrue (Einstein did not divide America’s Jews) — but it was written by the Atlantic editors and cannot be blamed on Isaacson. Indeed, the article at one point specifically refutes the headline. There was to be sure a sharp division between the European and American Zionists (who did not represent most Jews in either continent). In 1921, when the European Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann came to the US, one of his reasons was to do battle with his American counterparts, led by Louis Brandeis. The other reason for Weizmann’s trip was to raise money to help build the new Hebrew University. When Einstein agreed — reluctantly — to accompany Weizmann it was specifically only to help with the Hebrew University fundraising. He made a conscious effort to avoid the intra-Zionist war.
Isaacson makes this clear when he writes: "Einstein was happy to pay a call on Brandeis, even though Weizmann urged him not to. They hit it off well [and Brandeis later wrote] "Prof. and Mrs. Einstein are simple, lovely folk…they are not in it" [not involved in the Brandeis-Weizmann dispute].
Still, the article suggests that Einstein, by going on the trip with Weizmann, was a major player in the controversy. Whereas, in fact, Einstein went to help raise funds for the Hebrew University which he favored, but not to support the Zionists’ call for a Jewish state — which he opposed.
Isaacson might have quoted Einstein who wrote on March 8 and 9 (before the US trip) "I am not going entirely willingly to America," but only to help raise money for the Hebrew University, adding "I am to play the role of a little tin god and a decoy." And further: "Of course they don’t need me for my abilities but only because of my name [which] they hope will have a fair amount of success with the rich kinsmen of Dollar-land."
But most significantly, Einstein’s disagreement with the Zionists on the need for a Jewish state and other issues — especially their anti-Arab policies — is omitted from this article (as well as from most Einstein biographies).
The article of course is not about that point, but simply about Einstein’s visit to America in 1921. Yet even then the Zionist leaders were quite aware — and nervous — about their differences with Einstein. Kurt Blumenthal, the Zionist leader credited with enlisting Einstein (partway) into the Zionist cause, wrote to Weizmann before the 1921 trip:
"Einstein, as you know, is no Zionist, and I ask you not to try to make him a Zionist or to try to attach him to our organization…. Einstein, who leans to socialism, feels very involved with the cause of Jewish labor and Jewish workers….
"I heard…that you expect Einstein to give speeches. Please be quite careful with that Einstein…often says things out of naivete which are unwelcome by us."
So while it is hard to imagine why the Atlantic editors would create the headline about the fiction that Einstein somehow divided American Jews, it is equally hard to imagine how an article about Einstein’s connection to the Zionists can leave out his major differences.
Given the growing world-wide opposition (including among more and more Jews) to the Israeli government’s apartheid policies and occupation of the West Bank, what a grand contribution an article in The Atlantic and Isaacson could have made had they quoted Einstein’s 1938 comments:
"The essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army and a measure of temporal power….I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain — especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks."
Or his 1955 comment:
"The most important aspect of [Israel's] policy must be [the] ever-present, manifest desire to institute complete equality for the Arab citizens living in our midst…. The attitude we adopt toward the Arab minority will provide the real test of our moral standards as a people."
Perhaps the time will come when the major media will include such quotes. But, as they say, don’t hold your breath. Meanwhile, websites like this one, fortunately for the rest of us, keep truth alive.
————–
Other relatively minor inaccuracies in the Atlantic piece include:
- The article states that the ship bringing Weizmann and Einstein to New York in 1921 "pulled up to the battery in Lower Manhattan on the afternoon of April 2." The Rotterdam actually docked at Pier 7 in Hoboken, New Jersey, which meant that 4,000 people had to get to Hoboken (mostly from New York) to greet Einstein.
- The article also states that the intra-Zionist conflict between Weizmann (and the European Zionists) and Brandeis (and the American Zionists) "has been only touched upon in previous books." This might be disputed by Ben Halpern who wrote the thoroughly detailed book, A Clash of Heroes: Brandeis, Weizmann and American Zionism (Oxford University Press, 1987), as well as by several biographers of Brandeis and Weizmann.
Fred Jerome is the author of Einstein on Israel and Zionism, as well as The Einstein File and the co-author of Einstein on Race and Racism. A veteran journalist and science writer, his articles and op-ed pieces have appeared in dozens of publications, including Newsweek and The New York Times.
Related posts:
- ‘Einstein on Israel’ reveals essential history of debate over Zionism and a Jewish state
- The Atlantic Tees Up the Israel Question, After All
- ‘Atlantic’ concedes the groundbreaking impact of a piece it killed
- Students leading the way on both sides of the Atlantic
- ‘The Atlantic’ Was Prophetic on Palestine in 1930
{ 17 comments }
Not exactly shocking. The myth that Einstein was a rousing Zionist is one of the most frequent lies Zionists tell themselves (and the rest of us).
Who needs Einstein to love Zionism when we have Richard Witty and Joe Lieberman?
Yeah, not long ago I had to whack Witty on the subject, what a bunch of liars.
Just another tricky attempt by Zionists to falsify history.
“That Einstein was a Zionist, plain and simple, is a myth perpetuated by the pro-Israel media. Their motive behind an unqualified portrayal of Einstein as Zionist and pro-Israel–to distort public perception of him, is understandable. The tactics and methods of such distortion of reality in regard to Israel, and its allies or adversaries, are quite well-known. Since Einstein was undeniably one of the most towering figures of the 20th century’s scientific community, his endorsement for political Zionism and Israel is an enormous political capital to pass up. But more importantly, if he was not portrayed as a pro-Israel Zionist, people most likely would be curious about his real views. Such curiosity?and follow-up knowledge–could incur significant liability against political Zionism and Israel. To prevent this, exploitation of the mighty Zionist media seemed most convenient, to propagate ad nauseam what is contrary to the truth, create a MYTH about the connection between Einstein and Zionism (political, to be specific) and suppress all information contrary to that which is put out by that media. It’s a fortress almost impossible to break through,” – Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq.
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm
Fred Jerome also sadly misrepresents Einstein’s views, which were not so simple as represented in the quotes.
In 1948, Einstein was a Zionist, supportive of the existence of the state, in declaring the presence of the state as “the fulfillment of OUR dreams”.
In 1921, Ben Gurion would have been described as a “cultural Zionist” by the same definitions, in seeking a bi-national state, not a uniquely Jewish state.
I hold the view that Israel is to be measured morally, largely (not entirely) by how it treats its Arab residents and Arab neighbors. And, I regard the presence of a state only as a NECESSARY means to ensure the more important social Zionism of self-association. The state ensures that that self-association includes self-governance, which a bi-national state with those that actively sought Israeli Jews annihilation in large enough numbers, compelled.
It poses that question of what is the means by which a bi-national state is possible. And, the rational conclusion is to marginalize hatred of Jews and of Israelis to the point that a state is not necessary, not the fantasy that a state by definition is unjust.
In order to not reinvent the wheel, I would invite you to read this discussion between Witty and I on a previous post (Nov 6th), see where Witty ended up with his spurious argument in regard to Einstein and note how he misrepresents him. All one has to do is shine a light on the facts – plus who wants to waste their time with a disingenuous person who like a parrot keeps repeating the same dribble when he was previously bested?
OLD SPURIOUS ARGUMENTS ARE NOT LIKE WINE THAT GETS BETTER WITH AGE, THEY STINK
VR,
You can call my conclusions, parrot-like, but they are evidenced by equally compelling quotes and actions.
Einstein did not renounce his support for the Israeli state between 1948 and his death. He continued to fundraise, to express appreciation of the state’s accomplishments publicly, to serve on Israeli boards. He did dissent, as his right, and a NORM in Israel.
He also condemned Arab hostility expressed militarily and in the form of snipering of kibbutzim, periodic larger organized assault.
Its important to represent the man, not misrepresent.
He supported the state, but emphasized the society. If he had his druthers, it would be unnecessary to have a state, NOT that he would willingly suicide in the face of hatred.
Well, I remember how badly you f*cked up when you tried to drag a physics metaphor into your flimsy rhetoric, Witty, I guess none of us should be surprised you’re going to paint coke bottle glasses and buck teeth on Einstein’s memory too. I guess, in a way, it’s symmetrical.
Proof, Witty. Cite it to support your argument.
“You can call my conclusions, parrot-like, but they are evidenced by equally compelling quotes and actions.”
The purpose of “honest” representation is not to produce a contradictory tautology void of context Witty. That is what you “specialize” in, and you do it rather poorly, my recommendation to people is to look at the above link I provided and see the dead end you come to with your spurious argument – if you could call it an argument, it is more like this with your feigned expertise on all subjects –
LETS HAVE AN “ARGUMENT”
And yea, what do you expect from Witty. He’s like a kid who hasn’t done his homework.
Most of his posts are just rhetorical acrobatics.
Why am I suddenly reminded of Gilda Rhadner’s hilarious comedy sketch where her character is a pretentious Soviet bloc gymnast?
Why do you hate facts, Witty? Why do you hate truth? Or is it the historical record you despise? Do we really need to dig up actual evidence, like that letter railing against Zionist activities in Israel that has his signature on it, among other prominent Jews?
Witty: “In 1948, Einstein was a Zionist, supportive of the existence of the state, in declaring the presence of the state as “the fulfillment of OUR dreams”.
Here’s Einstein’s April 10, 1948 letter declining to support the Irgun and Stern Gang
and saying such terrorism carries with it the death of Israel sometime in the future:
http://www.deiryassin.org/einstein.html
It would be a strange person indeed who never changed their mind over time. The Soncino Press (London) published, as early as 1930, a collection of Einstein’s speeches given to raise money for the Zionist cause. Einstein’s more familiar words of opposition to Zionism in later life make clear he no longer held the views of his younger days.
Einstein was more of a leftist than most people realize. He got into some political trouble and was red-baited in the McCarthy era, and only avoided suffering consequences because he was a widely admired celebrity.
Comments on this entry are closed.