from the Haaretz article:
“Is our downtrodden past at the root of the prevalent violence? And, if so, how does one break this pathological cycle?”
No, the “downtrodden past” of the Jewish people is NOT “at the root.”
What IS at the root of “this pathological cycle” is the mythology that Jews have a uniquely “downtrodden past.”
In late August 2012 Jane Eisner spoke at a J Street event. Among other things she said,
“The Jewish community today is at a historic turning point. We face . . .opportunities that we might not have imagined a generation or two ago . . .challenges brought about by our prosperity, by our transition from a victimized minority to a group with extraordinary wealth, social status, and political power.
Mark the date well: August 2012, and hold it in mind while considering Edwin Black’s explanation for the anticipated efficacy of the Jewish-led boycott of Germany, March 1933 – 1941:
“Among the Hoffjuden who considered themselves the custodians of Jewish defense, Jacob Schiff stood out as a central figure. A major factor in international finance, Schiff’s greatest weapon was money: giving it, denying it. After the notorious Kishinev pogrom of Passover 1903, Schiff decided to personally lead a crusade to force Czar Nicholas to abandon his antisemitic campaign.
“Schiff used his influence with friends and family in Europe to commit major Jewish and even non-Jewish financial houses to a banking boycott of Russia. And before long, Russia’s loan requests were systematically denied in most French, English, and U.S. money markets. In 1904, after war broke out between Russia and Japan, Schiff lobbied tirelessly among commercial adversaries and cohorts alike to grant high-risk war loans to the Japanese. About $100 million, suddenly infused, quickly armed the under-equipped Japanese, allowing them to score a series of humiliating victories. Schiff’s loans were officially recognized as the pivotal factor in Japan’s victory, and the Jewish leader was commemorated in Japanese newspapers and history books as a new national hero.
“The banking boycott and the financing of Japan’s victory were only the first rounds. In 1906, Schiff and other influential Hoffjuden formed the American Jewish Committee. Their first major objective was abrogation of the Russo-American commercial treaty, the legal basis of all friendly relations with Russia. The Committee asserted that the czar’s denial of Russian visas to Jewish American citizens was an affront not just to America’s Jewish citizens but to the United States itself.”
Presidential candidate William H. Taft made a campaign promise to abrogate the treaty but refused to honor the pledge once elected. Thereupon, Schiff and the American Jewish Committee lobbied Congress to force the resolution.
“Within weeks, after the House voted 300 to 1 to abrogate, Taft capitulated . . . and terminate[d] the treaty.”
[Still the czar would not yield.] “Massacres continued, and the Jewish death toll rose. So the banking boycott was tightened. Its effects became most destructive, however, during World War I, when the czar needed multimillion-dollar military loans. Committee members were criticized for the stubborn continuation of their boycott even as it threatened the Allied war effort. But the boycott remained in effect until the monarchy was toppled in 1917.”
–(The Transfer Agreement, by Edwin Black, pp. 30-32)
Leonard Stein, assistant and companion to Chaim Weizmann for over 20 years, devotes almost 700 pages to chronicling Weizmann’s efforts throughout the course of World War I to insert himself among Britain’s decision-makers and influence their actions in order to obtain the The Balfour Declaration.
In Chapter 5 of her book, Against Our Better Judgment, Alison Weir’s narrative (buttressed by Edwin Black’s narrative in Transfer Agreement) claims that
“After the [first world] war, the victors met in a peace conference and agreed to a set of peace accords that addressed . . . the fate of the Ottoman Empire’s Middle East territories. . . .
Zionists, including Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, World Zionist Organization officials, and an American delegation, went to the peace conference to lobby for a Jewish “home” in Palestine and to push for Balfour wording to be incorporated in the peace accords. The official U. S. delegation to the peace conference also contained a number of highly placed Zionists. . . .
Ultimately, the mandate over Palestine given to Britain supported the Zionist project and included the Balfour language. . . .”
While delegates negotiated in Paris, the King-Crane Commission interviewed hundreds of leaders and members of the indigenous populations of the lands being discussed. The Commission advised that national governments
“should derive their authority from the initiative and free choice of the native populations,” and that it seemed clear that Zionists intended “a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.”
“Zionists through Brandeis dominated the situation . . . and the report was suppressed until after the Peace Accords were enacted. . . . [A] pro-Israel historian noted, “with the burial of the King-Crane report, a major obstacle in the Zionist path disappeared.” The U. S. delegation was forced to follow Zionist directives.”
In Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy, Eric Weitz narrates the influence of Jewish persons in Germany on the establishment and conduct of the Weimar Republic, from the German revolution 1918 until Hitler’s appointment as chancellor, January 1933.
Black’s Transfer Agreement provides some insight into the otherwise shrouded period between January 1933 and 1938 when Zionist anti-German activism and financial and settlement activity in Palestine reached a fever pitch. Of that same period, 1933 – 1938, Breitman and Lichtman wrote:
[B]efore the war Nazi oppression of German Jews followed a jagged trajectory. Some Nazi activists physically assaulted Jews in the early exuberant days of Hitler’s semilegal revolution. Once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence, but enacted a series of discriminatory laws and decrees . . . against Jews. Only in late 1938 did central authorities instigate [sic] the violence known as Kristallnacht . . . For the first time, the Gestapo’s agents imprisoned tens of thousands of German Jews in concentration camps. . .” [emphases added]
Lynne Olson’s record of “America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941” includes discussion of numerous highly placed Zionist and Jewish activists in the interventionist camp.
In Roosevelt’s Second Act: The Election of 1940 and the Politics of War (Pivotal Moments in American History), author Richard Moe records that Felix Frankfurter was the only with whom FDR discussed his decision to run for an unprecedented third term, in a private conversation in the White House within days of FDR making public that intention.
John Judis has traced the baleful influence of Zionists on Truman’s decision to recognize Israel in 1948.
Over the past century and more, from Jacob Schiff in 1903 to Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and Rabbi Stephen Wise, to Martin Indyk today, Jewish persons have used wealth and influence upon leaders at the highest rungs of major governments and institutions to shape events and decisions that affected the lives of millions of people.
So precisely what “transition from a victimized minority to a group with extraordinary wealth, social status, and political power” is Eisner referring to? Exactly when in the past 110 years have Jews NOT had wealth and political power disproportionate to their “minority status”?
Perhaps the way to “break this pathological cycle” is for Jewish people to confront their own reality, and shed the falsified narrative of perpetual victimhood.