The beginning of this series is here.
For the people who end up reading a significant amount of any of these posts, I'm not sure if I should feel more grateful or more sympathetic.
I guess to those people, I'll just say: Thank you so much. And also: I'm very sorry.
My future self will probably be one of these people.
* * *
My plan for this post is to finish searching through Eleanor Roosevelt's My Day Column between the years 1946-1952 (her United Nation years) for the words "Israel".
I had been planning to also search for the word "Holocaust". But then towards the end of my previous Roosevelt post, I learned the word Holocaust wasn't strongly connected to the European genocide of the Jews until a decade or so later.
Oh! I'm wondering, though, if she ever ended up using the Jewish term "Shoah". Maybe I'll look for that. (Spoiler alert: I forget to do this).
* * *
I'm beginning to believe that whoever created the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project website is also the one who creates all the Disney websites.
I feel the same way about both.
I'm happy and super grateful they exist. But at the same time...there are very frustrating aspects.
I was going to sit here and waste space explaining what goes wrong with the search engine on the Roosevelt site. But it's probably better...if someone reading this is curious, they can go to the site themselves and try it out.
I think I have figured out how it works, though...and I might be able to look at things in chronological order rather than jumping through time.
* * *
I looked at Roosevelt's December 30 1948 entry in my previous post, so I'll skip that one here.
I can see from snippets that some of the "Israel" mentions are not about the country but about a congregation or something.
* * *
Before Roosevelt talks about Israel, she talks about racism in the United States.
It certainly looks as though one thing after another is bringing the subject of race discrimination squarely before the public. The idea that 51 New York school children, who won awards for their work for public safety, could not be taken on a trip to Washington, D.C., because of discrimination there against four Negro children in the group, is a situation which must shock any fair-minded person.
I think the wokeness of Eleanor Roosevelt would cause MAGA Republicans to implode.
Now I'm reading the Palestine/Israel stuff. Some of it goes over my head.
In regard to what is happening in Palestine, there is one important thing that I think should be driven home to everyone. That is that the United Nations accepted a majority report advocating partition and that no change in that decision was made before the British mandate came to an end and the British military government departed.
I guess I understand most of that, except I don't know what partition means.
I'll Google....
Lord Wiki will try to explain it to me.
It was a 1947 proposal from the United Nations that would give some of the land to Jews to control and some of the land to Arabs to control. And then Jerusalem would be an international regime kind of thing.
Thirty-three countries (72%) voted Yes on the plan.
Thirteen countries (28%) voted No.
Then some other countries abstained from voting.
I was sitting here wondering why Germany wasn't listed as voting for or against.
Maybe they weren't part of the UN yet.
Wow. I just Googled. Germany didn't join the UN until 1973!
Anyway....
Both the Zionists (Jews) and the Arabs did some pressuring regarding the vote.
The Jews pressured countries to vote yes and the Arabs pressured countries to vote no.
And I'm sure many countries also voted yes or no, because they felt that was the right decision.
* * *
I started reading about the Jewish and Arab response to the partition. I got as far as reading that most Jews supported it but some did not. And then I decided to (maybe) go down that rabbit hole in another post.
My list of potential future posts is now 45 items long.
Shit.
Back to Roosevelt....
She writes: The Jews, under that decision, prepared to set up a provisional government and so declared to the world. The Arabs, on every side, declared they would not recognize this United Nations decision. They not only prepared for war but have promptly invaded the new state of Israel. This seems to me to show very little respect for the rest of the world and very little real desire to promote the cause of peace.
And now I think it's Israel (and her supporters) who are resistant to listening to the United Nations. .
Also from Roosevelt in this column: In any case, we now face a difficult situation. But the people facing the most serious situation are the Arabs. Will they continue to defy the United Nations? If they do, they are an aggressor nation or group of nations. If they do not, then they could sit down around a table and come to an agreement with the Jewish Government. And, in all probability, that would be to their advantage as well as to the advantage of all Jews. Let us hope that a little calm, cool common sense will come to the Arab leaders, and that they will not behave as irresponsibly as their first actions indicate.
It's so nice to read a Woke person taking the side of Israel and the Jews. In the 21st century, I feel that's kind of rare.
Though I'm talking about supporting the right of Israel to exist NOT support of everything done by the right-wing Israeli government.
(And by right to exist, I mean a 2 state solution...not one state)
* * *
On June 14, 1948, Roosevelt talks about the United States House passing a bill that would allow 202,000 people from European displacement camps to come here.
Well, she says 202,000 people plus an unspecified number of orphans.
Unspecified....
Did they not have a general idea? A ballpark figure?
In this column, Roosevelt also talks about the death of a man named David Marcus. He was serving as Supreme Commander of the Jewish Forces in Jerusalem. He died trying to get food to people in Jerusalem.
Who killed him?
Roosevelt believes that the UN should have provided what was needed to keep Jerusalem an international regime. She says:
By a decision taken last November in the General Assembly, it was provided that an international regime be set up for Jerusalem, with free access to that city by all. If this had been implemented at the time, none of the devastation which has occurred in Jerusalem would have been necessary and the holy shrines, which mean much to many different religions throughout the world, would have been unharmed.
I'm going to read an article about David Marcus from the archives of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Marcus was killed in a pre-cease-fire battle between Jews and Arabs.
Does that mean there was a planned ceasefire and before it started, they did some last minute fighting? Or did the ceasefire plan come after the fighting?
* * *
Roosevelt spoke harshly against the Arab side of things on July 10, 1948.
I'm not sure what she's referring to.
It's something about a representative from Syria making a speech to the United Nations Security Council.
Roosevelt writes:
The Arabs have just defied the efforts of Count Bernadotte, who has been trying to mediate between the Arab peoples and the State of Israel. The Arabs know quite well that no atom bombs need to be used against them, and it is insulting for the representative from Syria to talk in the way he did yesterday in the Security Council.
Who is Count Bernadotte?
And what did the Syrian say?
* * *
Well...Count Bernadotte was a Swedish diplomat who was murdered by a militant Zionist group called Lehi.
Lehi sounds like they were supreme assholes. And also...terrorists.
Count Bernadotte not only was trying to achieve peace between Arabs and Jews, but he also used his negotiation skills to free 31,000 people from Nazi concentration camps.
He was killed in September—a few months after Roosevelt published this column.
I'm guessing she'll mention his death when the time comes.
I wonder if it caused her to be less sided with the Israelis?
* * *
I couldn't easily find the speech by the Syrian representative.
But I did find a long detailed document from the United Nations website—Yearbook of the United Nations 1948-1949. It might have the speech buried somewhere. I couldn't find it with quick skimming. I'm going to bookmark the site and add it to my list of future post ideas. It looks like a fascinating document.
Note: I just deleted two post ideas from the top of my list, because they're very generalized. I'm finding so many more specific topic ideas. I'd rather do those. And by learning about the specifics, I'm sure to get answers to my more general questions.
So anyway...for anyone who is keeping track. My list is now at 46.
* * *
In her July 17, 1948 column, Roosevelt talks about differences between Republicans and Democrats.
Roosevelt has these complaints about the Republican Party:
The weight of big business shows up rather clearly in the foreign policy plank as written by the Republicans.
And
The plank on inflation in the Republican platform is more specific than in the Democratic platform, but it carefully avoids stating any policy for the real immediate halting of the rise in prices.
And
On the question of housing, which is close to the hearts of all young people in this country and also to some of their elders, the division between the two parties is very evident. The Democratic platform is far the more satisfactory. The Republican one is so evidently dictated by the real-estate lobby.
She does say that both parties support the United Nations.
Then she talks about foreign relations. The two issues staring in that subject are China and Palestine.
If she had added Russia and the Ukraine, I might be confused about what time period I'm reading from.
I might be wrong, but I think also that these days, the Democrats are more supportive of the United Nations.
I mean the United Nations is a GLOBALIST kind of thing, and Republicans seem to be much more into nationalism.
* * *
On September 14, 1948, Roosevelt writes of her meeting with young members of the Israeli Army.
She compares their situation to that of George Washington vs. the British army.
As I listened I wondered if that had been the way some of the young men around General George Washington had felt as they faced the British Army without shoes, in the dead of winter, with scant food and very scant equipment. If General Lafayette had not been able to persuade the French Government to aid the 13 colonies, the face of history might have been changed. I imagine many of Washington's aides held much the same kind of conviction about freedom and the cause of their small nation as these youngsters hold.
This makes me think: How many times have people fought passionately for the freedom of their group while ignoring the rights and needs of other groups?
Is there a way to celebrate or admire groups for fighting for their freedom while also recognizing that they didn't fight for everyone who also deserved freedom and that they might have also killed, harmed, and/or exploited others in their fight.
Even today, where many are more mindful of intersectionality...in decades or centuries from now, people will probably look back at today's freedom fighters and say, But didn't you realize you were leaving out so and so?
* * *
Roosevelt asked the young Israeli army members how the Negal desert would fit hundreds and thousands of Jewish refugees.
The Israelis said, It is a desert now, but where there are settlement it blooms. It can bloom everywhere.
I think that's pretty inspiring.
Did it come true?
I'll have to look that up.
* * *
Towards the end of the column, Roosevelt is extra-harsh against the Arabs.
It made me almost want to talk to some of the young Arab soldiers, chosen at random from the ranks, and to find out whether a different dream was alive in their hearts and shone from their eyes or whether they more nearly approximated the young Hessians of our own Revolutionary War, who fought for the sake of fighting and the pecuniary returns.
Why DIDN'T she talk to them?
I do think that there are people within all causes that care more about the fight than the cause. I mean I think they join a cause because it gives them an excuse to fight.
I'm sure some of these people were among the Arabs and also among the Jews.
* * *
I Googled Negal desert and got Negev desert instead.
I tried for Negal again (without desert) and came up pretty empty.
Did Roosevelt write it wrong, or was there a change in language?
Anyway....
Lord Wiki says that the Negev desert absorbed many Jewish refugees. But...not from Europe. From Arab countries.
P.S-For some reason, I keep typing dessert instead of desert.
* * *
I decided to Google best dessert in Negev.
According to Trip Advisor, it's an Italian ice-cream place called Glandaria.
That sounds kind of gross. I mean...just the name. It sounds like a serious illness.
* * *
I tried to find it on Google Maps but had no luck.
* * *
I'm looking at a photo from Google Maps of Negev from 2019.
It looks vast and empty.
So I guess Israel didn't succeed in making every inch a place to fit many refugees.
It's probably a good thing, though...in terms of ecology.
Though that's just one picture of one area.
Lord Wiki says the Negev area is home to 630,000 people. 75% are Jewish and 25% are Bedouin.
* * *
The Negev area also has actual cities and towns. The most populous is Beersheba.
Google Maps provides a lot of Streetviews for there.
Here's a mall.
It looks like a synagogue or museum.
* * *
Roosevelt talks about the murder of Count Folke Bernadotte in her September 22, 1948 column.
Oh! And I forgot to notice or mention, while reading the first September entry, that my mom had been born.
My mom is very pro-Israel. I wonder if it's special to her that she and Israel were born in the same year.
Anyway...back to Bernadotte.
Roosevelt was on a ship to Ireland when she learned of the news.
She writes: News of the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte was a shock to all of us aboard ship, especially those of us who are so closely tied to the U.N. and its work. How anyone could think that action of this kind would help in resolving the Palestine situation is beyond my comprehension.
Yep.
I think we're lying to ourselves and being blind to history if we claim violence is never the answer.
But...usually it doesn't help...especially when the victims are trying to help your cause.
Roosevelt writes:
The young Israeli Government must find this a hard blow. Nevertheless, I think that it will prove itself strong enough to dominate what is, in essence, an outlaw group. But such acts as this, which are a manifestation of a divided people, will not strengthen the cause of this young nation before the world.
Hopefully, the Israel government to Lehi (the outlaw group) was not like how the Republican Party is to Jan 6 terrorists.
* * *
Roosevelt talks more about the assassination, a few days later, in her September 25 column.
She says, The assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden has thrown a gloomy atmosphere over these early sessions of the United Nations General Assembly.
I can imagine.
Not only is the death tragic.
But I feel it's hard when you side with a cause or people, and your side behaves badly.
I experience these confused, disillusioned feelings when people on the left do asshole things on Twitter.
I think we (or at least me and some others) would prefer it to be more black and white—one side all good and the other side all bad.
Or really. I want my side to be all good and the other side to be a fascinating mixture of greys.
* * *
As if the assassination wasn't bad enough, the head of the American section of the World Zionist Organization (Dr. Abba Hillel Silver) attacked Bernadotte's successor.
Now....I'm sitting here thinking... is Silver a Jewish name?
And does that mean that Terry Silver from Cobra Kai was supposed to be Jewish?
Googled. It looks like the name is sometimes Jewish but also sometimes not.
Speaking of Terry Silver, though.
I have to share this very unrelated story. I mean unrelated to Israel and Eleanor Roosevelt.
Tim and I recently watched Cobra Kai featuring Thomas Ian Griffith as Terry Silver.
One of the shows I've been watching independently (chosen for me by Random.org) is Chasing Life. One of the stars of that is Mary Page Keller.
In the 1980's...Keller and Silver played Sally and Catlin, a couple on the soap opera Another World.
I thought that was a pretty cool coincidence.
I would find it less interesting if they were actors I often watch in things. I mean if they were more famous and commonplace. But I have not really seen much of either of them since I had seen them together on Another World.
* * *
Back to regular programming....
So the Zionist (not Karate) Silver spoke out against the successor of Bernadotte's successor—a man named Ralph Bunche. Why? Because Bunche had said that the Israeli government must bear the responsibility for the murder.
Was this the origin story of any-criticism-of-Israel-is-not-allowed?
Roosevelt writes:
I cannot quite understand Dr. Silver's attitude, because the Israeli Government has accepted this responsibility and is trying to round up and clean out the Stern gang once and for all. If it held no responsibility for law and order within its borders, then it would hardly be a valid government.
I think some people are confused about what it means to bear responsibility.
It doesn't necessarily mean we're to blame. But it does mean that we have the responsibility of fixing the problem....or at least trying to.
The more we learn about January six from the hearings, the more it's proven that Trump is very much to blame for what happened that day.
But even if the situation was not like it was, and Trump had not meant for the insurrection to happen, it would have still been his duty to take responsibility—show regret, make it known he didn't support what happened, and try to fix the problems.
* * *
October 6, 1948: The Bernadotte saga continues.
Before he was assassinated, Bernadotte had submitted a report of ideas about the Palestinian and Israeli issue. Some folks didn't like the ideas in the report...I mean besides the assassins.
Roosevelt says, I can see many things in the proposals made by Count Bernadotte that might easily be objectionable to both the Jews and the Arabs. But those are things that they must negotiate on.
She also says, The fact that Great Britain accepted Count Bernadotte's report with such alacrity may have prejudiced certain groups in the United States that have a feeling that Great Britain is not exactly unbiased and disinterested where these negotiations are concerned. It might have been better if she had not acted quite so quickly and if we ourselves had not succumbed to the great desire to find some kind of solution that would bring us greater peace and stability in the Near Eastern situation.
I'm guessing she meant Jewish groups? Was it suspected that the UK would prioritize making the Arabs happy?
*.* *
On October 25, 1948, Roosevelt returns to showing Israelis (or future Israeli's, really) in a more positive light.
She met some Jews in a displaced person's camp and writes:
....there was an almost unanimous desire to get to Israel, and as a result an ardent and passionate effort is being made to prepare themselves so that they would be useful citizens there. Many people whom I am sure never worked with their hands before are learning trades, for they feel they may be useful and essential in the building of a new country.
I find that admirable.
* * *
There's more positive stuff in the November 3 column.
Roosevelt's grandson visited Israel.
She writes:
But when Mr. Morgenthau and my grandson told me a little about all the things they saw, I began to feel that I understand little of how the people in Israel live and work in their effort to build a new nation. It is really a spot where men and women labor side by side at the same tasks and there is no question that they are feeling a great sense of creative achievement.
* * *
There was some stuff in December 1948. But I already read one of them for my last post and the other pretty much repeats the stuff from the October 23, column. So...I'll jump on over to 1949.
It's the year my dad was born.
I see there were at least three entries in January mentioning Israel. I'm anticipating some extra drama.
I mean there is ALWAYS political drama in Israel. But sometimes, there is extra turmoil.
* * *
January 3...when Grandma Goldie was waddling around with my dad in her uterus.
Oh! I wonder if she read Roosevelt's column.
I wonder if she was interested in politics and world events...especially the formation of Israel.
I mean she was interested in those things when I knew her. But in those days, she was in her 50s-70's. She might have had different interests when she was a thirty-some woman with four young kiddos and an upcoming one.
Anyway...
Roosevelt writes: Our economy and Germany's economy would benefit by real peace. The same is true of Greece; the same is true of Israel; the same is true of Indonesia, and certainly the same is true of China.
I wish that was true. If it were true, we probably WOULD have peace everywhere.
The problem is that war is also sometimes great for economies. Or at least it's good for companies that build weapons and companies that run detention centers for refugees.
I forgot where I first learned of all this.
Was it Crash Course?
* * *
On January 8, Roosevelt writes about hope for the end of the conflict in Israel. She writes:
It was extremely good news to read that Egypt and Israel are to begin direct negotiations for an armistice. I feel sure that once the Arab states actually sit down to talk over the problem of Palestine as a whole that Dr. Ralph J. Bunche's hopes for an end of the Holy Land war will be realized and that final accord can be reached between the two countries themselves.
Seventy-three years later.....
* * *
Roosevelt also has some interesting things to say about Communism.
I wrote that line yesterday before quitting for the night.
I'm going to get back to it. But first I have to say something totally off the subject.
I could write separate blog posts about these things. But I feel like burying it in here instead.
Anyway....
I was listening to my favorite podcast this morning—You've Lost Me: A Lost Rewatch Podcast.
From that I learned about this video of the Lost cast singing a country music song. It's so beautiful.
Oh! And now I just found a longer video with two songs.
I love the video.
I love the podcast.
I love Lost.
I need to mention my other YouTube video obsession—the trailer for Station Eleven. Have I mentioned this before?
* * *
Back to communism.
Roosevelt talks about the Vassar Hospital Association and how the money they raise keeps the hospital free for the public.
She then writes:
The great majority of patients are those who cannot afford to pay for adequate care. Therefore, the contributions of others in the community are necessary and really are contributions that show a sense of responsibility for the community as a whole. Under a Communist form of government, some will tell us, the necessities of life are taken care of by the government and, therefore, are free. As a matter of fact, of course, the government revenues are the earnings of the people, so they are not free anymore than they are in a capitalist democracy.
The real difference is that, in a democracy such as ours, a good citizen who is interested in his fellow man voluntarily does certain things which, under Communism, might be done for him by the government. It seems to me then that while democracy requires more from its citizens—but who are permitted to act of their own free will—they must certainly get greater satisfaction out of what they do.
These days, that would be an argument more likely seen from Republicans than Democrats.
I doubt there are many Democrats who want things to become very communist. But I think many of us want to have less capitalism.
* * *
I'd prefer, if I needed medical treatment we couldn't afford, that I wouldn't need to beg on a GoFundMe page.
Judging on how unpopular I am elsewhere on the Internet, I'm pretty sure things wouldn't go well for me.
I wonder how many unpopular people end up dying, because they couldn't get enough money via crowdfunding?
* * *
Charities that provide free hospital care are different than crowdfunding.
I think it's better. I mean it's bad enough to be sick and dying but to also see that very few people care? That would suck.
The problem I see, though, with relying on charity rather than government healthcare is there are super, super rich people in the United States. Yet, we still have a lot of people struggling to pay for their healthcare or avoiding needed healthcare.
If we could rely on super rich people feeling that need to get great satisfaction from donating their money, there'd probably be much less of a need for universal healthcare.
* * *
Personally, I care more about people having good, affordable healthcare than I care about people getting the great satisfaction that comes from giving to charity.
That being said...I'm guessing that in pro-life/pro-family countries like Finland and Denmark....despite all the government help, there are still opportunities for people to make charitable donations or do volunteer work.
* * *
If you couldn't tell, I'm in a bad mood.
Why?
It's complicated.
* * *
I wasted an hour or two explaining it.
Then hours later, I deleted it.
I also deleted the most snarky lines. Without those lines, it might not be so obvious I was in a bad mood.
Or maybe it still is.
I don't know.
And I'm still in a bad mood.
Before I was in a self-pitying, snarky bad mood.
Now I'm in a super tired bad mood.
* * *
In her January 31 column, Roosevelt talks about there being an increase in countries recognizing Israel as a state. These include Great Britain, New Zealand, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.
Great Britain surprises me. I thought they were kind of the ones who helped make Israel happen.
Maybe it was more about formal recognition.
Roosevelt says:
Undoubtedly in the adjourned session of the General Assembly she will be accepted as a member of the United Nations, and recognition, coming just at this time when she is carrying on negotiations with the Arab states, must strengthen her position. This gives greater assurance that peace can come in the Near East and that this new nation can live in the same world with her neighboring states and perhaps bring them something of value through her own stability.
Yeah. Well...that didn't work out the way she had hoped.
Seeing what is happening with Russia right now. It's all a reminder that peer pressure from the global community doesn't really work on governments that have their minds made up about something.
We can stand with Israel.
We can stand with the Ukraine.
We can stand with Palestine.
But it doesn't often make that much of a difference.
Does it?
Note: I wrote the above this afternoon when I was in the self-pitying, snarky mood.
I still agree with it, though.
I'm going to bed now. Maybe tomorrow (or whenever I get back to this post) I'll be in a cheerful, hopeful, inspired mood.
* * *
It's two days later.
I'm in a better mood but not a hopeful one...seeing that some of today's thoughts have been dedicated to how to go about finding and reuniting with loved ones after the apocalypse.
Anyway.....
Roosevelt mentioned Israel in her February 26, 1949 post which was about a week after my dad was born.
Now I'm distracted. Because I looked up what day his birthday was on.
Saturday.
Then I started thinking...who else in the family was born on Saturday? And what if we divided family members by their day of the weeks?
* * *
Well, I just wasted about ten minutes looking at birthdates.
My oldest DFW nephew was born on a Saturday like my dad.
My oldest brother-in-law shares my day of Wednesday.
The most popular day in our family to be born is Sunday.
Both of my sisters and my husband were born on Sunday...plus one of my nieces and two of my nephews.
* * *
I just checked.
Eleanor Roosevelt was born on a Saturday...like my dad and nephew.
* * *
I was thinking that maybe it's universal for Sundays to be common.
I Googled. And saw that Tuesdays are actually the most common days...at least in the United States. According to Babycenter.com, Sundays are the slowest days.
I think there must be something special about my family.
* * *
Getting back to February 26, 1949.
Roosevelt writes:
Most important item in the news yesterday morning, because it is a sign in the direction of peace, was the agreement between Egypt and Israel. The armistice at last is accepted and now negotiations can go forward with the other Arab states in the hope of reaching a successful conclusion.
It's sad to read of someone believing things will be okay and knowing they're not....that there's still a huge struggle.
* * *
On March 1, 1949, Roosevelt talks about visiting Winnipeg Manitoba. This is timely for me, because the book I've been listening to takes place in Winnipeg (All My Puny Sorrows by Miriam Toews)...
I didn't realize they had turned it into a movie until just now.
As for the Israel/Jewish stuff on that day, Roosevelt writes about a rally held by the United Jewish Appeal that she is regretfully going to miss. It's the first one she's missed in years.
Roosevelt says:
I have always felt that this appeal should not be supported only by our American Jewish people. It should receive support in Greater New York and throughout the country by all American citizens. In the Displaced Persons camps of Europe I have seen the results accomplished by the money raised in our country. I have seen children, who had wandered homeless and suffering, given special care, trained and educated so they would arrive in Israel ready to accept the new lives they would have to lead there and to make their contributions to that country as soon as possible.
I think it's nice that she wants other Americans besides Jewish Americans to also support the cause.
I think it feels much better when there are people outside the group acting as allies.
Well....
I say that.
I'm NOT a fan of Evangelical Christians supporting Jews and Israel. I think their support is toxic and exploitive. I don't know the full story, but I think there's a desire for Jews to return to Israel, so Jesus can return.
I don't mind so much being a character in someone's mythology. But I think there's often some strong anti-Muslim overtones.
This is a generalization, though...hopefully.
There are probably some evangelical Christians who support Israel in a non-MAGA way.
* * *
In the March 1 entry, Roosevelt also says:
The United Jewish Appeal is trying as soon as possible to take their share of people out of those camps. In addition, such people as leave those camps do not go to Israel, but come to the United States, need aid and help for their establishment and recovery. The UJA gives them that aid.
I don't understand what she's saying here. Maybe there's a typo? Or am I missing something?
* * *
This column is very interesting and probably important. It deals with the very controversial subject of Arab refugees.
Roosevelt's stance on the subject is similar to what I've heard from modern Zionists.
The column is in response to an article (or editorial?) that she read in a newspaper.
Roosevelt says:
....the writer, who says she has just returned from several months in the Near East, intimates that the Arabs were driven from their homes. It is odd that she did not happen to find in Israel the many communities in which the Arabs remained and are quite happy living side by side with the Jews and even taking part in the government of the community. This fact makes some of us wonder why the Arab refugees ran away from a "danger" which was certainly no worse than the danger they took themselves into.
It's hard to know if this is true or Israeli propaganda.
I expect that some Arabs were kicked out of their homes. But was it a very large number? Was compensation offered?
Of course, it's sad when anyone is forced to leave their home. But it does happen when the government decides they want to build something, and there's no Woo Young-Woo to help you.
* * *
Roosevelt writes:
There was a time when perhaps the best solution would have been for these people to return to Israel. However, now with the great influx of Jewish immigration from Cyprus and Central Europe the Arabs probably will be better off if the funds already in hand are used to resettle them in some of the other Arab countries where there are vacant lands that need people to work them.
I tend to have the idea that there is so much Arab/Muslim land in the Middle East. There's plenty of places for the Palestinians to go.
I guess it would be like saying to Texans...there are so many southwestern places to go. Just move there instead.
Some people would probably be fine with it.
But others may be very attached to their houses, neighborhoods, etc.
* * *
I wonder how welcoming Arab countries were to Palestinians.
I've heard that many Jews were kicked out of Arab countries as retaliation. If that's very true, that's kind of a dumb move. Because then you have even more Jews coming into Israel to displace Palestinians.
If the Arabs really wanted to support Palestinians who wanted to stay in their old neighborhoods, it seems the better choice would have been to encourage Jews to move other places in the Middle East as well.
I started arguing with myself: Would any Jews have wanted that? Would anyone choose..let's say Lebanon over Israel?
Well...if there was enough of a Jewish community, maybe they could have built a little Israel.
The world is full of various diasporas.
For example, our city has a fair bit of people from the Korean diaspora.
We have a Korean church walking distance from us. We have Korean grocery stores and bakeries.
It's actually why we chose to move here.
* * *
Oh!
So...I just Googled to find information about Jews in Lebanon.
Lord Wiki says that Lebanon was the one country in the Middle East where the Jewish population increased after Israel was born.
But that all soured in the 1950's and onward.
Of course, I added this subject to my list.
Fascinating stuff....
* * *
I missed a day.
We have to go into the armchair (Futon) time machine and travel back to a day earlier.
On April 6, 1949, Roosevelt quotes from an editorial about Israel: Eternal vigilance is the price of peace as it is of liberty.
She responds: ...but it seems to me that it might well be applied to all nations, for we are too apt to believe that peace does not require the same service as war. As a matter of fact, it requires a more constant daily service and the more we are reminded of that fact the better for us all.
Yeah.
I probably agree with that.
Unfortunately.
The world would be a better place if we didn't have to put so much money into the military.
Though if we put more money into foreign aid and domestic aid maybe there'd be less people desiring to cause wars? Or there may be less people supporting the war which would make it harder for a country to start and sustain a war.
I don't know.....
* * *
On June 15, 1949, Roosevelt talks about meeting Franklin Jr. at the airport. He had just returned from a trip abroad which included a visit to Israel. I'm assuming he's her son.
That's all that's mentioned in terms of Israel.
But I like this line later in her column: As usual, poison ivy seems to be one of our main crops, and, instead of the children getting it, Elliott and Faye have been suffering from bad cases! I think it is one of the most uncomfortable ailments in the world and I have yet to discover a good remedy.
We had poison ivy at our old house in Fort Worth. It made me feel a bit like a failed homeowner. I don't mind "weeds". But poison ivy is a different story.
I finally decided to take care of it...without doing proper research first. I ended up getting quite a rash.
* * *
I have no comments or quotes from the July 19, 1949 entry. It sounds like something similar to a model UN project? I didn't find it particularly interesting.
On October 10, 1949, Roosevelt mentions Israel briefly. She had gone to a meeting at the Brooklyn Council of Negro Women. One of the speakers was from the Israel delegation, and she spoke of human rights in Israel. Does that mean she was a representative from Israel? Or was she a representative to the organization to Israel?
I wonder what she thought of the human rights there.
* * *
The organization still exists—NCNW.
One of the things most highlighted on their website is a partnership with the Arbor Foundation. They're planting trees in Mali, Senegal, and Haiti. That sounds like a good program.
* * *
Oye.
I missed a day again.
Get back on the time machine.
October 8, 1949....
Never mind. There's not much to see there.
* * *
On December 31, 1949, Roosevelt writes about New York students learning modern Hebrew in schools.
Today in the high schools and municipal colleges of New York 5,000 students are studying Hebrew. This is of particular interest since the knowledge of a language forms a bridge between two countries. The ability to talk modern Hebrew will mean that many American Jews will be able to give a greater sense of friendliness when they contact Jews of the new nation of Israel who may have come from many other lands, such as Poland, Germany, Czechoslovakia and Russia, but who also speak modern Hebrew in their new nation.
A common language probably is a good way to unite a diaspora.
One of my nieces (the Sunday one) went to a Jewish school and learned Hebrew.
I spent a little time learning the alphabet back when Judaism was my special interest...and I recently did some Hebrew learning on Duolingo. But I should add that I am doing EVERY language on Duolingo. I just finished a little bit of High Valyrian and am now doing a bit of Hawaiian.
Plus, I do daily French.
* * *
Now I'm onto 1950....
I realized, towards the end of 1949, that I can open up a window for all the results at once.
It's hard to explain.
Just trust me. It's much easier to find the dates this way.
I wish I had been smart enough to figure it out sooner. Though...then I would have taken the method for granted.
* * *
There are three columns in 1950 that include the word Israel.
In her January 30 column, Roosevelt talks about going to an ORT luncheon, in Milwaukee, where it was announced that they had $12,800 which was going towards educational purposes in Israel.
My mom was involved with ORT in the 1980's when we lived in Madison, Wisconsin.
It makes me wonder if this is a coincidence. Or is ORT a Wisconsin thing?
Maybe it's everywhere but more popular in Wisconsin.
I Googled and saw that it's not a Wisconsin-only thing or a Wisconsin-dominated thing.
Lord Wiki says it was founded in Russia in 1880, and its headquarters are in London.
The purpose of the organization is to provide education and vocational training..
* * *
On March 3, Roosevelt used the term "Palestine" instead of Israel. I was like...woah. What's going on?
It was in reference to her attending the Jewish Appeal rally thing—the thing that she had regretfully missed the year before.
She writes: I thought it was one of the best meetings I had ever attended. Harry Greenstein and Hon. Henry Morgenthau Jr. had both recently returned from Palestine and their talks were enlightening. The more you listen to people who have been there, the more you realize that it leaves an indelible impression on everyone who goes there.
But later in the column, she writes:
But the speaker who really gave the most interesting speech was Max Lerner. He had gone to England, France, Italy, Germany, Yugoslavia and, finally, Israel, while he was abroad last summer. He told how he went back to Dachau because he felt it was so easy to forget history. There he had felt a kinship to the dead and in Israel a kinship to the living.
So, she hadn't tossed aside the word Israel.
In this column, Roosevelt also had something to say about the treatment of refugees:
The cost of caring for the few people brought to our shores seems to have been fairly heavy, and I cannot help believing that a little more cooperation on the part of every community in which refugees settle could cut down that cost. We are not always as friendly and helpful as we could be to those who come to us, often both unhappy and lost, trying to build a new life in a strange land.
I wish more people shared that opinion.
* * *
On June May 22, Roosevelt writes more about ORT. She says:
In the training installations overseas and in the Americas, where displaced persons and other destitute Jews have been receiving various types of training, this anniversary will also be observed by people who are deeply thankful for the opportunity to become useful citizens.
With all the AI advancements, I think less and less people will be deemed useful.
Well...we might be useful. But we'll probably also be easily replaceable. A lot of us will probably work for our own sake and not for the sake of society.
For example, movie making will probably be: Well, we have a program that can write a screenplay about any subject in any genre. Then this other program will create an animated film using AI clones of any of your favorite actors. Music? The software has you covered. Just put in the mood you're after and what instruments you want.... But you want to do something yourself? That's so cute! And brave!
For awhile, at least the programmers will be useful. I mean they'll be actually needed and not optional. But then we'll probably get to a point where the computers are programming the other computers.
Yeah. I think computers will take over the world.
It's not necessarily a bad thing.
Maybe they'll actually be less shitty than us.
* * *
I should mentioned that I had the Covid and flu vaccine this afternoon.
So what I said above? That might be the nanobots talking through me.
* * *
Now I'm on 1951.
Roosevelt has six columns where she mentions Israel.
On May 18, Roosevelt went to visit H Wilsdorf, a watchmaker. It made me think of the German miniseries Dark.
That was such a good show.
The mention of Israel in this post was: I stopped for a minute at the Israel consulate for the celebration of that nation's third anniversary, then I drove to the other side of the lake to a party given by Mr. and Mrs. Pinkney Tuck in their beautiful house.
I'm wondering if the celebration had good refreshments. I also wonder if the minute she spent there was a good one. I kind of have this picture of it being all awkward. Like when you enter a party and no one seems to notice you're there. But it's probably more stressful for her, because if she's not seen, people may be mad that she wasn't there.
Then again, there were probably a lot of anti-Israel people who would be unhappy that she went to the party at all.
* * *
I started reading the June 6 entry and was thinking...you know Roosevelt was very dedicated to us Jewish people. It seems the Jews and Israel was the cause she was most passionate about.
But then I quickly remembered I'm specifically searching for the columns that mention Israel. If I read others, I'd likely see that the Jews and Israel were one of many causes that she was passionate about.
It's kind of like if someone searched my blog for mention of the TV show Neighbours; then read all those posts and got the idea that Neighbours is my main passion in life.
* * *
I kind of picked the TV show that first popped into my head. But then I was curious and looked through my labels to see which TV show is mentioned the most. It's Neighbours!
That being said, I haven't finished labeling all the posts. I had stopped labeling posts years ago. Then a couple years back, I started going back to label unlabeled posts and to re-label already labeled posts.
* * *
Now I Shall actually read the June 6 column.
Roosevelt had accepted the chairmanship of the United Jewish Appeal for Greater New York and says she wants to explain to her readers why this organization is important to her.
This organization has helped refugees to get to Israel to escape persecution in different parts of the world and has assisted those who were already settled in Israel to develop their country in order that they might carry this burden of refugees until they were assimilated and became a part of the nation. Much has been done, but much still remains to be done.
To me, it sounds like a good plan. Develop a land and get it ready for as many persecuted refugees as possible.
Roosevelt talks about her visit to displacement camps:
To this day I shall never forget the tragedy of some of the Jewish camps—tragedies of age and of youth brought about by Hitler's barbaric racial and religious policies. From that day on I was interested in seeing all of those who wished to go to Israel and live in a nation among their own people not only go but have all assistance possible for their proper establishment there.
And she talks about the Kibbutzes but without using the name.
She says: Occasionally one hears people say that the cooperative land-holding projects in Israel are similar to the Russian rural collectives and that therefore Israel in its economy is closer to the Soviet Union than to the free countries of the world. I think this is a mistaken idea because these colonies are cooperatives run much more on a democratic and socialistic basis than are the Russian communities.
I'd love to have a reasonable discussion with the Republicans in my family about their feelings toward Kibbutzes. We have four very pro-Israel Republicans in our family. At least three of them are also very anti-Communist. I used to believe they were against the authoritarian aspects of communist regimes. But in the past few years, I've gotten the idea that they are fairly okay with authoritarianism but not okay with their money going to taxes to help people in the community.
I'd just be curious to know their feelings about Kibbutzes.
Maybe they'd be okay with them, because it's a community that chooses it rather than the government. I think? I don't know how big of a role the government played in the Kibbutz movement. It's another thing I need to learn.
* * *
I think Roosevelt shows a less lovely side of herself in her June 12 column.
She writes:
I could only emphasize the importance to the whole Near East of resettling the Arab refugees as quickly as possible. Any large group of refugees is a dangerous and unsettling element in any part of the world, and it seems to me that for the sake of peace in this area the United Nations and the individual governments interested should do all they possibly can to bring about a settlement.
If any large group of refugees is dangerous and unsettling, why haven't I seen her say that in reference to Jewish refugees?
Roosevelt says, It is quite evident that power projects should be undertaken with the interests of more than one nation in mind, and it is quite certain that reforestation, irrigation and farming in the desert area would benefit Arab states as well as Israel.
It might have benefitted them. If that's the type of life they wanted.
Living a nomadic life without agriculture probably also has benefits. And it's probably better for our planet.
* * *
I was just thinking that people who are anti-Israel and anti-Zionist would probably read through my posts and think Roosevelt has been showing her not-lovely side pretty much all of the time.
* * *
Roosevelt talks about Israel at the bottom of her June 14 column.
In the questions under dispute between Israel and the Arab states some kind of negotiation must finally come. But it cannot be begun until the Egyptians modify their position, which seems to be that Israel does not exist because they have decided in the Arab states not to recognize its existence.
The fact remains that Israel does exist and that negotiations must go forward to make the best of the situation as it is. For the Arabs as well as for the Jews a peaceful future is essential for the improvement of living conditions in the Near East and for their safety.
It's sad to know that things are pretty bad. Though I think Egypt and other countries now officially agree Israel exists.
I'll look it up....
Lord Wiki has a list of what and when in terms of diplomatic relations with Israel.
In 2020, there was an agreement signed with United Arab Emigrates, Bahrain, and Sudan. I sort of remember that. I think we were expected to give Trump mass amounts of adoration for this.
Whether he deserves the credit or not, it would be nice if a few good things come out of his presidency.
Oh! Morocco too. They had a relationship with Israel. In 2000, they broke up. In 2020, they got back together.
Lord Wiki says Egypt was the first Arab country to recognize Israel. That was in 1979.
The countries that do not recognize Israel are: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Comoros, Digibouti, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon...
All or most of these countries don't accept Israeli passports. Lebanon takes it a step further and won't allow in those who have Israeli stamps on their passport. I'm guessing it goes both ways?
Continuing the list: Libya, Malaysia, Niger, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Mali, Venezuela, Maldives, Mauritania, Cuba, Iran, Tunisia, Qatar....
Qatar is allowing Israelis in for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. That's cool.
And...Oman.
The State of Palestine has recognized Israel since 1993. I was kind of surprised to see that and then I felt stupid for not having that securely stored in my brain.
I do kind of remember some kind of peace deal happening.
Lord Wiki has a picture of Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat, and Yitzhak Rabin. I remember those guys and vaguely remember the sense that there was some hope.
Rabin, though, was assassinated by a Jewish terrorist.
And the last I heard of him was when Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez declined an opportunity to go to some event honoring Rabin.
I was offended; then saw that there were people who see Rabin as a negative figure. I mean these people didn't make me change my mind about Rabin. I didn't really investigate. I just vaguely questioned if there was merit in her not going and then....probably went onto think about something else.
Well...I just looked at an article. Some of it does look familar. So I think I did have a quick look at the anti-Rabin opinions. I think I had felt, that if true, their arguments might have merit. What I did not do is take the time to look at the other side of the argument.
* * *
I think Arafat too had a controversial past and was not embraced by all Jews/Zionists.
* * *
On August 31, Roosevelt writes:
This is much the same stand taken by some of the spokesmen from Egypt who travelled recently in this country. They stated that there was only one basis on which the differences between Arabs and Israelis could be settled and that was the acceptance of the Egyptian position as proposed by them.
She compares the Israel-Egypt situation to what was happening between India and Pakistan.
It goes over my head, and I'm not in the mood to learn more.
* * *
In her December 31, column, Roosevelt makes comparisons between what's happening in the U.S vs. Russia to Israel vs. Arabs.
She talks about how Russia was insisting it wants peace and is only arming to protect itself against the United States. And the United States was pretty much saying the same thing.
She say then: Now, take Israel and the Arab states. The Arabs say that under no circumstances can they have any kind of peaceful commerce with Israel until the refugees driven out of Israel are allowed to return to their homes. The Israelis say that Arabs were induced to flee not by them but by outside influence, that those who stayed behind in Nazareth are still safely participating in the community life but those who fled could not return because their houses are rubble, having been destroyed after they fled.
And she also says, Why should the new state of Israel take people, who would be dangerous citizens, antagonistic to them and their ideas, back into the country.
This sounds reasonable, but the Arabs don't believe the Jews, and the Jews don't believe the Arabs, and no peaceful solution has been found.
I think the Zionist narrative is that Arabs were welcomed to stay. But once they left, they were not welcomed back.
I'm sure anti-Zionists would say all that is a complete lie.
I'm guessing there's a mix of truth and lies.
The narrative I've heard and used to be more open to believing is that Arabs who accepted Israel and chose to become Israeli citizens(instead of Palestinian) are offered a wonderful life where they have full rights.
BUT...like in the United States and many other countries...some citizens tend to be treated like second class citizens.
* * *
As for the distrust that Roosevelt mentions, it's still happening.
Israel should stop bombing Gaza.
Well then, Palestinians should stop throwing rockets.
Sure. But then first, Israel soldiers should stop terrorizing Palestinians, and they should get rid of the Blockades.
Well...we can't get rid of the Blockades, because Palestinians want to kill us.
* * *
Will there ever be trust?
Will there ever be forgiveness?
Will there ever be peace?
It seems unlikely. But who knows what could happen in the far future.
* * *
After most of the world is destroyed by nuclear weapons, maybe Israelis and Palestinians will have friendly relations in the Mad Max setting.
* * *
Moving onto 1952.
I thought I was almost done with this post. But there are a lot of 1952 columns that mention Israel...especially in February.
Before reading the columns, I think I'm going to see if I can find information on some big happening in Israel around that time.
Lord Wiki has a list of events that happened in Israel in 1952. There's nothing for February.
January had some unfortunate violence.
On January 1, seven Palestinians attacked and killed a 19-year-old girl in her home.
On January 6, Israeli's retaliated by blowing up houses in the West Bank. They killed six or seven people, including two kids.
For some reason, Israel seems to think it's a good idea to retaliate with much more force and destruction than was received. An eye for an eye. Nah...Let's go for both eyes, the nose, the mouth, the ears, and also all the eyes, noses, mouths, and ears in the neighborhood.
* * *
Well, when I started reading the first 1952 column mentioning Israel, I quickly realized why.
Roosevelt had gone to visit the Middle East!
In Amman Jordan, she went to visit a very old mosque, a palace, some old shops, and an experimental agricultural area.
Roosevelt writes, They are trying to build one of these stations in the outskirts of every large city so that neighboring farmers may see the value of certain good farming practices, obtain better seed and learn to use modern agricultural machinery methods.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs said to Roosevelt: When you go to Israel they will show you wonderful things, but these will have been done with American money. We are going more slowly, but doing everything ourselves.
I can understand being proud of independence. But it seems a bit harsh to say it about a group of people who had endured a major genocide.
I'm sitting here trying to think of an analogy.
How about a woman visiting one of her two adult grandkids. Alison shows all the planting she has done in her backyard this spring. She says, I know Wendy will show you her beautiful backyard. But just remember that she used Dad's money to buy all the plants and seeds. We did this here with our own money.
What's Alison doesn't acknowledge was that Wendy's family's home was destroyed in a wildfire, and that's why their Dad had given them financial assistance.
It would have also been nice for Alison to acknowledge that, money aside, Wendy, like Alison, has done. a lot of work to get her backyard looking lovely.
Alison sounds a bit petty and braggy to me.
* * *
In the February 18 post, Roosevelt also says:
There is another hospitable Arab custom whereby one never goes in anywhere without being offered a small cup of coffee. It is a nice custom, but when one is moving rapidly from place to place the amount of coffee one has to drink may become formidable. If one does not accept, however, the host's feelings may really be hurt.
That doesn't impress me. It sounds like one of those customs that is supposed to be nice but can often be the opposite.
What if someone doesn't like coffee?
What if someone has a bladder that is sensitive to coffee?
As a picky eater, this kind of thing seems very stressful.
* * *
I'm not trying to pick on the Arabs.
I'm sure there are Jewish customs that would cause me stress too.
I say this like I'm not Jewish and totally clueless about Judaism.
No. It's more like I can't think of any off the top of my head.
Never mind...thought of one.
After someone dies, you're supposed to do something called sitting Shiva. With this, the mourning person is supposed to have seven days of people visiting their home—bringing them food, praying with them, keeping them company.
Yeah.
No thank you.
For an extrovert, that's probably a lovely comfort.
For an autistic introvert...It's like: let's add some extra torture on top of the grief.
* * *
On my dad's third birthday, Roosevelt headed to Jerusalem.
She writes, I tried to forget everything else today except Biblical history because the land we were driving through was so full of the Bible story that even watching the landscape reminded one of it.
In stuff I've read before from Roosevelt and elsewhere and other times in my life, I got this idea that we were supposed to believe that the Arabs were bad at growing things and that they should be thankful for the Israeli's agricultural prowess.
But here, Roosevelt says:
Much rain this year has made grass grow wherever there is any possible chance of its growing, and the Arabs are good gardeners. They terrace even what looks like nothing but rock and something grows; even fruit trees thrive. The almond trees are in bloom and on the hills are countless red poppies.
* * *
Roosevelt went to a memorial service for King George VI in Jerusalem.
I guess this was Elizabeth's father?
Googled.
He died on February 6, 1952. And yeah. He was the Dad of Elizabeth.
The service in Jerusalem took place in an Anglican church.
I wonder if there have been memorial services in various churches around the world for Elizabeth.
* * *
Roosevelt talks about visiting the children at Eddie Cantor Youth Aliya Center.
I Googled.
Eddie Cantor was an American radio/movie star who raised money to help Jewish children come to Israel.
The article I'm looking at, from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, is from 1938. So he did this before the final solution/mass murders got under way.
* * *
On February 20, Roosevelt talks about her day in Tiberiya, Israel.
She saw irrigation work in action.
Reading some if it makes me think I might have been unfair to the Israeli farming narrative. They might. not have been claiming that the Arabs are bad at agriculture but that Israelis take things a bit further by making the desert fertile.
* * *
Roosevelt writes that she found Beersheba to be the most interesting place. They had quite a refugee system going on there.
Sometimes they live in tents, but the sanitary arrangements are made carefully and showers are provided for. After six months or so they have been taught and are capable of building a two-room house, with which they get a small garden plot. Here they live for some time while they continue building the next step, which is a two-story apartment house unit housing 1,000 families.
I think that's pretty impressive. It might be a good model for future families moving to Mars.
It might work on Earth for refugees as well...if there is undeveloped land.
The problem is, a lot of people hate refugees and would probably rather watch them suffer in prison like situations than see them safe, satisfied, and productive.
* * *
Roosevelt's February 21 column is about her visit to Nazareth.
She says, that here, the Arabs surrendered to the Israeli's, and there was no destruction. As far as one can see, all goes peacefully forward in a normal manner.
I think it's good that she subtly recognizes that things aren't always what they seem.
I do hope what she saw mirrored reality, though.
* * *
Adding to the agricultural miracles and taming the land narrative: Here again it was hard to believe that only a few years ago there were undrained swamps. Now the land is all under cultivation and much of it is irrigated. Also Malaria is completely under control.
A part of me is impressed and hopeful when I read stuff like this.
Humans can be amazing with what they manage to overcome and conquer.
Another part of me is weary, believing that human progress has really fucked up our planet.
I think maybe it's due to encountering too many dystopian science fiction/horror stories. Or dystopian stories in general. There's that idea that any seemingly good idea is too good to be true.
Well...if getting rid of or transforming the swamps of Nazareth caused harm, it's slow going. I think? I haven't heard of any stories of doom coming from there.
That being said....I can't say I pay a lot of attention to Nazareth in current events.
* * *
I consulted Lord Wiki about Nazareth...just skimming a bit.
I was mostly looking for mention of swamps. But I saw...well, it seems the peace that Roosevelt thought she might have seen, didn't last.
Also: I learned that Nazareth is predominately Arab; a mix of Muslims and Christians.
* * *
February 22, 1952 was the last day of Roosevelt's time in Israel...well, at least for that trip. She might have returned later.
On this day, Roosevelt writes mostly of shortages in Israel and how there's a lot of rationing.
Three of the things NOT rationed were fish, bread, and oranges. So, they were doing well in those areas.
Examples of things rationed: Eggs (three per week) meat (one small piece per week), and bananas (only children allowed to have them).
Roosevelt also mentions clothes, shoes, and sweets. Though she doesn't specify the allowed amount.
* * *
The February 23 column has Roosevelt in Pakistan.
Note: I'm going to try to zoom through the last six entries, so I can finally finish this post. If there's any tempting rabbit holes, I'll add them to my list of possible future posts.
Roosevelt mentions Israel in passing...just naming it when describing her there to here journey.
And then there's no mention of Israel again until April 9. On that day, Roosevelt mentions the sale of Israeli bonds.
* * *
On June 20 (which would become my wedding anniversary in 47 years), Roosevelt writes:
It is evident to anyone as they look about the world that it is to the advantage of peoples to settle their difficulties. For instance, Israel and the Arab states would be far better off if bitterness and tensions could become a thing of the past and normal cooperation could exist. This same situation holds good of Pakistan and India. The same is true on a far larger scale where the Soviet Union and the United States are concerned.
I'm wondering if the animosity between red and blue America is beginning to match the animosity between Israelis and Palestinians.
And with the Internet giving people the ability to find like-minded and share ideas. Could we get to the point where progressive vs. conservative overrides everything else?
What if at some point, it's not Jews vs. Muslims in Israel but conservatives vs. progressives (regardless of nationality or religion).
* * *
On September 26, Roosevelt mentions going to a Hadassah meeting.
She says some interesting things about gender in politics. I'm not going to talk about it. If you're interested, follow the link.
On October 23, there was some kind of committee organization within the UN.
It goes over my head.
The Israeli delegate became a rapporteur?
Googled.
The rapporteur is the person who records what happens in the meeting.
Now I'm sitting here remembering that I wrote about something I read about from Roosevelt, and I described it as being like a model UN meeting.
What if it was an actual UN meeting??!!!
Sometimes I worry about my brain.
* * *
On November 21, Roosevelt writes about female delegates in a UN meeting—something called Committee three.
I'm guessing she was part of this committee.
Anyway, these countries had women as representatives: The Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, Soviet Union United Kingdom, Byelorussia, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Israel, and Iraq.
I think this is the first time I've heard of Byelorussia. What did that become?
Googled. It became Belarus.
* * *
I've decided to look up the committee thing.
Lord Wiki says there are six committees in the United Nations.
The third deals with humanitarian issues—human rights and other social issues.
The current chairperson of the six committee is Katalin Bogyay from Hungary. Hopefully, she doesn't support Orban.
* * *
Well, I shall end this here. Finally.
I wish I could promise that there'd be only one post left in my Eleanor Roosevelt series. But there may be a lot more to go through in the 1953-1962 years.
It's not that I'm not enjoying my time with Roosevelt. I'm actually pondering adding read-a-column-a-day-from-Roosevelt to my list of daily habits. It's more that I have so many other things I want to research. The list keeps growing. And I'm sure the 1953-1962 entries will add even more ideas for my list.
No comments:
Post a Comment