Eleanor Roosevelt and the Jews (Part 5)

If you want to start at the beginning of this messy project of mine, click here.

If you don't want to start at the beginning: Brief summary:  I'm reading through some of Eleanor Roosevelt's My Day columns to see her views on Jews, the Holocaust, and Israel.  

For this post, I'm going to try to open way too many windows at once.  Because I'm going to look up four words—Palestinian, Shoah, Jew, and Israel...for the years 1953-1962.

 I'm going to try to read the columns in order.

Well, there are no results for Shoah.  So that makes things a little easier for me.

There are a LOT of results for Jew—ten pages worth.

The same for Israel. Yikes.

The results include Palestine when I look for Palestinian.  I'm not sure why.  But I do see a few mentions of Palestinians.

* * *

I'm going to do one year at a time...starting with 1953.

I came up with seventeen columns; a mix of Jew and Israel.  There was no Palestinian.

I was putting the column windows in order and saw I had two May 5's.  I was wondering why and then realized it's because May 5 must have been a result for both Israel and Jew.  After realizing that, it seems strange that more columns don't have both Jew and Israel.

Or it could be some kind of glitch.

Or I'm missing something?

* * *

It's the next day and instead of working on this post as I had planned, I have spent way too much time trying to change the appearance of my blog.

I had thought of changing my theme/layout a few weeks ago and kind of forgot about it. Then I was listening to the Imagineer podcast about Mary Blair.  There was a brief mention of pink and orange as a color scheme, and I suddenly became obsessed: I want to wear pink and orange clothes! I want to redo one of our bathrooms pink and orange!  I want to make my blog pink and orange!

Now....

I don't know if I like it or not.

I didn't like the old layout, because I felt it was hard to find anything.

But I'm worried this new layout is too busy.

I do like the pink and orange, though.  

* * *

Getting back to Roosevelt....

I think I'm going to go through the windows I have open and eliminate posts where Israel or Jewish is mentioned just in passing.

* * *

Yay!  I was able to eliminate a few.  

One I kept, despite Israel or Jew, being mentioned just in passing.  BECAUSE Roosevelt talks about Australia.  

I may not still be obsessed with Australia.

But I'm definitely still interested in Australia.  

Note: When I say mentioned in passing, it usually equals Roosevelt mentioning a Jewish event she went to but she doesn't really say much about the event.  

* * *

I'm considering doing one post for each of the remaining years.

It might be better to have many short Eleanor Roosevelt posts rather than one or two more super long ones.

What I worry about is ending up with nine more posts and each of them super horribly long.

* * *

In her January 15, 1953 column Roosevelt talks about a growing movement against the United Nations.

She writes:

Day after day it is becoming more evident that a well-organized and well-financed campaign against the United Nations is coming to light. It is tied now and then with hatred of the New Deal and my husband and it sometimes appears to be an offshoot of isolationism. But whatever its roots, the results are bad.

The President of the League of Women Voters had given Roosevelt some samples of anti-UN materials.

Roosevelt describes some of the propaganda and says: And when they proceeded to say that this was the day the old Jewish plot to control the world was going to be carried out, I recognized some of the signs of the old pro-Fascist and pro-Nazi literature that I have read before.

Wow.  Roosevelt says some very timely things.

Some of the old people are carrying on in the same name of anti-communism and pro-Americanism the same campaign they waged in favor of fascism. The sad thing is that though they fight communism they play into the hands of the Communists. The Communists want to create suspicion and disunity among the people of the United States, and much of this anti-U.N. literature is designed to do exactly what the Communists want, but under a cloak of saving us from communism and fostering patriotism and religion in this country.

* * *

Roosevelt also writes in the January 15 column, Unless the truth, however, gets out to people, how are they going to know that this nonsense that is handed to them is not based on facts?

It was much harder to get information out to people in those days and probably also much more difficult to see their reactions to it. I wonder if people were as resistant to fact-checking in those days.

For me, it feels naive to imagine someone allowing facts to sway their opinions about things. But I think I felt differently a few years ago.  Back then, I would have expected people to accept the facts and then adjust their opinion—not necessarily switching political parties or other allegiances but making at least some changes to their viewpoint of things.

Roosevelt says,  Unless our vast media for spreading information accepts this responsibility, the people of the country may well wake up to find that they have made decisions on false information. That will be a sad day for all of us.

Sad. Yeah.  But what's worse is watching people not wake up...even when the media is providing the information.

And yes I AM very aware that MAGA people reading this would feel that I was the one not awake.

We're really living in two realities now.  And with the ease of faking things, it's going to get harder and harder to prove our side is the correct one.

* * *

In my temporarily missing (not yet unpacked) novelization of Poltergeist, the tagline on the cover was Some things have to be believed to be seen.  That's a perfect way to describe the situation we are in right now with reality.

I'm not sure if that was also a tagline for the movie?

I think it might be a famous quote that was used for the book.

* * *

According to the Brainy Quote website, it was said by a guy named Ralph Hodgson.

* * *

I hope we still have the Poltergeist book in one of our moving boxes. I'm kind of worried it's been lost.

* * *

On February 9, 1953, Roosevelt writes about a shortage of doctors.  She writes:

 One of the things which has always troubled me greatly is the fact that it is so often impossible to find a place for a boy to study medicine in this country. As you may know, New York City is about to build its first medical school in 54 years; this is one of the three new schools to be projected in the entire country in the last 25 years. The new college of medicine is sponsored by Yeshiva University, and though it is a Jewish university admission is on non-sectarian lines. No one attending is asked his race, color or creed.

Uh...but I guess that they do ask about gender.

I think Roosevelt was pretty forward-thinking when it comes to gender equality.  It makes me wonder if the idea of a woman becoming a doctor in those days was so rare that it was too outlandish for even Roosevelt to seriously consider it.  

* * *

Googled.

The Yale School of Medicine shows that various women-as-doctor milestones had occurred before Roosevelt wrote her column.  

Close to a hundred years prior, Elizabeth Blackwell earned a medical degree.

In 1864, the first Black woman got a medical degree.

The Saturday Evening Post says that in 1950, around the time that Roosevelt wrote her column, six percent of doctors were women.

That's not a huge amount. But I would think it would be enough for Roosevelt to not write about doctors as being a boy thing.

Or maybe in those days, there was an understanding that "boy" didn't necessarily mean only boys?

I'm tempted to go deeper into the rabbit hole about this.  But I'll stay above ground for now.

* * *

I did a bit of Googling about Yeshiva University School.

It's called the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.  

Roosevelt was one of the honorary chairpersons.

* * *

On February 11, 1953, Roosevelt writes about the United Jewish Appeal meeting/event.

Ruth Gruber was the narrator of a dramatic presentation.

I think she's the one who gathered up the refugees for Fort Ontario.

Yeah...just searched my blog for her name.  I wrote about her in part 2 of my series on the Safe Haven documentary.

Anyway....Roosevelt describes the presentation.  They used a map in the background.  Roosevelt said it moved to the area being discussed.  I'm not sure how that worked.  

I'm guessing she meant that, somehow, the area being discussed was highlighted on the map.

The stories shared took place in Japan, Barnard college (New York) Morocco, and Israel.  

I'm wondering if the stories were acted out or described by the actual people who experienced them.  Or did Gruber tell the stories while the areas on the map were (somehow) highlighted?

* * *

On February 14, Roosevelt talks about Russia and Israel.

I see that Russia has broken off relations with Israel. I suppose this should be no surprise, and yet I am sorry to see this nation, which talks so much about wanting peace, encourage war. Quite obviously, this is a play for Arab following and sympathy. Russia feels that if she becomes the enemy of Israel she will automatically garner all the Arab votes to her side. Among the Arabs there are some very astute politicians, but they may think that they will get more out of the U.S., Great Britain and France if they seem to be leaning toward the Soviets.

I wonder if that was the actual intent of Arab countries.

I have no idea.

* * *

I consulted Lord Wiki to get a spoiler/reminder of when Russia and Israel got back together.

He says it was 1991.

BUT he says they didn't break up until 1967.

Maybe the 1953 thing was a false alarm?  

Maybe they didn't break up.  Maybe they were just on a break.

* * *

Also in the February 14 column: Roosevelt talks about fraternity bigotry at William's College in Massachusetts.

Well...wait.

I thought it was a stain on William's College.  But they actually took a stand against bigotry.  Their fraternity lost it's national standing, because they allowed the "wrong" kind of person into a fraternity. Wrong being NOT white, full-blooded Aryans.

Commentary, the right-wing Jewish magazine I wrote about in an earlier post, has an editorial about the fraternity story.  

I'm going to read it, because A) I want to learn more about the incident B) I've been wanting to know more about what goes on in the minds of right-wing Jews.

* * *

I'm now confused about whether this is a recent editorial talking about the past or if it's actually from their long-long-ago archives.

James Rorty writes, According to a 1949 Roper survey, 60 per cent of all American students are opposed to any group rejection by fraternities.

I would think if it was more recent, he'd use past tense.

* * *

I just looked closer.

The page is labeled as 1956.

So...it's old.

Also, I Googled James Rorty.  Lord Wiki says he was a radical.  And he was against McCarthyism.  So he was a left-wing radical.

I guess this was before Commentary turned right-wing.

So much for getting a right-wing opinion.

But I'll still read it, so I can learn about the fraternity drama.

* * *

I love this from Rorty's editorial: A sorority with a Greek letter name at the University of Missouri excluded students who looked and were Greek.

Some of Rorty's editorial goes over my head...mostly because I'm reading quickly and trying not to fall into rabbit holes.  But the general idea I'm getting is that young college students were open to being more inclusive, but the older alumni had opposing feelings about that.

Now I'm slowing down my reading a bit, because Rory talks about the origins of the KKK.

He says it started in the 1860's by some Confederate officers who were also fraternity men.  The organization was originally called Kuklos for the Greek word for circle.  They later added Klan to the name, and it became the Ku Klux Klan.

Rorty writes: The Ku Klux creed of white supremacy, nourished by the “Aryanism” of Gobineau, Madison Grant, and other racist ideologues, left a significant residue in the rituals of some of the college fraternities; witness the constitution of Phi Delta Theta, written in 1912, which provides that “only white persons of full Aryan blood, not less than sixteen years of age, should be eligible.

So...did the term Aryan come from the United States and not Germany?

Rorty says that by 1928, more than half of fraternities and sororities had membership rules regarding race and religion.

* * *

Lord Wiki is telling me that the history of the term Aryan is quite long and complicated.  But no.  It didn't start with Hitler.  Nor did it begin with the KKK in the United States.

I'll add it to my topic list.

* * * 

In her March 14, 1943 column, Roosevelt says she went to a press conference and meeting regarding the Israel Bond Organization.  She says, At the press conference I met Dr. Frank Kingdom, who was to share the platform with Dr. Dov Joseph and myself. Dr. Joseph is Minister of the State of Israel. He made a most interesting speech on the development of Israel.

She doesn't say what he said in his speech.  So I guess...I'll move on.  I could have probably included that in the skip-this-column group.  

Then again...it's not Jewish or Israel related, but there's this:

I had a good example the other day while talking to a gentleman of how inaccurate our memories are. He told me that while he distinctly held the impression that these two Senators had made unfounded attacks on various Americans he could not remember specific things that had been said by them.

That is a natural characteristic of ours as a nation. We get impressions and then promptly forget how we attained them. But I find one of the best ways to refresh one's memory is to keep a file of the Congressional Record and refer to it now and then. One can always find the Senators' original statements and then frequently the modification of those statements.

That reminds me of me with my family.  I used to have to rely on memory and gut feelings when it came to drama, trauma, disagreements, etc.  But now very often, I can just search through texts and find evidence to back things up.  Though I've learned this evidence doesn't help me win arguments.  The audacity of one text made me so angry that I sent a screenshot of it multiple times.  I SO wanted the writer of the text to say something like, Oh wow. Did I say that?  I was wrong. I'm so sorry.

I didn't get the reaction I wanted.

But I like having the validation for myself.

* * *

The one downside of keeping records and relying on records is when there are no records, it becomes hard to believe my own memory.

There are two solutions to this:

A) trust my past self.  If it's a new memory that pops out of nowhere, it's probably a good idea to be skeptical.  But if it's a past memory that's been passed consistently forward by all my various subsequent past selves, I should trust all those past selves even if my current self is dissociated from the memory. 

B) Write as much down as possible.

* * *

In her March 23 column, Roosevelt talks about an antisemitic pamphlet she read.

It is a two-page pamphlet issued by an organization called The Christian Nationalist Crusade, with a post-office address in St. Louis, Missouri. The pamphlet rehashes an old anti-Semitic story published by some groups a number of years ago who wanted to whitewash Hitler and Fascism and to make people believe that the Jews were plotting secretly to control the world. The story was proved at the time to be completely untrue, but apparently this group is sure that people can be fooled again.

And the attempts continue.

The Roosevelts were given roles in this exciting storyline.

The pamphlet has an additional touch in the form of a map of Mexico purporting to show the location of a "super-palatial hideout" that was supposed to have been built for my husband. The map, they say, was published originally in a California newspaper in 1951, along with a story about this "secret hideout.

What is a super palatial hideout?

Googling....

The dictionary on Google says palatial is: resembling a palace in being spacious and splendid.

That sounds nice.

Later in the column, Roosevelt says: But this type of lie is always written on the supposition that no one is going to try to run down the truth. 

Now the lies can be told knowing that even when someone tries to bring the truth, people are going to refuse to listen.

Again: Some things have to be believed to be seen.

What is fact-checking to some of us is left-wing propaganda porn to others of us. .

* * *

Roosevelt writes about Israel's fifth anniversary in her April 24, column.

I just Googled and saw Israel's birthday is April 25.  

So I guess they celebrated a bit earlier.

As a Jew, I should know Israel's birthday.  It's just that controlling the world takes up a LOT of brain space. For instance, we need to memorize all the secret codes that gets us into the various underground palaces around the world.  

And also the one on the moon.

Anyway....

Roosevelt says this nice thing about Israel.  

The people of Israel and their friends can reap great satisfaction from the development going on in their country and from the spirit with which these people face their many problems and hardships. They are not at war and yet along their borders there is constant war activity. There is no friendly spirit surrounding them, so they must be constantly watchful. Yet, the country grows economically and spiritually.

If they become less watchful, will there be more friendliness surrounding them?

Will there be more friendliness surrounding them if they became less watchful?

* * *

Roosevelt's May 5 column is mostly about Russia and Jews stuck in the Soviet Union. 

She writes: 

 At the moment the most urgent concern is for the safety of the 2,500,000 Jews behind the Iron Curtain. The fund is helping escapees from Eastern Europe, giving them relief and resettling them in democratic societies, principally in Israel.

And....

The Soviets strongly condemned Hitler for his anti-Jewish actions but now, at least up until very recently, they seem to have been following a similar policy. Since the changed attitude on the Soviet doctors was announced, however, there is hope of a changed policy not only in the Soviets, but in the satellite countries.

I think condemning antisemitism is sometimes less about defending Jews and more an excuse to attack the opposing political group.  

Someone said it well on Twitter the other day.  

Well...I tried to find the Tweet and haven't had any luck.

But I've found many others along the same vein.

For example, Allison Josephs Tweets: 

Antisemitism comes from every group but if you only call it out when it aligns with your politics, you’re not actually a Jewish ally you’re a supporter of your own political party.

Joel M Petlin Tweets:

The silence to Antisemitism really is loud. But part of that silence comes from those who only criticize it when it comes from their political adversaries.The real challenge is for people to call out Antisemitism when it comes from the members of  their own political team.

Julia Jassey Tweets:

It’s so apparent how political antisemitism has become. The right attacks antisemitism on the left and defends it in their own backyard. The left does the same. I’ll be the first to call out antisemitism among my political “friends”—if you don’t, you’re keeping bad company.

Ariella Kimmel Tweets: T

The problem is so often when people do speak up on antisemitism it’s only to “own” the opposing political view, rather than calling it out wherever it festers

And if we want an example of all the above,  Mehdi Hesan Tweets: 

Here’s a thought: neither the political party nor the TV network that excused or ignored Trump’s antisemitism, Greene’s antisemitism, Gosar’s antisemitism, and now Kanye West’s antisemitism should probably never be taken seriously again on the issue of antisemitism.

Somewhere in history, Hesan might have spoken up against antisemitism on the left.  But when I did a search, I didn't see anything of the sort in the top results.

* * *

It's the next day.

I spent a lot of the afternoon watching the January 6 hearings.

Knowing that I have family members who still ride the Trump train...

It makes me want to scream.

* * *

In her May 7, 1953 column, Roosevelt complains about the lumping together of the "Jewish Gestapo" "New Dealers", and Communists.  She encountered a propaganda postcard from a Christian nationalist organization.  

She says:  That first sentence reveals a dishonest effort to make it appear (1) that there are Jewish Gestapo organizations, which is, of course, untrue. The Jews were the victims of Hitler's Gestapo. They have no such organizations of their own (2) By tying these three groups together, they try to make it appear that New Dealers and Jewish organizations are tantamount to Communists. This also is entirely untrue. Accomplishments made under the New Deal were not communistic. They met the needs of the people, which had been allowed to become desperate under the previous Administration. But they were not Communistic.

It's sad that the Republican party is still playing this exact same game of trying to tie Democrats to Communism. 

Yes. Some Democrats are Communists. I think it's a pretty small number.

But if you believe that anything outside of 100% support of pure capitalism = communism.  Then yeah...pretty much all of us are communists.  

* * *

The postcard said that there's a campaign to replace Christian tradition with Jewish tradition.

Jews will not replace us!!!!!

The times really haven't changed much, have they?

Reading all this...I feel like we're redoing the 1950's but with the Internet.

* * *

Roosevelt says interesting things about interracial marriage.  I don't really understand it fully.

There is no moral law which forbids intermarriage between different races. It is custom and habit, and where people wish to break these rules it is their right to do so, even though they may suffer as a result of the fact that many of us are governed by the customs and habits and conventionalities under which we live. To make it appear, however, that this is a moral code which should not be broken is, I think, un-Christian.

I guess what she's saying is it's not morally wrong to marry someone of another race but those who do so might face challenges, because of the culture we live in.

When did the Supreme Court legalize intermarriage?  I know it's Loving vs...something.

I'm guessing in some states, it was probably already legal.

I wonder if Roosevelt knew personally of any interracial marriages.

* * *

Googled.

Loving vs. Virginia was in 1967.

Lord Wiki says that in 1958, a Gallop Poll showed that 94% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage.  Wow.

Did that include Roosevelt?

I have a feeling she'd be okay with it but that her convictions wouldn't be strong enough to speak in defense of it.

I mean she kind of did defend it but in a weak-hearted kind of way.   

* * *

I'm not sure if Roosevelt has anything substantial to say about Jews in her May 13 column.  I kept that window open, though, because she talks about Australia.

Speaking of Australia, I listened to the Australiana podcast about the opening ceremonies of the 2000 Olympics.  It was fascinating. It also gave me an extra dose of self-doubt, because they mentioned celebrities I hadn't heard of before.

 I also feel like a failure for never writing about the Olympics.  

I'm sure if I searched my blog, I'd find mention of it.  But I never did any serious research on it.  

With both my Australian podcasts, there is way too much that is new and unfamiliar to me.

Is is because Australia is so vast and impossible to know everything?  Or did I do a shitty job with having a special interest in Australia?

* * *

Getting back to Roosevelt....

She writes: 

During World War II and immediately after some of our servicemen were married to Australian girls and others who served there saw possibilities which they thought promised a better and easier future. So, they settled in the land called Down Under and, of course, their status today is interesting to read about, as I have just done. I think we are sufficiently like the Australians so that we get on well with them and living there should not be very difficult for our young people.

WHICH Australians are we like?

It's hard for me not to get racist undertones with that. 

Am I being unfair?

Overly woke?

I guess I'm just thinking...wondering...In comparison, what countries would be difficult for young Americans to live in?

For me, as a white, Jewish-American it would be easier to live in Australia than let's say...Korea.  Because I speak English well.  

But for a Korean-American who speaks fluent Korean and understands Korean culture, moving to Korea would probably be no more difficult than moving to Australia.

* * *

Roosevelt writes, Fortunately, Australia is a country that needs settlers. 

I'm sure that's exactly what Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islander people were sitting there thinking. We need MORE white people.

But even for some white people, the we-need-more-settlers story is quite horrible.  When was that whole thing with British children being kidnapped for a happy, lovely life in Australia?

Note: Happy, lovely life = abuse and exploitation.

* * *

Googled.

The Australian Government admits that between 1927-1967, 150,000 British kiddos between the years of 9 months and 8 years were shipped to Canada, Rhodesia, Australia, and New Zealand to pump up the white population.

EVERYBODY is a victim of white supremacy.  Even white people. Even white cisgender straight men.  It's a really shitty thing.

(of course, there's not equality in terms of who is most victimized by white supremacy).

* * *

The Jewish part of Roosevelt's May 13 column is she forgo attending a United Jewish Appeal event, because she was very busy doing last minute things for her upcoming trip to Japan and Europe.

I feel like this should be used as an inspirational example for the whole push to have courage in declining invitations.

I see this push a lot on Instagram....probably because of who I follow.

Really, they need to have an alternate campaign that teaches people to graciously accept the declines.  That way we might have less people sending out messages like, We HAVE to make the effort to get together for holidays.  

* * *

If the United Jewish Appeal was anything like my family, the whole organization would probably shut down with blame going at least partly to Roosevelt. Because...she only made cameo appearances.  

* * *

If anyone wants to accuse Roosevelt's declining on antisemitism or apathy towards the Jews...this is also in the May 13 entry:

I was very much touched the other day to be invited to the coronation by Queen Elizabeth, and I was very sorry that, because of my commitments in Japan, it wasn't possible for me to accept.

* * *

On July 24, 1953, journeyed to King's Landing.

Roosevelt writes:  Our guide pointed out to us the windows of an old Jewish temple and told us that only seven out of the 140 Jews who had been in the city when the Germans took over, had survived but they had saved their records, which was the story time after time in these persecutions.

I wonder what the Jewish population is there now.

* * *

Lord Wiki says the Jewish population, in Dubrovnik, BEFORE the Holocaust was only 250.

Now there's around 30.

* * *

Roosevelt's September 15, column deals with communism.

A man named Joseph Kornfeder claimed to be a former member of the Communist Carty and testified that there were six-hundred Protestant clergy who were part of the Communist Party.  

Roosevelt says, It seems to me that the evidence given at times is not always convincing, even though we are expected always to believe that anything said by an ex-Communist must, of course, be true.

I would want proof that Kornfeder was truly communist. I mean it might not prove what he was saying was true. But I think it would be a good place to start.

I think the Jan 6 hearings would be much less compelling if people only claimed to work for the Trump administration.

* * *

Roosevelt says that something used as evidence against the Protestant clergyman is that they signed a petition against the execution of the Rosenbergs.

Roosevelt says,  I happen to feel that the trial had been fair and since we had capital punishment in this country there was no other sentence that could be imposed. I do not believe in capital punishment, however, and hope we will do away with it.

I think that's called...I'm going to try hard to stay on the fence about this.  I can't blame her since being against the execution of the Rosenberg's might earn her the reputation of being a communist.

Roosevelt explains herself further, Many of those who signed that petition, I am sure, did so because they were opposed on principle to capital punishment and the question of the guilt of the condemned was secondary, particularly as in peace time it is rare to give such a penalty even for such a serious offense.

That makes sense.  It might not sitting on the fence.  I guess it's more like I agree the crime was bad enough to receive the harshest punishment.  But I don't particularly support the harshest punishment.

Being against a certain type of punishment doesn't mean we necessarily support the crime or believe the culprit is innocent.

* * *

I was trying to find the word "Jewish" or "Israel" in the column; then remembered Roosevelt notes that there were also Catholic and Jewish clergy being accused.

* * *

The last entry in 1953 mentioning Israel or Jewish is October 19.

Roosevelt talks about the Internationalization of Jerusalem.

I actually hadn't heard of the concept until reading her columns. Or I heard and forgot I heard.

In this column, she says: 

I find there is considerable desire on the part of certain religious groups to push the internationalization of Jerusalem. I have no idea whether this is a wise move or not. Yet something, I am sure, must be done before long to make it possible for both the Arabs and the Jews to cross the lines in Jerusalem without question. When I was there, the university and the hospital on the Arab side were not in use because the Jewish people were forbidden to cross into the Arab part of Jerusalem and the Arabs could not cross into the Jewish part. It is obvious that the sooner the change is made which allows people to move freely from place to place, the better will it be and the sooner will the tension in Jerusalem be eased.

I'm ashamed to say, I don't know how Jerusalem is handled these days.  The only thing I really know is that Trump moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  Or he tried.

I did watch a great TV show about people living in Jerusalem.  It's like a Jewish version of Friends.

I have to Google for the name...

Srugim.  That's it.

Anyway, the show was great, but it didn't help me learn the political boundaries of Jerusalem.

* * *

I'm reading parts of an NPR article about Jerusalem.

Or maybe I should go ahead and read the whole thing.

I was looking for a quick answer.  But I should probably take the time to learn it all a bit carefully.

The article was written in response to Trump moving the embassy.

Even though the embassy was moved, the practice of putting Jerusalem on the US passports of people born there (vs a country) still remains.  

NPR says the Western part of Jerusalem is seen as belonging to the Jews.  The Eastern part has important Jewish, Christian, and Islamic holy sites. Israel captured it in 1967 and have been increasing their population there.  This is one of the places that's considered occupied territory.

Before 1948-1949, the Jews and Arabs were kind of mixed together in the city.

After a war, fences were put up.

The Jews went west and the Arabs went east.

Arabs had to abandon their homes. Jews the same. 

Interestingly, the article uses the term abandoned and fled to refer to the Palestinian's situation and expelled when referring to the Jewish situation.

Is that an accurate assessment?

If this came from a more right-leaning source, I would expect a bias.  But NPR is left-leaning, and I feel left-leaning sources tend to have more sympathy with Palestinians.

Oh!  I should mention that Jews were barred from the Western Wall which is the most holy site for Jews.  It would be like banning Muslims from Mecca.

* * *

In 1967, there was another war.

Israel captured eastern Jerusalem and refused to give it back.

The article says, But in the eyes of the U.N. and nearly all governments, it's seen as occupied territory.

However, the embassy is NOT in the area considered to be occupied.

But there is fighting over Jewish people moving into areas that are predominantly Arab.  These Jews are being labeled as settlers. But Israel disagrees, because they don't consider the area occupied.

The Palestinians think Israel is doing this as a land grab kind of thing.  I guess the idea is to have as many Israeli's in these areas as possible.  Then if there is ever a 2 state solution, Israeli's can try to claim there is more of them there, so the land should go to them.

OR something like that?

* * *

I need to learn more about the concept of Israel as occupiers.  If when people are saying that, they're referring to the land obtained in 1967, I think it's fair.  I don't necessarily agree with it.  I need to learn more about the war.  But I think it's fair to see a piece of land, obtained in a war, to be contested.   

If people are referring to all of Israel as being occupied; then I think that's antisemitism.  

And I see "Free Palestine!" a lot.  What does that refer to?  Is it the areas that the UN had originally labeled as being for the Arabs?  Is it freeing Palestinians from having to go through arduous checkpoints?  Or are they saying they want Israel to disappear completely?

It probably varies person to person.  

For those who use such a statement as their response in discussions of antisemitism, it's probably more likely the latter.   And...it might also be a bot sometimes.  

Read my novel: The Dead are Online