Jump to content

Talk:Nahum Goldmann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Problematic passages

[edit]

I've done what I can to clean this up. Here are what I'm aware of as outstanding:

  1. All there is on the WWII period is one anecdote.
  2. "Attempts to contact Palestine Liberation Organisation leader Yasser Arafat in 1974 were even seen as high treason." Probably so, but seen by whom? Without agency, this passive-voice statement is a bit vacuous.
  3. "Goldmann thought this behavior to be foolish." What behavior? The accusation of high treason, or something else? And what evidence is there in this case for what he thought?
  4. Also, someone has noted in a comment that the sentence "Goldmann's vision was to make Israel the spiritual and moral center for all Jews, but a neutral state," is unclear about "neutral" with respect to what. The Cold War? (Maybe.) Sectarianism? (Unlikely.)

Can anyone clarify, preferably with clear citations? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

First, I'm glad that others with more knowledge have got involved; I was unsure about a number of the names of organisations, in particular. Jmabel's questions all bothered me too. Secondly, as regards the dates, though, I've checked this at the MoS talk page, and it's been agreed so far that my approach is consistent with the MoS. I prefer it, especially in longer articles like this one, because it keeps the summary simple and uncluttered, with the detail in the article. Thus the summary does summarise what's to come. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, you changed one sentence to read "advocating a position that the only chance of long-term survival for Israel was to accept the rights of the Palestinians as a people" This is still unclear - what "rights as a people" does it refer to? Also, I echo your concern about Goldmann's vision of Israel as a "neutral" country - in what sense? Jayjg (talk) 13:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Presumably the right of a people to self-determination (BTW, as of this writing our article on the topic is anemic). (I'm not aware of other rights generally considered to be inherently those of "a people".) This now generally accepted concept in international law was a major justification for de-colonization. I don't have a great citation for it, but if you search on right + people + self-determination you'll find plenty of half-decent ones (and some silliness from Northern Italy, etc.). Note that this right does not necessarily mean statehood. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that is a "right" under international law; it doesn't seem to be one that the Kurds or Tibetans can take advantage of. More problematically, you have presumed that this is what the sentence meant; however, more importantly, is this what Goldmann advocated? If we can't prove that he did, I don't think that the sentence should stay. Jayjg (talk) 14:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, rights of peoples are a very difficult thing to enforce, but it is exactly on this generally recognized principle that the Kurds and Tibetans base their claims against the powers that currently dominate their respective regions; if you really doubt that this is a principle under international law(and has been recognized as such roughly since the Treaty of Versailles), I'll do the research. The German-language article, which lists three references but lacks specific citations, says "das historische Recht der Palästinenser zu akzeptieren". I cannot imagine what, other than self-determination, "historische Recht" could possibly mean; in English, "the historic right of the Palestinians" is just flabby writing, so I wrote this more specific phrase. I'm not expert on Goldmann, but I believe it fits in with what I know about him (noting again, though, the ambiguity built into the notion of self-determination: it has been very differently interpreted at different times in different places). If you are looking for a specific citation for this sentence, I suggest you ask the author of the relevant sentence in the German Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
My main point is that this seems to be a POV interpretation of his views, rather than an actual elucidation of them; the rest, while interesting, isn't particularly relevant to this article. I don't think the sentence should remain as is. Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jay, I'm not sure which you are objecting to: the original German statement or my extrapolation? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:12, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Both. It seems problematic either way; the original is unclear, and looks like editorializing on the part of the author, and the extrapolation is speculation. Jayjg (talk) 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to delete here, pending citation. I'll ask in the German Wikipedia and see if we can get this clearer. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:54, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's rather vague, to speak of "the historic right of the Palestinians". Of course the historic right of self-determination was meant. This includes of course the right to live, the right of physical intact, the right of their own soil and protection of their own civilization and language, I suppose. I am not expert in Goldmann, therefore its interpretation, but somebody, who originally supported a common jewish-arab state and gets in contact with Yasser Arafat, looks upon the denial of dialogue between the Israeli government and the PLO and the continuation of ocupation for generations as injustice, which feeds antisemitism. As far as I remember correct, Yasser Arafat changed his stand of view to hatred against Israeli which may be influenced by the Israeli attitude. As far as German Neonazis tend to give reasons for their antisemitism, hatred and ressentments they refer to the Israeli ocupation. So I share Goldmanns point of view as far as I read about. Self-determination wasn't only a question of the Kurds and Tibetans, but refers also to the German unification 1990. de:Benutzer:Rosa Lux|Diskussion

(weird sig there; presumably reachable at de:Benutzer Diskussion:Rosa Lux.)

In short, Rosa Lux interprets this the same way I did, but also lacks a clear citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Well, does anyone know exactly what Goldmann's view on this was? Jayjg (talk) 19:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Human rights....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation details

[edit]
  • Article: de:Nahum Goldmann
  • Corresponding English-language article: Nahum Goldmann
  • Worth doing because: new information
  • Originally Requested by:--210.128.247.147 04:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Status: translation in progress ... --Cain 12:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Complete - Cain 10:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Other notes:

In the long quotation, what do the brackets indicate? Editorial elucidations? If so, they needn't be part of the translation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

  • Precisely, editorial elucidations. Especially necessary in a context with two "Samuels" involved in the anecdote. -- Jmabel | Talk July 9, 2005 04:40 (UTC)

Who's the other Samuel? There are two mentions of Samuel Rosenman; am I missing another one? I've tried to tidy it again; is that better? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 9 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

  • Sorry, in Wise's case it's a middle name... -- Jmabel | Talk 23:16, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ah — I knew that there must be some reason for the misunderstanding. I was tending to read the article text and then make the edits; if I'd been editing wholly in the edit box (as I usually do, actually), I'd probably have been affected by the second appearance of "Samuel" in the WIkilink. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversies"

[edit]

I have removed a section called "Controversies". It was mostly uncited (or very vaguely cited: e.g. a newspaper and year are mentioned, with no more specific citation) and reads like some kind of conspiracy theory about the Holocaust, vaguely implying that it was a lie planted in advance by Jews. I'm not saying that I am certain that no form of this material belongs in the article - hence the note here - but certainly as it stood it was written was a liability. - Jmabel | Talk 00:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley the original text far too skeletal, but in fleshening it out, one has to be careful about creating a sequential narrative. We have here a Weiss popping up (unidentified, Stephen Wise?) and Rosenblatt. Any such stuff has to be linked to Goldmann's outlook and activities. I know this is very difficult to organize and needs time, because the choices up to the Zionists were exstremely hard, and involved intricate negotiations that can't be followed in any detail, though the Biltmore conference is crucial (Goldmann later backed down from part of its maximalist position). One pressing for quiet diplomacy (fearing antisemitism if protest assumed too high a public profile in the USA, and thus wrecking political will to act any way, esp. with regard to Palestine), others for public activism (a replay of the same crisis that occurred when calls went up for an economic boycott of Germany in 1933-4, causing a split once more.Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Weiss, trying to put the Goldmann reaction to rise of Nazism and the likely consequences into context...as you say the reactions and policies of the various organisations was at times conflicting ans poorly focused...The Biltmore was to create cohesion... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to Judge Bernard ;

Thirty Years of American Zionism By Louis Lipsky Published by Ayer Publishing, 1977 first published in 1927 ISBN 0405102631
quite an interesting little book covering those Ottoman to Mandate years. Bernard ZOA Hon Sec.from 1906/1907 always in the front row of supporting Characters....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZIONIST OUTBREAKS DUE TO LANGUAGE; Dr. Nathan and Others Trying to Force German on Community, Says B.A. Rosenblatt January 19, 1914,[1]...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOS.Date should be 1941, not 1914. (b)What's Paul Nathan got to do with Goldmann? Sorry if I'm being stupid. Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Adjusted Weiss to Wise. On this period, there are numerous books. Brenner's my usual starting point for general orientation, but Alvin Hirsch Rosenfeld, Thinking about the Holocaust, 1997 pp.87ff., for example.Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC) The date was 1914.....The piece was about Judge Bernard Hon Sec ZOA..he should have an article....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley, don't do this again. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1001 is crud....who ever did the fact check on it needs their brain tested....Political slanting is not the problem with it but the veracity of some points that it states as facts...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you mis-read my comment. I'll assist you by repeating it: Don't do this again. Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't misread..1001 is crud the purported facts are not all correct some are verifiable incorrect...therefore the fact checker should be sacked....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Astonishingly, you still don't seem to understand my comment. I don't care what your opinion of the source is, don't deface Wikipedia articles with petty juvenile insults, and don't bother trying to justify your indefensible edit again. Jayjg (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdote

[edit]

The footnote is to Gruse's text, but he translates it differently. What is the proper procedure for wiki translations? In any case, this one has to be adjusted silightly. cf .'Der Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten empfängt Verhaltensmaßregeln von den drei Weisen von Zion.'Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'The President of the United States receives rules on how to behave from the Three Wise Men of Zion' (lit.behavioural rules). The text we have has 'advice'. Perhaps a native speaker should review it Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

told what to do....as you would a child....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate statements

[edit]

"By 1939, neither Stephen Wise nor any other Jewish or Zionist leader had mounted a campaign against the American quota system that denied European Jewry admission into the USA." Simply false. Nazism, the Jews, and American Zionism, 1933-1948 by Aaron Berman, already given as a reference, for that section clearly says: (pages 22, 32-33)

Roosevelt, however, soon [sometime afer March 1933] had to confront the German Jewish dilemma, as American Jews, including leading Zionists, took advantage of their official positions and prominence to intercede with the administration on the refugees' behalf. Louis Brandeis, Stephen Wise, the directors of Hadassah, and other American Zionists believed that the United States had a moral responsibility to provide a haven for at least some of the German Jewish refugees.
Several months after Paul von Hindenburg named Hitler as chancellor of Germany Stephen Wise pressed Secretary of state Cordell Hull to support an executive order that would allow refugees from nazi persecution to enter the United states. Wise was shocked to find Hull “weirdly uninformed” about the Jewish crisis in Germany. In April 1933, Felix Frankfurter, a professor at Harvard Law School an done of the most respected Zionists, suggested to President Roosevelt that a larger number of German refugees be allowed to enter the United States. Hull, responding for Roosevelt, assured Frankfurter that Germans applying for entry into the United States were experiencing no delay in receiving visas as a result of immigration quotas. Unsatisfied with this response, Frankfurt arranged a meeting between Hull and Louis Brandeis. Brandeis told Hull that he was "more [pg 22] ashamed of my country than pained by Jewish suffering." He did not want the United States to do away with quotas altogether but he did argue that Washington could reasonably be expected to relax its policy of restricting immigration.
Hull agreed to discuss the matter with Roosevelt, and eventually some executive action was taken to streamline the tortuous visa application process. In 1933, only 5 percent of the German quota was filled. Over the next two years the number of Germans entering the United States increase fourfold, and by 1937, 42 percent of the available visas for German nationals were used. After Hitler's annexation of Austria in March 1938, the refugee crisis intensified as Austrian Jewry joined the visa line, and finally in 1939, State Department officials issued all of the visas available under the combined German-Austrian quota.
Brandeis's actions were not solely responsible for the very slow but steady liberalization of American immigration policy. Many American Jewish organisations and leaders made their requests and feelings know to the Roosevelt Administration.

This simply does not support that sentence. It is misleading and should be rewritten or scrapped altogether. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is misleading, but not for the reasons you cite, which deal with several private encounters over the decade. For the sentence talks about public (as opposed to private negotiations). America was strongly isolationist and there was a good deal of anti-semitism there, as Jewish leaders knew. Suffice it to recall the very influential radio broadcasts of Father Couglin and others.

Zionists like American Jewish Congress president Stephen Wise – advocates of public protest against Nazi atrocities rather than the quiet diplomacy embraced by the JDC and the American Jewish Committee – thought it best not to criticize the rigid US quotas, or the White Paper, in light of the piublicly isolationist mood that guided Washington,'Monty Noam Penkower, Decision on Palestine Deferred: America, Britain and Wartime Diplomacy, 1939-1945,Routledge, 2002, p.20

The problematical phrasing lies in the 'the American quota system that denied European Jewry admission into the USA', for the fact is that most of the 150,000 refugees who got into the USA through the thirties, down to Dec 7, 1941 were Jewish.
The page is not owned by anyone. Feel as free as the rest of us to work on it. Ashley and I were just disgruntled at its poor state, and chipped it to get things moving towards the improvement it requires.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.It's quite late here, I've only glanced at your otherwise informative edit, and haven't time to check it, but there is something wrong there. It mentions a 'Reisebrief aus Palestina (Travel Letters from Palestine)'. Reisebrief is singular in German, whereas 'Travel Letters' is plural. So the text referred to must either be Reisebriefe (Travel Letters) or, if in the singular, the English must be 'Travel Letter'. Perhaps you could check this. Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't cite my reasons. But you are correct that the American quota system did not deny European Jews admission, (though they were hardly generous in their numbers) and that was part of the problem with the original edit. The other reason was that it is mistaken to say that "[no] Jewish or Zionist leader had mounted a campaign against the American quota system" as I have shown. It is quite true that America was strongly isolationist, to the point that they were unwilling to help England fight the Germans, even when Germany was bombing civilian centers such as Coventry and London and clearly winning. And yes, there was antisemitism in the US then as there is now. Ditto for everywhere else. But it was not such a great problem that it was at the root of maintaining the quotas. The quotas were an issue due to the isolationism, not antisemitism. Re the ps -- I have corrected the plural using a source (a bookseller) whose name I've added in the summary. The original reference was the source the error. I took out the offending sentence mentioned above, as well as the following one, which was not about Goldmann at all, but about a fellow Zionist, Bernard Rosenblatt, and it is not clear what he or his opinions have to do with Goldmann. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you underestimate Amerrican anti-semitism, even a racist tradition with regard to immigration, which in the case of legislative measures against orientals (Japanese and Chinese) was particularly strong in the early 1900s, and after WW1, anjd extended to Jews. Much of the delicate back-doors diplomacy of the Zionist movement in America stemmed from an awareness of the dangers of a public campaign, I should bold campaign as well. There were legitimate grounds for fearing a backlash, and the policy adopted was quiet diplomacy. That is why there was also a great rift with Hillel Kook (Peter Berman) It was the presence of antisemitism that militated against a public campaign, so those words are quite in order. This is attested all over the place, from the correspondence of the time, Brandeis, Frankfurter, Weismann et al., to the way the St. Louis incident was handled. I'll look at the other edit more closely, and do some work on Goldmann's background when I have time.Nishidani (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is neither misleading nor inaccurate ..the quota system had been identified as a "bottle neck" point seen in 1933...and no assault on that point was made...no campaign no concerted effort....the quota hadn't even been filled.......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some bloke named Rosenblat....Try looking up who Rosenblat was....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Now try looking up the correct pages as stated in the ref...pages 31-33...not the pages you claimed 22 and 23....[reply]

as per:-

By 1939, neither Stephen Wise nor any other Jewish or Zionist leader had mounted a campaign against the American quota system that denied European Jewry admission into the USA. The efforts had been put into 'rehabilitating Palestine'. Bernard A Rosenblatt, a veteran member of the Zionist Organization of America, saw Hitler’s policies as ensuring a Jewish majority in Palestine.[Aaron Berman (1990) Nazism, the Jews, and American Zionism, 1933-1948 Wayne State University Press, 1990 ISBN 0814322328 p 22 & pp 31-33]

note page 22 and pages 31 to 33.

that makes your edit misleading and inaccurate....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the US gov anti-Semitic and or racist is also to forget that the putative refugees were also feared as a source of communism. let alone the normal xenophobic reaction...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say the US gov was antisemitic. I said, as we see with present-day imbecillic vagaries by pres.candidates in their pseudo-debates, politicians are reluctant to say anything that might lose themselves votes in a dozen, even fringe, constituencies. Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the statement was to bring up:

In 1940, Goldmann arrived in the U.S. and made the rounds between New York and Washington in a futile effort to help save the Jews of Europe. “In all my years in Jewish politics, I have never felt so impotent, so grimly bitter as I did over this. All of us who speak for the Jewish people in those days-- and I emphatically include myself --bear a share of the guilt.” The State Department’s deliberate foot-dragging and the American administration’s indifference to the fate of European Jewry helped doom six million to their deaths. American Jewry, daunted and divided, failed to close ranks at a time when unity of intention and purpose was vital.
This regards 1942. From memory, Wise was only informed of Riegler's testimony about Nazi genocide policies in mid-late 1942, and wanted to go public with it. The State Department told him to say nothing until this information (which the SD had had, but not communicated to Wise, independently from its consuls in Switzerland: Wise was informed by confreres in Britain) has been independently verified. THe SD came back in November 1942 and confirmed the veracity of Reigler's report, and Wise immediately called a press conference at the end of November to publicly announce the fact. It was well known before that time that the Jews in Europe would undergo extremities of danger, suffering and death. Weizmann at Biltmore said 25% might be lost in central and Southern Europe and Goldmann said this was a probably underestimate: the toll would be millions esp. if Germany's war would, as forseeable, go bad. In the historiography, one defect has been to lay huge blame on British foot-dragging (all over wiki, see 1939 White Paper, etc.) for the death of millions. This is scapegoating. All Western governments after Kristallnacht and the Evian Conference were reluctant to take in millions of Jews, for a large number of reasons, not rooted in anti-semitism. The genocidal policy was under way, and, 2 without it, and war, no government in the world, let alone Palestine, could take in 3-5 million people from any area and accommodate them, whatever their origins, without massive internal dislocation, upheaval etc. It all looks tragically bad, but reading this requires a strong contextual understanding of the period.Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the lack of cohesive effort or policy that Goldmann found in the US. Hence the call for the Biltmore conference.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I did not particularly want to use that quote because it is particularly harsh but it does show the accuracy of the statement...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German Jewry was not 3 million....by 39 was down to 300,000.....the emphasis was on German Jewry as the Polish Jewry was at that time not under threat...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're jumping all over the place. I'm thinking in a strict timeline. By the Biltmore conference all Europe's Jews were the object of reflection on rescue possibilities. That's what Hillel Kook's mission was about.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about 1939 pre Biltmore....by the time of Biltmore the Nazi persecutions were still looked at as a pogrom...the thoughts of Holocaust came 6 months later (even then not full scale).....the 25% was looked at as extremist scaremongering...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wise

[edit]

(a)By 1939, neither Stephen Wise nor any other Jewish or Zionist leader had mounted a campaign against the American quota system that denied European Jewry admission into the USA. The efforts had been put into 'rehabilitating Palestine'. Bernard A Rosenblatt, a veteran member of the Zionist Organization of America, saw Hitler’s policies as ensuring a Jewish majority in Palestine.[1]

(b)Zionists like American Jewish Congress president Stephen Wise – advocates of public protest against Nazi atrocities rather than the quiet diplomacy embraced by the JDC and the American Jewish Committee – thought it best not to criticize the rigid US quotas, or the White Paper, in light of the piublicly isolationist mood that guided Washington,'Monty Noam Penkower, Decision on Palestine Deferred: America, Britain and Wartime Diplomacy, 1939-1945,Routledge, 2002, p.20
Ashley's original material follows an RS. I supported it by mentioning above Monty Noam Penkower's remark.
I contest simply: 'American quota system that denied European Jewry admission into the USA'
As I think we all agree, the facts show that the American quota system did not deny European Jewry admission into the USA. Like all other groups, Jewish immigration was restricted according to a quota system.
The passage on Wise, as originally placed, can only justify itself by being accompanied with Nahum Goldmann's own position. All remarks here of a general kind must serve only as background to throw into relief what Nahum Goldmann was doing or thinking. Ashley above has now contextualized on this page Goldmann's own retrospective interpretation of this policy failure.
(i)So the original passage re Wise and other leaders is RS, but must be modified re quota system (for this is untrue or misleadingly phrased). (ii)It can be supported by the quote from Penkower and ref. (iii) and then needs to be followed by an RS on Goldmann's position with regard to the failure to make a public campaign, or make greater public efforts to secure more Jewish immigration.
I'm in terrible haste, due to external distractions, but off the top of my head, this is my first reflection.Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Jewry only had 2 options, apply pressure/mount a campaign for refugee admission to the US or apply pressure for Palestine to be opened.....they chose the latter path...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS the US quota was one of the smallest around...note Voyage of the damned...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like Sophie's Choice. An overt campaign of vigour might well have backfired. The second option was easier for political and diplomatic reasons. The declaration of war immediately has Roosevelt setting up a centre to study what to do when American won the war, which was a certainty, and a key point was to take over what was left of the British empire. There was a lot of hosility to Britain in American elite circles, and an undisguised intention to take them out geopolitically. To blame Britain, which had the Palestinian Mandate, was acceptable to the American elite, and fitted the long term strategy of Zionism. Cynicism, or ultra-realism, all around was the name of the game.No one looks good, all shared blame, but this was fundamentally the result of Nazism. The crisis within Zionism repeated what occurred in 1933-4 in the split between socialist Zionists and the WZO over a boycott proposal. The latter decided to deal with the Nazis, (Ha'avara Agreement) instead of immediate confrontation, which had a far stronger chance of working, but had also 'communist' tinges. This cast of mind of the leaders, in turn, draws on an age-old, almost instinctive Jewish tradition still resonating at that time, to find an accommodation with persecutors (Herzl with Plehve, Jabotinsky with Petliura and not confront them directly, understandable but, in the end, fatal for the period. The lesson of never seeking an accommodation is one of the problems of post-war Zionism in Israel. A swing from accommodation to the powers-that-be, to one of extreme refusal, as a rising 'power-that-be', to compromise with the one people who had nothing to do with the history of persecution in the first place, the Palestinian Arabs. Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Boycott of German goods and Ha'avara Agreement equal and opposite outcome stalemate....There was no cohesive policy...hence Biltmore....Which is why the lead up to Biltmore needs to be included, the rationale for Biltmore did not just drop out of the sky as a substitute for the WZO conference, also Biltmore included many non-Zionists (the socialist wing, who opposed the emphasis on Palestine)....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No cohesive policy possible. Earlier Zionism had deep rifts between a Socialist and an elitarian conservative body, later under challenged from a revisionist school. Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ashley, we're talking at cross-purposes. I am actively supporting the edits you have made, only making suggestions for nuancing.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if the above sounded strident, that was not the intent. I wasn't shouting, merely agreeing with what you had written....As to the nuance the Voyage of the damned shows graphically that the quota system was not aiding or being fought (effectively)....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Aaron Berman (1990) Nazism, the Jews, and American Zionism, 1933-1948 Wayne State University Press, 1990 ISBN 0814322328 p 22 & pp 31-33

Post WWII

[edit]

has got an indent for some reason, can anyone spot the fault?....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenblatt

[edit]

Would someone please tell me why the average person reading this article about Nahum Goldmann would be interested in Bernard Rosenblatt's view of Hitler? Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC) If Rosenblatt is so important perhaps he should have his own bio here at wiki and include his opinions in that. Then perhaps a connection can be clearly made to Goldmann. While we are at it will someone please explain why rehabilitating Palestine is in scare quotes? In fact, it is not even clear what is meant by that. The original edit has the same problems as I've explained above. Perhaps it would be wise to discuss and achieve consensus before reverting. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is, had you followed the discussion above, the need for a contextualization of the American Zionist world within which NG worked as he settled down to citizenship there in 1940. Two problems existed, (1) sanctuary/refuge European Jews in America and(2)Palestine. Stephen Wise is cited for the one, Rosenblatt for the other. As I noted, a bridging statement is needed to contextualize this and NG's position within these contradictory requirements of policy. In building an article, all cannot be done overnight. Patience and work is required.
'Rehabilitating Palestine' is not in scare quotes. Actually the phrase is a striking one, and its fascinating use of 'rehabilitate' would perhaps go unobserved to the rushreaderly eyes of this generation without that marker. It is totally innocent of malevolence.
We haven't to my knowledge had an edit war on this page. It's been so far one of quiet collaborative improvement, with AK and myself also reverting or correcting each other, without any tiffs. The volume of refs has been doubled, the details expanded. let's keep this drafting clear of the usual bingles Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My changes from yesterday (which I put up for discussion on the talk page above) were reverted by AK. The change that has been reverted back to is incorrect for the reasons I stated.
Regarding what you call the "need for contextualization of the American Zionist world within which NG worked..." strikes me as a great opportunity to inject POV into this article. Goldmann was a refugee from Germany, and the only contextualization necessary for Goldmann's view would be the fact of what was happening to Jews as a result of Hitler's campaign against them. American Zionists had as many opinions as there were Zionists. If we are talking about Goldmann, we are talking about Goldmann, not Bernard A. Rosenblatt. If you want to talk about American Zionism in the 30's and 40's, that's fodder for another subject altogether. This is a biography about Goldmann and it should be about Goldmann, his life, his opinions, not those of the wider American Zionist community... Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit mayt have had some credibility had you simply elided what you dislike. No, you took out one generalisation, and plunked in another you favoured on immigration quotas. You objected to material on what NG did not do, and then put in material about what NG (quotas in the 30s) did not do. You seem in a huge rush. (b) Contextualisation is not POV. (c) Please inform yourself about a subject before editing the article on it. This page, I repeat, has not had a history of edit-warring. I myself may not concur with the presence of the material that you dislike, I leave a huge amount of Israeli POV on dozens of pages, because good editing requires patience, and in the short or long term most things that are questionable do get removed. It is easy to delete. Difficult to built, articles, so calm down. Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should all mull this (clipped from my page), in reviewing the contested passage.

If the quota system was working why the voyage of the damned of May 1939?....Just the right time for a propaganda coup....what was the American Jewry response?....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may intrude, the response of American Jewry was vigorous. The Joint and (parts of the) State department, while unable to reform American immigration laws (an obstacle which is easy to underestimate, and very often is, with prescient but forgetful hindsight) worked hard to rescue these refugees - and while unsuccessful in bribing the Cuban government, they were successful in getting all of them asylum, so they were safe for a time. What killed the 254 (of the 936) of them who perished in the holocaust was Hitler's Blitzkrieg succeeding beyond his own expectations, something that no one could have predicted or did predict at the time.John Z (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The SS St.Louis incident is one thing, the problem with the quotas (relevant as background to NG's remark on the ineffectiveness of American Jewish mobilization to handle the emergencies of the mid- late thirties?) another. Ashley, perhaps we can take a moment for review on this. JohnZ can usually cite several sources for anything he does assert, and has a sobriety and trenchancy of judgement we should all learn from.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contextualization of American Zionism

[edit]

"American" Zionism is/was by definition the belief in the necessity for a Jewish homeland in the area of the ancient states of Israel and Judah, including of course, Jerusalem; that is, what was then called "The Palestinian Mandate" and presumably held in trust by Britain for just such a homeland. Zionists the world over worked toward this end both before, during, and after WWII. Obviously this project took on special importance in light of the situation in Germany, and as more became known as to the extent of what the Nazis were doing to Jews. During the early years in Germany, many Jews believed that the horrible antisemitic situation would blow over...most could not conceive of such systematic murder and destruction that was to become clear later. During these years, no major country anywhere opened their doors to the refugees. (see: Evian Conference ) Britain went so far as to close the doors to Palestine, in response to Arab complaints, so that Jews escaping death in Europe were unable to immigrate there either. This, of course, lent urgency to the Jewish need for a homeland, and led some Zionists to begin demanding Jewish control in the area in order to save lives.

That was the backdrop of American Zionism at the time. The American Zionists were basically of two minds. One was to work quiet diplomacy behind the scenes, based on fears of exacerbating an already bad situation and strong isolationist (as well as varying degrees of antisemitic and pro-German) sentiments at home; and another to work publicly and loudly to organize public sentiment in the other direction. American Zionists were at varying points on that scale. Zionists tried to unite each other behind one approach, believing in the necessity of unity. It was a frustrating time, and while they argued, they were aware that fellow Jews were desperate and dying. No one knew what would be the best approach to take given the uniqueness of the situation, and the inability to read all the nuances of what was happening in the world. Today there is an inclination to blame the Zionists who believed in quiet diplomacy for not having been more aggressive, on the assumption that aggressiveness would have worked better and saved more lives.

Some have even tried to suggest that a cabal of Zionists attempted to secretly manipulate the situation, sacrificing Jewish lives in order to populate the Palestinian Mandate with Jews and 'steal' Arab land. Like all conspiracy theories, the promotion of this theory relies first on obfuscation of the obvious, then cherry-picking facts and comments to string together a seemingly plausible theory that appeals to those who already have a bias -- that is, those whose sympathies lie with the Arabs of the region (today's 'Palestinians') and/or those who tend to think the worst of Jews (today's 'antisemites') . Belief in a conspiracy theory of this type is similar to paranoia, in which, if one accepts the initial premise of the paranoid, the web of supporting evidence holds. We need to make sure that Wikipedia articles in respect to early Zionism are not tinged with such a theory.

Finally, I would remind those who want to blame the Zionists for not having done enough or the 'right thing' that no one knew what was the right thing was. It would have been great if they had known the best way to save Jewish lives. In the end, only about 150,000 Jews (a small or medium-sized city) managed to escape Hitler's Europe to the Palestinian Mandate. Eventually it took a world war and millions of deaths to defeat Hitler, and the world map, not just the Palestine region, was changed forever. This is the context of American Zionism in the '30's and '40's. It is reasonably straight-forward. Please let's keep out any suggestion of Zionist "cabals" and deal simply with Goldmann's biography and his views. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All fascinating, especially the personal conviction that '"American" Zionism is/was by definition the belief in the necessity for a Jewish homeland in the area of the ancient states of Israel and Judah. Have you a reliable source for that? I'd be grateful for one, since I've never in several generations of reading come across material that would support this extraordinary generalization.
I'm afraid I can't reply to the rest. What cabals, conspiracies, paranoia and the rest of this tirade have to do with a line or two of text, whose relevance is certainly disputable, escapes me.Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a personal conviction at all. Nor do I understand what part of it you find mistaken. When Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem, the word Zion expanded in meaning to include also the Temple and the area surrounding it (Psalms 2:6; 48:2,11-12; 132:13). Zion was eventually used as a name for the city of Jerusalem, the land of Judah, and the people of Israel as a whole (Isaiah 40:9; Jeremiah 31:12; Zechariah 9:13). Perhaps this map will help: [2] The ADL definition of Zionism: "Zionism is the Jewish national movement of rebirth and renewal in the land of Israel - the historical birthplace of the Jewish people. The yearning to return to Zion, the biblical term for both the Land of Israel and Jerusalem, has been the cornerstone of Jewish religious life since the Jewish exile from the land two thousand years ago, and is embedded in Jewish prayer, ritual, literature and culture. [3] "American" Zionism was really no different from Zionism anywhere. It was the time that was unique.
AS for my "tirade," as you call it, it was meant to help explain why I do not believe that this biographical article should try to develop a "contextualization for American Zionism" but should stick to a straightforward biographical page dealing only with Goldmann and his ideas and relationships. Trying to contextualize Goldmann and the greater Zionist community is not our job here and will only inject POV into the article. I will continue to challenge any attempt to do so. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I still can't comment because what you say is obvious or incomprehensible ('American' Zionism was really no different from Zionism anywhere'. Many early German Jewishn immigrants thought of America as their Zion, and so used the term. etc.etc.etc. There were quite a few Zionists, even at Biltmore, opposed to a Jewish state and preferring a binational reality. etc.etc.etc. To write what you wrote above means one must not be familiar with the detailed histories of Zionism and American Zionism, or that one has Nietzsche's ideal memory, one that forgets everything in order to be pleasantly surprised in coming across everything again as if for the first time).
Your edit on the Goldmann vs Hillel Kook is fair enough. Please note that your comment is the same I made when changing an earlier form of the text (which I did not challenge, even if 'disliking it') Provisory rewriting of that language which is the revisionist POV. As written it implies Goldmann was complicit in the Holocaust. The first drafting looked highly 'Irgunish', and my modification was provisory. You improved it.
If you really want other editors to listen to objections, less personal generalizing or highschool facts, and more homework is required. I am still waiting for someone here to give the obvious reason for questioning the placing of Bernard Rosenblatt's remark there. If you are familiar with books on the period, the answer is immediate. It is simply sufficient to cite the relevant book and page, and ask on that simple evidence that the remark be removed, as anachronistic. I've waited some days, and still haven't seen this obvious objection raised in the technical way it should be. Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some obvious reason for removing Rosenblatt's remark, I suggest you write for the enemy and simply do it, rather than making esoteric and supercilious comments about high school and homework. As we say here in the US: "Just Do It..." Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So every one has to write for you because you have decided that you're the enemy???? That statement of yours shows that you are only interested in making POV...

As to addressing the the reason behind including the Rosenblatt comment.

It is to establish the context of the decision of the American Jewry leadership to play the NIMBY card (choosing Palestine as the basket for all the eggs). At the time the Nazi persecutions were seen as a Pogrom not as a programme of annihilation (that started to come out shortly after the Biltmore. conference)....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just do it , like Have a nice day is one of those phrases that set my teeth on edge. We all like to see things done. The problem is to understand why things should be done in one way or another. The idiom betrays a service industry mentality that means 'I can't be troubled with figuring things out. If you know, do it for me.' By reading extensively, one not only improves a specific article, but one gathers in knowledge appropriate to the improvement of many others. To edit for POV, on the strength of one's feelings, line by line, without actually mugging up the literature, looks querulous, and ultimately, impoverishes the project. Encyclopedias are written by those curious to learn, not by querulous kibitzers. You have made here extensive generalizations that simply do not bear up against the technical literature. I thank you for the exposition of your POV. But the test I set you was an easy one. If you read Berman and a few other authors, you will realize why the Rosenblatt remark can be contested on very strong grounds, without adducing personal interpretations of the era, or how the page should look. It is a test of bona fides, i.e., are you willing to read the material on NG as we have done?
Over the span of a week, some 150 edits have been made, almost exclusively by Ashley and myself, often we have challenged each other, so it is not some 'allied' POV-work in 'fixing' NG against the 'enemy'. All this has meant considerable work. I myself have had to read some 60 odd pages of material, some of it in three foreign languages. I presume Ashley has done similar legwork. The result is, I hazard to suggest, a notable improvement on the article. You have made several edits, and they required, as often as not, correction, the edits displayed a lack of close attention, haste, or casual acquaintence. Everyone edits according to their own lights, but when one observes colleagues going after sources, reading them, and enriching a text, it is not conducive to a productive atmosphere to kibitz on their labours without showing a willingness to pitch in, roll up one's mental sleeves, read widely in the sources, and then suggest improvements.
As editors we are obliged to write to NPOV, and to work in a collaborative spirit. We are also obliged to read widely in the area where we edit. It is easy enough to trawl for what, from one's own perspective, one may consider POV, and challenge it. In this mode, one doesn't have to inform oneself of the subject, but simply feel, 'Hey, that doesn't look good for my side'. The test of a good editor involves several things, (a) patience (b) readiness to read up on an issue before editing on it (c) not waiting around to disagree with what others do, or expecting them to do one's homework. I meant no discourtesy, and I don't have enemies, as opposed to having people who dislike my editing. I disagree on Rosenblatt here and a few other points with Ashley, but do not regard our differences as problematical, since he consistently shows a readiness to deepen his already considerable knowledge by researching carefully each topic he edits around, and I generally find my own knowledge improved by his editing. Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, if you would simply stick with civil editing and avoid supercilious and condescending remarks, you would not be perceived as the 'enemy.' I am quite willing to work with both of you as I have shown by making my comments first on this talk page before making changes on the article. Rather than appreciate my good faith in doing so, you said that nobody here owns the article and I should just do it. When I did so, my edits got reverted without comment, and are denigrated as unschooled and uneducated and essentially ignorant by you. This is hardly collaborative spirit. I urge you to dispense with the lectures and if you have an issue with one of my edits, please deal specifically with the edit itself. I am not interested in your self-congratulatory and other-denigrating comments. From here on in they are on "ignore." I will only be dealing with substantive edits. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, I hope to see you improve the page. I was a third of my way through it, (don't know about Ashley) because it languished in neglect. Since you wish to work on the page, I have many other things to do, and will move on, and leave it in your hands, and whoever else joins you. Good luck Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, it was not my intention to drive you off this article. Sometimes a tension between viewpoints, especially between/among people of integrity, can make for an excellent and sharp collaboration. My point was only it would be great to have the discussions without the unpleasant and rancorous personal attacks that makes for such a negative editing environment. So I hope you reconsider and continue to work on this article when you have the time and/or inclination. Because this area is also my area of interest, I imagine you will be seeing more of me in this neighborhood, and I am sure we will manage to get along just fine. Best wishes, Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nahum Goldmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nahum Goldmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nahum Goldmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MFJC and NGF

[edit]

Unbelievable there was nothing on the page about these two organizations that are a huge part of Goldmann's legacy so I just added. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nahum_Goldmann&oldid=1207297477"