But frankly, I’ve been underwhelmed at the level of financial support over the years. Since 2003, I’ve offered thousands of blog posts freely accessible here. Though I do publish my work freelance at Middle East Eye and earn revenue through that, most of my work is published here. And it’s available for free. I don’t even have advertising here to muck up my site as so many media sites do these days.
Frankly, I’m amazed at the level of support offered to other progressive bloggers like Juan Cole and others when I see them raising substantial sums through their sites. I understand that this site does not have the readership of Informed Comment, Electronic Intifada and the like. But given that I’ve devoted my life and career to the work I do here, I’d hoped it could generate a level of support commensurate with that commitment.
Since that hasn’t happened, I’ve decided to experiment with a different method of generating such support. Patreon is a website on which “creators” offer their work to their audience. Clients may offer access for free or charge for it. I have published my first post there, Netanyahu Visit Strengthens Israel-India Alliance Dominated by Mutual Interest in Guns and Religious Hate. I may offer posts there in future and ask for donations in return for access. I will continue posting here of course as I have in the past.
Patreon encourages readers to offer regular donations to support Creators. I hope you will visit the post, check out the site and consider becoming a regular donor either via Patreon or via the donation buttons in the sidebar here.
I don’t know how I missed this Haaretz story when it came out in 2009. It’s quite shocking, though not surprising considering what we know about the ruthless pursuit of national interest at the expense of fellow Jews after the Holocaust and even to the present day.
Golda Meir became foreign minister in 1958. Though this was a decade after the State’s founding and thirteen years after World War II ended, Israel was still accepting Holocaust survivors fleeing the European slaughter. Among the countries sending such individuals to Israel was Poland, which had the most Jews (3-million) in all of Europe before the War.
Though in 1948 Israel was desperate to populate its territory with any Jews it could entice to make aliyah, by 1958 it could afford to be more particular in that regard. Further, this was the period of what’s known as Tzina or “austerity.” It was in effect a period of economic contraction or stagnation that followed independence. Israelis today probably have only the faintest memory of that difficult period. But it certainly informed Golda’s horrifying proposal.
Contrary to Emma Lazarus’ poem on the Statue of Liberty, Golda didn’t Poland to give Israel:
…Your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed…
She wanted a better quality of immigrant. So she wrote by diplomatic cable to Israel’s ambassador to Poland:
“A proposal was raised in the coordination committee to inform the Polish government that we want to institute selection in aliyah, because we cannot continue accepting sick and handicapped people. Please give your opinion as to whether this can be explained to the Poles without hurting immigration.
In other words, Israel no longer wished to accept all Holocaust survivors. It was happy to accept the professional class and those who could contribute to commerce, education and similar professions. But it no longer wished to take those who would be a burden on society (in their view).
Considering the immense suffering the survivors experienced and the level of mental and physical torture they’d undergone, you’d think Meir wouldn’t have the temerity to consign them to oblivion in a Polish backwater. But she did. Her considerations were the same that drove Ben Gurion to declare that he’d prefer to save half of European Jewry if they made aliyah, than to save all knowing they’d resettle in the Diaspora. Zionism to them was a cold, hard, brutal calculation. Certainly not a movement based on humanism or mercy. As such Zionism diverged from traditional Jewish values which demanded care and comforting of the sick and poor.
Another striking aspect of her memo is the use of the word “selection.” As I don’t have the original Hebrew, I don’t know what word was used in it. But anyone with any experience of the Holocaust would know the dreaded word selektzia used by the Germans to choose who among the Jewish victims would live or die. Most infamous of all was Dr. Mengeleh, who performed the selections as Auschwitz determining with a wave of the hand if you were to die in the crematoria, to become the victim of one of his “medical” experiments, or to live. It’s unconscionable that she would use such a word no matter whether she used the English/German word or the Hebrew equivalent. She would have known the meaning and implication of it. Unconscionable perhaps, but unsurprising, no.
It’s important to note as well that to this day Israel continues to offer Holocaust survivors little in the way of support. A country which celebrates its success and offers oligarchs billions in business deals can’t muster the few millions it would take to offer generous pensions, medical and mental health benefits to these individuals who made the ultimate sacrifice that any European Jew could make. That’s why so many of the few remaining survivors live in abject poverty. Poverty that should shame its leaders like Bibi Netanyahu, but don’t.
״period of what’s known as Tzina or “austerity.”
should be צנע tsn’a
as correctly used at that time and as is correct in Hebrew
@ marty: I was going (way) back in memory to my reading of Amos Oz’ My Michael, which portrays that period. Obviously, my memory was slightly off. Should be Tzen’a, not Tzina.
This would be one of those very rare times when I am inclined to look at this from Israel’s point of view.
In 1958 — a time, as you say, of straitened circumstances for the Jewish state — was Israel really in a position to take in some unknown but presumably large number of elderly and disabled individuals who would require care? Certainly I can see her hoping it would be possible to discourage Poland from sending such individuals.
In 1958 Israel still lacked the assurance of unqualified support from the US — it had only been two years since the US ordered her out of the Sinai in the Suez Crisis. She had yet to acquire the total nuclear supremacy over all her neighbors she enjoys today. She was, however, at war with all of them.
To boot, she presumably still had a long way to go in assimilating the masses of Oriental Jews she took in after 1948. Under the circumstances, it would have been foolhardy to allow herself to be made into some kind of retirement refuge for aged Poles.
If it was a matter of — say — a thousand prospective charity cases, one could reasonably accuse Israel of hypocrisy and callousness. But how many were there? If she was looking at taking in a hundred thousand, one can see her point.
@Colin: the number was small. Most Jews had been exterminated & few remained after the War. By 1967 there were about 15,000 left in Poland if I recall the numbers.
Nevertheless, it would seem that in 1958 in particular, Israel was looking at a substantial — if not overwhelming — influx of Polish Jews. From Wikipedia:
‘…A second wave of Jewish emigration (50,000) took place during the liberalization of the Communist regime between 1957 and 1959…’
So there were quite a few Jews suddenly coming from Poland. One can see an Israel already in straitened circumstances being concerned about just what she was about to receive. I’m not necessarily insisting Israel shouldn’t be condemned; I’m just pointing out that her fears may not have been groundless. After all, she wasn’t an America, with essentially limitless resources. In 1958, her means must have been decidedly modest.
@ Colin: I understand that a politician has to weigh morality and national interest carefully. But I maintain that the enormity of the Holocaust demanded that the Israelis place national interest second to morality (and Jewish ethics). Absorbing 50,000 new immigrants was certainly a daunting task. But it did not pose an existential threat to the State. Nor would absorbing 1,000 disabled or sick individuals. So I believe morality should have trumped state interests.
‘ Nor would absorbing 1,000 disabled or sick individuals.’
Yes — but there’s no reason to think it would have only been one thousand individuals. That figure exists solely as the hypothetical number proposed by me of what would indeed have been acceptable.
Fifty thousand were in the process of coming in. What if in fact ten thousand of these required care and Israel had no idea of many more were to come? Would you then agree that Israel might have been justified in trying to limit the influx?
Considering my opinions of Israel in general, the argument is distinctly bizarre. However it seems to me that given the circumstances and the absence of detailed information, the possibility remains that Israel’s concerns in this case were perfectly justified.
One is reminded of the Mariel boatlift, when Cuba took advantage of our stated policies to offload on us various elements of her society she no longer wished to care for. We were big and Cuba was little, so for us it was merely awkward. Israel may not have felt she could afford taking a similar risk.
@ Colin: The thing you must remember in thinking of this is…Holocaust. Not Mariel boat lift. Not any old catastrophe or disaster. The single most horrific event in the entire history of the Jewish people. 6-million dead. If you are what you (not you personally of course) claim–a homeland for the Jewish people and a haven for those who are persecuted–then you cannot in good conscience turn any survivor away.
Richard, just to inform you that the Haaretz link called “Golda’s horrifying proposal” in your text has been removed by Haaretz. I was able to access it the day you published this post, now it’s gone.
Update: I found I had inadvertently made a copy of the Haaretz URL too, and that still works, so perhaps you can amend the link in your text. Here is the URL: https://www.haaretz.COM/1.5017879
All Diaspora Jews should’ve been allowed to emigrate to Israel, regardless of their health or circumstances. No policy should be implemented that would curtail the efforts of Jews so seek refuge in the only country Jews ever had.