(Originally aired: 02-01-99)







TV Schedule

Science Design Decade - 1965-1975 Buckminster Fuller

Mon Past Programs (To Some  Programs l    - Link to all in Creation)

INDEX GUEST LISTING BY NAME 01-01-73 TO 06-30-11 (Complete List in Creation)

Public AccessTV,
A Systems Consideration Graphics

Current Financial Crisis
Oct., 2008

Autodidact Tutorials

Keynes Letter to
Grandchildren 1930

Panel: Louis Kelso, Hon. William Simon, Hon. Russell Long / Jan. 1974.

Synergetic Educational Manifesto 1970

Carbon 60 # 1

ACAP - The Association of
Cable Access Producers

ACAP Site Link

The Works of Civilazation

Aymara Cultural Hearth







Cablecast and web streaming of program in series

"Conversations with Harold Hudson Channer"

Upcoming Cable Television/Web Show:

For details of airing see bottom of page


TUESDAY JULY 19,  2011


                                           ELIYHO  MATZ




                             Experimental Political Historian



The program can be viewed in its entirety by clicking the you tube link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsqOha5ZuCk - ELIYO MATZ



More about: ELIYHO  MATZ


The short essays presented here are a summation of my learning and meditation over the past fifty years, as concerning the life and survival of Jews.  I am not a theologian, but rather an experimental political historian, who, since my childhood in Israel, have pondered on the Jews and their history (or, as the Irish might say, on the “luck of the Jews”).  My personal odyssey is complicated, starting from my reading the Bible in Hebrew, to my examining many other Jewish and Israeli texts, a number of which were written by people whom I have personally met along the way.  My teachers were many.  They all had varied interpretations of the ongoing saga of the Jews and Israelis.  From all, I learned something valuable. 

Throughout my life I have been looking for explanations of “Jewish” and “Israeli” survival.  One insight that set my focus came from Boaz Evron, an Israeli intellectual, who, first at a seaside café in Tel Aviv and later in an article published in 1980 [Iton 77], said, “Two terrible things happened to Jews in the Twentieth Century: the first was the Holocaust, the second is the interpretation of the Holocaust.” 

It was in New York City that I first met Hillel Kook (a.k.a. Peter Bergson), who presented me with a deeper understanding of forgotten aspects of our past.  His visionary and prophetic mind could have led the Israelis to a better future.  Bergson later became the godfather of our son Michael, and predeceased him.  Also, ever since encountering his writings, I have been influenced by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was always in the back of my mind for his careful choice of words and ideas and his exploration of “word games,” “language” and “uncertainty.”

The essential subject matter of these various essays deals with one cardinal theme, that is, the exploration of the political identity of Israelis, and the “word games” and obfuscatory definitions put forth by Israeli and Jewish leaders.


I thank my wife, Barbara Fichman Matz, for the long protracted route she has taken with me.  Thanks, too, to my son David, for his enduring patience.

Eliyho Matz,

Great Barrington, MA

Autumn 2008


Who Is an Israeli?


            Throughout the centuries, Jews have lived dispersed over many lands.  They have always considered themselves a Religion-Nation, and the world has likewise recognized them as such.  This concept originated over a period when Jews lived without sovereignty over a specific, identified territory of their own.

          But since then, times and political conditions have drastically changed.  In 1948, Palestinian Jews achieved what for many generations had been an impossible and imaginary dream, for in that year, they won both self-determination and sovereignty over a parcel of the land which in ancient times had been inhabited by their ancestors.  With the ruling Palestinian Jewish leadership’s declaration proclaiming Israel to be an independent nation, the political status of this branch of the world’s Jews consequently changed from that of a non-sovereign people to a new, sovereign political entity.  The process was very traumatic; nonetheless, a change was in fact achieved, although in practice its political ramifications still go unrealized many years after the event.

          Regrettably, a majority of people outside and inside of Israel seem to view the State of Israel as an oversized, social community of Jews rather than as a political entity.  The cost of this thinking has been the loss of a political identity for the nation’s Jewish and non-Jewish citizens alike.  Consequently, the most important decision concerning the survival of the Israeli nation is rooted in an unnamed and almost undiscussed subject, which I will name the Israeli Political Identity (IPI).  This is not to say that the State of Israel is without many other problems, nor to imply that the IPI issue alone, once resolved, will automatically eliminate all internal and external difficulties for Israel.  But it is essential that this matter of IPI be recognized and addressed before a safe and better future with a vision of lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors can be secured.

          Israel’s current political confusion is an offshoot of the identity problem and can serve as an aid in understanding the IPI.  Political issues in Israel fall, for one reason or another, into two arenas:  the first is Israel’s political relationship with world Jewry; the second is Israel’s attitude toward the so-called Israeli Arabs and Palestinian People.  In this short essay, I will attempt to examine and suggest solutions to these two concerns.


Israel’s Political Relations with World Jewry

          Until the creation of the State of Israel, Zionism was a confused political, social and religious movement among a minority of world Jewry.  In 1948, when Israel was declared an independent nation, a home for those Jews who desired it, Zionism as a political movement achieved its final political goal.  In the years since Israel’s independence, a myth has evolved which suggests that there exists a uniformity of interests between Israel and world Jewry, a claim which is now especially associated with American Jewry.  However, Israelis must come to the realization that American Jews cannot be expected to conduct themselves as though they are living in Tel Aviv, and this concept must be clear to all parties involved.  The fact is, I find it dubious to assume that similar interests do exist between Israelis and American Jews.  It stands to reason that the political, economical and social differences between the two societies and nations would make divergences inevitable.  By the same token, many American Jews seem to think that Israel exists as a protector of American interests in the Middle East; this clearly is likewise a very dubious notion.  As of yet, divergent priorities have caused no serious breach in the US-Israeli relationship.  But the situation is not static.  It is clear that Israeli national interests cannot be expected always to coincide with American or American-Jewish interests, and vice-versa, and the same holds true vis-à-vis Israel’s relationship with Jewish communities worldwide.  This basic reality must be recognized before a meaningful relationship can be built between Israeli Jews and Jews of other nations.

          This notion that there exists a common interest among all Jews is a fundamental misconception nurtured by the fact that Israel is a state which is not founded upon modern political precepts.  It is the only state in the world that belongs, supposedly, not to a defined population of citizens, but rather to an ill-defined international body of people, at the cost of denying definition to its actual population.  The fact is that a large sector of Israeli leadership, both on the Right and on the Left, are prepared to wait, as long as necessary, for the “Jewish People” to come “Home,” a concept which is of course politically absurd, and which in practice, produces an astonishing measure of political confusion for all Israelis who must ask themselves how they fit into this scenario.

          Israel can be defined as a theocracy which was established by a secular majority.  As it is politically organized now, the State does not officially concern itself with, or for that matter, acknowledge, its own people, the “Israelis,” as a political or social entity that is significant and worthwhile in itself with its own essence as a nation.  To date, Israeli political leaders still do not grasp the fact that in 1948, when Israel was recognized by the United Nations community to be a sovereign state, an opportunity was given to Palestinian Jews to determine their own political identity, or in political terms, to achieve self-determination and sovereignty.  It seems as though Israeli politicians do not wish to deal with this fact at all.  But this is the crux of Israel’s existence:  i.e., how to deal with its own self-determination, sovereignty and political identity.

          Certain errors have been made by Israeli political leaders since the establishment of the Israeli nation.  One fundamental failing that has led to this deep confusion concerning identity is the circumstance whereby the Constituent Assembly was abolished on the same day that it was assembled, and no constitution was ever drawn, either on that date or at any later date.  Consequently in Israel a body of laws has taken the place of a desired constitution.  And although these laws legally serve as a substitute for a constitution, they avoid dealing with many of the State’s most vital questions.  For example, they fail to set forth a clear definition of such national concerns as civil liberties, the relationship between Nationality and Religion, and just who constitutes its citizenry.  Since each of Israel’s political parties maintains its own national goals, no consensus has ever been reached on the manner in which the State should treat both its neighbors and its own non-Jewish, yet Israeli inhabitants.  Israel’s isolation in the region is first of all a problem stemming from its lack of political definition vis-à-vis the question “Who is an Israeli?”, which is not to be mistaken for the legitimate theological question “Who is a Jew?”  There was no need to establish a State in order to define this latter question. Hence, if no Israeli national identity exists, then the term “citizenship” is not serious, as it does not include non-Jewish Israelis, and to possess “citizenship” means nothing more than to hold a bureaucratic paper.  It would thus follow that if there exists no Israeli Nation, then Israelis are just wasting their time in their desire to pursue self-determination.  However, an Israeli Nation does exist, but it is a Nation that does not acknowledge its own existence.

          Why as a Jew and as an Israeli who lives in Israel must one also have to define himself as a Zionist?  It is a paradox today that Zionism, a confused, politically and religiously undefined ideology, does not in essence recognize the State of Israel.  For according to the Zionists, Israel does not belong to Israelis, but rather to a whole mixed spread of Jewish people.  There is an attempt among Zionists to make the uniqueness of Jews, and Jewish life, a norm in Israel.  As an example of the Zionist stand, one must only look at the phenomenon whereby Zionist Congresses continued to be held even following the proclamation of Israel’s statehood, just as they had been held before this event.  One can only wonder whether it would thus follow that if the State of Israel were suddenly to vanish, then too the Zionist Congresses would likewise continue to convene as if nothing had ever happened.

          It is not possible, practical or desirable to force Israeli national allegiance upon the Jews of the world.  One must become accustomed to the idea that there are well-meaning Jews who prefer not to live in Israel; also, that there are Jews living outside of Israel who are politically different from Israelis.  This in no sense should imply that Israeli Jews and other Jews cannot develop a meaningful cultural or any other type of positive relationship, if they should so desire.  But it does draw a line to the fact that not all Jews belong to the same political entity, and consequently no unfaltering political connection or destiny does or can exist between Jews of Israel and Jews of other nations.  Certain steps must be taken immediately in order to effect a drastic change in this state of political confusion in Israel.  This then leads us to the second part of this paper.


Israel’s Attitude Toward Israeli Arabs & the Palestinian People

          The solution to the question concerning Israeli Arabs and Palestinian People constitutes part of the confusion of the IPI.  In political terms, the solution is very simple:  the government of Israel must give Israeli Arabs a political option to become part of the Israeli Nation.  This would include military service or other similar options on their part, and full citizenship in return.  If, on the other hand, an Israeli Arab should choose not to become a citizen, then he would be able to become a resident, such as the US offers, in which case he would be required to obey the laws of the land and would be able to work, but he would be unable to vote or voice otherwise justifiable complaints that he is a second-class citizen.  Should this political goal be realized, it would, I believe, effect a giant change and debate among Israelis, as well as a change towards Israel’s chances for survival in the region.  However, the mentality in Israel today is such that everyone speaks of the Palestinian people in the West Bank as a problem, while ignoring the core issue of a million Israeli Arabs who carry Israeli identity cards, yet do not see themselves as part of the Israeli nation.

          Political recognition must also be given to the Palestinian people.  Their political identity has developed throughout the years and has been shaped without question and with Israel’s help.

          The Palestinian problem has to be faced squarely and realistically.  There is a Palestinian people!  I see no reason to continue claiming that there is no such people.  In the long run, the Palestinians and the Israelis will have to develop the best of relations and cooperation because of the geopolitics of the area.  This will lead to the promise of a better future for both nations and to the potential prosperity of the region.

          The material presented here as a suggestion for a different Israel must be initiated by the Israeli Government.  Before this can happen, however, some major political changes will have to occur in the State of Israel.  Among them are the following:

-        A separation between Religion and Nationality This distinction would, on one side, strengthen respect for religion and religious people and enable religion to be a moral driving force behind Israeli society.  On the other side, a constitution separated from religious biases would set the foundation for a workable solution to the question of Israeli nationals, a group to include anyone, Jew or non-Jew, who desires to swear loyalty to Israel.

-        The abolition of the Law of Return.  This act would serve to diminish further Yerida (a derogatory term for Israelis who leave Israel), as it would finally amend Israel’s discriminatory attitude toward its own citizens.  The rescinding of the Law of Return does not mean that Israel would turn its back upon persecuted Jews.  But is would mean recognition of the idea that sixty years is a long enough period of time for Jews so desiring to have returned to Israel.  All laws of immigration must be reexamined and modernized in their approach.  Clearly, however, in any case where Jews are in physical danger, the State of Israel would as policy do anything possible to extend aid, bringing outside victims to Israel only if they should so desire.  To promote Aliyah and condemn Yerida would no longer be a matter of the State.  Jews of all nations and Israelis would be free to choose where they want to reside.

-        A change in the role of the Zionist movement, which would hence come to recognize the State of Israel as a political and sovereign entity.  The Zionist movement might then be replaced by a new body, if such is desired, which might be called, for example, “Friends of Israel.”  This organization would not be involved in Israeli politics and could perhaps carry out a more constructive role by undertaking various sorts of social work or cultural projects in Israel.  It might also serve as a friendly ambassador for the State of Israel among Jews and non-Jews living outside the State.



A Warm Israeli Nation Welcomes Cool Eskimo People


Special News Release

by Feature Contributor Eliyho Matz



               The first wave of converted Jewish Zionist Inupiaq (pronounced In-you-pack) Eskimos have immigrated to Israel.  They were converted to Judaism by native Alaskan Reform rabbi Kerach ben Mayim.*  The Jewish Agency assisted in their transfer, supplying high-cooled jet airplanes that were developed by Israeli/American new age technologies.  The Israeli government named the operation “Igloo Wings” recalling previous such missions carried out at the birth of the Israeli state, when Yemenite Jews were brought from Yemen on operation “Magic Carpet,” Moroccan Jews on operation “Flying Atlas,” and Iraqi Jews on operation “Baghdadi Nights.”  The Reform Jewish Inupiaq Eskimo congregation, “Mogen Dovid North Star White Ice Cubes,” which is located in the Arctic Circle, was established in 2005.  The congregation has in its vicinity a natural hot water hole that is shared with the polar bears and is used alternatively as a mikveh (ritual bath). 

This wave of conversion started a number of years ago after an Israeli couple, tarmilaim travelers, visiting the Arctic area were attacked by a polar bear in a tragedy that resulted in the death of the husband, Avi.  Avi was buried in a large ice cube at the Arctic Circle.  Eventually his wife, Sarit, married a local Inupiaq who converted to Judaism.  Mr. Sly Seal started studying Jewish ethics and religious studies via the internet using his Apple ipod, and he has been developing a wide range of contacts via Twitter and Facebook.  According to Sly, the Jewish network Sh’makolenu has been helpful, too.  Sarit has been developing her own innovative network called e-yenta.com.

Intrigued by Mr. Seal’s enthusiastic conversion, other Inupiaq couples joined in the Eskimo Judaization process, and that is how the congregation developed.  As a result of intense lobbying by an Israeli shaliach (representative) sent from Jerusalem by the Jewish Agency, a number of converted residents of the Inupiaq community responded to the strong Zionist appeal and decided to move to Israel and make Aliyah


* Tr: Ice the son of Water


However, some technical details had been overlooked.  One of the main issues for the Israeli government was how to handle the conversion process of the Eskimos. The leader of the Jewish Agency, Mr. Nathan S., who himself had spent a number of years in the Siberian permafrost region, promised a swift resolution.  He consulted with the great Rabbi Bear of Alaska, as well as Chief Rabbi White Tiger of Siberia.  Because of their type of ethnicity and the lifestyle involved, the Israeli government agreed to adjust its absorption policies and practices to accommodate the Eskimos. 

These Jewish Eskimos who arrived on the first wave were housed in a large abandoned ice factory.  The inner space of the ice factory was altered to accommodate six igloos and a synagogue made entirely of ice, maintaining an icy cool atmosphere year round.  A debate which emerged among the Jewish Agency chiefs concerning whether to use this place as a tourist attraction or leave it just as an absorption center did not result in any immediate conclusions.  Other cultural issues that were raised as a result of this Arctic/Zionist transaction have yet to be resolved.  The settlement of these new Jewish Zionists amidst the ongoing Middle East regional hostilities has led to additional verbal criticisms of the new Israeli/Eskimo policy.  But meanwhile, a consensus has been reached by the Eskimo/Zionist leaders in their belief that their arrival in Israel would help toward the cooling of militancy in the region, as well as in the temperament of its inhabitants.  The Israeli Navy Seals immediately jumped into the fray and, appreciating the special skills of these newcomers, have taken on a mission to adopt and train them.  The Seals will begin teaching the Eskimos how to fish and dive in the deep cool waters of the Mediterranean Sea, as well as in the warm waters of the Red Sea.  (Plans are also in the works to introduce them to the shallow salty waters of the Dead Sea.)  The Navy Seals, as well as other elite Israeli forces, will provide first-hand training to the new Jewish Zionist Eskimos in order for them to grasp the new challenges of their life in the Middle East.  In return, the Seals also expect to benefit from their unique lifestyle experiences, including seal hunting in the Arctic, as well as other cold weather activities.

 A few cultural problems that popped up with the arrival of the Eskimos still will have to be resolved.  For example, Israeli ice cream is called Eskimo, and ices are called Artik.  The Jewish Eskimos are working out some sort of deal with the Israeli government which, in a special session of the Knesset honoring the Eskimos, passed a decree (the constitutional process would have taken too long) that from now on both these items, Eskimo and Artik, would have to be renamed in order not to insult the Zionist Jewish Eskimos. This issue aside, these new immigrants were warmly welcomed by all Israeli citizens, including by the Chassids who loaned them their beaver hats for Shabbos services.  Other Israeli Zionists have contributed Israeli clothing and other schmatas imported from China to help enable this new group of Jewish Zionist settlers to adapt quickly to this dynamic society and region.



All rights reserved, including movie rights, by the Frozen News Agency, eliyho_matz@yahoo.com.


Crazy Bergson Boy


By: Eliyho Matz


In honor of Will Rogers, Jr., and other Gentiles who attempted to save Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

And a special thanks to Thomas Jefferson.


[In a future feature film about the Bergson Boys, there will be an opening scene in a classy New York City restaurant: On one side of the room will be seated Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein, Claude Levi-Strauss, Isaiah Berlin, Benzion Netanyahu and some other prominent Jewish personalities.  Seated at the other side of the restaurant will be Will Rogers, Jr., Guy M. Gillette, Edwin Johnson, Andrew Somers, and some other Congressmen and Senators prominent in the 1940’s.  The group of Jews will be overheard discussing their overall personal achievements during WWII in science, philosophy, etc.  The Congressmen and Senators will be heard rehashing their frustrations concerning the pitfalls they encountered in their attempts to work together to save European Jews.  Suddenly Peter Bergson appears, entering into the restaurant with Marlon Brando, Ben Hecht, Kurt Weill, and Stella Adler.  The group of government gentlemen look up and obviously recognize and warmly greet Bergson and his entourage; the Jewish group displays only sketchy familiarity….Evidently, it’s all relative….]


               As years go by, recognition given to the Bergson Group’s activities in the United States during WWII has become increasingly ambivalent.  The leading character in this group is Hillel Kook, a.k.a. Peter Bergson, a Palestinian Jew growing up under British Mandate Palestine who left the religious life of the yeshivas in Jerusalem and became a founding member of the Irgun in Palestine.  Established as one of the Irgun leaders, Bergson’s activities carried him to Europe and culminated in the United States, where he not only became a leading spokesman for European Jews during the Holocaust, but where he also played a leading role in the creation of the new Israeli nation.

               Some episodes of Peter Bergson’s life have been highlighted by various historians and writers, whose writings have reflected perhaps amazement but more often confusion over his activities.  It is not surprising that such reactions would appear, especially because most of the time those who admired him, or those who admonished him, all seem to have had at best only a partial perspective of who he was.  I was fortunate to have worked closely with Peter Bergson during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s at his Institute of Mediterranean Affairs in New York City.  As we worked together to organize his papers and chronicle his thoughts, he spoke extensively of his activities, associations, dreams and frustrations.  Due to the upcoming conference at Yad Vashem scheduled for mid-July 2011, the theme of which is an examination of the activities of the Bergson Group during the Holocaust, I feel compelled to comment upon and clarify some issues concerning Bergson’s activities. 

To begin with, that such an event is happening at Yad Vashem at all is, in itself, some sort of a miracle. Several years ago the Wyman Institute presented a petition asking Yad Vashem to mention and exhibit some of Peter Bergson’s activities during the Holocaust.  Yad Vashem, the Israeli National Holocaust Memorial and its top leadership, refused to hear the plea [see my article “Not a Yad and Not a Shem”].  And now, a sudden shift.  The main speaker of the Yad Vashem conference will be Dr. David Wyman, a leading American historian of the Holocaust era, and the historian who has connected the dots to illustrate and prove that the political pressure that the Bergson Boys brought to bear during 1943 in the United States led to the establishment of the US governmental agency, the War Refugee Board. 

Dr. Wyman is the individual who introduced me to Peter Bergson.  However, what is confusing to me is Wyman’s lack of interest, as displayed in his writings, to confront the “other” issues that the Bergson Group dealt with, such as those surrounding “nationhood” and the political consequences of the work they did.  This reluctance on Wyman’s part was apparently due to his desire not to confront Jewish organizations about their passive and ineffective role in the Holocaust.  The fact that Wyman has now finally picked up the challenge to explain the Bergson phenomenon is, to me, not indicative of his overall understanding of the larger implications of some of their work, nor is he confrontational enough to bring the Bergson Group to the center stage of Holocaust historical writing.  The appearance of Wyman at the conference in Jerusalem is significant.  But, as I mentioned before, Wyman refuses to confront the totality of the Bergson Group’s activities as they extended past 1944 to the creation of the Israeli nation and to Bergson’s membership in the first Israeli Parliament; thus, for example, he offers no analysis of the Hebrew Committee of National Liberation [this is not Hebrew National, the kosher hot dog manufacturer, whose founders probably meant it to be Jewish and Kosher, and not National]. 

The conference, if serious about doing any justice to the Bergson Group, is going to have to deal with the analysis of how the news of the Holocaust came to America.  The arrival of the news of the Holocaust has been debated, explored and is in totality a mess.  A few historians, like Walter Laqueur and Richard Breitman in their book Breaking the Silence [NY: Simon & Schuster, 1986], Richard Breitman and Alan M. Kraut in their article “Who Was the ‘Mysterious Messenger’?” [Commentary: October 1983], and David S. Wyman  in his own interpretation [The Abandonment of the Jews] have all emphasized the role played by Dr. Gerhardt Riegner, the World Jewish Congress representative in Switzerland, in transmitting a German messenger’s news to America.  I do not have the real answer as to the identity of the German sources.  However, I did see a copy of an affidavit that Paul Guggenheim, a Swiss Jewish professor of law, presented to American authorities in Switzerland in 1942 which indicates that the information on the mass killing of European Jewry came initially from a German official of the German Foreign Office, and an official of the Ministry of War.  This affidavit led me to believe that detailed information came to US representatives in Switzerland from various German informants; and at one time I wrote a short article, “The Mysterious Riegner,” to present this case.  While he was still alive, Riegner refused to give the name of his German source, which leaves us with more confusion than we need. 

               The simple facts are thus: the United States, at the start of WWII, did not have good Intelligence services.  FDR’s quick response to this Intelligence crisis led eventually to the establishment of the OSS and to the nomination of William (“Wild Bill”) Donovan as its Chief Operating Officer.  The lack of American experience in international spying led the Americans to ask the British to help out.  The British help was simultaneously a blessing and a curse; what is important to note is that some of the British Intelligence leadership were double agents and committed Communists, a situation that, not surprisingly, resulted in many disastrous consequences in Intelligence, and is especially where the Jewish Holocaust suffered severe casualties.  Some of these consequent frustrations can be found expressed in the book Intrepid’s Last Chance by William Stevenson [NY: Villard Books, 1983].  According to Stevenson, it was two Polish nationals, Jan Nowak and Jan Karski, who both brought the news of the massacre of European Jewry to the West.  “Jan Nowak went to the Public Record Office outside London long afterwards and was shocked to find that everything from Karski and himself with regards to the extermination of the Jews had been omitted” (p. 272).  Looking carefully at Intelligence issues during WWII, one discovers that some elements of the German leadership had been very shaken by Hitler’s wartime activities.  Based on facts understood today, I would speculate that these elements, once they discovered and fully understood the Holocaust massacres, comprehended quite well that this plan of the systematic murder of European Jewry would harm Germany in the future.  Therefore, as I mentioned above, they were willing to bring the terrible news to the West, especially to the Americans.  Switzerland was the ideal place for them to carry out their mission, and sure enough, a few German messengers did arrive there.  The Germans who endangered themselves knew exactly what they were doing.  Once the messages reached the West, it would have been proper for the Allied governments to react.  But this did not happen; the reason? -- Intelligence, Communist and other elements preferred the War to continue as long as it would help the Soviets.  The consequent damage done to the Americans as a result of their inability to grasp the import of the intelligence reports coming out of Germany was enormous, and of course no action was taken to save Jews.  The German elements willing to endanger their lives to topple the Hitler regime later failed again in July 1944.

               The news about the Holocaust became public in the United States at the end of 1942.  This led to a great deal of anxiety and anger in the American Jewish community.  Within two weeks, on December 8, 1942, at noontime, FDR met with the Jewish leadership in America in a meeting at the White House; this was, in fact, the only time during WWII that the President invited this group to meet with him.  A document I uncovered, written by Adolf Held, the President of the Jewish Labor Committee, that I published in Midstream [August/September 1980] is probably the most devastating piece of information we have about FDR and the massacre of European Jewry.   In it Held documents that by this early date, December 8, 1942, FDR and his administration are fully aware of the massacre, but that FDR has decided not to take any action in this regard, at least for awhile.  Wyman cites this document in his book The Abandonment of the Jews, but he fails to mention in his footnotes that it took me a few years to find it, and that I actually published this Held piece in an article four years before his book appeared.  This omission is not a matter of a footnote error.

Due to the commotion brought by the messages that appeared in the American newspapers in November 1942 and the news of the systematic mass killing of European Jewry, the Bergson Group immediately started shifting gears and moved from their project to establish a Jewish army, to a full-blown effort to convince the FDR administration to take action to save what was left of European Jewry.  Their activities have been documented by a few historians, of whom the leading one is Dr. David Wyman, but he is not alone.  Wyman is of the school that concluded that the Bergson Group’s political activities in the year 1943 led to the establishment of the War Refugee Board in January 1944.  This being so, the Bergson Group’s interest in saving European Jews did not, however, begin only in 1942/1943, nor did it end in 1944; rather, Bergson was involved in attempts to save Jews from 1935-1948.  The trauma of  November 1942, did not change his tempo or his ultimate goal to establish a Hebrew Republic (Israeli Republic) with a written constitution à la Thomas Jefferson as a model.  This is what most historians fail to recognize.  Bergson was probably the most tuned-in individual to come out of Palestine; over more than thirteen years he single-handedly reacted and promoted schemes to save Jews: The Committee for a Jewish Army, the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe, and the Hebrew Committee of National Liberation, were all established by Bergson and were meant to give the Jews during WWII a political identity denied to them by the Nazis.  For the Nazis, for whom the “Jew” was worth only one thing, i.e., a ticket to Auschwitz, thus eliminated Jewish political identity altogether.  So for Bergson, this Nazi scheme fomented the critical need to reestablish and inform the free world of a political status for European Jewry.  Bergson believed that establishing a political status for Jews was a critical factor toward saving them.  A Hebrew Republic in Palestine, in spite of the world’s unwillingness to accept this idea, was for him the formula for achieving this sought for political status.  The current research on the Bergson Group’s activities is to-date very limited, but the totality of his activities is essential to grasp, not just what the Group did in 1943.

Another participant in this upcoming seminar at Yad Vashem will be Judith Baumel, whose book Between Ideology and Propaganda: The “Irgun” Delegation and the Origins of American-Jewish Right-Wing Militancy [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1999; Hebrew] is totally confusing as well as misleading, analytically faulty, and absolutely ahistorical.  Dr. Wyman will thus have to face her and her theoretical nonsense, and I hope that there will not be an academic explosion at this conference!  Baumel does not accept Wyman’s conclusion that the political activity of the Bergson Group led to the creation of the War Refugee Board.  It should be noted that she is not alone in this stance among Israeli and American historians.  For example, Saul Friedlander, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for his book The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews 1939-1945 [NY: Harper Perennial, 2008], also does not believe that to be the case.  But I believe that unprejudiced examination of the facts will support Wyman’s conclusion.  Many years ago, while I was a student of Dr. Wyman, and afterwards, I tried to explain the issue to Joel Carmichael, the editor of Midstream magazine and the son of Louis Lipsky, a well known Zionist leader.  As a result of this discussion, Carmichael published my article “Political Actions vs. Personal Relations” [April 1981], also concluding that it was not shtadlanut (Jewish begging) but rather the political action of the Bergson Group in 1943 that led the United States government to take some sort of a role in saving Jews. [In the Jewish prayerbook one repeats in the daily prayers “Thank G-d for not making me a woman.”  I would like to pray “Thank G-d for not making me an academic….”]

The reasons for my writing this article are many.  For me it is important to bring up and to highlight some of Bergson’s activities.  For a number of years at the end of the 1970’s and into the early 1980’s I spent many hours with Peter Bergson as well as Samuel Merlin and Yitshaq Ben-Ami (the father of Jeremy Ben-Ami of J-Street).  Throughout those years we shared lots of ideas and thought over many approaches as to  how to reclaim their place in history, and make their ideas and messages clear and relevant to the next generation.  One of the main issues that always came up in our conversations was the role of the non-Jews who helped the Bergson Group.  It is sort of interesting: it was the non-Jewish politicians who took a moral stand and decided to help.  For Bergson presented them with the powerful argument that if they did not take a moral stand, then they were like the Germans -- and they responded.  So it is important for me to develop some thoughts on the subject of the non-Jewish participants in the Bergson Group’s activities.  Here I would like to focus on one individual, an American Congressman, who was instrumental in helping to propel the Bergson Group’s response to the Holocaust in 1943.  Will Rogers, Jr., was the son of the famous American humorist Will Rogers, whose ancestors were Cherokee Indians and once commented that “’my ancestors didn’t come over on the Mayflower – they met the boat’” [P.J. O’Brien, Will Rogers, Ambassador of Good Will Prince of Wit and Wisdom (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Co., 1935; p. 24)].  Will Rogers, Jr., who came to Congress in 1942, should be considered an American hero in the tradition of Sitting Bull, or better still, Crazy Horse.  He definitely inherited from his ancestors that spirit of freedom and stubbornness that helped the Bergson Group pursue its resolve to bring to the United States Congress via the House and the Senate a resolution to create an agency to save European Jews.  FDR did so eventually in 1944 particularly as a result of the pressure of Congress.  In honor of Will Rogers, Jr., and his ancestors, I suggest that we look at the project in the American West of the building of the huge monument to Crazy Horse.  In the spirit of Will Rogers and his ancestors, American Jews and Israelis should take this example of the Americans and erect such a large monument to Peter Bergson in New York, or in Tel Aviv, or in both. 

               WWII was over, and Bergson found himself more and more involved in the pursuit of his lifetime dream to bring about the creation of a Hebrew Republic (as called today the Israeli nation) in Palestine.  It took an enormous amount of political work as well as other grassroots and cultural work to bring about this goal, that his Group felt was worthy to achieve.  I would like to backtrack here and explore something about the Bergson Group that is sometimes overlooked.  In 1943 Bergson for the first time came to realize and tried to cement a few issues concerning Jews.  First he tried to alert the American people to the facts of what was going on in Europe while America was at war and the Jews were being massacred.  Toward this end, he staged a famous pageant “We Will Never Die,” written by the playwright Ben Hecht, in New York City as well as other cities around the US.  Later on, between July 20-25, 1943, in New York City, Bergson arranged The Emergency Conference to Save the Jewish People of Europe.  That conference led Bergson to believe that in order to convince the American government that it should take immediate action to save Jews, he would have to move his activities to Capital Hill and personally to lobby in Congress to push FDR to do something.  He was beginning to fear that the goal to create a state for Jews after the War was getting to be an impossibility, as the number of Jews was diminishing by the millions.  To help secure Jewish (Hebrew, Israeli) sovereignty in Palestine, he dispatched Arie Ben Eliezar to Palestine to revive the Irgun by appointing Menachem Begin to assume its leadership there.  It was only thereafter that Bergson realized the magnitude of his mistake in this appointment.  Menachem Begin, later the Israeli Prime Minister, was one of the biggest disasters that happened in Bergson’s decision-making; Begin caused him agony for the rest of his life, not only for his role in the Altalena incident, but for other issues as well.  We always used to kid around about Begin, seen in Israel as a demagogue, that his legacy would culminate in the famous argument in the Israeli Knesset between him and Sprinzak.  [When Sprinzak commented on the Roman orator Cicero, he used the Hebrew pronunciation “Kikero.” Begin responded that the name should be pronounced “Tzitzero.”  Sprinzak again repeated “Kikero,” and Begin finally deferred by saying, “All right Mr. Sprinkak!”]  Begin was earlier involved in the Altalena incident, the ship that the Hebrew Committee of National Liberation purchased with the help of American funds, part of which were amassed from a play written by Ben Hecht titled “A Flag is Born” and starring the young actor Marlon Brando.  According to Bergson, Begin’s behavior in this incident ruined his life.  [I plan to publish a short article on this subject in the near future.]  As for Begin’s achievement of peace with Egypt in the Camp David agreement, this milestone was mostly due to the involvement of Moshe Dayan.

In 1944, Bergson also proposed the importance of a government-in-exile embassy in Washington, DC., which he established in April 1944.  He asserted that the main reason for this embassy would be to ensure that those Jews who had lost their political identity during the War and were thus stateless could claim to be part of a Hebrew (Israeli) nation, proof of which was their embassy in Washington.  This for him was a critical symbol for the surviving remnant of European Jewry; the fact that Begin in Palestine and the American Jewish leadership did not grasp its significance did not detract from its purpose.  During 1944 and toward the end of WWII, Bergson formulated a written proposal articulating his belief that a Hebrew Republic (Israeli Republic) with a written constitution (like the American one) could be established immediately after the War.  The fact that an Israeli sovereign nation was established in 1948 was for Bergson a natural progression of events and one that he contributed a great deal to.  However, in the end, with the creation of the Israeli nation there emerged realities that terribly bothered Bergson.  First and foremost was the fact that the Israeli nation never wrote a constitution for the Israelis, thus depriving itself of becoming a modern nation.  In 1948 he predicted the terrible ramifications that this omission would cause.  The impact of this issue is more complex, as it became a constant source of agony for Bergson for the rest of his life.

To conclude, we wish the organizers of this conference good luck, even though we know for sure that the serious issues Bergson raised will not be discussed.  But it is a beginning, and let us hope that something good will come out of it.













11:00 - 11:58 AM  / (NYC Time)

Channel 34 of the Time/Warner & Channel 83 of the RCN 
  Cable Television Systems in Manhattan, New York.

The Program can now be viewed on the internet at time of cable casting at: WWW.MNN.ORG

NOTE: You must adjust viewing to reflect NYC time & click on "WATCH MNN 1" at site


                                    241 West 36th StreetNew York,N.Y. 10018 Phone: 212-695-6351 E-Mail: HHC@NYC.RR.COM


Hit Counter