Ralph Bunche



by Asle Sveen*

“I have a bias in favour of both Arabs and Jews in the sense that I believe that both are good, honourable and essentially peace-loving peoples, and are therefore as capable of making peace as of waging war …” – Ralph Bunche, 19491

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

In 1950 the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the first non-white person, the African-American and United Nations (UN) official Ralph Bunche. He received the Peace Prize for his efforts as mediator between Arabs and Jews in the Israeli-Arab war in 1948-1949. These efforts resulted in armistice agreements between the new state of Israel and four of its Arab neighbours: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

Two members of the Norwegian parliament nominated Ralph Bunche for the Nobel Peace Prize. Both had connections to the newly founded United Nations. One was Norway’s first UN ambassador, and the other was a member of the Norwegian UN delegation. The nomination stated: “Although it can not be said to be Dr. Bunche’s merit, but the development process itself that made the parties end the hostilities, there can be no doubt that it is Dr. Bunche’s merit that the challenging negotiations over a ceasefire were brought to a positive result in a relatively short time”.

The nominators had several motives. Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Bunche “would thereby not only honour him personally, but express trust and faith in the ability of the United Nations to solve international disputes by way of mediation between the parties”. Furthermore, the nominators could not “neglect to mention that giving the Nobel Peace Prize to a member of the coloured race is a boost to peace in itself”. Thus the Peace Prize was meant to strengthen the UN and to serve as an initiative against racism as well as to honour Ralph Bunche.


Ralph Bunche studying his Nobel Peace Prize medal after receiving it in Oslo, Norway on 10 December 1950.
Photo: Courtesy of Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies, City University of New York, Graduate Center

Family Background and Education

Ralph Bunche was born in 1903, in the industrial city of Detroit, Michigan, in the United States. Most of his ancestors were descendants of black slaves, but there was also Irish heritage in his family. After his mother’s death in 1917, Bunche moved with his grandmother to Los Angeles, California. She was a light-skinned woman who could almost pass for white, but she was proud of her black origin and raised Ralph to be proud of his race, work hard and get the best education he could.

It was in Los Angeles that Bunche had his first real encounter with racial discrimination. Although an excellent high-school student, he was excluded from the most popular students’ association. Nevertheless, he wrote for the campus newspaper, was president of the debating team and became a star basketball player. In 1927 he graduated from the University of Los Angeles (UCLA) as a Political Science major and valedictorian of his class.

Earning a master’s degree at Harvard University, Ralph Bunche took a teaching position at Howard University in Washington, where he founded the school’s Political Science Department.

Ralph Bunche obtained a doctorate in French Colonial Policy as the first African-American to earn a doctorate in Political Science. He lived and studied for several months in different parts of Africa, and was appalled by the striking poverty he observed and the bad treatment of Africans by the colonial administrations. His studies extended to include the rights of all peoples without self-government, and he developed a profound knowledge of trusteeships and the question of decolonisation.

Struggle Against Racism

In the 1930s Bunche became a recognized authority on race relations, and for a while was attracted to Marxist analyses that emphasised economic explanations for poverty and racism. He was one of the founders of the radical National Negro Congress, which had the aim of cooperation on social issues and the creation of mutual solidarity across the colour bar.

In 1939 Bunche joined the staff of the Swedish social scientist Gunnar Myrdal, who studied American racial segregation. Myrdal disagreed with the Marxist theory that black Americans could only obtain liberation and equality through class struggle in cooperation with the white working class. In contrast, he believed that a large part of the white population was so infused with racism that the strategy of the African-Americans ought to be to get the federal government to practise the spirit and principles of freedom embodied in the Constitution of the United States for the whole American populace. Bunche was strongly influenced by Myrdal, and in 1940 he left the National Negro Congress after it had been taken over by the American Communist Party.

United States Official

In December 1941, the United States was brought into the Second World War by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Shortly before this dramatic event, Bunche joined the staff of the American intelligence service as an expert on colonial areas. His job was to provide the American forces with useful information for operations in Africa and Asia. Through hard work and excellent memorandums Bunche was soon moved to positions of higher responsibility, and in 1944 he became the first African-American to hold a top position in the US State Department, with responsibility for colonial issues.

Assistant to the Special Committee on Palestine

In 1945 the Second World War was brought to an end and the United Nations was founded. The first UN Secretary-General, the Norwegian Trygve Lie, asked Bunche to join the UN. Bunche went into the UN service the following year to work with the question on decolonisation. In 1947 Lie made him assistant to a special committee on Palestine.

During this time, a conflict was brewing in the Middle East between the British, Jews and Arabs over Jewish demands for a separate state. At a special session of the UN in May 1947, Jewish delegates argued that European anti-Semitism and the Nazi extermination of six million Jews during the Second World War made the creation of a Jewish state absolutely necessary. An Arab representative countered that the Arabs of Palestine should not suffer for the crimes of Hitler.2 Finally, Britain left the UN in charge of the Middle East conflict, which was marked by increasing bitterness and extremism, and a UN Committee was formed to find solutions to the problems.

The committee travelled for six weeks, conducting interviews in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, as well as visiting Jews in displaced-person camps in Europe. Many Arabs refused to talk to the committee, claiming that the UN had no right to give away any part of their land. The most extremist Jews wanted to take all of Palestine as well as areas on the east bank of Jordan, while the moderates were prepared to accept a partition of Jewish and Arab territories.

Bunche did not find it easy to work with the members of the UN Committee, which he characterised as the worst group he had ever worked with because of internal strife and disagreements. Finally, the majority of the UN Committee proposed a partition of Palestine into two independent Jewish and Palestinian states. Jerusalem was to be governed by the UN to guarantee access for Jews, Christians and Muslims to all their holy sites. The minority in the committee wanted a federal state, with separate provinces for Arabs and Jews, and with Jerusalem as a common capital. Although Ralph Bunche had drafted both proposals, he was frustrated. In a letter to his wife, he wrote that the Palestine problem was the intractable sort that had no possible satisfactory solutions.

In the autumn of 1947, a majority in the UN, including the United States and the Soviet Union, adopted the partition plan. The Arab and Muslim delegations marched out in protest, while Jews worldwide jubilantly hailed the result.

Assistant to Count Folke Bernadotte

On 14 May 1948, the last British ship sailed from Palestine. Jews celebrated the creation of the state of Israel, but soon after Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia declared war on the new state. The Israeli army, which was better trained and equipped than its opponents, soon had the upper hand in the war, conquering land beyond the areas allotted to them in the UN partition plan. The war made Arab families flee parts of Palestine occupied by Jewish forces, and during the fighting as many as 700,000 Palestinians fled their homes, creating a large-scale refugee problem.

The Security Council appointed the Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte as mediator to promote a peaceful adjustment of the situation in Palestine. As the head of the Swedish Red Cross, Count Bernadotte had successfully negotiated the release of Danish and Norwegian prisoners from the Nazi concentration camps during the last weeks of World War II in Europe. Trygve Lie asked Ralph Bunche to accompany Bernadotte to the Middle East as Chief Representative of the Secretary-General. Lie saw Bunche as the man who understood the conflict and who was able to draft compromise proposals which could bring the fighting to a halt.

Bernadotte and Bunche were shuttled between Jerusalem and the Arab capitals in the Count’s white plane to put a stop to the war. In June the parties accepted a ceasefire agreement drawn up by Bunche.

Count Bernadotte moved his headquarters to the island of Rhodes to have peaceful and neutral surroundings. He believed that the partition plan needed revisions to ensure Arab acceptance. At Rhodes, Bernadotte and Bunche worked out a draft that was later known as the Bernadotte Plan. This plan proposed a union between Jordan and Palestine and the creation of an independent Israeli state. The proposal included Jerusalem in an Arab state with autonomy for the Jewish minority. In addition, Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return to their homes in Israeli-occupied territory or receive compensation for the losses of their homes.

The draft was designed for internal discussion but its content was leaked. As a result, the draft had to be published as a document of the UN Security Council. Both Palestinians and Jews rejected the plan, and the Lehi group, an extremist Jewish faction, disliked it so much that it set out to assassinate the charismatic Bernadotte before he could influence the UN. The Lehi group, which included future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Shamir, regarded Bernadotte as an agent of the British government, and wanted him dead.3 Bunche was scheduled to meet Bernadotte in Jerusalem, from where they would proceed to put the new partition proposal before the UN General Assembly. Several delays prevented Bunche from reaching the Jerusalem rendezvous point on time, and Bernadotte instead brought a French UN officer to accompany him to his meeting in the city that day. En route they were stopped by armed men in Israeli uniforms at the Mandelbaum gate in Jerusalem. One of them pointed his machine gun into the car and fired, killing both Bernadotte and the French officer — the latter probably wrongly taken to be Bunche. Meanwhile Bunche, who was supposed to have been in the car, arrived at the rendezvous point half an hour after the Count had left.

Bunche and Bernadotte
Ralph Bunche (right) and Count Folke Bernadotte boarding a United Nations plane.
Photo: Courtesy of Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies, City University of New York, Graduate Center

Leader of the UN Palestine Mission

When news of Bernadotte’s death reached the UN, Trygve Lie immediately phoned Bunche and asked him to succeed Bernadotte and carry on the mediation effort. Despite awareness of the personal danger posed by the role, Bunche did not hesitate to accept Lie’s request. Bunche travelled to Paris, where he met with UN representatives to discuss the new borders between Jews and Arabs that he and Bernadotte had proposed.

In the meantime, fighting in Palestine broke out again between Israeli and Egyptian forces, with Israel on the offensive conquering new ground. The General Assembly of the UN gave up the Bernadotte Plan and the Security Council in a resolution originally drafted by Bunche, demanded that the parties in the conflict should establish an armistice through negotiations.

After weeks of toil, Bunche was able to bring the Israelis and Egyptians to the negotiating table on Rhodes in January 1949. The Arab countries initially refused to negotiate directly with Israel, but on the isle of Rhodes Bunche managed to persuade the Egyptians and Israelis to sit together at the negotiating table, and discuss the Middle East problems face to face.

The negotiations began with Israel and Egypt in January 1949. Through discretion, patience and humour Bunche won the confidence of the negotiating parties. He formulated compromise proposals and was willing to work for months to come to an agreement. With Bernadotte’s fate in mind, Bunche made the negotiators agree to total secrecy; the press and Security Council were only to receive official press reports. Hard negotiations led to the signing of a truce by both parties by the end of February 1949. As Egypt was the leading Arab nation, it paved the way for later agreements between Israel and Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

An Agreement in Favour of Israel?

Recent research has shown that the UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie and the United States government played a much more decisive role in the negotiations than was otherwise known before.4 On several occasions Bunche asked President Truman and Lie for help to prevent a breakdown in the negotiations, and information that was meant solely for the UN was passed on to the United States delegation by Secretary Lie. Like most Norwegian Social Democrats, Lie sympathised strongly with the Jewish position, and President Truman supported the Jewish case because his advisers informed him that the Jewish votes in the United States were both important for his re-election in 1948 and for the Democratic Party in the future. As both Lie and Truman were biased in favour of Israel, pressure to compromise was mainly applied to the Egyptian delegation, and the final agreement was more beneficial to Israel than the Arab countries, despite Bunche’s efforts to achieve impartiality. In fact Bunche’s diary shows that he was often annoyed with the behaviour of the Jewish delegates and had sympathy for the demands of the Egyptian delegation.

With the conclusion of the agreement between Israel and Syria on 20 July 1949, the Rhodes armistice negotiations were completed – Israel was recognized by the world community as an independent state within new borders, and was admitted as a member of the UN.

Personally, Bunche believed that the Palestinian Arabs were the big losers in the conflict, and, in fact, the agreements sealed the fate of the UN’s plan for an independent Palestinian state. The Israelis kept almost all the land they had conquered. Israel had expanded from the UN-allocated 55% of British ruled Palestine to 79%. Jordan and Egypt took what was left for the Palestinian Arabs. The armistice agreements were intended as the basis for peace negotiations within a year, but these never took place. Although the UN and the United States called for the rights of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, this never happened. The fate of the Palestinian refugees remained an unsolved problem.

The Nobel Peace Prize

When the news came that Bunche had won the 1950 Nobel Peace Prize, he considered declining it because, in his opinion, representatives of the UN ought not to be rewarded with prizes for their work for peace. But Trygve Lie insisted that he receive the Peace Prize – the UN needed all the publicity it could get.

The choice of Bunche as Nobel Peace Prize Laureate was well received the world over. In Sweden, it was seen as an indirect tribute to Folke Bernadotte. In Norway, a newspaper wrote that the prize was a message to non-white people of the world. Only the Soviet press was dissatisfied. One article branded Bunche as an ‘Uncle Tom’ – a good-natured black who lent himself to the efforts of the American authorities to keep the non-white population down.

By the time the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Bunche, the Korean War has started, with the United Nations as a participant. In his Nobel Lecture in Oslo, Bunche stressed that the UN was the greatest peace effort in human history, but it should be allowed to build an international military force to be deployed against aggressors violating the UN Charter. He also pointed to the fact that millions of people in Africa and Asia were poor and oppressed and that the West, in order to promote democracy, must support the basic creed of the UN that all peoples must have equality and equal rights.

Later Years

Bunche continued working for the United Nations under the Secretary-Generals Dag Hammarskjöld and U Thant. In the United States he supported the growing Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, and marched and spoke together with the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate of 1964, Martin Luther King, Jr.

Bunche and U Thant tried to put an end to the Vietnam War and establish lasting peace in the Middle East, but they suffered many setbacks. Bunche felt that the Six-Day War of 1967 between Israel and the Arab states ruined almost all the détente he had managed to establish in the region.

When Ralph Bunche died in 1971, the United Nations General Assembly paid its final tribute to him with one minute of silence.

Truman diary blasts Jews
Former US President Harry Truman described Jews as "very, very selfish" in newly-discovered diary notes that have surprised scholars.

"They [the Jews] care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment," he wrote in 1947.

"Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political, neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog.

"Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist, he goes haywire.

"I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes."

Truman's remarks were found among 42 entries of a diary that had remained obscure in the Truman Library in Missouri for 38 years.

The apparent anti-Semitic tones have startled scholars as Truman - US President from 1945 to 1953 - is credited with helping bring about the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, despite opposition from his own Department of State.

"It did surprise me because of what I know about Truman's record," Sara Bloomfield, director of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, told the Washington Post newspaper.

"Truman's sympathy for the plight of Jews was very apparent."

Election fears

Truman's latest diary was found at the back of a book entitled The Real Estate Board of New York Inc, Diary and Manual 1947.

It was recently discovered by staff reshelving the books, and "is probably the most important document the Truman Library has opened in 20 years," according to library director Michael Devine.

Although written in 1947, the diary does not include references to Truman's most significant achievements, like the Truman Doctrine to contain the spread of communism and the Marshall Plan of aid to post-World War II Europe.

  • But notable entries include:

  • 25 July: Truman recounts a meeting at which he attempted to get General Dwight Eisenhower to run for president on a Democratic ticket in 1948, with Truman as running mate.

  • 28 July: "Terrible day" - the death of his mother. "Along the road cars, trucks and pedestrians stood with hats off. It made me want to weep - but I couldn't in public. I've read through thousands of messages from all over the world in the White House study and I can shed tears as I please - no-one's looking."

  • 7 March: "Doc tell's [sic] me I have cardiac asthma! Ain't that hell. Well it makes no diff, will go on as before."

  • 4 July: "Mrs Astor - [British] Lady Astor came to the car just before we started from Monticello [state of Virginia] to say to me that she liked my policies as president but that she thought I had become rather too much "Yankee". I couldn't help telling her that my purported "Yankee" tendencies were not half so bad as her ultra-conservative British leanings. She almost had a stroke."

Historian Robert Dallek in The Lost Peace: Leadership In A Time Of Horror And Hope, 1945-1953 (2010) posits why America can expect no peace in the Middle East.  Dallek claims that Clark Clifford, Harry Truman's adviser, was a hard-nosed political operator who had few qualms about cutting political corners to win an election.  It seems he could be considered a combination of Donald Trump in looks and Newt Gingrich in his political cunning and descriptive mannerisms.

The likelihood of a Truman defeat in 1948 overshadowed foreign policy concerns.  Clark Clifford, the president's white House counsel, who had also become his principal campaign adviser, remembers that his hopes of Truman's election “went up and down.”  However, no foreign policy issue more directly influenced the election than Truman's decision to give prompt recognition to the state of Israel in May 1948. 


It is true that significant political considerations entered into the president's decision, and they so angered Secretary of State George Marshall—who, like others in the State Department, believed that less overt backing for Israel was in America's best interest—that he never spoke again to Clark Clifford, who pushed recognition as essential to the president's election.


For Truman, who accepted the political necessity of overtly supporting the new Jewish state, there was nothing untoward about doing so: not only would it help him politically but he believed it was the right and realistic policy.  He fully accepted the moral claims for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and Clifford convinced him that Israel would come into existence with or without America's immediate backing.


When he won election in November, Truman believed that he had both made a smart political decision on Israel and acted in concert with larger moral and historical forces.  Israel's successful resistance to the Arab League armies in 1948 vindicated Clifford's prediction that an Israeli state would come into being regardless of initial outside reactions.


When the chief rabbi of Israel told Truman during a visit to the white House, “God put you in your mother's womb so you would be the instrument to bring the rebirth of Israel after two thousand year,” Truman started to cry.


Such are the fictions by which men sometimes take comfort from their actions.  Neither the rabbi nor the president reflected on the potential for continuing violence created by the irreconcilable differences between Israelis and Palestinians over land and survival in the Holy Land.


Michael Kranish and Marc Fisher report on how the postmodern American Zionism Darius: Donald J. Trump sees himself.  Trump told the Kranish and Fisher of his “school days” and leadership qualities as an adolescent.  In the private Kew-Forest School kindergarten Donald Trump spent the most time with Robert, is little brother, a quiet, sensitive youngster and easy prey for an aggressive older sibling.  As an adult, Donald like to tell the story of when he appropriated Robert's building blocks for his own and glued them together because he was so pleased with what he had made.  “And that was the end of Robert's blocks,” Donald recalled.

At Kew-Forest, Donald flaunted the dress code and from the start, Donald and his friends resided their teachers' commands, disrupting class and wisecracks and unruly behavior.  “We threw spitballs and we played racing chairs with our desks, crashing them into other desks, recalled Paul Onish, Donald spent enough time in detention that his friends nicknamed the punishment DTs—short for “Donny Trumps.”


Their classmates did not always appreciate their antics.  By second grade, no Matter the consequences, Donald's behavior did not change.  “He was headstrong and determined,” said Ann Trees, a Kew-Forest teacher who monitored students in the cafeteria.  “He would sit with his arms folded, with this look on his face—I use the word surly—almost daring you to say one thing or another that wouldn't settle with him.” 


Steven Nachtigall, who live a couple of blocks away from the Trumps, said his own impression of Donald was cemented when he saw him jump off his bike one afternoon and pummel another boy.  “It's kind of like a little video snippet that remains in my brain because I think it was so unusual and terrifying at that age,” Nachtigall would six decades later.


By Trump's own account, his primary focus in elementary school was “creating mischief because, for some reason, I liked to stir thing up and I like to test people.  It wasn't malicious so much as it was aggressive.”  As a second-grader, as trump has described it, he punched his music teacher, giving a “black eye” because “I didn't think he knew anything about music, and I almost got expelled.  I'm not proud of that, but it's clear evidence that even early on I had a tendency to stand up and make my opinions known in a very forceful way.”


“When I say 'punch,' when you're that age, nobody punches very hard.  But I was very rambunctious in school.”


The teacher, Charles Walker who died in 2015, never mentioned the incident to his family.  Yet Walker's contempt for Donald was clear.  “He was a pain,” Walker once said.  “There are certain kids that need attention all the time.  He was one of those.”  Just before his death as he lay in bed in hospice.  Walker heard reports that Trump was considering a run for the presidency, “When that kid was ten,” Walker told family members, “even then he was a little shit.”


Trump's grades suffered and his behavior got him in hot water, but he found success in the gymnasium and on the ball field, where his athletic prowess was unmistakable.  In dodge-ball Donald was known for jumping straight up in the air and pulling his knees up to avoid being struck.  “The Trumpet was always the last man standing,” remembered Chrisman Scherf, a classmate, invoking his old nickname for Donald. 


As I continued to Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf: Stink Bombs, Switchblades, and a Three-Piece Suit, it occurred to me that it read just like the many biographies of Adolph Hitler—especially by Ian Kershaw and by himself in Mein Kampf.


Mein Kampf states that when Hitler's father retired at 56, he retired and bought a farm.  It was at this time that the first ideals took shape in my (Hitler's) breast.  All my playing about in the open, the long walk to school, and particularly my association with extremely 'husky' boys, which sometimes caused my mother bitter anguish, made me the very opposite of a stay-at-home.


And though at that time I scarcely had any serious ideas as to the profession I should one day pursue, my sympathies were in any case not in the direction of my father's career.


It was decided that I should go to high school.  From my whole nature, and to an even greater degree from my temperament, my father believed he could draw the inference that the humanistic Gymnasium would represent a conflict with my talents.  A Realschule seemed to him more suitable.  It was the pride of the self-made man which made him want his son to rise to the same position in life, or, of course  even higher if possible, especially since, by his own industrious life, he thought he would be able to facilitate his child's development so greatly.


School work was ridiculously easy, leaving me so much free time that the sun saw more of me than my room when today my political opponents direct their loving attention to the examination of my life, following it back to those childhood days, and discover at last to their relief what intolerable pranks this and discover at last to their relief what intolerable pranks this 'Hitler' played even in his youth, I thank Heaven that a photo of the memories of those happy days still remains with me.  Woods and meadows were then the battlefields on which the 'conflicts' which exist everywhere in life were decided.


My report cards at this time, depending on the subject and my estimation of it, showed nothing but extremes.  Sid by side with 'laudable' and 'excellent,' stood 'adequate' or even 'inadequate.' by far my best accomplishments were in geography and even more so in history.  These were my favorite subjects, in which I led the class.


If now, after so many years, I examine the results of this period, I regard two outstanding facts as particularly significant:

First: I became a nationalist.

Second: I learned to understand and grasp the meaning of history.

Old Austria [like Old America] was a 'state of nationalities.'


Kranish and Fisher report that thousands of Jewish activist gathered at Trump's long-awaited speech to AIPAC (2016) on his approach to the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate.  Dozens of rabbis and others had announced plans to boycott the event, both because trump had pledged to be “neutral” in talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and because Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering the United States struck many Jews as a frightening echo of the policies that their own parents and grandparents had faced in Europe.


Even though Trump's daughter Ivanka had married an Orthodox Jew and converted to Judaism, the candidate had alienated many Jews with comments at a Republican Jewish Coalition meeting where he said he might not win the support of many in the room because he did not want their money.  Trump said he was best-positioned to get a Middle East peace deal because he's a negotiator, “like you folks.”

Trump had some repair work to do.  He took no chances.  Though he'd said that Teleprompters should be banned on the campaign trail, he now used one, his eyes darting from on screen to the other.  This time, he was squarely on Israel's side.  He railed against the Palestinians' demonetization of Jews.


He reminded the crowd that he'd lent his personal jet to New York mayor Rudy Giuliani when he visited Israel weeks after the 9/11 attacks and that he'd been grand marshal of the Israel Parade in New York in 2004, at the height of violence in the Gaza Strip.  He made sure everyone noted that Ivanka would soon give birth to a “beautiful Jewish baby.”

Before Trump's speech won repeated standing ovations, at the start of his remarks, six rows from the stage, one rabbi wearing a Jewish prayer shawl stood up and shouted in solitary protest, “This man is wicked.  He inspires racists and bigots.  He encourages violence.  Do not list to him.”


Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, who leads an Orthodox congregation in Washington, did not rise out any passion of the moment.  He had wrestled with this decision for days.  He consulted with his own mentor rabbi, with his lawyer, with his wife and seven children.  He told his kids that he felt obligated to say something, “to say 'we know who you are, we see through you.'”


His children asked him not to stage his protest because he might get hurt, but Herzfeld concluded that he had no choice.  He knew he would lose members of his synagogue (and he did).  He knew he would be accused of taking an inappropriately political stance (and he was).


But he had concluded that Trump posed “an existential threat to our country.  I've never seen this type of political figure in my life.  He's shameless in inspiring violence.  He used vile language about people from other countries.  H's open a space for ugliness to come out of the shadows.”


Herzfeld was immediately ushered out of the arena and Trump continued speaking without incident.

White Supremacy Fuels Domestic Terrorism, Southern Poverty Law Center Says


Noel King talks to Heidi Beirich, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, about the rise in hate crimes, and the outlook for 2019.

Women’s March Roiled by Accusations of Anti-Semitism

Vanessa Wruble, an early organizer of the Women’s March, at her home in Brooklyn.CreditKholood Eid for The New York Times
Vanessa Wruble, an early organizer of the Women’s March, at her home in Brooklyn.  CreditCreditKholood Eid for The New York Times
  • Dec. 23, 2018

Within days of Donald J. Trump’s election, a diverse group of women united by their concern about the incoming administration gathered at a restaurant in New York to plan a protest march in Washington. They had seen the idea floating on Facebook and wanted to turn it into a reality.

The unity did not last long. Vanessa Wruble, a Brooklyn-based activist, said she told the group that her Jewish heritage inspired her to try to help repair the world. But she said the conversation took a turn when Tamika Mallory, a black gun control activist, and Carmen Perez, a Latina criminal justice reform activist, replied that Jews needed to confront their own role in racism.

The women who gathered that night would go on to organize one of the biggest protests in American history, remarkable not just for its size, but for its inclusive nature. The event on Jan. 21, 2017, inspired thousands of women who had never been involved in politics before to pour their energy into helping Democrats win elections this fall.

But the divisions apparent at that very first meeting continue to haunt the Women’s March organization, as charges of anti-Semitism are now roiling the movement and overshadowing plans for more marches next month.

Ms. Wruble was pushed out of the organization shortly after the march, and she now asserts that her Jewish identity played a role. She went on to help found an organization called March On, which supports local women activists.

The rift is now so dire that there will be two marches on the same day next month on the streets of New York: one led by the Women’s March group, which is billed as being led by women of color, and another by a group affiliated with March On that is stressing its denunciation of anti-Semitism.

Ms. Mallory, meanwhile, who is now co-president of the Women’s March group, has been criticized for attending an event by Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam who has been widely reviled for making anti-Semitic remarks. Ms. Mallory has called Mr. Farrakhan “the GOAT,” or “greatest of all time,” on social media.

The accusations of anti-Semitism, which were outlined in an article this month in Tablet, an online Jewish magazine, have prompted some women to reconsider their support for the group.

Some Jewish women have announced on social media that they will not attend the mass protest in Washington on Jan. 19 being organized by the Women’s March group. Last month, Teresa Shook, a white woman from Hawaii who created the first Facebook page proposing a march, called for the group’s leaders, who include Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez, to step down.

Rachel O’Leary Carmona, chief operating officer of the Women’s March group, cast the controversy as the growing pains of a new organization that is struggling to build a diverse coalition. She said steps were being taken to ensure that Jewish women felt welcome, including giving Women’s March leaders education about anti-Semitism and adding Jewish women to the organization’s “unity principles,” which highlight groups that are considered especially vulnerable.

Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez say they categorically condemn anti-Semitism, and that when they asked Ms. Wruble to leave the group, it had nothing to do with her being Jewish. But they acknowledged that the role of Jewish women was discussed in that first meeting.

The Women’s March in Washington in 2017, one of the biggest protests in American history.CreditHilary Swift for The New York Times
The Women’s March in Washington in 2017, one of the biggest protests in American history.CreditHilary Swift for The New York Times

“Since that conversation, we’ve all learned a lot about how while white Jews, as white people, uphold white supremacy, ALL Jews are targeted by it,” Ms. Mallory said in a statement to The New York Times.

The allegations of anti-Semitism are particularly painful because Women’s March organizers made a commitment from the beginning to work across racial and religious lines, and to be led by what they considered the most “marginalized” women.

Now Women’s March activists are grappling with how they treat Jews — and whether they should be counted as privileged white Americans or “marginalized” minorities, especially in the aftermath of the October mass shooting in Pittsburgh, when 11 people were gunned down at their synagogue.

Tensions around identity have swirled around the Women’s March from its earliest days. Black and Latina women complained on Facebook that white women were planning a march without their input, and that mainstream feminists had long ignored their needs.

Ms. Wruble, a central organizer of the march, says she agrees that white women, including Jews, should grapple with their racial privilege. She put out a call for women of color to join the planning team and was connected with Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez. At that first meeting, Ms. Wruble said, they seemed to want to educate her about a dark side of Jewish history, and told her that Jewish people played a large role in the slave trade and the prison industry.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

“I was taken aback,” said Ms. Wruble in her first extensive interview about her experience organizing the Women’s March. “I thought, ‘Maybe there are things I don’t know about my own people.’”

She said she went home that night and searched Google to read about the Jewish role in the slave trade. Up popped a review of “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and the Jews,” a 1991 book by Mr. Farrakhan, which asserts that Jews were especially culpable. Henry Louis Gates Jr., a Harvard professor, has called the book the “bible of the new anti-Semitism.”

Ms. Wruble said she did not dwell on the issue because she wanted to work together on the march, which was only two months away. Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez brought a friend on board, Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian-American activist. The three women — and another woman named Bob Bland, a white fashion designer who created one of the first Facebook pages about the march — became the event’s official leaders. They were widely featured in the press as the public face of the movement.

Behind the scenes, Ms. Wruble said she felt cast aside.

She said she was told by one of the march leaders that “we really couldn’t center Jewish women in this or we might turn off groups like Black Lives Matter.” While Black Lives Matter is a diffuse movement, some activists have issued statements expressing solidarity with Palestinians under Israeli occupation.

At one point, Ms. Wruble said she asked about security for the march and was told by the leaders that the Nation of Islam would be providing it.

“I said, ‘You are going to open up the march to intense criticism,’” Ms. Wruble said, warning that it would be a red flag for Jews. She said they dismissed her concerns in a heated email exchange and accused her of unfairly maligning the Nation of Islam.

As the march grew closer, Ms. Perez gathered a diverse group of activists who created a set of “unity principles” that would tie all marchers together and highlight those viewed as the most vulnerable at the time.

“We must create a society in which all women — including Black women, Indigenous women, poor women, immigrant women, disabled women, Muslim women, lesbian, queer and trans women — are free,” it read.

From left, Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, Bob Bland and Carmen Perez, four organizers of the Women’s March.CreditTodd Heisler/The New York Times

From left, Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, Bob Bland and Carmen Perez, four organizers of the Women’s March.CreditTodd Heisler/The New York Times

Ms. Wruble noticed that Jewish women were not included, but said she was too busy with logistics for the march to focus on it.

In an interview, Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez said that they work in communities where Mr. Farrakhan is respected for his role in rehabilitating incarcerated men. They attended the 20th anniversary of the Million Man March in 2015, which Mr. Farrakhan planned.

But they said they did not subscribe to his views about Jewish people and never mentioned the slave trade in that first meeting with Ms. Wruble.

“It never happened,” Ms. Perez said.

They also denied telling Ms. Wruble that she could not be an official leader of the march because she is Jewish.

In fact, they said, they urged her to be more assertive if she wanted public recognition. “A closed mouth does not get fed,” Ms. Mallory told Ms. Wruble in an email viewed by The Times.

Ms. Mallory said the Nation of Islam was not hired for security. An internal document obtained by The Times said that the Women’s March group does not ask the religious affiliation of contractors, but said that because private security firms employ a large number of Nation of Islam members, “it is likely” that some members of the sect have provided security for Women’s March events.

Even though the march was a success, Ms. Wruble said that she felt angry and that the event’s official leaders were more focused on celebrity than building the movement. She also felt they were unwilling to confront their own bias against Jews. At a meeting days after the march, an argument broke out between Ms. Wruble and the other leaders.

Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez began berating Ms. Wruble, according to Evvie Harmon, a white woman who helped organize the march, and who attended the meeting at Ms. Mallory’s apartment complex.

“They were talking about, ‘You people this,’ and ‘You people that’ and the kicker was, ‘You people hold all the wealth.’ I was like, ‘Oh my God, they are talking about her being Jewish,’” said Ms. Harmon, whose account was first published by Tablet. “The greatest regret of my life was not standing up and saying ‘This is wrong.’”

Ms. Mallory denied that she disparaged Ms. Wruble’s Jewish heritage in that meeting, but acknowledged telling white women there that she did not trust them.

“They are not trustworthy,” she said, adding that Ms. Wruble gossiped behind the backs of the other march leaders instead of confronting them when she had an issue. “Every single one of us has heard things that offended us. We still do the work.”

Shortly after that meeting, Ms. Mallory, Ms. Perez and Ms. Sarsour decided they did not want to work with Ms. Wruble anymore.

On her way out, Ms. Wruble texted a senior adviser to the organization with a warning: “The one thing I would suggest you discuss with them is the anti-Semitic piece of this,” she wrote. “Their rhetoric around this stuff will hurt the movement.”

A version of this article appears in print on Dec. 23, 2018, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Anti-Semitism Accusations Roil Women’s March.


Mein Kampf ideologies is at work in the United States today: Trumpism—under the rubric of “Make America Great Again.”  This is apparent in “Under Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” and “Bastardized Peoples.”  Hitler writes that slowly fear of the Marxist weapon of Jewry descends like a nightmare on the mind and soul of decent people.  They begin to tremble before the terrible enemy and thus have become his final victim.

The Jew's domination in the state seems so assured that now not only can he call himself a Jew again, but he ruthlessly admits his ultimate national and political designs.  A section of his race openly owns itself to be a foreign people, yet even here they lie.  For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. 


It doesn't even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.


It is a sign of their rising confidence and sense of security that at a time when one section is still playing the German, Frenchman, or Englishman, the other with open effrontery comes out as the Jewish race.


How close they see approaching victory can be seen by the hideous aspect which their relations with the members of other peoples takes on.


For a racially pure people which is conscious of its blood can never be enslaved by the Jew.  In this world he will forever be master over bastards and bastards alone.


And so he tries systematically to lower the racial level by a continuous poising of individuals.


And in politics he begins to replace the idea of democracy by the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Around peoples who offer too violent a resistance to attack from within he weaves a net of enemies, thanks to his international influence, incites them to war, and finally, if necessary plants the flag of revolution on the very battlefields.


In economics he undermines the states until the social enterprises which have become unprofitable are taken from the state and subjected to his financial control.


In the political field he refuses the state the means for its self-preservation, destroys the foundations of all national self-maintenance and defense, destroys faith in the leadership, scoffs at its history and past, and drags everything that is truly great into the gutter.


“What one Christian does is his own responsibility; what one Jew does is thrown back at all Jews,” Anne Frank.

As U.S. Tolerates Israeli Settlements, More Homes Are Planned For The West Bank


An Israeli anti-settlement group says plans for more homes on occupied territory in the West Bank have increased dramatically during the Trump administration compared to the Obama administration.


Views: 51

Comment by mary gravitt on January 4, 2019 at 3:04pm

Reading Mein Kampf is interesting because it is freeing me from some delusions.  I understand how an evil ideology has taken root in the American mind and become its truths.  It makes me question the American identity and how one group can use their myth of history to control another.  Is it a question of religion or a question of philosophy?  Or does it truly indicate the end of history.

Comment by Doc Vega on January 6, 2019 at 5:17am

Stop racializing every issue and trying to turn the clock 60 years. Under the Obama administration race relations in America were incited and enhanced division was intentionally promoted. This needs to stop with 8000 black on black shootings each year 19 blacks shot by police each for resisting arrest while many more whites are shot and violently apprehended and to the same degree blacks with a population of 13% in US 49 more times likely to commit violence against whites than whites against black! The statists don't lie but people do especially those with a racism agenda!  

Comment by Doc Vega on January 6, 2019 at 5:18am

Did not mean statists I meant statistics.

Comment by koshersalaami on January 6, 2019 at 7:19am

What evil ideology do you mean? Which truths? 

The question is why. 

Comment by J.P. Hart on January 6, 2019 at 8:23am

set (v.)
Old English settan (transitive) "cause to sit, put in some place, fix firmly; build, found; appoint, assign," from Proto-Germanic *(bi)satejanan "to cause to sit, set" (source also of Old Norse setja, Swedish sätta, Old Saxon settian, Old Frisian setta, Dutch zetten, German setzen, Gothic satjan), causative form of PIE *sod-, a variant of root *sed- (1) "to sit." Also see set (n.2).

The intransitive sense from c. 1200, "be seated." The word was used in many disparate senses by Middle English; sense of "make or cause to do, act, or be; start" and that of "mount a gemstone" attested by mid-13c. Confused with sit since early 14c. Of the sun, moon, etc., "to go down," recorded from c. 1300, perhaps from similar use of the cognates in Scandinavian languages. To set (something) on "incite to attack" (c. 1300) originally was in reference to hounds and game.

up (adv.)
Old English up, uppe, from Proto-Germanic *upp- "up" (source also of Old Frisian, Old Saxon up "up, upward," Old Norse upp; Danish, Dutch op; Old High German uf, German auf "up"; Gothic iup "up, upward," uf "on, upon, under;" Old High German oba, German ob "over, above, on, upon"), from PIE root *upo "under," also "up from under," hence also "over."

As a preposition, "to a higher place" from c. 1500; also "along, through" (1510s), "toward" (1590s). Often used elliptically for go up, come up, rise up, etc. Up the river "in jail" first recorded 1891, originally in reference to Sing Sing, which is up the Hudson from New York City. To drive someone up the wall (1951) is from the notion of the behavior of lunatics or caged animals. Insulting retort up yours (scil. ass) attested by late 19c.

Off to a high mass for a taste. My immediate prior is intended existentially for 'he' whose initials acronym to Department Of Corrections.

Comment by moki ikom on January 6, 2019 at 3:00pm

'... an evil ideology has taken root in the American mind and become its truths."

Mary, Kosher doesn't think of Zionism as evil while i think Zionism as it maifested after Herzl is evil.  Our fascUSt Monroe  Doctrine, our terrorUSts' Manifest Destiny, our 'How the West Won' stolen through shameless genocide  are as representative of Zionism today as any cultural crime committed with impunity could possibly be although IsrealHell in Palestine is promising to be a blown up fascist copy of the fascUSt host on which it breastfeeds and otherwise sucks our blood.


You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!

Join Our Salon


The Problem With Peace

Posted by Robert B. James on May 22, 2019 at 8:29am 0 Comments


Posted by John Manchester on May 21, 2019 at 10:33am 0 Comments

The Pace Quickens

Posted by Robert B. James on May 21, 2019 at 6:11am 3 Comments


Posted by koshersalaami on May 20, 2019 at 5:53pm 20 Comments

The Wall

Posted by Steel Breeze on May 20, 2019 at 11:43am 4 Comments

A Little Spanish Night Music

Posted by Rodney Roe on May 20, 2019 at 9:49am 11 Comments

Now Now

Posted by Robert B. James on May 20, 2019 at 7:51am 4 Comments

© 2019   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service