PDF Summary:Against Our Better Judgment, by Alison Weir

Alison Weir's Against Our Better Judgment explores the dynamics that propelled the Zionist movement from a fringe agenda to a formidable influence in the United States. Beginning in the late 19th century, the book examines how Zionist organizations employed strategic tactics, including lobbying and media sway, to rally widespread American support for establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Weir details how the growing presence of Zionist settlers in Palestine led to the displacement of Palestinians, culminating in the 1947 United Nations proposal to partition the region. Despite concerns from U.S. officials about the divisive consequences, political pressures from Zionist forces prevailed. The book also highlights efforts by pro-Israel organizations to silence dissenting viewpoints and maintain a favorable narrative in American media.

(continued)...

The population of Jewish settlements in Palestine experienced a significant increase, escalating from a tiny proportion of 1% to 30%, largely as a result of immigration.

Zionists effectively increased the number of Jews residing in Palestine by promoting their relocation to the area. By 1947, the population had seen a significant increase in those of Jewish heritage, constituting 30%, a notable jump from the figure below 5% at the beginning of the 20th century. She argues that the shift in population demographics set the stage for a future proposal of a partition plan under the guidance of an international body.

Context

• The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was a statement by the British government expressing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, which was then under British control.
• The demographic changes and the resulting tensions drew international attention and were a subject of debate in various international forums, influencing global perceptions and policies regarding the region.
• Various international Jewish organizations, including the Jewish Agency, played a crucial role in organizing and funding immigration efforts, often negotiating with British authorities for immigration certificates.

The United Nations was effectively persuaded by proponents of Zionism to endorse a proposal that resulted in the allocation of most of the Palestinian land under their control.

In 1947, with the British announcing plans to withdraw from Palestine, Zionists promoted a partition plan at the recently formed international organization. Alison Weir argues that their objective was to dominate the greater part of Palestine, despite being outnumbered by the Palestinian population and holding less land.

Officials from the U.S. State Department were firmly against the partition plan, considering it to be at odds with democratic values and not in harmony with America's prime interests.

Specialists in United States foreign affairs recognized the potential for discord and the intrinsic inequity in the proposed partition plan for the region, as detailed in Weir's book. It was also acknowledged as unfair to establish a state that would put the current majority at a disadvantage in order to benefit a minority group. She cites numerous State Department authorities, including Loy Henderson, who warned that the creation of Israel would guarantee the perpetuation and growing complexity of the issue concerning Palestinians. Political factors ultimately took precedence despite the objections.

Context

• The opposition from the U.S. State Department was partly based on the principle of self-determination, as the plan imposed a solution without the consent of the majority Arab population in the region.
• Loy Henderson was a senior U.S. diplomat who played a key role in shaping American foreign policy. His warnings highlighted the long-term challenges and instability that could arise from the partition.
• The objections from the State Department were part of a broader debate within the U.S. government, where strategic, ethical, and political considerations were weighed against each other.
• The United Nations and other international bodies were involved in the partition plan, and the U.S. was under pressure to align with international consensus, which sometimes conflicted with internal expert advice.

Zionists wielded considerable political clout and undertook intensive lobbying to overcome the U.S. government's resistance to the proposed partition plan.

Zionist organizations evolved into well-organized entities with the capacity to amass significant funds and focus their efforts on convincing the US government to support their goals. They succeeded in obtaining President Truman's support for the proposal to partition the territory by engaging in relentless advocacy, impacting significant political leaders, and shaping the views of the public.

Context

• The partition plan refers to the United Nations proposal in 1947 to divide the British Mandate of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. This was a pivotal moment in the lead-up to the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.
• The lobbying efforts included engaging with key political figures, organizing campaigns, and leveraging media to garner support for the Zionist cause.
• The shaping of public opinion involved efforts to highlight Jewish suffering during the Holocaust and the need for a safe homeland, which resonated with many Americans.

Zionism gradually gained support and influence within the United States' governing institutions.

The book describes the evolution of a once fringe movement supporting the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine into a significant force with substantial influence at the highest levels of the United States government.

Zionists in the United States formed powerful organizations aimed at shaping the opinions of the public and policymakers.

By the mid-20th century, observers recognized the emergence of a highly organized and financially strong lobby in the United States advocating for Israel, employing advanced tactics to shape public perception and impact policymakers.

The efforts of the American Zionist Emergency Council were aimed at swaying various sectors of the US population.

Weir scrutinizes the strategies used by groups like the one founded in 1939, known as the American Zionist Emergency Council. AZEC, with its significant financial resources, launched an extensive campaign to sway influential individuals within every aspect of American society, including politicians, religious leaders, academics, journalists, and labor unions. They utilized numerous strategies such as extensive mail campaigns, vigorous political advocacy, and occasionally engaged in actions that lacked full transparency to achieve their objective.

Context

• The council's significant financial backing allowed it to conduct widespread and sustained advocacy efforts, including funding research, publications, and events to promote their agenda.
• Labor unions were powerful political entities at the time, and gaining their support could help sway broader public opinion and political decisions, especially among working-class Americans.
• The financial power of AZEC contributed to its ability to impact U.S. foreign policy decisions related to the Middle East, particularly in garnering support for the establishment of Israel.
• Part of AZEC's strategy was to shape public opinion by engaging with journalists and media outlets. This involved providing press releases, arranging interviews, and sometimes funding publications that supported their views.
• The origins and allocation of AZEC's financial resources were not always publicly disclosed, leading to questions about the transparency of their funding and spending practices.

Support was secured by leveraging the sympathetic response to the plight of Holocaust survivors and Jews who had been uprooted.

The author highlights how Zionist organizations successfully capitalized on American sympathy for those who survived the Holocaust and Jewish refugees following the Second World War. She argues that by portraying this region as the only feasible choice, they shifted attention away from alternative resettlement plans and influenced the public to favor the creation of a Jewish homeland.

Other Perspectives

• The focus on the region as the sole choice might have been a strategic move rather than a reflection of the actual range of options available at the time.
• Other resettlement plans might not have received widespread attention or support due to geopolitical interests or lack of advocacy, rather than a deliberate shift in attention.
• Some argue that the support for a Jewish homeland was also rooted in anti-Semitic attitudes, where some non-Jews supported the idea as a means to encourage Jews to leave their countries.

President Truman and other U.S. government officials who supported Zionism successfully resolved the challenges that arose within the State Department.

Weir argues that despite warnings from experienced diplomats and intelligence experts, the influential proponents of Zionism succeeded in obtaining the support of the President of the United States, a stance he adopted that prioritized political gain over the nation's best interests.

Truman was heavily influenced by Zionist advisers who argue for supporting partition for political gain

The author details the manner in which specific individuals, including Truman's friend and business associate Eddie Jacobson, White House aide David K. Niles, and financier Abraham Feinberg—who reportedly played a major role in financing his presidential campaign—exerted their influence due to their close personal ties to Truman. Truman's political prospects were perceived as dependent on his support for the creation of Israel, despite his foreign policy advisors having considerable doubts.

Context

• Truman faced pressure from various domestic groups, including Jewish Americans who were influential in the Democratic Party. Their support was seen as crucial for electoral success, especially in key states with significant Jewish populations.
• The British withdrawal from Palestine and their inability to manage the conflict increased pressure on the U.S. to take a definitive stance on the issue.
• Truman's advisors were worried about the potential backlash from Arab nations, which could threaten U.S. access to oil and destabilize the region, affecting broader American interests in the Middle East.

American officials have warned that supporting Zionism could potentially jeopardize the nation's interests in the Middle East.

Alison Weir examines the concerns raised by notable American individuals like Secretary of State George Marshall, Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, and future Secretary of State Dean Acheson regarding the potential dangers of supporting the Zionist agenda. The founding of Israel, it was argued, would provoke unrest, escalate conflicts, and damage the diplomatic relationships of the United States with Arab nations of strategic importance. Nevertheless, these cautions went unheeded.

Other Perspectives

• The concept of jeopardizing interests is subjective and can be interpreted in various ways; what may seem like a short-term risk could lead to long-term gains in regional stability and international relations.
• The strategic benefits of supporting Israel, such as regional stability, intelligence sharing, and military cooperation, may outweigh the concerns raised by the individuals mentioned.
• Over time, Israel has developed strong economic, scientific, and cultural ties with the United States, which have been mutually beneficial.
• It's possible that the officials who made the final decision believed that the concerns raised could be mitigated through careful diplomacy and engagement with both Israel and Arab nations.

There have been attempts to suppress unfavorable depictions and criticisms related to Israel, especially concerning its conflicts with the Palestinians.

Weir argues that Zionist organizations have effectively suppressed criticism and scrutiny of Israel. She argues that this success is partly because of the adept distribution of information to the population in the United States.

Organizations that support Zionism vigorously confront and sideline individuals who scrutinize Israel or question the prevailing narrative about the campaign for a Jewish homeland.

The book by Weir chronicles the accounts of individuals who have contested the dominant narrative favoring Zionism or criticized the policies of Israel, outlining the intense attempts to discredit and silence their perspectives. She argues that the initiative has effectively silenced differing opinions and shaped the discourse surrounding the issue.

Academics, journalists, and public figures who are critical of Zionism face character assassination and career damage

Weir demonstrates that vocal opposition to Zionism often resulted in severe damage to, or the utter destruction of, numerous individuals' professional lives. She described the systematic attempts to discredit Millar Burrows, a distinguished scholar in the field of archaeology and a proponent of Palestinian rights. Dorothy Thompson, an American journalist who was highly respected in her time, suffered significant consequences such as the termination of her column, a reduction in opportunities to speak publicly, and a tarnished public image, due to her brave exposure of the hardships faced by those who were forced to leave Palestine. Alison Weir argues that those who opposed the prevailing narrative supporting Israel were effectively silenced.

Other Perspectives

• Many academics, journalists, and public figures have criticized Zionism without suffering damage to their careers, indicating that the consequences are not uniform or inevitable.
• The term "systematic" implies a coordinated effort, which may not be the case as individuals and groups may independently challenge the views of those critical of Zionism without any central coordination or malicious intent.
• The term "character assassination" implies a deliberate and unjustified attack on someone's reputation, which may not accurately reflect the nature of the criticism or opposition Burrows faced.
• The reduction in opportunities and tarnishing of public image could also be attributed to the controversial nature of Thompson's views on various subjects, not solely her stance on Palestinian issues.
• The concept of silencing can be subjective, and what might be perceived as silencing by some could be seen as part of the normal ebb and flow of public discourse where different views vie for attention and legitimacy.

Coverage in the American press often exhibits a bias, predominantly showcasing viewpoints that are supportive of Israel.

Weir contends that since the establishment of Israel, there has been a persistent bias in favor of the country within the reporting on its conflict with Palestine, a pattern that continues into the present.

Zionists apply economic pressure and accusations of prejudice to individuals who provide unfavorable reports.

Weir argues that organizations supporting Israel wield considerable sway over media stories through the use of monetary influence and tactics of coercion. She describes how media outlets faced economic coercion and accusations of anti-Semitism whenever their reporting criticized Israeli policies or depicted Palestinians sympathetically. Alison Weir's book examines how certain organizations supporting Zionism employed character assassination and libel to discredit journalists and diminish the legitimacy of those challenging the dominant narrative.

Other Perspectives

• Accusations of economic pressure may sometimes be conflated with legitimate advertising and sponsorship deals that are standard in the media industry.
• Accusations of anti-Semitism are serious and often stem from a genuine concern about the rise of hate speech and bigotry, not merely as a tool to silence criticism of Israeli policies.
• The use of legal actions such as libel suits can be a way for any party to seek redress for what they believe to be false and damaging statements, and this process is subject to legal scrutiny and standards of proof.
• Journalists and media outlets often maintain editorial independence and are capable of resisting economic pressure to ensure balanced reporting.

Media coverage often presents a biased perspective that leans towards Zionist interests, frequently ignoring the struggles endured by Palestinians.

The author provides evidence that media portrayals often characterized Israel's actions as defensive, which contributed to the view that Israel was the victim, whereas the suffering of Palestinians was regularly minimized or overlooked. Alison Weir argues that such a skewed depiction has shaped public opinion in favor of Israeli policies, resulting in widespread support.

Weir's analysis suggests that the influence of pro-Zionist organizations in the United States goes beyond simple support for a foreign nation, shaping core American societal values and steering its international strategy, particularly in relation to the Middle East. She also contends that through clandestine means and occasionally unlawful actions, this lobby has successfully stifled dissenting opinions and restricted the data accessible to Americans, thereby impeding the ability to make decisions based on full information.

Other Perspectives

• Media bias is often in the eye of the beholder, and different audiences may perceive the same coverage in different ways based on their own backgrounds, beliefs, and values.
• Some media reports do focus on Palestinian struggles, including coverage of humanitarian issues, settlement expansion, and the impact of military operations on Palestinian civilians.
• Public opinion on Israeli policies is influenced by a variety of factors, including historical context, geopolitical interests, and cultural ties, not solely by media portrayals.
• Pro-Zionist organizations are one of many interest groups in the US, and their influence is balanced by other groups advocating for different perspectives, including those sympathetic to Palestinians.
• The idea that information is restricted is challenged by the accessibility of global news sources and the internet, which provide Americans with a wide array of data and viewpoints on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
• Lobbying is a legitimate part of the democratic process, and while some may use questionable tactics, it is not indicative of the entire group or its goals.