Turning Point USA and Anathema Maranatha

As I listened to the recent Turning Point USA program I was reminded of the the rhetoric being used by those like Carlson Tucker, Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes in their "PodCasts" which amounts to a "downward curve" toward ancient anti-Jewish hatred which flies "in the face" of the multiple video recordings of Charlie Kirk who lovingly and explicitly expressed his love for the "People of Israel" and to the State of Israel.

What we are hearing and seeing today by those like Carlson Tucker, Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes is a revival of ancient anti-Jewish hatred as those who denied "Jesus the Savior" being seen and heard reflected in is the modern manifestation of the Replacement Theology" (Supersessionism)

And as I listen to their Podcasts I was reminded of the lines from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem, "The Jewish Cemetery at Newport," written in 1852. Where he wrote of the horrific abuse Jews faced in Europe, where the cry of "Anathema Maranatha!" rang through the streets as they were "mocked, jeered, and spurned by Christian feet."

When we hear modern podcasters frame Jewish people as "enemies of the faith" or "deniers of the Savior," they are breathing life back into the same "pogromist" spirit Longfellow mourned 170 years ago.

We must recognize this rhetoric for what it is: the same old hatred, just with a new microphone.

The phrase "Anathema maranatha" was used by Longfellow in his poem to describe the horrific verbal and physical abuse Jews faced at the hands of historical "Christian" Europe.

Longfellow was likely using them as a final, solemn warning. The structure essentially says:

"Anathema" means "accursed" or "devoted to destruction."as in the original meaning; "Let those who reject the Lord be set aside for judgment.

In Biblical usage: It evolved to mean someone or something set apart for God's judgment or excluded from the community of believers because of a denial of the faith.

This Aramaic phrase was written by the Apostle Paul wrote, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha," he wasn't creating a specific "double curse." 

When Paul wrote those words, he wasn't just venting frustration; he was performing a solemn legal and liturgical "handover." In the original Greek and Aramaic, he is intoning a specific boundary-setting ritual. To understand what he was "intoning," we have to look at the atmosphere of the early Church.

By saying "Let him be Anathema," Paul is essentially refering to  Intonation of "The Great Handover" or "I am no longer the judge of this person; I hand them over to God."

In the ancient world, if someone within the community was causing harm or pretending to be a believer while acting against the core principles of love, the leaders would "remove their hands." 

It was a way of saying, "You are now outside our protection and our jurisdiction. You stand directly before the Creator."

By adding "Maranatha" there is the Intonation of "The Final Clock" (The Lord is coming). By inserting it immediately after "Anathema" the tone changes from a simple "go away" to a time-sensitive warning.

"The Lord is coming soon to set all things right" is intones that human judgment is temporary, but God’s judgment is imminent. Paul is reminding the listeners that the time for hypocrisy or false devotion is running out because the "Master of the House" is at the door.

Many scholars believe "Maranatha" was a common greeting or a "watchword" among early Christians (similar to how some might use "Hallelujah" or "Amen" today).

By pairing them,these two words Paul created a liturgical seal on his letter. It sounds like:

"If anyone is faking their love for the Lord, let them stand before God's judgment [Anathema]. Even so, come quickly, Lord! [Maranatha]."

Why does it sounds like a curse to us is because "Anathema" later became the formal word for Excommunication in the Catholic Church, as it took on a much darker, "fire and brimstone" weight in Western history.

In Paul’s original voice, "Anathema maranatha" was likely less about wishing evil on someone and more about spiritual honesty.

He was intoning a reality: you cannot claim to be part of a community of love while harboring hate. If you do, you are "set apart" from that community by your own actions, and you will have to answer to the Lord when He arrives.

"Maranatha" is a hopeful, prayerful expression used by the early Church. It can be translated in two ways depending on how the Aramaic is divided: 

• "Maran atha" or "Our Lord has come.
• Or as prayer for the Second Coming"The Lord is coming soon (to execute that judgment and vindicate the faithful).

Many white supremacist groups follow a fringe, racist theology called Christian Identity.

They believe that white people of European descent are the "true" Israelites and that Jewish people are literally the "seed of Satan."

"Anathema Maranatha," was a cry used by pogramists and it has been reborn by Neo-Nazi Aryan Rascists.

They are using it as a coded theological threat. They aren't using the standard Christian meaning (a prayer for Christ's return). 

Instead, they are using it as a divine curse against Jews and non-whites. To them, Anathema is a call for the total "destruction" or "excision" of those they consider "enemies of God."

In extremist circles, the "Maranatha" (Our Lord is coming) part of the phrase is re-imagined as a war cry.

They view the return of Christ not as a time of peace, but as a violent racial "cleansing" or a "Day of Reckoning."

By screaming this, they are signaling that they believe their hatred is backed by a "divine law" that will eventually wipe out their enemies.

Groups like the Aryan Nations (founded by Richard Butler) often used archaic, King James-style biblical language to give their racism a "soldier of God" aesthetic. Using "Anathema Maranatha" makes their rhetoric sound:

Ancient and Authoritative as it is in Greek Aramaic indicating the real Church that sounds more powerful and "official" than standard slurs.As it draws a hard line between the "saved" (them) and the "accursed" (everyone else).

Open vile hatred and outright slander and Lies on Quora

 

Once again there is a definite need to reply to the passive reader in response to sick anti-Israel posts.
Durng the past year "Quora" a social question-and-answer (Q&A) platform has been overrun by the least able-minded supporters of falestinian dezinformatsiya™ .

Occupation Resistor wrote; "No one believes those lies, only low IQ zio-nazis."

As to “Low IQ” try reading comprehension! Your reply is an atypical reply of a backer of the "Losers of the self-inflicted Tragedy they call the Nachba. Your image does show an actual article published by The Guardian (specifically their Sunday sister paper, The Observer) on June 29, 2013. We all know how much the staff of The Guardian love the "Balestinians", as it consitantly approves articles to defame the Jewish state much like this article. During the last decade The Guardian’s choice of headlines have favored sensationalism over the nuanced reality found within the article itself, a common issue when complex history is distilled into 'clickbait'." As a historian and educator, I find it necessary to provide the documented facts that these headlines obscure. The 2013 Guardian article refers to a thesis that most mainstream historians, like Thomas Doherty, have largely rejected. To understand the 1930s, one must look at the legal framework, not just the movies.

In 1932, Germany passed Article 15, a law allowing the government to ban every film from any studio that released 'anti-German' content anywhere in the world. This was state-level blackmail. Hollywood’s 'cooperation' was a defensive commercial reaction to protect global revenue—not an ideological pact. As an educator and historian allow me to relay the document historical fact that in 1932, Germany passed a law (Article 15) - (under the Weimar Republic, before Hitler became Chancellor and the rise of Nazism to power) -that allowed them to ban all films from any company that released an "anti-German" film anywhere in the world. This was the primary driver of studio "cooperation"—it was a response to state-level blackmail to protect global revenue. You should also note this documented historical fact that much of the "censorship" was actually carried out by the American Production Code Administration (the Hays Office), which feared that anti-Nazi films would provoke domestic anti-Semitism or isolationist backlash in the U.S. The Guardian article discusses a book by historian Ben Urwand titled, "The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler" where he relays a story of business survival (seeking to stay in a market) and NOT active facilitation (providing the literal tools for state-sponsored atrocities). This article by The Guardian frames this historical event by using the word "Collaboration" in the headline, it suggests a shared ideology, whereas the evidence (even in Urwand's book) often points toward predatory capitalism—companies putting profit margins above human rights. According to Urwand he argues that during the 1930s, major Hollywood studios—many headed by Jewish executives—actively cooperated with Nazi censors to alter or cancel films to protect their access to the German market. (Note the final words) In his book Urwand cites documents showing studios invited German officials to screenings and edited scenes that "insulted" Germany to ensure their movies could still be sold there. (Note the final words) Those last words in the two previous paragraphs augment what many critics like historian Thomas Doherty who argued that Hollywood's "collaboration" was largely defensive and commercial to prevent the total loss of the German market, which was the second-largest in the world at the time.

That, that they used passive cooperation—editing out "offensive" (anti-Nazi) content or Jewish characters to satisfy censors was meant to allow the marketing to the German market.

By the use of "collaboration" in the headline suggests that the studios were providing ideological support for the Nazi party and not simply motivated by profit and business survival.

There is a massive historical chasm between Hollywood editing scripts to keep theaters open and a corporation like the IBM Germany (Dehomag) custom-designing the punch-card systems used to automate the six phases of the Holocaust—from identification to extermination.

One represents a failure of corporate courage; the other represents a strategic technological alliance.

IBM engineered a strategic business alliance and joint planning program with Nazi Germany from the very first moment in 1933 and extending right through the war that endowed the Nazi regime with the technology and the tools it needed to expedite and, in many ways, automate, all six phases of Hitler's war against the Jews. Those six phases are identification, expulsion, confiscation, ghettoization, deportation and ultimately even extermination.

IBM Germany, known in those days as Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft, or Dehomag, punch-card system was essentially the precursor to modern data processing did not simply sell the Reich machines and then walk away. Unlike the film studios, which were largely reacting to censorship, IBM’s subsidiary was providing the administrative backbone that allowed the Nazi regime to operate with chilling efficiency. IBM's subsidiary, with the knowledge of its New York headquarters, enthusiastically custom-designed the complex devices and specialized applications as an official corporate undertaking.

Dehomag's top management was comprised of openly rabid Nazis who were arrested after the war for their Party affiliation.

IBM NY always understood-from the outset in 1933-that it was courting and doing business with the upper echelon of the Nazi Party. The company leveraged its Nazi Party connections to continuously enhance its business relationship with Hitler's Reich, in Germany and throughout Nazi-dominated Europe.

The passive reader and sick anti-Israel posts on Quora.

Durng the past year "Quora" a social question-and-answer (Q&A) platform has been overrun by the least able-minded supporters of falestinian dezinformatsiya™

As seen in this screen shot-Z Hamed wrote on Quora-
"Let’s demolish the zio-nazi lie once and for all. zionism is the belief in jewish supremacy, same as the nazis. Even a holocaust survivor admitted it.
The zionist entity they call (lsraeI) is an apartheid state. We saw how they treat christians. There are many videos of zio-nazis spitting on them. Let alone we saw how the IOF bombed one of the oldest churches in history that is located in Gaza.
zio-nazi lies are easy to demolish."


My replies to posts like this are meant to "enlighten" the passive reader and NOT to "feed" interract with the least able-minded.

Regarding the Hajo Meyer Quote: As a retired educator and historian, I believe it is important for the passive reader to understand the actual historical record behind these images, rather than relying on slogans or 'Holocaust inversion' tactics. Resorting to ad hominem attacks and insults regarding intelligence usually signals that you cannot engage with the documented facts. Hajo Meyer was raised in a highly assimilated German Jewish family. His primary identity was often that of a scientist and a humanist rather than a member of the Jewish community. Like many assimilated German Jews, Meyer’s trauma was compounded by the "betrayal" of the German culture he loved. Psychologically, this often leads to a deep-seated distrust of all state structures and ethnic affiliations. He replaced traditional Jewish identity with a secular, humanistic "religion" where the highest virtue was criticizing one's own group to prove one's lack of bias. Meyer’s decision to use the term "Zio-Nazi" (as seen in the meme) is a significant psychological marker. In psychology, this is often seen as an attempt to master a traumatic memory by projecting the role of the "oppressor" onto those who share the same background as the victim. Meyer knew that as a survivor, he was the only person "allowed" to make such a comparison without immediate total dismissal. This gave him a unique psychological leverage in political activism—he became a "shield" for non-Jewish critics of Israel. Meyer expressed a psychological "alienation" from mainstream Jewish life like that as a member of the Sonderkommando would. (German for "special unit") Sonderkommando were work units of Jewish prisoners in Nazi extermination camps who were forced to operate the gas chambers and crematoria. He often spoke about "moral integrity" in a way that suggested those who supported Israel had "learned the wrong lessons." This created a binary in his mind: The "Good" Survivor - those who use their trauma to fight for universal causes. The "Corrupted" Survivor - those who use their trauma to justify national security and a Jewish state. To understand the psychological motivation of Dr. Hajo Meyer, it is necessary to look at the intersection of survivor guilt, identity rejection, and the psychological phenomenon of "Universalization of Trauma." Meyer's quote represented a specific, albeit minority, psychological response to the Holocaust that sought to detach the tragedy from its Jewish particularity. Meyer operated on the belief that suffering—especially the extreme suffering of Auschwitz—must result in a total rejection of any form of nationalism. By positioning himself as the "true" keeper of Holocaust memory against the Israeli state, he found a sense of purpose. He essentially argued that his status as a survivor gave him the moral authority to "reclaim" the Holocaust from Zionism. For Meyer, the only way to make sense of the "senseless" cruelty he witnessed was to apply its lessons to everyone, everywhere. He viewed the establishment of a Jewish state as a retreat into the very "tribalism" he believed caused the Holocaust. While Dr. Meyer was a survivor, his use of the term 'Zio-Nazi' is a recognized form of Holocaust Inversion. This is a rhetorical tool used to project the crimes of the Nazis onto the descendants of their victims. In historical discourse, equating a national liberation movement (Zionism) with a genocidal regime (Nazism) is not an academic argument; it is a distortion intended to cause emotional trauma. History is a matter of archives and evidence—not memes and name-calling. We owe it to the memory of the victims to maintain the distinction between corporate market-retention and state-sponsored genocide." In conclusion: The psychological motivation of Dr. Hajo Meyer is a study in the universalization of trauma. As a survivor, Meyer felt a profound psychological need to detach the Holocaust from the Jewish experience to make its 'lessons' universal. While his personal suffering is unquestionable, his political analogies—such as equating Zionism with Nazism—are viewed by most historians and psychologists as Holocaust Inversion. He was a man who rejected his own national identity in favor of a radical humanism, but using his personal trauma to validate a 'Low IQ' insult [as the previous commenter did] is a logical fallacy. Being a victim of a crime does not grant one historical accuracy in analyzing modern geopolitical conflicts. One can respect Meyer's survival while rejecting his ahistorical comparisons.

With regard to the use of a quote from Norman Finkelstein

Adding a quote from Norman Finkelstein continues a pattern of using rhetoric to bypass historical evidence. Characterizing a nation’s security or history as a 'theatrical performance' is a tactical attempt to delegitimize lived experience.

Finkelstein’s worldview is less about history and more about his personal political inheritance. 

Finkelstein is well-known for his 'Holocaust Industry' thesis, which argues that the memory of the Shoah is exploited for political gain.

Relying on polemicists like Finkelstein to support an 'atypical' historical narrative doesn't make that narrative true; it just makes it louder."

It should be noted regarding Norman Finkelstein that his worldview is rooted in the trauma of his parents, Maryla and Zacharias, both of whom were survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto and Nazi concentration camps (Majdanek and Auschwitz).

Finkelstein often cites his mother’s belief that "We are all holocaust victims," meaning that the lesson of Jewish suffering should be an instinctive empathy for all oppressed groups.

As a historian, I believe it’s helpful for the reader to understand the ideological lens behind the quotes being posted here.

Finkelstein’s rhetoric is less about history and more about his personal political inheritance. 

Raised in a staunchly pro-Soviet and atheist household, he views the world through the prism of mid-20th-century Marxist internationalism. 

To him, Zionism is an obstacle to that 'universalist' ideology.

When he calls Israeli diplomacy 'theatrical,' he is using a polemical tactic to delegitimize the lived security concerns of a nation, filtered through a radical left-wing bias that has been historically hostile to Jewish self-determination.

Replying to "Useful Idiots" on Facebook

In replying to "Useful Idiots" on Facebook comment sections, specifically to a "As a Jew" commentator on a Reuters article regarding the Bondi Beach Massacre, where he, like many other "Haters of Israel and Zionism were laying blame for ALL thewoes of the "Innocent Civilians in Gaza" and the "West Bank".

I replied:
"Have you useless ignoramuses ever for a millisecond thought that ALL the deaths and killings are because the Arabs set out to murder their Jewish neighbors?"

That in 1947 there was a decision of the UN to "Partition" the British Mandated previous "Ottoman Turkish" province between the Jews and Arabs?

And HOW like on the 7th of October 2023, the Seven member staes of the Arab league invaded "Palestine"?

And that Egypt conquered the coastal area and called it the Gaza Strip area and held it for themselves from 1948 until 1967?

And how about the Jerusalem and the Western Bank of the Jordan river that was invaded conquered and "occupied" by Jordan from 1947- 1967?

It never fails to amaze me that you intellectually dishonest "Useless idiots"have never once to do "Due Dilligence" by verifying the documented historical facts!!!

Just like today how may of you know that the Arab inhabitants of the "Mandated British area" were divided into two waring fractions?

• 
  
  The Army of the Holy War (Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas): A key Palestinian irregular force led by the nephew of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al Husseini, Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni

• 
  The Arab Liberation Army (ALA): A volunteer force serving as a proxy force for the Syrian government during the 1948 war. It was composed of volunteers from the Mandated Area as well as various Arab countries and led by Fawzi al-Qawuqji. The Syrian government viewed the ALA as its primary instrument to ensure that northern Palestine (the Galilee) remained under an influence friendly to Damascus. They specifically chose Fawzi al-Qawuqji—a rival to the Grand Mufti—to ensure the Mufti did not gain total control over the Palestinian irregulars.

How many of you know that Hamas in the Gaza Strip which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and views the struggle against Jews through a religious lens (Jihad) -a war of religion where no compromise is permitted.
That their 1988 Charter explicitly states that initiatives and "so-called peaceful solutions" are in contradiction to their principles.

That Hamas is officially designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the United States?

That since the 2007 civil war between the two factions, the Palestinian leadership has been split once again?

The PA (Fatah) governs the West Bank. It is often criticized by Palestinians for being corrupt or "subservient" to Israel but remains the only internationally recognized partner for peace.

That after being ellected to power by the "Innocent Civilians of Gaza", that Hamas governs the Gaza Strip with an "Iron Fist"?

It markets itself as the "true" resistance but faces criticism for the humanitarian toll of its military strategies and its authoritarian rule.

Historical recorded documents clearly show a sequence of events where rejection of compromise and internal Arab divisions have played a central role in the ARABS consistant refusal to accept peace!

Historical recorded documents highlight a pattern where Jewish leadership generally accepted territorial compromise as a path to a "Just and Lasting Peace", while "Palestinian Arab leadership" within the "Mandated Area" have refused peace and opted for total rejection or military intervention.

That the historical record supports a consistent pattern of Jewish acceptance of compromise and Arab/Palestinian rejection which has been a primary driver of the conflict’s longevity.

Historians and diplomats often refer to this as a series of "missed opportunities," famously summarized by the late Israeli diplomat Abba Eban, who remarked that the Arabs "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" for peace.

• The Peel Commission (1937) where the Arab Higher Committee rejected it by demanding a single Arab state and an end to Jewish immigration (The infamous White Paper" .
• UN Partition Plan (1947) the Arab League and local leadership declared they would prevent the plan’s execution by force.
• Khartoum Resolution (1967) The "Three No's": No peace, no recognition, no negotiations with Israel.
• Camp David Summit (2000) where Israeli PM Ehud Barak offered a state in 92% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital. And Yasser Arafat walked away without a counteroffer.
• Olmert Offer (2008) Israeli PM Ehud Olmert offered nearly 94% of the West Bank with land swaps and international oversight of Jerusalem’s holy sites. Mahmoud Abbas did not sign the "napkin map" and never returned to the table to finalize the deal.
• The Oslo Accords (1993/1995) are often omitted from "Compromise vs. Rejection" timelines because, unlike the 1937, 1947, 2000, and 2008 offers, Oslo was not a "final" offer that was flatly rejected at the table. 

The Oslo Accords was an interim agreement that both sides actually signed.

While Yasser Arafat signed the Accords on the White House lawn, several documented factors suggest the Palestinian leadership at the time viewed it as a tactical maneuver rather than a final peace. 

Even after recognizing Israel in English, the PA leadership continued to promote maps and school curricula that showed all of Israel as "Palestine." 

They failed to amend the PLO Charter (which called for Israel’s destruction) for years, despite explicit promises to do so. 

While the 1993 and 1995 Accords were technically "accepted" via signatures, the Palestinian Authority (PA) maintained a dual-track strategy that many historians view as a rejection of the spirit of peace. 

Between 1993 and 1996, more Israelis were murdered in terror attacks than in the entire preceding decade, fueled by two primary PA policies: 

• The "Revolving Door" Policy: Under Yasser Arafat, the PA security forces often arrested militants from Hamas and Islamic Jihad to satisfy Western diplomats, only to release them shortly after—allowing them to plan and execute further suicide bombings. 
• The "Pay for Slay" Policy (The Martyrs Fund): Crucially, the PA institutionalized the Martyrs Fund, a system of monthly stipends paid to Palestinians in Israeli prisons and the families of those killed while carrying out attacks (including suicide bombers). 

These payments were—and remain—codified in PA law, featuring a "sliding scale" where more lethal attacks resulting in longer prison sentences earned higher monthly salaries. 

By making the "salary" for a terrorist often higher than that of a Palestinian teacher or doctor, the PA created a powerful economic incentive for the very violence they officially renounced in the Accords. 

Oslo ultimately follows the same pattern of Palestinian rejection—just through non-compliance and armed escalation rather than a "no" at the signing ceremony. 

This "Pay for Slay" policy remains the single biggest legal obstacle to U.S. funding for the Palestinian Authority today. 

In 2018, the U.S. passed the Taylor Force Act, which halts economic aid to the PA until they cease these payments, which are viewed by the U.S. and Israel as a direct subsidy for terrorism.

History is black and white, it is documented. What it requires to be comprehend is a minimum of a functioning brain which sadly we see it is not present.

DEEP SIGH!
Regretfully Facebook abounds with thes imbeciles and provides a "platform" for these brainwashed "Useless Idiots", to openly display their Histrionic personality disorder (HPD) as they insist of giving their "Two cents" worth.
Personally, instead of replying to their sad exhibition of HPD, I just move on as I go by the old adage; "One must not make fun of the least-able minded."

Bondi Beach and utterly sick anti-Zionist comments on "Social Media"

What is on my mind is the Tsunami of utterly sick comments on "Social Media" especially in replies of sickos to the massacre at Bondi Beach in Australia.

I am especailly sickened by the wide spread "conspiracy" posts attempting to "deflect" from the cause and the ethnicity of the real murderers was.

I am also amazed that in this day in age, with all the methods available to "Western Intelligence Agencies" (an Oxymoron) to identify terrorists. That they are in limited and blind folded by politicians to NOT do what "Intelligence Agencies " are meant to do by the assumed fact - to win the "hearts and minds" of Moslem voters. That "Islam is the religion of peace" and to oppose this is considered the heinous crime of "Islamaphobia".

And I see gross comments stating:

"Oh Palestine will be free from zio-nazi colonization, it was foretold. It’s only a matter of time."

How to reply to those who write phrase "zio-nazi"?

"It takes a special type of ignoranus to write the phrase "zio-nazi", since Nazism is based on "Aryan" racial supremacy (which Arabs fail in) and the belief that Jews are "Aryan" - "European colonizers" which Jews are most definately NOT. (as indicated in many DNA tests by recognized geneticists)

To accuse Jews of being Nazis, which saw Jews as "sub-human" (Untermenschen), relays an expression of the deep sense of historical humiliation or modern-day dehumanization of the "Arabs of the Mandated Areas" by the Dhimmi Jews in the self-castration of the "Great Nachba" of 1948. (The loss-read defeat- of the Arabs to exterminate the Jews after the 1947 UN "Partion vote")

On the otherhand Zionism, is a form of nationalism based on the right of self-determination, which relays the historically documetnted truthh that the Jewish People are truly the indigenous inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael - Al-Ard Al-Muqaddasah—The Holy Land and not the Arab / Moslem usurpers "colonizers".

What is absolutely true in this accusation is that the "wanabee" losers of the "Great Nachba" the Arab / Moslems, exceed at being "Usurpers" in their vain attempts to revise history with their "false narrrative".

In addition I have seen several references / slurs pertaining to the contoversial chant used by anti-Israel anti-Zionists demonstrators -"Khaybar Khaybar Ya Yahud" which is in reference to the village of Khaybar in Saudi Arabia, where the Battle of Khaybar in 628 CE was fought.

Mohammad and his armies slaughtered "genocided" Jewish clans who refused to become his subjects.

The full -original- version of the chant was; "Khaybar Khaybar Ya Yahud, Jaish Muhammad Sa-ya'ud" (Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return)

The prominent Jewish tribes and clans involved in the battle and the preceding events were:

1. The Banu Nadir
This was the most significant tribe at Khaybar during the battle. They were originally one of the three major Jewish tribes of Medina. After being expelled from Medina in 625 CE (due to a conflict over a failed assassination plot and a breach of the Charter of Medina), many of their leaders and families moved to the oasis of Khaybar.

Key Leaders: Huyay ibn Akhtab (the chief, who was killed during the earlier siege of the Banu Qurayza) and his successor Kinana ibn al-Rabi' (who was killed at Khaybar).

2. The Banu Qaynuqa
Like the Banu Nadir, this tribe had also been expelled from Medina earlier (in 624 CE) following a market dispute and a siege. While many migrated to Syria, some segments of the tribe were present or allied with the Jewish community at Khaybar.

3. Local Khaybarite Clans
Khaybar was a confederation of several fortified settlements, each held by different families or sub-clans. Notable figures included:

• Marhab ibn al-Harith: A famous warrior and leader of one of the Khaybarite forts (the Fort of Na'im).
• Sallam ibn Mishkam: A leader who organized the defense of the Al-Natat region of the oasis.

Clarifying the Outcome
While the chant is often used today as a threat of the total eradication and destruction of Israel, the historical outcome of the battle was more complex than a "genocide" as historical records (including Ibn Ishaq) list the casualties as approximately 93 Jews and 15-18 Muslims killed in the fighting.

The Treaty:
The battle ended not with a total slaughter, but with a surrender treaty.

The Jewish inhabitants of Khaybar requested to stay on their land to continue farming. Muhammad agreed, allowing them to remain as Dhimmis (protected subjects) on the condition that they give half of their annual harvest (dates) to the Muslim state.
The Jewish inhabitants remained in Khaybar until the reign of the second Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab (roughly 641 CE), who expelled them to Syria and Iraq, citing a deathbed wish of the Prophet that only one religion should remain in the Hejaz (the Arabian Peninsula).

Why the Chant is Controversial?

In a modern context, Islamic terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and their "useful idiot" supporters, use the chant to invoke the memory of a Jewish defeat.
The chant references a historical battle where Jews were defeated and eventually displaced, a reflection of the Islamic terrorist aspiration to the eradication of Israel today.
It has been categorized by organizations like the ADL and the AJC as an antisemitic slur that threatens collective violence.

Ma’alot: A Covenant of Fate and the Builders of the Galilee

Regarding the Ashkenazi-Sephardic tensions of the 1948 - 1980 era, this hostility reached a peak in the 1970s. It was a friction born from the divide between the pre-State "Old Yishuv" residents—predominantly of Eastern European descent—and the massive post-1948 influx of immigrants. This wave, which effectively doubled the population of the nascent state, was the direct result of the Arab world's rejection of Israel. It led to a massive "forced immigration"—what can only be described as the ethnic cleansing of Jewish communities from Arab Lands.

This influx flooded a small country with limited funds and housing. In 1951, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion tasked Arieh Sharon with the "Sharon Plan." Sharon moved away from the idea of a few major cities, utilizing "Central Place Theory" to create a hierarchy of settlements: small agricultural villages supported by a central "Development Town" to provide schools, clinics, and factories. Ben-Gurion provided the ideological drive for "Pizur Ochlosin" (Dispersal of the Population) to secure the borders, while Levi Eshkol managed the logistics of the "From Ship to Settlement" policy.

The Birth of Ma'alot (1957)

Unlike other towns planned from afar, Ma'alot was born out of a specific need to provide a permanent home for the residents of Ma'abarat Tarshiha. In 1957, the Jewish Agency and the IDF Engineering Corps prepared the ground for the first 120 families—mostly from Morocco and Romania—who moved from temporary shacks into new concrete blocks on the ridge.

The town’s first manager, Eli Ben-Yaakov, navigated the town through its darkest hour: the 1974 Ma'alot Massacre. Alongside him was Moshe Bar-Shavit, the dedicated Secretary of the Council. Moshe was the backbone of the town’s administration; he was the man who kept the municipality functioning through crisis and growth, ensuring that the vision of a permanent city became a reality.

The Pillars of the Community

By the time I arrived in 1976, the town was only 19 years old but already deeply scarred. The "Old Ma'alot" was held together by legendary figures who became our mentors and friends:

Peter and Beronica Zilberstein: Peter was a "Chaver" (member) of the Egged cooperative, a position of great respect that linked our isolated town to the rest of Israel. More importantly, Peter served as the Local Security Commander during the 1974 Massacre, bearing the unimaginable weight of the town's defense. His wife, Beronica, was the legendary Tipat Chalav nurse—the guardian of the town's children. When my wife, Rena, arrived in 1978 to work alongside her, and eventually succeeded her upon Beronica's retirement, it was a sacred passing of the torch.

Chaim Benita: A central figure in the Histadrut (Labor Federation), Chaim was the voice of the residents, fighting for social justice and the dignity of the working class.

Rav Joseph Gabi: The spiritual pillar who provided the "glue" between Moroccan, Tunisian, and Romanian traditions. He officiated at our wedding and bridged every cultural gap through shared tradition.

The Women of Ma'alot: While men held official titles, the social fabric was managed by women like Hannah Rosen, Hassia Shifman (who later moved to Australia), and Beronica Zilberstein. They were joined by Sara Ben-Yaakov, who led Na'amat in Ma'alot. Sara was a force of nature, overseeing the daycare and social services that allowed women to work and families to integrate. The WIZO laundry and the Na'amat centers were the community's "soft" intelligence hubs where the welfare of every family was quietly monitored.

A Shared Future

In 1963, Ma'alot-Tarshiha became a unique experiment in coexistence, sharing a single municipal unit. By 1976—the exact year I arrived—Shlomo Bohbot began his long tenure as Head of the Local Council, representing a "new guard" of local Sephardic leadership that was pushing back against the old Mapai establishment.

As Rena stepped into Beronica’s shoes at the clinic, and as I grew to know men and women like Peter, Eli, Sara, Moshe, and Chaim, we realized we were being welcomed into the inner circle of the people who had kept Ma'alot alive. We weren't just building a new life; we were continuing the mission of the veterans who refused to leave, even when the ground was soaked with tears. To know these honored founders of Ma'alot and to be a part of this story was to understand what it meant to create a new home, a community in our ancient homeland of Eretz Yisrael.

From Alabama to Ma'alot – A Lesson in Unity I Will Never Forget

 I wish to present this personal, powerful testament to the "Ingathering of Exiles" in its most raw and human form.

It is deeply ironic and moving that it took a question from an Iranian student in Alabama to awaken my Zionism. This incident in my life reminds us that sometimes those outside the Jewish world see our connection to the land and each other more clearly than we see ourselves.

In my life story, I wish to relay two very different types of our existence as Jews:

The "Golden Medina" struggle: Facing the KKK as a youth growing up in the "Heart of Dixie" and the pressure to assimilate—the "self-deniers" Rav Meir Simcha wrote about in the Meshech Chochma.

The "Eretz Yisrael" struggle: The physical and social toll of building a nation from the ashes of the Holocaust and the trauma of terror.

By connecting my experience in Alabama to Mordechai’s experience in Auschwitz, I want to show that Jewish survival isn't just about escaping enemies—it’s about choosing to belong to one another in a "Covenant of Fate" (Brit Goral). This is the profound teaching of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, who argued that our shared suffering and history bind us together even before we decide on our shared destiny.

Ma'alot—located in the Western Galilee of Israel, some 8 km south of "Hezbollah Land"—is a unique place. When I arrived here in 1976, I had not realized the great pain and sadness that existed here from the experiences of the Yom Kippur War and the "Massacre at Netiv Meir" in 1974. My story—our story—about "Old Ma'alot" is a story of unity. My marriage to Rena Brownstein and my friendship with Mordechai and Hannah Rosen represent the "knitting together" of the Jewish people—the very thing that the Nazis tried to destroy and that the "self-deniers" fail to value.

In a world that is once again becoming increasingly fractured and polarized, my story is a reminder that "the ash did not distinguish between us" is perhaps the most important lesson a Jew can teach today. It is a call to focus on our shared Covenant of Fate. My journey home transitions from the "tossing on the sea of hardships" to the solid ground of a home built on memory and love.

Many of you know me as someone who tied his fate to Ma'alot nearly fifty years ago, but few know what truly brought a young, totally secular "Driving Miss Daisy" Jew from the Deep South of Alabama to leave everything behind and build a home here. I was not even Bar Mitzvahed and knew no Hebrew.

In the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, I was prompted by an Iranian exchange student I was assisting in English at Auburn University. While watching the news of the war, he asked me directly: "As a Jew, why are you not rushing to fight for your people and country?" Because of his question, I came to "visit" as a volunteer on a kibbutz. There, working in the banana fields, I fell in love with my people and Zionism. I arrived in Ma'alot in March 1976 as a "Single Soldier."

I arrived when the wounds of the 1974 Ma'alot Massacre were still raw. I saw a community that was broken but incredibly strong, and I chose to tie my destiny to yours. I met my wife Rena while on leave from my IDF unit in Lebanon during "Operation Litani" in 1978. Rena (who replaced the late Beronica Zilberstein as the legendary Tipat Chalav nurse) and I were married at the old WIZO center by HaRav Joseph Gabi z"l. Here we built our lives and raised our six children.

As a Jew who grew up facing crass anti-Semitism in Alabama, it pained me to see the Ashkenazi-Sephardic tensions in Ma'alot that peaked during the 1978 elections. To me, coming from a mixed Sephardic and Ashkenazi family, this division was unthinkable.

The story of the late Mordechai Rosen is the reason why we must never divide ourselves. In 1978, after my IDF service, I was helping Mordechai in his workshop. As we sat drinking coffee on a rainy afternoon, Mordechai told me about his arrival at Auschwitz in 1943:

"I was a naive 17-year-old Yeshiva Bucher when my family arrived at Auschwitz. We were over 70 people packed into a cattle car like sardines. As we were forced off the train, a frail Jew in a striped uniform whispered to me: 'If you wish to live, remove your payos and tell them you are a cabinet maker! Do not tell them you are a Yeshiva Bucher!'

At that moment, Josef Mengele flicked his hand to signal 'Left or Right'—life or death. My mother, father, and sister were separated from my little brother and me. I never saw them again. Later, as we stood in the freezing cold, grayish-white flakes of ash began to fall on us like snow. One of the Kapos pointed to the sparks flying from the chimneys and said: 'You see that? That is your loved ones fleeing to heaven.' I bowed my head, cried, and said Kaddish. I vowed that I would survive to honor their memory."

So why am I telling you this today? Because Mordechai survived to tell the story, and I was privileged to hear it. His message was clear: the ash rising from those chimneys did not distinguish between religious or secular, or between Ashkenazi or Sephardic. We were all there together.

We are one people, with a shared destiny forged in fire. Let us remember that every single day when we meet one another here in the streets of Ma'alot, the home of us all.

Why history and knownledge is required

For nearly 45+ years in my volunteer work (as a "Highly Paid Hasbarnik - still waiting for my check by the way) and as a reservist in the IDF in the quagmire of Lebanon. I began my journey to fully know the mindset of the enemy I am up against. 

In doing so I read and studied the Quran and basic Arabic specifically to know the actual intentions and mindset.In doing so I found that those in leadership (Intelligence Agencies) in the West look at conflicts through a socio-economic or political lens (land, borders, resources), while the enemy I learned about looks through a theological and civilizational lens.

In my lifetime I have witnessed the transition from the PLO's secular nationalism (Fatah) to the Brotherhood’s religious absolutism (Hamas/Hezbollah). While the CIA was focused on the "Red Menace" (Communism),as they funded the "Green Menace" (Islamism) in Afghanistan. By failing to read the Quranic justifications used by the Mujahideen, they built a bridge for Al-Qaeda.

During my time in the IDF in Lebnon I conversed many times with Major Saad Haddad, the founder of the South Lebanon Army (SLA). 

Haddad frequently used his radio station, The Voice of Hope (funded by American evangelicals), to broadcast to the people of Southern Lebanon. His rhetoric was designed to wake people up to what he saw as a "parasitic" force (Fatah) using Lebanon as a launchpad for their own war, regardless of the cost to Lebanese civilians.

His message was centered on a harsh, binary reality:

The "False" Enemy: The central Lebanese government in Beirut or other Lebanese factions.

He argued that the true enemy was the PLO/Fatah and their Syrian backers, whom he viewed as foreign occupiers destroying Lebanon from within.

He believed that if the Lebanese people—specifically Christians and moderate Muslims in the south—didn't realize that the Palestinian militants were an existential threat to their homes, they would be "defeated" (massacred or displaced).

I have noted how "Western Intelligence"(an oxymoron) suffers from mirror-imaging—assuming the adversary wants the same things (peace, prosperity, democracy). 

By studying the Quran and Arabic, I bypassed the "Propaganda" to see the Intent. As Major Haddad argued, if you treat a theological existential threat as a mere border dispute, you have already lost.

As an "Old Guy" I can also remember the "birth"of radical fundementalistic Wahhabism -an exonym for a Salafi revivalist movement within ultra-conservative Sunni Islam.

This rebirth of Sunni Islamic belief in the 1980's began in the rural backward Sunni areas of northern Afghanistan and spread to the Madrasasim (Islamic religious schools) in Pakistan and Bangladesh. It gained momentum with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the inept and utterly imbecilic acts by the CIA and MI-6 in their support of these Islamic extremists in the uttely stupid misconception of the Mujahideen as "Freedom Fighters" to fight the Russian which history has proven that the "freedom fighters" of the Cold War became the "Frankenstein’s monster" of the 21st century.

For all those, who have NO knowledge of the Middle East and the "Arab / Moslem Mind", it should be noted that Wahhabism, is a strict, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, and is often cited as a contributing factor to the rise of terrorism, particularly by groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS and their best student Osama Bin Laden.

Furthermore one must note that in the context of Wahhabism (founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab) and the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun), this concept of identifying the "True Enemy" is a central, recurring theme in their ideological development.

In the context of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, the concept of identifying the "True Enemy" - the dreaded Zionists is the foundational logic of their survival and "resistance" strategy.

Some time before Operation Desert Storm in 1991, when Sadam Hussein was leading the idiots of "Western Intelligence" (an oxymoron) in circles regarding WMD. I was once asked by a forum of high ranking US "Officials" what I thought. My reply to them was: 

"As you are so evidently total imbeciles who bought, hook line and sinker, the false narrative of the so called Palestinians, as per the KGB Active Measures and SIG operational plans, and have absolutely NO knowlege of the Quran and Islamic tenets. I forsee the day your politicians and citizenry will be so blinded by their "Western Cultural" sympathetic view and ignorance of the Islamic concept of Hijrah (migration for the sake of spreading Islam) that you will allow the immigration of masses of "poor refugee" Moslems (like those who fled the Syrian Civil War)  into your countries who will with their tendency to have many children will one day destroy your "Western Christian Culture" from within."

In my humble opinion the West isn't just miscalculating; it is committing civilizational suicide by applying Western liberal logic to a theological framework that operates on a different timeline and a different set of rules.

I see the Abraham Accords or various "peace processes" as Taqiyya (strategic dissimulation),which follows the sted precept in the The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. In this framework, a truce is not a final peace, but a tactical pause to gather strength when the "believers" are temporarily weaker than the Kāfir.

The West thinks the conflict is about "grievances" (land, poverty, lack of a state). when in fact it is about Status. Under the basic basic tenet of Islam to subjucate and or kill the Kāfir (Arabic: كافر) "unbeliever"doctrine. The Kāfir cannot be an equal; they must either be converted, subjugated under Dhimmi status, or eliminated.

In most of the "Western World" it is one minute to midnight and the second hand is moving swiftly and it will take an awakening which those in the west have failed to comprehend.

The "awakening" of those in the west is hindered by a fundamental paradox of "Universalism" entrenched in Western Christian/Liberal culture. The West assumes everyone, deep down, wants the same "Kumbaya" ending but in reality this is a a fatal projection.

As Sun Tzu famously wrote:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."

The sentiment that "those who do not learn who your true enemy is will die in defeat" was a hallmark of Major Saad Haddad and ideological justification for his alliance with Israel

Ridiculing - mocking the "useful idiots" of falestinian dezinformatsiya™

In my youth growing up in Alabama my Momma told me that one should not mock the "least able minded".

Yet, ridiculing - mocking the "useful idiots" of falestinian dezinformatsiya™ in my humble opinion is allowed.
Replying to them, requires "finese" since it is unfortunate that so many of them are most definately "least able minded".
It is regretful how a lie (fake news) spreads faster than true facts on social media.

The creators and spreaders of falestinian dezinformatsiya™ use: false narratives, fabricated sometimes ridiculous "farfetched" and absurd stories, AI produced videos, fake screenshots and easily debunked claims whose sole, callous purpose is to create an obsessive hatred of Israel.
When the real truth and facts are inconvenient, they simply resort to mendacious lies and fabrications and rely on their bots and minions of supporters to hide their incompetence as they continue to spread their lies.

So in my Hasbara work on "social media" I remembered my history and literary knowledge to honor one of the best who lampooned idiots.

Benjamin Franklin, at the age of 16, was was an apprentice in his older brother James’s printing shop. He chose the persona of Silence Dogood primarily to bypass the gatekeeping of his older brother.
Benjamin Franklin wanted to contribute to James's newspaper, the New-England Courant, but James had already made it clear that he had no interest in publishing anything written by his younger brother.
Benjamin Franklin choose the persona Silence Dugood - a character type of a "widowed grandmother" of a country minister who described herself as an "Enemy to Vice, and a Friend to Vertue" that commanded a certain level of respect and curiosity.

This "mask" of a "widowed grandmother" persona allowed him mock the local clergy or the intellectual elite (like those at Harvard) with less risk of direct retaliation.

"Silence Dugood" mocked the Puritan ideal that women should be seen and not heard.
"Dogood" was a direct jab at Cotton Mather, a prominent and strict Boston minister who had recently published a book titled "Essays to Do Good".

Franklin used the persona to gently parody Mather’s moralizing tone while actually promoting more liberal, Enlightenment ideas.

Benjamin Franklin created Silence Dogood to practice "ventriloquism"—the art of writing in a voice entirely different from his own—which became a lifelong habit (he later used names like Poor Richard and Polly Baker).

The letters of the "widowed grandmother" became a sensation in Boston.

The persona was so convincing that several male readers even wrote to the newspaper offering to marry the "widow" Dogood.

When Benjamin eventually confessed to being the author, his brother James was reportedly angry and jealous of the praise the letters had received. This tension contributed to Benjamin eventually breaking his apprenticeship and leaving for Philadelphia.

While Franklin is famous for his teenage wit as "Silence Dogood," his most impactful work was written decades later when he used his pen as a weapon against British colonial policy.

Initially, Franklin was a "loyalist" who wanted the colonies to remain part of a grand British Empire. However, as Britain tightened its control, his writing shifted from polite advocacy to biting satire and, eventually, revolutionary propaganda.

Franklin used humor to humiliate British officials and highlight the absurdity of their policies by works of masterful satire.

Here are some examples:

"Rules by Which a Great Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One" (1773): Written as if he were giving "helpful advice" to a king, Franklin listed twenty ways to lose an empire. He suggested things like:

• Treat your colonies like conquered enemies.
• Appoint corrupt and ignorant men to govern them.
• Ignore their petitions and punish them for complaining.

"An Edict by the King of Prussia" (1773): In this hoax, Franklin wrote a fake decree from the King of Prussia claiming that because the ancestors of the English people had originally come from Germany, Prussia had the right to tax England. It was a mirror of British logic toward America, and it famously fooled many British readers before they realized they were being mocked.

To me the most famous satirical work was Franklin’s satire of the Hessians, titled "The Sale of the Hessians" (1777)

"The Sale of the Hessians" is considered one of the most savage and effective pieces of propaganda from the Revolutionary War written while Franklin was in France.

The piece is a "hoax" letter purportedly written by a German prince, the Count de Schaumbergh, to his officer in America, Baron Hohendorf regarding blood bounty" bonus from the British for every one of their soldiers killed in action

The satire focuses on a dark reality of the war as the The Count calculates exactly how much money he will receive for the dead.

In his "lettter" the "Count" expresses pure joy over the high death toll of his own soldiers at the Battle of Trenton as he complains that the British "Lord North" is trying to cheat him by only counting 1,455 dead, when the Count believes he is owed for 1,605.

"I have learned with unspeakable pleasure the courage our troops exhibited at Trenton... and that of the 1,950 Hessians engaged in the fight, but 345 escaped."

He explicitly instructs the Baron to tell the surgeons not to save the wounded. He argues that a crippled soldier is a "reproach" to the profession and a financial burden, whereas a dead soldier is a profit.

"I do not mean by this that you should assassinate [the wounded]; we should be humane, my dear Baron, but you may insinuate to the surgeons... that there is no wiser course than to let every one of them die when he ceases to be fit to fight."

The Count hilariously (and chillingly) claims that his soldiers should be happy to die because "Glory is true wealth," while he stays safely in Europe to collect the actual gold.

Note how this attitude of NOT caring for the Count's soldiers "his subjects" in "The Sale of the Hessians" readily "fits" the discription of the actions of Hamas and their leadership towrds the "Innocent Civilians of Gaza".

Was President Franklin Deleanor Roosvelt anti-Jewish?

As I have always mentioned, that as an educator, truthsayer and as a histrorian. I spend hours doing research of historical documents in my hours of research to verify historical truth. 

As a case in point I wanted to clarify as to why there are arguments of FDR for being antisemitic. 

Many state it was because he did not move to challenge or significantly change the restrictive U.S. immigration quotas established in the 1920s, which severely limited the number of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazism who could not enter the U.S. even after the persecution began in Germany.

To fully comprehend the actions of President one must realize the pragmatic fears of the political anti-immigrant and antisemitic backlash, as well as the economic constraints of the Great Depression, that played a major role in his considerations.

To fully comprehend history one must focus on WHAT was during the period that were the major influences of an individual and their actions.

Appointments to Office: 

FDR appointed more Jewish people to high-level federal positions, including his cabinet (like Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr.) and the Supreme Court (Felix Frankfurter, joining Louis Brandeis), than all previous presidents combined. This was seen by many American Jews at the time as a significant sign of support against the backdrop of widespread antisemitism.

A case in point was Sidney Hillman, the founding president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (ACWA). Hillman was a prime practitioner of Social Unionism and became one of FDR's most trusted labor and political advisors.

Hillman worked closely with Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins (the first female cabinet member and a strong New Deal proponent) to draft landmark legislation, including the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (which established the minimum wage and the 40-hour work week).

FDR appointed Hillman to high-level positions in the administration, notably on the National Recovery Administration (NRA) boards and later as Associate Director General of the Office of Production Management during the buildup to WWII. This gave the philosophy of Social Unionism a seat at the highest tables of government

Political Support: 

American Jews overwhelmingly supported FDR, giving him the largest percentage of the Jewish vote in presidential history (up to 90% in some elections). He was often regarded as the "best friend" the Jewish people had in the White House.

Condemnation of Nazis and the Holocaust: 

FDR publicly condemned the persecution of Jews in Germany, recalling the U.S. ambassador after Kristallnacht in 1938. In 1944, he established the War Refugee Board (WRB), which was a government agency tasked with rescuing and providing relief for victims of Nazi persecution, including Jews. The WRB is credited with saving tens of thousands of lives.

Support for a Jewish Homeland: 

He publicly backed the idea of a Jewish homeland in the Mandated area of Palestine.

It was the concepts and leaders of "Social Unionism," particularly those coming out of the Jewish-led garment unions, that served as a significant and direct inspiration for key policies within Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.

Jewish-led unions, particularly the ILGWU (International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union) and the ACWA, had spent the early 20th century building a "little welfare state" for their members—offering services like unemployment funds, healthcare, and education. 

When the Great Depression hit, these union leaders argued to FDR that the federal government needed to step in and apply that model of comprehensive social protection on a national scale.

The core principle of Social Unionism—that an organization must serve its members' total well-being, not just their wages—was integrated into the federal government's approach to the Great Depression during the FDR administration in the Social Security Act (1935), Public Works Administration (PWA), Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA, 1933) and the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act, 1935).

The percieved  NON pro-Jewish stance:

What many see as his NON pro-Jewish stance was embodied in the 1939 incident with the SS St. Louis, a ship carrying over 900 Jewish refugees, which was denied entry to the U.S. and forced to return to Europe, where many passengers later perished in the Holocaust.

The decision by President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration to refuse entry to the Jewish refugees aboard the German liner SS St. Louis in June 1939 was a devastating consequence of several powerful forces at the time: strict immigration law, overwhelming public opposition, and political caution.

America during the post WWI period went through a severe "Isolationist  Period" followed by the deep financial crisis of the "Great Depression" Pragmatic fears about a political anti-immigrant and antisemitic backlash, as well as the economic constraints of the Great Depression, played a major role in this policy.

Furthermore, FDR was constrained by the political and legal environment, choosing not to use his presidential authority to circumvent those constraints for this specific group of refugees.

Here are the primary reasons for FDR 's administration's refusal

 The Immovable Quota System:

The single greatest legal barrier was the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act), which established strict national origin quotas.

Quota Already Filled: 

The German/Austrian quota for 1939 was already filled, and there was a massive waiting list for visas—reportedly nearly 140,000 people.

The Waiting List Precedent:

The U.S. State Department, which managed visa applications, argued that granting visas to the St. Louis passengers would be unfair and illegal, as it would allow them to "jump the queue" ahead of thousands of other German Jews who had been waiting for years. Officials insisted the passengers must wait their turn and qualify for visas before being admissible.

Lack of Documentation:

Most passengers on the St. Louis had valid entrance certificates for Cuba, not U.S. immigration visas. Therefore, legally, they were not eligible to enter the country.

Overwhelming Anti-Immigrant Public Opinion

FDR was a pragmatist and a politician keenly aware of public sentiment, especially as he was considering an unprecedented third term.

At the time the public opinion polls showed massive resistance to increasing immigration. A January 1939 poll, just months before the St. Louis sailed, indicated that 83% of Americans opposed accepting additional European refugees.

Isolationism and Nativism:

The prevailing mood in America was isolationist and nativist. Americans did not want to get involved in Europe's problems or introduce more foreigners who might upset the social or political order.

Congressional Resistance:

Congress was fiercely anti-immigrant. The President knew that any attempt to ask Congress to pass a special law to admit the passengers (like the failed Wagner-Rogers Bill, which sought to admit 20,000 refugee children outside the quota) would be swiftly defeated, costing him precious political capital needed for his New Deal programs and later, the war effort.

Economic and National Security Concerns

The Great Depression: The economy was still struggling, and there was widespread fear that immigrants would take scarce American jobs or become "public charges" (financially dependent on the government). The State Department strictly enforced the public charge rule.

Fear of Spies:

As tensions with Nazi Germany escalated, some U.S. officials, including in the State Department and FBI, expressed fears that Nazi agents or spies could be hidden among the Jewish refugees. Although this fear was largely exaggerated, it contributed to the rationale for strict security screening and refusal.

Conclusion: A Choice of Priorities

While FDR expressed sympathy for the plight of the German Jews (and his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, actively lobbied him to help the St. Louis passengers), he ultimately chose political pragmatism and national unity over humanitarian intervention in this specific case.

He did not believe the crisis of the 937 refugees justified the massive political risk of challenging the will of Congress and the overwhelming anti-immigrant sentiment of the American public. This decision remains one of the most controversial and tragic moments of his presidency.

In the end tragically the SS St. Louis was eventually forced to return to Europe. 

Some of the hapless refugees were accepted by Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom. 

In the end tragically, of the 620 passengers who landed on the Continent, 254 were murdered in the Holocaust after the Nazis conquered those countries.