Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Will Christian Response To An Attack On Israel Be The Same As Kristallnacht


We are big believers in history and that by studying it, we can not only understand what has occurred in the past but that experience can be applied to current and future events. It might not be a one-for-one predictor but can give us insight into what we should expect in the future.

Currently there is a study of the response by Christians to Kristallnacht which occurred 73 years ago next week. As the attached article illustrates there was a lot of talkin' going around but not much action.

Can Israel expect any difference if it is attacked again?  Will Christian brothers and sisters bemoan the attack but sit on their hands? Or will there be a response different than before?

For the majority of Americans, Israel is a far away country with which they have little contact. Some have gone there on a trip, most (I would guess 80-85%) have not. Some feel a closeness due the Jesus' birth there but could not place a pin on the map of the world showing its location.  Would they want to upset their lives to support Israel,. We doubt it.

We believe the response to an attack on Israel would be very similar to Kristallnacht. A lot of fist pounding from the pulpit or on TV, but no action. No volunteers, no fundraising and no action. To expect the American government to react any different than the Roosevelt Administration acted in 1938 would be foolish. So, Israel should expect no help, they will be on their own.

Obviously this is my opinion, what is yours?

Op-Ed: Christians mostly failed to act in response to Kristallnacht

Rafael Medoff - JTA,  October 31st, 2011

WASHINGTON (JTA) — Most American Christian leaders strongly condemned the Kristallnacht pogrom that the Nazis carried out against Germany's Jews 73 years ago next week, when hundreds of synagogues were torched, the windows of thousands of Jewish businesses were smashed, 100 Jews were murdered and 30,000 more were dragged off to concentration camps.
But the words of condemnation were not always accompanied by calls for action. When it came to advocating steps such as opening America's doors to Jewish refugees or severing U.S. relations with Nazi Germany, Christian voices too often fell silent.
The liberal Catholic publication Commonweal called for suspending America's immigration quotas in order to admit more refugees. The larger Catholic weekly magazine America, however, took a different line. America headlined its post-Kristallnacht issue “NAZI CRISIS.” But the two feature stories did not focus on the plight of Hitler's Jewish victims. The first was a report about the mistreatment of nuns by Nazis in Austria. The second article charged that protests by American Jews against the Nazi pogrom were generating “a fit of national hysteria” intended “to prepare us for war with Germany.”
The issue did include an editorial titled “The Refugees and Ourselves,” but it was about the “grave duty” of American Catholics to help European Catholic refugees. Jewish refugees weren't even mentioned.
An editorial in the leading Protestant magazine Christian Century did address the Jewish refugee problem: It argued that America's own economic problems necessitated “that instead of inviting further complications by relaxing our immigration laws, these laws be maintained or even further tightened.”
A few months later, refugee advocates proposed legislation to help German Jews that could not be construed as undermining America's economy. The Wagner-Rogers bill would have admitted 20,000 children — too young to compete with American citizens for jobs. Yet even then, Christian Century found a reason to oppose helping the Jews.
“[A]dmitting Jewish immigrants would only exacerbate America's Jewish problem,” it wrote.
One notable Christian response to Kristallnacht was an initiative by the U.S. branch of the Young Women's Christian Association.  Less than two weeks after the pogrom, the YWCA established a Committee on Refugees, which undertook information campaigns aimed at persuading the public that refugees were loyal and hardworking. Unfortunately, the YWCA's national board soon lost interest in the project and declined to fund it. According to Professor Haim Genizi, the American Jewish Committee ended up providing much of the committee's budget.
Christian Scientists, although small in number, had the opportunity to exercise influence through their mass-circulation newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor. But true to their church's emphasis on the potential of prayer to heal all ills, the Monitor's editors argued that in response to Kristallnacht, “prayer … will do more than any amount of ordinary protests to heal the hate released in the last few days and to end injustices and excesses practiced in the name of anti-Semitism.”
The Monitor did acknowledge that “finding havens for [the] refugees” was a necessity, but refrained from suggesting that America should serve as one of those havens.
One of the few consistently strong Christian voices in the aftermath of Kristallnacht was that of U.S. Sen. William King of Utah, a former missionary who was arguably the most prominent Mormon in America at the time. While President Roosevelt only recalled the U.S. ambassador from Germany temporarily for “consultations,” Senator King urged the administration to completely break off U.S. diplomatic relations with Hitler. While FDR said that liberalization of America’s immigration quotas was “not in contemplation,” King introduced legislation to open Alaska to Jewish refugees.
Sadly, Senator King's initiatives attracted almost no support from America's churches. The response of most  Christian leaders to Kristallnacht, like the response of the Roosevelt administration and most of the American public, was, in the words of Professor Henry Feingold, “no more than a strong spectator sympathy for the underdog.”

(Dr. Rafael Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, which focuses on issues related to America’s response to the Holocaust. The material in this article is based on the Wyman Institute's ongoing research project on American Christian responses to the Holocaust.)

9 comments:

  1. I too fear Israel will stand alone and history will repeat itself, I pray that it doesn't. This summer Glenn Beck held a Restoring Courage event in Israel, he is one Christian voice prominently speaking out for the Jewish population.
    Sadly Antisemitism can been seen in various places in America as well.

    One Christian Voice who spoke out bravely (though not American) was Dietrich Bonhoeffer. There will always be those willing to go the extra mile and those unwilling to even see that a mile approaches.

    I pray more Christians will pay attention to Israel and to what is transpiring in our own country and then be brave enough to do what is right instead of what is easy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tom, I thought you might find this comforting in that Obama voted with Israel against the Palestinians....

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-palestinians-israel-usa-idUSTRE7A18AQ20111103

    Obama is getting a ton of heat from Arab media over this.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  3. Obama is looked as a toothless lion by the Arabs and the rest of the world. He talks but everyone knows that he has no intention of backing up his words. Our enemies are no longer afraid of crossing the US as they know we will not do anything but talk. We have lost our resolve and until we get LEADERSHIP, our place in the world will continue to degrade. We are like the big kid who we were all afraid of but now anyone can pick a fight and the kid will not respond, he just takes it.

    It is a pretty sad sight.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You say he is toothless for voting with the Israelis against the Palestinians in the U.N. Security Council, and now again voting with the Israelis against the Palestinians. That leaves me wondering what you would write if he vote with the Palestinians instead of the Israelis. Both these votes (to me) were as predictable as the sunrise.

    There are two lobby groups in D.C. that both Democrats and Republican presidents always accede to without question...Wall Street and Israel. The first group dictates domestic policy, and the second group foreign policy. That why I am a Ron Paul supporter.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  5. David, he is toothless because he has no internal guidance system. He talks a lot but does not back up his words with action. NO leader in the world respects him. They all think he is a joke.

    Had he had the respect of others in the world, when he spoke they (especially the Palestinians) would have listened. To ignore his flaccid leadership, is to accept it. Which I do not. He is the worst President this country has had in both domestic and foreign affairs. We should be embarrassed.

    Although I disagree with some of the stands that Ron Paul has, at least we know where he stands and will not change those stands to meet political expediency. For that I definitely respect him. He would be 100 times a better President than Obama is. (I know David will agree with this statement!)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ron Paul would be better than Obama or Bush. Both these wars are disasters for both our economy and our foreign image. I never trusted Obama to get out of Iraq, and if he is reelected, I predict there will be troops floundering around in Afghanistan in 2016. Heck, we would still have 5,000 troops in Iraq in 2016 if the Iraqis permitted it.

    The only way to resolve the deficit is to get spending and revenue balanced with both at about 20% of GDP. If you look at American economic history, our economy hums when we are around those numbers.

    EVERY president and Congress for the last 30 years is responsible to allowing spending to get to 23% and revenue to 15%. That is why we have this fiscal disaster.

    The root cause of it is another thing we agree on: money has corrupted the electoral system. It is also why we have the greatest wealth inequality of any rich country in the world and at a level not seen since the Great Depression. Wall Street is not the only problem, but the financial "services" industry is at the core of most of what ails our country.

    We need a viable third party in this country that does not accept contributions more than $100 from any source. That is the only way to get honest representation of the PEOPLE in D.C.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  7. David, I agree that presidents on both sides have lead us to the problems we are currently in.
    I hope the next election will help turn our country around. I am not a huge Ron Paul fan, however there are areas I agree with him on. I have not yet decided who I support...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, if you want to stop these wars and not risk getting into more overseas fiascos, Ron Paul is the only candidate from either party you can trust.

    I don't agree with him on some things (such as regulating Wall Street banks), but that's okay, since Wall Street will get what it wants anyway regardless whether we have a Democrat or a Republican president in 2012.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ron Paul has some very good points and some that I really disagree with. But I would take him over Bammy, in a second!

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.