liberal, left-liberal, and leftist ideologiesnprevalent in late-20th-century academia.nEach writer illustrates the situationnof world Jewry today not onlynby what he sees but by what he makesnof what he sees.nAs the sort of liberal found on thenCouncil of Foreign Relations and thenNew Yor^ Times, Grose presents thenmost accurate and least colorful of thenthree pictures. Although titled Israel innthe Mind of America, his book isnprimarily a political history of Zionismnin America between the First WorldnWar and the founding of Israel.nAs might be expected, during thisnperiod political Zionism—the desirenfor a Jewish state in Palestinen— enjoyed the support of nowherennear the majority of American Jews,nmuch less American Gentiles. AmericannJews wanted the right to settlenpeacefully in Palestine, but then asnnow not many wanted to exercise thatnright; as for Jewish sovereignty in thenregion, even fewer insisted on that.nEthnic, social, political, and religiousndivisions within American Jewry assuredncontinued political incoherence.nTypically, well-established “uptown”nJews of German origin preferred quiet,nbehind-the-scenes lobbying; they regardednJudaism as a religion withoutnnational/political content. Newly arrivedn”downtown” Jews of Russian originnpreferred political activism; tonthem, Judaism included nationality, ifnnot national sovereignty.nLouis Brandeis attempted to overcomenthese divisions by uniting Jewsnbehind a particular form of Zionism.nHe added some of “downtown’s” politicalnenergy to the elitism of “uptown”nin an effort to make Zionism a Jewishnversion of Woodrow Wilson’s “progressivism.”nThis Zionism for middleclassnliberals declined when WorldnZionist Organization leader ChaimnWeizmann attacked it as insufficientlynpolitical. He found it too much anreflection of the American pragmahsmnthat wants to “make the desert bloom”nwithout much caring who rules thendesert. But Brandeisian Zionism survived,nalbeit in a different form. Brandeisnand his allies left the Zionistnmovement and involved themselves innthe Democratic Party politics that led,ntortuously, to American support for anJewish state in Palestine.nThe path was tortuous in part be­n121 CHRONICLES OF CULTUREncause the State Department remainednanti-Zionist up to and beyond Israelinindependence, for motives rangingnfrom anti-Semitism to timidity. (Thenna young diplomat in Germany,nGeorge F. Kennan best exemplifiednthe latter when he advised againstnU.S. protest over Nazi anti-Semitism,n”saying it would be an ineffective interferencenin another country’s internalnaffairs”—a refrain he would singnmore than once in his long career.nKennan would later oppose Israeli independencenout of fear of a Mideastnwar.) Unfortunately, the complacencynof Americans, including AmericannJews, also added to the tortuousness ofnthe path. The saddening fact is thatnonly the Holocaust rallied AmericannJews to Zionism. As late as 1944, mostnAmericans did not credit reports ofnmass extermination in Europe. FelixnFrankfurter explained this most tellingly:n”I do not have the strength tonbelieve it.”nQuiet diplomacy and behind-thescenesnlobbying could not work withoutnpublic pressure, and this finallyncame through the energy of RabbinHillel Kook (better known by his namnde guerre, Peter Bergson) and RabbinAbba Hillel Silver. Kook was a disciplenof Ze’ev Jabotinsky, but for ideologicalnreasons Grose undervalues thenJabotinsky faction, Zionism’s rightnwing. Grose is better on Silver, anbrilliant political organizer who disdainedncourteous relations with Gentilenpoliticians and, for that matter,nwith many fellow-Jews. Silver’s onenblind spot was his failure to see andnrespond quickly to the disaster engulfingnJews in Europe. Nonetheless,n”under Silver’s leadership, arousednand appalled by the ‘news from Europe,’nAmerica’s Jews changed.” Theynlearned to use the American politicalnsystem. Congress and President Trumannsaw this and acted accordingly;npolitical pressure caused such basicallyndecent Americans to act with the vigornmere decency often lacks. While thenmajor fight came “on the ground” innPalestine itself, American support fornIsrael was, of course, indispensable,nand it has endured for nearly fourndecades.nNoam Chomsky condemns thatnsupport as one imperialism rewardingnanother. Grose admires Israel but deploresnJabotinsky and his “zealot,”nnnBegin; Chomsky believes all Israel governmentsninfamous in their dominationnof Palestinian Arabs. The LikudnParty descends from fascism, the LabournParty from Bolshevism. America’sn”critical supporters” of Israel remindnhim of American Stalinists ofnthe 1930’s and 1940’s. “[T]hose whonexercise real power in the U.S.”—nevidently, large business corporationsnand the CIA—find Israel a useful ally,nhe claims. He does not base this claimnon any talks with oil company executives.nSuch criticism of Israel as heard,nfor example, during the 1982 invasionnof Lebanon is merely an instance ofnthe “feigned dissent” that has “madenan impressive contribution to indoctrinationnin the democratic societies.”nAnyone who rejects PalestiniannArab claims—“rights,” in Chomsky’snvocabulary—to a state west of thenJordan River is a “racist.” Israeli militarynprowess, he argues, makes securitynconcerns irrelevant. He accusesnJewish leaders of borrowing Hitler’snrhetorical description of Czechoslovakianwhen they say that “a Palestiniannstate on the West Bank would be andagger poised at the heart of Israel.”nWith equal sobriety, he praises whatnhe calls an “international consensus”nheld by Arabs, Soviet-bloc oligarchs,nand oil-blackmailed West Europeansnfor a return to Israel’s pre-1967 borders.nGiven Chomsky’s professed concernnfor national self-determination,nthis is a peculiar group of nations to bensurveying for political solutions to Israel’snproblem.nChomsky concedes that “Israel hasnbeen and remains a vibrant democracynon the western model for its Jewishncitizens,” although his comments onnnews media “indoctrination” suggestnthat his joy at such vibrancy is notnunalloyed. He also concedes that PLCnterror is “surely to be condemned,”nalthough it “hardly matched” that ofnIsraelis in Lebanon. He goes so far asnto compare the PLO to the Zionists ofnthe 1940’s, without noting how ominousnthat must be in the blood-rednlight of his own polemic. Not onlyndoes he fail to explain how two “Zionisms”ncould ever occupy the samenterritory peacefully, but he fails tonshow why two such governmentsnwould be better than one. Governmentsngenerally are a bad lot, innChomsky’s opinion, and those whon