Born Itzhok Granich on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, Michael Gold (1893-1967) lived a life that in many ways typified a certain slice of the American Jewish experience: his parents were impoverished immigrants from Romania; he began working to support his family at the age of twelve, while simultaneously taking night classes to further his education; he later became a passionate Communist, taking up a career as a writer and journalist and traveling in the same circles as many other prominent Jewish intellectuals. Gold’s greatest claim to fame was his much-praised autobiographical novel Jews Without Money, published in 1930. But, writes Harvey Klehr, a new biography of “American Communism’s foremost literary hatchet man” by Patrick Chura leaves much to be desired:

Chura, a professor of English at the University of Akron, [claims that] Gold’s life and work supposedly offer lessons for today on how to defeat “racism, anti-Semitism, fascism, and xenophobia.” Such praise is not warranted, not for Gold and not for the [Kremlin-backed] Communist Party of the U.S.A (CPUSA).

In the second half of the [1930s], many of those who had jumped on the Communist bandwagon in 1932 jumped off. Some became Trotskyists and launched Partisan Review to challenge the simplistic and politicized aesthetics of Gold and his allies. . . . But the greatest number were disillusioned by the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact, unable to stomach an alliance between Communism and fascism. Gold was not terribly bothered.

Chura elides Gold’s support for the Communist alliance with fascism [in 1939]. This is of a piece with his biography as a whole, which features some bizarre notes of praise for his subject. Chura . . . twice remarks that the CPUSA was “staunchly antiwar” until Hitler’s invasion of the USSR and the attack on Pearl Harbor “drove immediate changes in its position and rhetoric.” But in point of fact, Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with altering Gold’s or the CPUSA’s views. It was only after the Nazis attacked the USSR that all good Communists immediately abandoned their alliances with fascism and became ardent interventionists and supporters of an American arms buildup.

Not even Nikita Khrushchev’s 1956 revelations about Josef Stalin’s crimes could shake Gold’s faith in the Soviet Union. He told a lecture audience that “we should have known” about the murderous attack on Jewish culture and intellectuals taking place in the Soviet Union, but “our leaders” had not asked or kept in close touch. He urged his listeners not to be disillusioned, because the Soviet Communist Party bore no responsibility for what had happened. Besides, Jewish culture was on the rebound in the USSR.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.