Zionist Leaders in Twelve Hour Session Discuss Effects of Wise Sermon

The demand that Dr. Stephen S. Wise resign from the chairmanship of the United Palestine Funds Appeal, formulated and supported by the Union of Orthodox Rabbis and the Mizrachi, the Orthodox faction of the Zionist movement, met with the sympathy of but an insignificant minority in the executive sessions, it became evident as the discussion on the subject progressed. Despite the disproportionate minority feelings ran high and the discussion was fraught with intense excitement.

The leader of the minority in the session of the Zionist Executive was Gedaliah Bublick, editor of the orthodox “Jewish Daily News.” Rabbi Meyer Berlin, president of the Mizrachi, led the minority at the meeting of the Executive Committee of the United Palestine Appeal. A measure providing for adequate expression of the contesting views was decided upon by the committees, whereby exception was made for Mr. Bublick to speak for half an hour, while the other speakers were limited to ten minutes.

The first speaker at the Zionist Executive meeting was Dr. A. Coralnick.

Dr. Coralnick declared that he would vote for the resolution proposed by the administrative committee, to reject Dr. Wise’s resignation, with mixed feelings. “Zionism should not allow Orthodox or Reform Rabbis to dictate its policy or leadership,” he stated.

“I don’t know whether you are aware of the fact that thirty chairmen representing thirty Zionist Districts of Greater New York got together last Tuesday and discussed the incident from every possible angle,” Dr. S. M. Melamed declared, “and adopted a resolution to the effect that this Committee urge upon your Committee not to accept the resignation of Dr. Wise, for the reason that he has done great service to the Zionist Organization in the course of the last twenty-five years, to the cause of Jewry in general, and because the words attributed to him by the press cannot be true and are not true, and, as was published subsequently by his own statement, were not true. So that the entire case against him was built up on sand. The thirty chairmen of the thirty Zionist Districts of New York speak the mind of every Zionist in New York. There were two men there who were for the acceptance of this resignation, but upon condition that Dr. Wise retract some of his statements; and he did retract, so that I can consider the resolution adopted by the Chairmen of the Districts of Greater New York as unanimous.

“That position was conditioned upon the fact that Dr. Wise deny some of the statements attributed to him; and he did deny them. So that there is a resolution adopted by the Chairmen of Districts of Greater New York absolutely unanimously. In short, the rank and file of the New York Zionists are against acceptance of this resignation. But I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be a fallacy to consider the problem here from the point of view of the sentiment of the rank and file. You and everybody in this hall knows the sentiment of the rank and file in New York and all over the country. We know the sentiment of the rank and file in London and even in Palestine. I think that if we discuss the matter at all it should not be discussed from the point of view of whether we should accept the resignation at all. I can assure you that only one vote will be against this resolution, and all other votes will be for the resolution. Do you think, Mr. Chairman, it is compatible with the discipilne and dignity of the Zionist Organization that a member of your Administrative Committee and one of the regular Jewish Zionist leaders in this country, Mr. Bublick, should come out day in and day out and threaten us in his paper?

“I believe that this discussion should be as broad as possible. I believe there cannot be two opinions as to the resolution, because it is not only a question of protecting the man from aggression, of protecting a leader in Israel who has served our cause faithfully and for thirty years, from malice, but it is a question of keeping up our dignity. We cannot possibly permit any group or any shade of opinion to come and say, ‘Unless you accept our will unless you accept our dictates, we will work against you. You withdraw.’ That cannot be done. We have outgrown that development. Even at times when the Zionist Organization was much weaker than it is today (and they say it is the driving force in America and in Judaism in general), when Zionism was not what it is, no Zionist leader with a claim of self-respect in his soul would permit such things to happen. Dr. Wise may have said things that were not appropriate. I admit that. He may have said things that were not called for. But that is no reason for us, his fellow workers for so many years, to oust him and disgrace him. And if we should accept his resignation it would not only undermine the very basis of our organization, and we would be instrumental in ruining it, but we would bring disgrace and shame upon the good name of American Jewry. We as a minority everywhere and in every land cannot possibly demand tolerance for ourselves as a minority when we ourselves display intolerance towards men who may have their own opinions.

“And you know, Mr. Chairman, I need not tell you and Mr. Bublick that I am not in love with any Reform Rabbi, I am not in love with Reformed Judaism. I have been fighting it for the last fifteen or twenty years. But I do say so much: Men much more devoted the traditions than Dr. ### is, Jews much more ###odox than Dr. Wise is, and perhaps much more religious than he is, have said the same things and have not been disgraced and not expelled from any organization, and not made the laughing stock and had a blot put on them. And I think it would be a disgrace on our part to do what these organizations have not done. If this were a theological debate–and it is not–I would show Mr. Bublick that men who have differed on the same things have not been expelled from many Jewish organizations. Therefore it is asked to do only one thing: To accept this resolution with a unanimous vote. This is a dangerous resolution no matter what we say and what we do, because this element which makes it appear that it is speaking for millions or so many Jews is not acting upon theological considerations or upon their convictions, but as a matter of politics. And I say we should not play politics with our leader. He does not deserve it, and we should not do it. We should accept this resolution as read and make it very clear that, no matter what the thelogical views, whatever his private opinions about theological matters are, it has nothing to do with the Zionist Organization. That is a secular organization and has only one aim: the establishing of a Jewish home in Palestine, disregarding anything that is theological or concerns theology.” (Applause).

Mr. Gedaliah Bublick, editor of the “Jewish Daily News,” who was the champion of the accusation at the Executive meeting, said:

“We American Jews are in danger. The future of our children is jeopardized. We live in a country where religion is dominant in life. Since it became a fashion with certain Reform Rabbis to preach on the founder of Christianity, this danger has been increased. Dr. Wise’s address has alarmed Orthodox Jewry in America. Both his address and his later statements contained words which may lead our children from Judaism and implant in them a sympathy for another faith. That we make no mistake is proven by what the Christian clergy thinks. The Christian clergy and missionaries are experts in such matters. If they have cause for satisfaction, it is sufficient cause for us to be grieved and embittered.

“We accuse Dr. Wise not only as Orthodox Jews but as nationalists. In his address he trod on the bodies of the Jewish martyrs of all generations, while he held the Zionist flag in his hand,” Mr. Bublick exclaimed.

Mr. Bublick cited an essay of Achad Ha’am, the well known Hebrew thinker and writer, written some time ago, when a similar storm broke out on account of articles written by the late Hebrew author, I. Ch. Brenner, in the Palestine labor weekly, ‘Ha’poel Ha’zair.”

“‘Woe to those pseudonational Jews who close their eyes to the blood shed by their ancestors, woe to those who tread on the graves of these martyrs,’ Achad Ha’am then wrote. I speak to you as a Zionist who has worked 22 years for the cause and I tell you you have no right to close your ears to the voice of Orthodox Judaism. You have no justification for taking under your protection a person, no matter how important he may be, who endangers by his actions, the soul of the Jewish people, the soul of the Zionist movement.

“I repeat what Achad Ha’am said. We have lived on the basis of our historic denial of the divinity of Jesus. This denial has been sanctified by fire and blood in the course of centuries. Should this principle be shaken, what will become of Judaism?” Mr. Bublick demanded.

In the beginning of his address Mr. Bublick stated that he voices the opinion of at least a million Orthodox Jews in America.

Following Mr. Bublick, Mrs. Richard Gottheil spoke.

“When the Zionist platform was created by Dr. Herzl, such men as Dr. Herzl himself, Dr. Max Nordau–and you all know that Dr. Max Nordau did not stand for Orthodox Judaism–Rabbi Ramus, my husband, Professor Gottheil and Dr. Wise, all united in order to further the cause of Palestine.

“Mr. Bublick has told us today that the non-Jews said this and the non-Jews said that. I am going to tell Mr. Bublick what the non-Jews are saying now in the colleges and the universities. They are arguing how intolerant we Jews are. This is what they are saying this morning. Are we responsible as Jews for the interpretation that Christian clergymen bring to what Dr. Wise has said ?

“Is it a time, when we stand before a fifteen million dollar drive and a five million dollar drive, that those Jews who say they love Palestine and that Palestine is dear to them, should go and fire on a man who for the last thirty years has given the best that is in him to the service of his people ? Is it right at that critical moment, when so much is needed for the rebuilding of Palestine, that we Jews should create a Jewish question ? It is not the non-Jews that are creating it. It is we Jews. And I am going to tell you openly and frankly, the whole community, whether Jews or Christians, are laughing at us, and they are waiting to see what resolution is going to be adopted today.

“Is it right that we should all put such a blot on a man that has given the best that is in him for the Zionist cause? Is it right that we should bring that shame not only on him but on his children? I beg you, ladies and gentlemen, to adopt the resolution,” Mrs. Gottheil exclaimed.

A reply to Mr. Bublick was made by A. M. Zeldin, director of the New York United Palestine Appeal. “When we Zionists read the metropolitan newspaper reports of Dr. Wise’s sermon, we felt that he must resign. However, when the Union of Orthodox Rabbis adopted its resolution in which Dr. Wise was unjustly branded, a new situation arose. It was impossible for us to let Dr. Wise go under this stigma. If Mr. Bublick is afraid of what interpretation the Christian clergy may give to Dr. Wise’s sermon, let me ask Mr. Bublick where he knows what leaders of the Christian church and the missionaries have done to some well known chapters of Isaiah and the psalms. They found, according to their interpretation, allusions to the founder of Christianity. Did these chapters become less sacred to us because of this ?

“The reference to Achad Ha’am is incorrect. He took this stand when written articles were published and there was reason to be alarmed. This, however, was not the case with Dr. Wise. If one speaks of a ‘Hilul Ha’shem,’ the rabbis and other Zionists are to be blamed.

“When we approached the Union of Orthodox Rabbis a year ago, asking them to endorse the Keren Hayesod campaign, they refused to do so. Now, they threaten us. Over my dead body will I permit the resignation of Dr. Wise to be accepted.”

Rabbi Nachman Ebin, in an eloquent address, pleaded for peace. He pointed out the difficulties in which Orthodox Jews might find themselves during the forthcoming campaign, if nothing is done to remove the obstacles. He made the concrete proposal that a committee be elected to negotiate with the Union of Orthodox Rabbis for peace.

Mr. Bernard Shelvin suggested that the matter be referred to the judgment of a court of rabbis resident outside of the United States.

LEADER OF NEW ENGLAND ZIONISTS SPEAKS

The Hon. Elihu Stone of Boston said:

“I believe that as President of the New England Zionist Region I voice the sentiments of New England in saying that we are here to support the resolution and convey our confidence in the leadership of Dr. Wise. I believe that the speakers opposing Dr. Wise’s Chairmanship are ill placed to come here and preach Judaism to Zionists. I think we Zionists have recognized our obligations to Judaism as such. I think Dr. Herzl proclaimed that ‘A return to Palestine presupposes a return to Judaism.’ And we stand on that proposition. It is not necessary for anybody to come and preach to us the necessity of preserving Judaism among the Jewish people. Moreover, they are paying a very poor compliment to Judaism when Mr. Bublick stands up here and says that because of Dr. Wise’s statements Judaism is in danger. For two thousand years we faced oppression, persecution, all kinds of terrors, and Judaism came out triumphant. There is a vitality to Judaism which can overcome any utterance made by anybody, however great, and to say that the statement made by Dr. Wise will destroy Judaism in America or anywhere else is to pay a very poor compliment to the vitality of Judaism. Judaism seeks its support in its own inner force, in its own vitality and is not dependent upon anything external. I think the whole thing is magnified.

“We know Dr. Wise as a true religious leader and a Jewish patriarch, but not as a missionary. I say those rabbis did not act up to him. First of all, they were an unfair tribunal. If you speak of a death penalty, I remember in the Talmud it says of a Sanhedrin that when a tribunal is to decide a question of life and death, when their decision is unanimous the verdict must be set aside.

“On their own basis the Rabbis have not conducted the case in accordance with Jewish law, and they were a prejudiced tribunal. It is they who are responsible for this tragedy. They are trying to institute here an inverted Dreyfus case. They have not based their case on evidence. They have not given him an opportunity to present his case. And they proceeded to act in violation of every principle of Jewish justice, Talmudic justice.

“Let us not afford the luxury again of staging he tragedy of Uriel Acosta or Baruch Spinoza. Those who speak against Dr. Wise do not represent Jewish public opinion.

“Dr. Wise is true to himself. I would not accept him as a rabbi to my congregation. As a chaplain of the Zionist Organization, I would not vote for him. As a leader, I recognize his service for thirty years. While it is true that one can gain fame in an hour, it is not true that a man can lose his reputation in one moment. By his deeds we shall judge him,” Mr. Stone concluded.

Rev. Z. H. Masliansky appealed for the rejection of Dr. Wise’s resignation.

“I have worked for the Zionist cause for fifty years. Dr. Wise was one of the first workers when the Zionist movement was organized in America. I knew him then, as I know him now. I would never have believed that I would have to stand before Zionists to defend him. I can swear under oath that Wise is not for Christianity.”

MR. WOLFSON ACCUSES ORTHODOX RABBIS

“We have been placed in the position of being compelled not to accept this resolution by the very men who are shouting that we should accept it,” declared Mr. Wolfson. “There is a certain justice in the situation, and this justice we as responsible men in Jewish life must accept and deal with, as it requires, and there has been a denial of justice in this case and we cannot make ourselves a party to such a method of action. An injustice has been done to Dr. Wise. The rabbis should have dealt with him as a rabbi, if they chose to deal with him on that question, and called him before any tribunal they chose, to justify or to deny any statements that he made. They should have instituted, if they cared to, a trial for heresy. Instead, they played politics and they injected something that they had no business to inject. The campaign that they carried on and the dragging of Zionism deliberately into all is a crime against Zionism and a crime against Judaism. If they had proceeded correctly and investigated the case and then presented certain charges, even to us, charging him to be unfit as a leader, we might have considered the proposition. But to have judged him in his absence, to have condemned him in his absence, to have sought to place us in an impossible position, we cannot allow them to do that. I resent and I most vigorously protest publicly against the unfair, unjust, untrue representations that have been made by the Agudath Harabonim and their hirelings, by Rabbi Berlin and his hirelings, against the Zionist Organization through the Wise incident. You, Mr. Bublick, and your men have made it impossible for us to deal with this problem as it deserves from the very justice of the situation, because you have acted unfairly and dishonestly, and I charge you in this situation.”

Upon protest Mr. Wolfson withdrew the word “dishonestly.”

“I say it in the presence of Mr. Bublick,” Rabbi Levinthal declared, “that if these were the arguments that he presented to the Agudath Harabonim, if these were the arguments that prompted the presiding Rabbi to say what he did, then, I say to you, and I say it after due thought, that I cannot respect the judgment of the rabbis in this matter. I waited and waited for that argument which would turn my mind in his favor to find some excuse for his action and for the rabbis’ action, and I had the same effect that I had.

“What were the arguments? The Christian clergy is satisfied with Dr. Wise’s address. Mr. Zeldin answered what the missionaries say. And Mr. Bublick knows what the missionaries said, before Dr. Wise said it. The missionaries have always felt that we were walking in the dark. But Mr. Bublick did not believe it and Mr. Bublick’s children did not believe it. We are not going to adopt any line of action because the missionaries either understand us or misunderstand us. I am not afraid that they should either understand us or misunderstand us.

“And I want to say also to Mr. Bublick that our children–that is the great cry, ‘Our children’–that is the great cry for these orthodox rabbis. I don’t want to enter into a theological dispute, but I would like to say to Mr. Bublick: What have the majority of the orthodox rabbis done to protect the religious interests of our children?

“Our children are untaught, untrained. What must we do? Build Talmud Torahs? Get rabbis who can speak to them in English ? No; kill Dr. Wise. That is the answer that Mr. Bublick by his logic has given to us.

“Unfortunately there are two conceptions, and the two conceptions have been mixed up so terribly that we hear and we don’t understand how we are in this misconception. Dr. Wise, there is no doubt of it–Mr. Masliansky said it–we all know, and Dr. Wise himself says that he did a ‘narrischkeit.’ We are sorry.

SAYS RABBIS DRAGGED ZION INTO MUDDLE

“With all the strength at my command I protested Friday night and I did it before the Agudath Harobonim passed their resolution, and long before Mr. Bublick wrote the first editorial in the “Tageblatt.” But there is a difference between crying out and protesting and killing a man. I said Friday night before my congregation: “Had the orthodox rabbis made and voiced a protest, I would have respect for their utterances. They would not have been worthy of the name of rabbi had they remained silent. But they should have addressed their protests to the people, not to the Zionist Organization. You were guilty of dragging Zion into this muddle. Not Wise. Not Lipsky. Not we. The rabbis did it. Zion should have been spared. And if those rabbis really loved Zion, they would not have addressed their appeal, their protest to the Zionist organization.

“They should have said, ‘Such sermons are absolutely against our teaching.’ But they should have spared Zion; and I will tell you why they did not spare it. Because in the Agudah today there is a large contingent that hates Zionism. They hate Zionism and Mr. Bublick knows it, and what is more, I charge in the presence of Mr. Bublick that at the first meeting of the Agudah when they declared Wise to be a ‘Meisaith U’madiach,’ they did not notify every member of the Agudah that that action would be taken. My father was not there

“After all, why is it that the ‘Tageblatt’, Mr. Bublick, the spokesman of fifteen million Jews (laughter), did not say anything on the Monday after Dr. Wise spoke, on the Tuesday after Dr. Wise spoke, or on the Wednesday after Dr. Wise spoke ?

“In those few days, one man–and I am not ashamed to say that I have lost every bit of respect that I have had for him, and I will say in his presence tonight that I will never give him the title of rabbi that we called him before–when he saw that his organization is bankrupt, and he would have an issue to make his organization alive again, then he went knocking at the doors of the rabbis, taking a trip to Philadelphia, and fooling out of my father a statement that we have to use every possible means to withhold, because my father regretted the circumstances which got it. To make politics and to create an issue for him, and to make his group a living organization–I say to you that we will be unworthy of the name of men and women if we will permit these politicians to kill for their personal selfishness. I had reason to believe in the sincerity of Mr. Bublick. One little thing happened yesterday and I began to doubt his sincerity too. I could not understand how a man who writes such burning editorials against conversion for Judaism should be guilty of a certain offense. I want to remind Mr. Bublick that there is a first commandment. There is also another commandment, and the other commandment was also given by God, the commandment against bearing false witness. When I saw the ‘Tageblatt’ yesterday, and I saw that every English newspaper had the statement of Dr. Wise denying his words as reported in the press, and I saw the ‘Tageblatt’ on the first page saying–that is, in the news column, mind you, not in the editorial–‘Dr. Wise “explains” but says nothing,’ and then they quoted in three or four lines that Dr. Wise gave a statement that was declaratory, and did not give a word of his statement, I say to you that when Mr. Bublick did that, I hold him responsible because he is the editor of that paper and permitted that to go forth, and when he does that he is guilty of violation of one of the commandments.

“I know the responsibility of my words. It is not an easy thing to speak against a man of the character of Bublick. It is not an easy thing for a public man to speak against an editor of a newspaper.

CHARGES SOME RABBIS WERE COERCED

“But Wise has denied. We can protest. But to hold a man guilty on such evidence–that, we will never permit ourselves to do. He has made a mistake. He has learned from his mistake. He got a new insight into the Jewish mind which he never had before. But now we are going to let him work for the Jewish people. And I want to say in conclusion to Mr. Bublick, he had a right to his opinion. He made a fine fight. He made a fight in the Agudath Harabonim. He swung them around. I want to say something about the Agudath that I know. Mr. Bublick may know that one rabbi whom I mentioned before, not by name, went around holding a whip. You ask why it is that the rabbis were all unanimous. Some of the rabbis told me. They could not speak.

“If this body, made up of all factions of Jews, vote by an overwhelming majority that under these circumstances we cannot accept the resignation of Dr. Wise, then Mr. Bublick will prove to us, to show if it was personal ambition either on his part or on the part of those who drive him or whether it is his real love for Judaism. He is going to prove it by the stand he takes tomorrow in his press. If he is going to try to break up the religious people, then I say to you, not we, not Dr. Wise, but he–he will prove himself guilty of destroying Zion and of breaking up the Jewish people,” Rabbi Leventhal concluded.

Mr. Bernard A. Rosenblatt expressed himself against accepting the resolution.

Rabbi Max Klein of Philadelphia then spoke. “I belong to no party,” he said. “There must be peace and union in American Israel; the motives of members of the Agudath Harabonim, who are sincere in their reaction to Rabbi Wise’s reported sermon should be understood and respected.

“Rabbi Wise has sinned. The Agudath Harabonim have sinned. Those who flew to the defense of Dr. Wise have sinned. Everybody has sinned. I as a rabbi would not have concerned myself with Dr. Wise’s utterances with regard to the mythological or the historical, pragmatic or historical existence of Jesus. But when the two statements were reported, first, Jews must accept the teachings of Jesus; second, that the ethics of Jesus constitute an unparalleled code of morality–there should have been a denunciation of those two statements, because it meant putting Judaism in a dishonored position, accepting the verdict of nineteen hundred years of Christian interpretation of Jewish history. We could not accept it.

“The rabbinical assembly of the Jewish Theological Seminary which I now represent, did not want to get into the politics involved on either side, and went to the heart of the question.

“What was the offense in the reported utterances? Not the discussion of the existence of Jesus, nor even the statement that he was a radiant teacher. Though I understand less Yiddish than most of you, the same thing in Yiddish sounds terribly worse than it does in English to an American ear. That was not the offense. But we found the offense in this: That Jews must accept the teachings of Jesus. To the average mind that means we must accept Christianity. Second, that the ethics of the teachings of Jesus constitute an unparalleled code of ethics, which means Christianity is superior.

“We said, ‘Rabbi Wise, these things have been reported in the press. You either said them or you did not. We, as rabbis in Israel, without being fooled by catch words, refuse to stultify the rest of our lives by following the leadership of a man who, according to these statements, has dishonored Judaism and dishonored Jewish history.’ Rabbi Wise said, ‘Gentlemen, this matter can be quickly and speedily settled.” If anybody had approached us in the same gentlemanly way in which you approached me, then the thing could have been settled I personally think Dr. Wise should have had an opportunity to answer before the Aguda had attacked,” Rabbi Klein declared.

“The point therefore was this: When Dr. Wise said in Philadelphia by way of an answer to an introduction of Dr. Feinschreiber, ‘I have only been saying what Dr. Hirsch, Dr. Krauskopf and Dr. Feinschreiber have been saying for forty years,’ I said this to Dr. Wise: ‘I will pay you a compliment. We, the Jews of America, never elected Dr. Hirsch as the spokesman of American Jewry. We never elected Dr. Krauskopf as the spokesman of American Jewry. We never elected Dr. Feinschreiber as the spokesman of American Jewry. And the world knew that on religious matters they spoke for themselves–at best, for a limited party, even in the reformed camp. But when you speak, by reason of our having selected you, the world feels that you speak for the Jewish people.’

“We allow all freedom of view within the circle of religious thought, but the minute you step out of the circle of religious thought and ask us to accept the Christian position of life, we demand that you resign, because you are not the leader of the Jewish people in the holiest cause outside of the Synagogue, and for many in the Synagogue; and because, whether you like it or not, that cannot be divided from Judaism.

“In view of this development. I say that the Agudath Harabonim should not only withdraw their ban, but they should find a way to cooperate with us, and for the following reasons: In the first place, if we do not retain Rabbi Wise, now that he has put himself clear as to his religious position with respect to religious thought, we shall tell the world that we are heresy hunters and martyr makers. And the second reason why — and I feel deeply abouit it, in spite of the minimizing that is going on in this room: I say that what the Christian thinks about the Jew is important now in so far as I have given strength to Christian hands to do missionary work among the Jews. Million are able to quote such sermons. And in the year 1914 Israel Zangwill wrote a poem addressed to Jesus, in which he said: ‘Brother Jesus, realize that these Christian nations are warring upon one another and they do not understand you. Brother Jesus, realize you have made a mistake. Come back to us, for we are the only people in the world who really understand you.’ In the same week I understand there was a mashumad conference and a mashumad got up on the platform and read that poem. It was most pathetic and he told the assembled mashumads and Christians in their own right, ‘See, brethren, how the Jews are yearning for Christ.’ (Laughter.) We don’t want to give the Christian world that opportunity to cater to these millions. In order then to claim the point of start and as far as possible to rid the Christian mind of the poison which was injected by a misrepresented utterance; in order to extract it, let us keep him. Let us circularize his denial abroad over the world, even though no truth is able to travel as fast as a lie. And by our acceptance of him with this denial, we shall tell the unthinking Christian world what the thinking Christian world well knows and understands.”

“I did not have a chance to speak to you before or I would have told you that a great deal of the criticism hurled here against the rabbis was exaggerated,” Mr. Jacob Fishman said. “There is a desire on the part of the rabbis to come to an understanding with us, in spite of some of their ill considered action, and I think that we should meet this element.”

RABBI MEYER BERLIN FOLLOWS BUBLICK IN FIGHT AGAINST WISE

The discussion which developed at the session of the Executive Committee of the United Palestine Appeal was similar to that at the earlier meeting. The position occupied by Gedaliah Bublick at the session of the Zionist Executive was taken in the United Palestine Appeal meeting by Rabbi Meyer Berlin, president of the Mizrachi, who led the opposition which grew from one to nine.

“It is not easy to defend a viewpoint at a moment when the majority has a clear intention. I find it my duty, however, to state the position of the Mizrachi on this question. Various elements have been involved in this controversy, with which I must say the Mizrachi does not identify itself.

“The question before us is not to accuse or defend Dr. Wise, to ascertain whether he was right or wrong, whether he has been correctly quoted or misquoted, whether he had bad intentions or good intentions. Dr. Wise has been placed in a position in which his name has been connected with an influence which is harmful for Judaism due to his sermon, no matter whether he said what was attributed to him or not. The question that we, the Executive Committee of the United Palestine Appeal, have to decide is the question of the effect on the Appeal.

“I speak in the name of those Orthodox Jewish masses who are the basis of the Palestine work. The United Palestine Appeal embraces the entire Palestine work. All Jews are united around it. It is therefore necessary that at the head of this Appeal there should be a Jewish leader with whom all are in agreement. Should there be an opposition to the leader, all funds will suffer.

“I know that we are here in the minority, but do not forget, gentlemen, that in questions of religion, of conviction and of principle, a majority does not decide. Dr. Wise has touched the basis of Judaism. While it may be a fact that the majority of Zionist leaders is favorable to Wise, this is no indication of how the large Jewish masses may feel in the matter. I am sure that they are in agreement with the view held by the Mizrachi.

“The question which we have to decide is not a question of principle for you, but it is a question of principle for us. While you may deem it necessary for one political reason or another to retain Dr. Wise as leader, while you may find it more expedient, you are, nevertheless, in a position to yield, to change, should you be convinced that the reasons are adequate. We, the Orthodox Jews, cannot yield. It is a question of principle with us. Perhaps we may be less pious Jews and submit to the majority, but the great masses will not suffer that the rebuilding work of Palestine should be led by a man who has expressed his praise or a positive attitude toward another religion. The charge has been made here that someone is willing to make personal or political capital out of this controversy. Let not the man who has such intentions live,” he exclaimed.

“Zionists remember the Orthodox Jewish masses, remember the success of the Appeal,” Rabbi Berlin concluded.

Mr. Jacob Fishman was the next speaker. He expressed satisfaction at the remarks made by Rabbi Berlin “which,” he said, “might be taken as an indication that the Mizrachi does not identify itself with the resolution of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis and that it might submit to the decision of the majority.

“We do not come here to impose our opinion. We did not come as a packed jury, as Rabbi Berlin termed it. I had hoped that the situation would be made clear, but my hope has not been realized. What is your suggestion, Rabbi Berlin?” he asked. “How can we get out of this situation? Can we let Dr. Wise go under the stigma of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis? All efforts before this meeting to bring about reconciliation failed. You know that the Zionist Organization respects religious views, that you are given a hearing whenever a question concerning religion arises,” he stated.

The speaker violently attacked Mr. Gedaliah Bublick, the editor of the “Jewish Daily News,” for an expression in one of his editorials stating that Dr. Wise wants to enfold the cross in the Zionist flag. “The pen which wrote such an expression ought to be broken,” he declared.

SAMUEL UNTERMEYER SPEAKS FOR WISE

Samuel Untermeyer declared: “Dr. Wise is the man who first led me into the Palestine Appeal. As far back as 1908 and from that time on I have known of no more zealous and earnest advocate and champion of our cause than Dr. Wise has been. Day in and day out, by day and by night and year after year, Dr. Wise has sacrificed his time and strength to this cause. To say that he is not a great and a good Jew would be to go against the consensus of opinion of the entire Jewish world, not only of American Jewry, but of all Jewry. We should not allow ourselves to be misguided because of a misunderstood sentence or two or a statement by a man of his point of view, which as stated in the public press, rarely is in accordance with what is really stated.”

“It is quite evident from the whole record by this time,” declared Mr. Emanuel Neuman, “that, taking into consideration the general disavowal and more particularly the specific denials which Dr. Wise tendered in response to the suggestion of the Rabbinical Assembly, Dr. Wise had not intended and did not intend to utter that which would be at variance with the fundamental Jewish standpoint on the essential question of our relation to other faiths. I think that by this time all parties, all groups admit that.

“I am not a rabbi. I don’t know Rambam so horoughly. I only remind you of this: that Rambarm’s books, in his days, were burned by Jewish communities as heretical and today his works are being used to burn somebody else’s works as heretical.

“I don’t believe it is in keeping with the spirit of Judaism that a single incident, a spoken word, however unjustified, however unwise, however unwarranted, that such a word can be pitted and placed in the balance in the long run against a man’s life and a man’s work,” Mr. Neumann declared.

Rabbi Max Drob then spoke: “I want to explain the attitude of the Rabbinical Assembly, which has been mentioned again and again.

“The statement has been made as if we occupy a middle point in this discussion. We do not occupy any middle point, nor does the Rabbinical Assembly, which I have the honor to head, offer any compromise. I state again that Dr. Wise’s life is not a commentary and ought not to be considered as a commentary. We have an example in the Talmud where a certain character for eighty years had a certain viewpoint and nevertheless at the end he turned against his principle. That is not the question. With the Rabbinical Assembly there is only one question–the question of fact.

“We as rabbis cannot stultify ourselves, and if Dr. Wise does not retract and deny the statements which he made, there is no consideration of anything that is above religion. We are teachers or religion above everything, and there is nothing, not even Palestine, which can make us deny our religion.

“If the Rabbinical Assembly has agreed not to accept the resignation of Dr. Wise, it is because of his definite categorical denial. Dr. Wise, in his statement said: ‘Not only did I not say that, but I do not believe that the teachings of Jesus must be accepted by the Jews.’ That is why the Rabbinical Assembly has agreed to recommend to the Palestine Executive Committee not to accept Dr. Wise’s resignation.”

MR. WINTER PLEADE FOR TOLERANCE

Following addresses by Dr. Joseph Silverman and Mr. Joseph Barondess, who reported the results of his endeavor to bring about reconciliation, Mr. Benjamin Winter took the floor, saying:

“I have been here all afternoon trying to find out exactly what our teachers, our Orthodox teachers, have actually to say, and while I am not a rabbi, I am credited to be a man of common sense. In gathering all my thoughts and all my intelligence, I cannot possibly see where our Orthodox rabbis bring the question of building Zion into the synagogue or into the church. Rabbi Wise has made five times as much of a Zionist out of me as I was last year and if he has done that for me he surely can do that for many others.

“Why are the orthodox rabbis afraid that Dr. Wise as one individual may overthrow what people have carried with them from land to land, under all persecution, that which they have kept up, the Jewish faith? And still these Rabbis fear that one individual may be a detriment to the people and will carry American Jewry into the church!

“We want to have a united Jewry. We want to see the realization of Palestine,” he said.

“We want to raise the $5,000,000, but we cannot afford to have a misunderstanding. I have several Christians employed in my office and they look with keen interest into the newspapers, among them the ‘Jewish Daily Bulletin.’ To cite an example, one of them, Mr. O’Brien, has the authority to open every piece of mail that comes to my office and he reads the ‘Jewish Daily Bulletin.’ He reads it with interest and not with hate. By the way, he is a Catholic and a very ardent one, and yet he discussed with me the question of what the Rabbis want from Dr. Wise. Well, I made an explanation to O’Brien about the Orthodox Rabbis. They are my Rabbis. I am responsible for them just as they are responsible for me. So I say to myself, ‘I don’t want to pick any fight with them even though they are wrong in my opinion–not theologically, but on the ordinary ethics on which our own faith is built. (Applause.) I beg of them, if my influence carries any weight at all, not to be stubborn and to unite for the sake of our suffering Jews.

“While I have made so great a cry that America has closed her doors, I fear that they may try to close the doors in Palestine. Let us part tonight and let them say that they have made a mistake, not that Rabbi Wise should go down on his knees and say to them that he made the mistake.”

“Don’t let us be stubborn-minded,” Mrs. Kohut declared. “Let us all be as we are on Yom Kippur Day–open to conviction, and soft and mild and gentle in our feeling, prayerful in our thought, and ask God to guide us, not our heads, but God himself. And if God were to guide us today he would say to us: ‘You poor suffering Jews, driven as you have been for centuries, suffering as you have for an ideal, stand by each other and be united, united not only before men but united before God.’ We want to be united today before God and we ought to come to him and say to him: ‘We have prayed, we have hoped, we have thought and we believe that this man who is ready to carry on for us and who has carried on for us, if he has made a sin of omission, it is for God to forgive him, and because God does forgive him and has forgiven him we too must forgive him,” she pleaded.

CONTROVERSY TERMED “PSYCHOLOGICAL DELIRIUM”

Mr. Bublick then made a motion that the meeting decide to postpone action until a committee to be appointed investigate the matter and negotiate for peace. The motion was overrided.

At the conclusion of the debate, before the final vote was taken, Louis Lipsky summrized the discussion in which he termed the entire controversy a “psychological delirium.”

“I remember reading a story in the Arabian Nights of a group of sailors who come into a desert which is bewitched and while they are in the desert they experience a feeling of intoxication,” Mr. Lipsky began. “They don’t know exactly how it comes, but while they are passing through that part of the woods or desert they are intoxicated, and just as soon as they come through and are on the outside the intoxication disappears.

“Now if you will trace what happened since December 20th you will see that we have experienced here practically a psychological delirium or a psychological ecstasy or a psychological passion which both sides have been thrown into and from which it was very difficult for either party to extricate himself.

“Now I remember distinctly that on Monday morning, when we had the newspaper before us and we saw the headlines, our first thought was that this was something terrible that has happened and if it is true and if there are other reports that are going to substantiate it, we are in a very bad situation. Dr. Wise is in a very bad position and the whole matter is really complicated.

“Laying aside exactly what he said there and laying aside what was in the text, and taking only the headlines, the impression that was conveyed made us feel that it was a very unfortunate accident, and even on Monday afternoon we were already expriencing the reaction of the report on the part of the various district workers. Now, we felt certain, and everybody who knows Dr. Wise felt certain, that as far as he was concerned there was some slip-up there. His press service is usually very good, but this was a very bad slip-up. The very first opportunity we had to speak with Dr. Wise, he himself admitted it was a terrible mistake, because of the result, he was at once apprehensive of what the effect would be on the United Palestine Appeal. Immediately, and without anyone saying a word, he said, ‘Of course, you have my resignation.’ He felt that this was an accident that could bring damage to the whole United Palestine Appeal, damage to the Zionist movement, and he did not want to be responsible for any harm that would be done. We told him very clearly at the time that it was a little too early to decide, especially since he had already sent out an explanation and a correction and especially since Dr. Wise would have an opportunity the next day to make another explanation to recall the distorted and perverted idea of his sermon which had been broadcast by the newspapers, and we told Dr. Wise that we would then have an opportunity to see what the effect would be upon the public and whether the effect would be bad. It might have been bad regardless of what Dr. Wise actually said. As Rabbi Berlin said, it might have been bad because the headline would make a greater impression than the correction, and it would not be possible to catch up with the lie.

MR. LIPSKY ADMONISHES RABBIS

“No one would suspect him of having in mind these things that were put into the headline and that were immediately put into his mouth by his friendly reformed brethren, who took occasion immediately to condemn Dr. Wise without listening to a word from him.

“We were fighting with the gentlemen who are here talking against the refusal to accept the resignation, and we were saying to them, ‘You let this matter calm down. We know how things are created in the press and in the public mind. Let it calm down. Let us see really what is in it. Let us know exactly what the effects are going to be.’ But they were coming along and insisting, because of that passion, because of the feeling of outrage that there was in the headline with which Dr. Wise had nothing to do–they were insisting that we must immediately take the well-known European method of assuming a stand against it and in declaring ourselves; that we must let the public know what we think of it. In the very declaration that the Mizrachi made and the very declarations made by the Rabbis, they actually stirred into a flame a thing that would have been reduced to absolutely nothing in the course of two days, because there is nothing in it.

“If Dr. Wise ever had any intention of preaching something that was opposed to the traditional Jewish attitude toward other religions, he would have said it before. He would have been a marked man, and there would not have been Jews going to the Free Synagogue by the hundreds and the thousands, because they would have felt it in every word that Dr. Wise uttered.

“I say we have a perfect right to make a charge against the Mizrachi and a charge to some extent against Mr. Bublick since Friday, because instead of trying to bring about understanding they, by their action, demanding his resignation, and by exaggerating even if he had said certain things, in exaggerating the importance and intent connected with them, they themselves were largely responsible for turning this, which was an ordinary event into a delirium of passion which obssessed many of them.

“So we have Mr. Bublick standing here and talking and he is not conscious at all of the meaning and the effect of his words. He gives you the impression that he has just come out of the four-teenth century. He speaks in such vehement terms.

“If any one will come along and say that this is an offense to the integrity of the Zionist movement that Dr. Wise has committed, that this will be harmful to the United Appeal, Dr. Wise will be the first one to say that notwithstanding the vote of confidence, he cannot remain at the head of this movement.

“But the fact of the matter is different. Just as this delirum has had a high point, so it is beginning to have a low point, and the very same people who were responsible for creating this feeling are now beginning to realize that they were in the area, like the sailors in the story I told you about where there was a sort of bewitchment, not of their own making.

“And we have it on the side of the Rabbis themselves. Even the Rabbis themselves admitted privately, practically publicly, that this resolution was not correct. Then the Rabbis privately said the resolution was a mistake. Of course it was a mistake, and the second resolution was a mistake too, and there is going to be a third resolution which will be made after the air begins to clear and we can come along and say very simply, ‘There was something that happened that was an accident.’

HOPES UNITY IS REESTABLISHED

“The great danger that he foresaw in these utterances, the great calamity he foresaw, is not indicated by the facts any longer. The facts have changed. The fact that thousands of Jews who are good Jews, Orthodox Jews, say that there is not a calamity, ought to be, and is, proof enough to you that there is not such a thing as calamity in it to warrant taking the same position here that you took over there.

“Rabbi Teitelbaum is here. He came to that meeting of the Rabbis and he is a member of the Mizrachi. When he came to that meeting a week ago Tuesday, did he try to do anything to soften the impression? Not at all. He was under the influence of the reigning wrath. He wanted to get something out of it, a thrill, or a kick, or something out of it that would make it worth while. Even if Dr. Wise were to have withdrawn his statement, it would not have satisfied Rabbi Teitelbaum, because he felt that this was a situation out of which Orthodox Judaism could gain advantages, not in a bad sense, but advantages anyway, and he wanted to force the situation to the utmost.

“I say we have come to the point where everyone here feels rationally, feels soberly, that it is not in the interests of the Zionist movement or of the Palestine Appeal, that Dr. Wise’s resignation should be accepted. It is not in the interests of the movement and the principles of the movement that his resignation should be accepted and we have every reason to believe that when we adopt this resolution, which I am sure we are going to adopt, that the Mizrachi and Mr. Bublick, and the Agudath Harabonim, when they sit deliberately and think matters over, will come and say that the action we have taken here is correct.”