[The purpose of the Digest is informative. Preference is given to papers not generally accessible to our readers. Quotation does not indicate approval.--Editor.]
The conviction that the resolution of the Chicago Conference, commendable for its tone on the subject of relief and Palestine, should have been more outspoken on the question of the J.D.C-Zionist controversy, is expressed by the “Day” of October 12.
“The resolution sounds very well and certainly can harm no one. . . The only question is,” the paper observes, “does the resolution go far enough in the direction of effectiveness, does it say everything that is required in order to eradicate the unfortunate situation which led to the controversy between the J. D. C. and the Zionist Organization, after the peace resolution had been signed in Philadelphia?
“Such effectiveness it is difficult to find in the resolution,” the paper finds. “And if there are plans how to avoid the continuance in the future of the disputes between the J. D. C. and the Zionist Organization, the resolution makes no mention of them. And that is to be regretted, because only by mentioning and removing the stumbling stones which have been placed in the way of the Philadelphia compromise can American Jewry again be brought around to a true peace, not one merely signed on paper, which may be worth something today but tomorrow may become ‘a scrap of paper.’
“The true causes which led to the necessity for reaffirming at this hour the Philadelphia agreement of a year ago, should first have been thoroughly discussed and then done away with. Only in such an event would the reaffirming resolution have had real effect and would have led to satisfactory results.
“It is to be hoped that the leaders of the J. D. C., who distinguished themselves at the Chicago conference by their peaceful addresses, will not stop at the resolution and that in the future activities the agitated and agitating moods will be placed under he necessary control which will bring the true peace into the ranks of American Jewry,” the paper concludes.
Doubt as to the wisdom of the decision to send Dr. Joseph Rosen to Palestine in order to prepare a report of the situation in the country for the leaders of the J. D. C. is voiced in the “Jewish Morning Journal,” by Jacob Fishman, who observes: “We do not mean to deprecate Dr. Rosen’s abilities as an agronomist and colonization expert. Nevertheless, we do not believe that he is the right man for such a purpose. We believe in the first place, that Dr. Rosen has his hands full with the work in Russia. Secondly, we believe that, no matter how impartial Dr. Rosen may try to be, he cannot render an impartial report on Palestine. He is too saturated with the Russian undertaking and, consciously or unconsciously, he will have to consider the two projects one against the other, and it is impossible for him to have the right attitude to Palestine at the time when he is so inspired for the ‘free land’ which the Soviet Government is giving for Jewish colonization and when his entire background is a purely philanthropic or opportunistic one. Approaching Palestine with such an attitude Dr. Rosen could render no useful report about Palestine, and we do not expect any other attitude from him. It would in fact have been much more advisable for the J. D. C. to send a Christian expert, such as Professor Ellwood Mead.”