Current Crisis in Zionist Organization Result of Failure to Become Dynamic Factor in Jewish Life of

That the present-day crisis in the Zionist organization is due to the fact that the Zionist party, espcially in America, has been limiting itself only to Palestine activities and has not been an active, dynamic factor in the Jewish life of the Diaspora, is the opinion expressed by Dr. A. Coralnik in two articles appearing in the “Day” of January 4 and 5.

“Is Zionism only a Palestine movement and nothing more?” asks Dr. Coralnik. “Is he who wishes to colonize Palestine a Zionist? Is that his only function? So it has become in America and thus it is gradually getting to be in Europe. But it wasn’t so formerly. Herzl’s Zionism started with the ‘Agency’ idea—with obtaining the cooperation of eminent and powerful leaders—but changed its tactics very soon. It became a movement of the Jewish masses, the politics of the Jewish people. And the whole fight waged by the ‘left’ Jewish parties against Zionism was a fight against this attitude. The ‘Bund’ wasn’t so much worried over the fact that Jews are concerned over Palestine and over the possibilities of a Jewish state—at that time anyway this looked like a chimera and a dream. But they fought Zionism because the Zionists were the most active, the most energetic and politically the most creative element among the Jewish people. This was the power of Zionism and this is also its significance to this very day in those lands where Jewish life beats strongest. Zionism is first and foremost the movement for keeping the Jewish people together, for developing its powers, for connecting the past with the present. Zionism is Jewish politics.

“I know that one cannot conduct Jewish politics in America as it is conducted in Poland. In any event the forms must be different. But the principle is the same: it is the movement of the masses, an organization of and for and by the people.

“The Zionist party should not isolate itself from the general life of the Jewish people. All Jewish interests—economic, social, cultural—are its interests.”

On the question of a change in Zionist leadership Dr. Coralnik says:

“It is a parliamentary and political custom that when a leadership remains too long at the helm, when a leadership has come to the point where its ability is doubted, it must leave and make room for new leaders.

“This is understood in every political group, but it seems that among Zionists it is an entirely new, unknown and incomprehensible theory. Especially among the Zionists of America who have adopted the banal American slogan: ‘Loyalty’ or ‘Follow the leader,’ as if the most important thing in Zionism would be to obey the leader, loyalty to this or that person and not loyalty to the thing itself.

“And because America leads, or did lead, the fear for any least change has enveloped the Zionists of the whole world. The fear is felt over what will happen on the day after the cabinet crisis? And who will take over the leadership? A remarkable question, even a childish one for politically-minded people, but it is always heard in Zionist circles, at congresses, where-ever Zionist politics is being made.

“Does the parliament of France or England ask it? Did the American voters ask it after Wilson’s second term? True, Lloyd George and Clemenceau and Wilson won the war, but that didn’t mean that they must necessarily continue their leadership in times of peace also. Perhaps this is ungrateful, but much healthier than the abnormal gratefulness of the Zionists.”