A Reply to “a Call for Unity”

April 27, 1933.

To the Editor of the

Jewish Daily Bulletin:

It is commendable, indeed, that you seek unity in Israel, especially at a time like this. In so doing, however, you have chosen the woefully infelicitous course of condemning, precipitately and ex parte, the one organization that has done incomparably more than any other to channelize and give expression to the sentiments of the American Jew. The English Jew of prominence has, indeed, acquitted himself superbly, and it would be a wholly invidious task to compare with him the American Jew of prominence. From the standpoint of mass protest, however, the American Jewish masses have demonstrated such exemplary solidarity and self-discipline and such splendid backbone and devotion, that nothing can be more unjust than to rate them second to any other Jewish group in all the world.

The main purpose of this communication, however, is to set you right on the facts. As a member of both the Executive Committee and the Administrative Committee of the American Jewish Congress, and having also been a member of the Committee of Fifteen to which you refer, I have personal knowledge of what actually took place, which I shall briefly summarize as follows:

The Congress representatives on the Committee of Fifteen had at all times sought, truly and zealously, to work in unison with the rest of the Committee, the deliberations of which were unfailingly marked with a maximum of earnestness, courtesy and attempt at mutual understanding. At no time, however, so far as I can recall, was it understood, expressly or by implication, that no action was to be taken by any of the constituent bodies without the approval or participation of the others. True, we were all to do all we could to promote unity of action and were to keep one another informed of any contemplated step, but, beyond that, each organization reserved complete freedom. And this was no mere matter of jealousy or of pride. We were of jealousy or of pride. We were only too well aware of the intransigency of our respective views on certain fundamental subjects to run the risk of calamitous impasse in the event of our failure to agree.

Now the body that functions as the Board of Directors of the American Jewish Congress is its so-called Administrative Committee. It was that body that appointed the representatives of the American Jewish Congress on the Committee of Fifteen. It was that body alone to whom rested the responsibility for any action that might be taken by them. It was not the Administrative Committee that met in March at the Hotel Biltmore, as stated in your editorial. It was the Executive Committee—a wholly distinct body with advisory, as distinguished from administrative functions. Its deliberations could only lead to a “fait accompli” through action by the Administrative Committee. That was made perfectly clear by the Congress representatives to the Committee of Fifteen at its meeting immediately following the March meeting of the Executive Committee. The fact is that at the latter meeting we considered the matter of mass protest entirely de novo and that notice was served upon the Congress representatives that, if they sanctioned such protest, their further participation on the Committee would ### be countenanced!

A few days afterwards, when ### Administrative Committee met# consider the resolutions theretof## adopted by the Executive Committee and came unanimously to the ##clusion that not alone was mass p#test of the highest urgency, but, al# that unless properly channelized ### guided, such protests might well ### out of hand, we duly informed ### representatives of the American Jewish Committee and of the B’### Brith of the decision and urged th### to join with us. They saw fit not ### do so. They bowed to no dic### and, whatever responsibility Congress assumed, it was certain### not that of “breaking away fr### united action”.

Your unfortunate belittlement ### the Washington activities of ### Wise and Mr. Deutsch have as li# basis in fact. I not only challe# the accuracy of your statement ### they were unable to obtain a hear# with Secretary Hull or Presid### Roosevelt, but respectfully dem### of you, as a responsible organ# Jewish opinion, with an impress# record of service to the Jewish ca## that you make at least an attemp### ascertain just why an interview not yet been arranged for ### President Roosevelt and why, on ### two occasions you speak of, Dr. W### and Mr. Deutsch confined themse### to the good offices of the U### Secretary.

Leaders worthy of their nam## not out to pander to the whin### those who find interest only in# issues out of the precincts of g###ose personalities; nor is it a# wise or practicable for them ### the public informed of the mo# of their every act. Dr. W### Mr. Deutsch have a right to### a modicum of patience an###fidence from the Jewish ### Everything will eventually ### clear, and we are quite pre### face the verdict when that ###I hope you will extend ###