Blames Zionists for Union Convention’s Silence on Agency

Communication to the Editor

Sir:

As one of the hosts to the Union of American Hebrew Congregations in whose Temple the sessions of the recent Convention were held, I hesitate to comment upon Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan’s criticism of the Convention’s silence on the Jewish Agency. But the situation is so fraught with lessons for the Zionists that it cannot again be passed over in silence.

Rabbi Kaplan does not go far enough in his criticisms. The Convention should, and perhaps would, have taken an affirmative attitude towards the Agency, but whatever was said openly and in private by a few prominent Reform lay leaders was, as usual, sharply anti-Zionist. For the silence of the Convention the Zionists have themselves to blame.

I did not conceive it to be in place for myself as a host to foster or promote a Zionist or any resolution. In 1925 I led the fight at Cincinnati on behalf of the Palestine clause in the Philadelphia Joint Distribution Committee resolution, and was defeated by a vote of 36 to 34. I have believed in unremittingly vigorous Zionist education among the Reform group and have preached undiluted Zionism in my own pulpit with no restraints within or without. The Jewish National Welfare Fund of San Francisco is another indication that financial support can be gained for Zionism without destruction of its program or its self-respect.

But the action of the Z. O. A. within the last few years has driven out of active service those Reform Rabbis who have been militant and unflinching in their preachment of Zionism and who have won victories for the cause among its opponents. Moreover the fatuous policy of the Z. O. A. has created a “hush-hush” mood which has nullified movements of organization, education and resolution among the non-Zionists. The Administration Reform Rabbis are constantly soft-pedalling. They believe in pianissimo tactics. The self-silencing of the legitimist Reform Zionist Rabbis and the dilatory attitude of the lay leaders have their logical outcome in the omission of the San Francisco Convention to take cognizance of the Agency.

One of the Reform laymen said to a gathering of friends: “That Rabbi will go far if he does not keep his eyes too much on Palestine.” What hope is there for success in the Agency if men who speak in these terms control the field? Rabbi Kaplan may well ask: “Will Reform Jews keep their promises?” The answer is: “Only if Zionists insist on the fulfillment of the minimum pledges they have given.” But the Z. O. A. has deliberately weakened itself by expelling many of its best spokesmen. As an organization it faces extinction. Life members are being asked once more to contribute to the Organization deficit. Only complete overhauling of the Z. O. A. and the W. Z. O. can save the work of Herzl and Brandeis. This is the supreme lesson of the San Francisco episode.

Rabbi Louis I. Newman. San Francisco, March 18, 1929.