Digest of Public Gpinion on Jewish Matters

The purpose of the Digest is informative ## give to papers not generally ## Quotation does ##-Editor.]

As analogy between the peace established in American Jewry as a resalt of the agreement on the Jewish Agency by Dr. Weizmann and Louis Marshall and the peace of the Versailles Treaty, is drawn by Dr. A. Coralnik, who writes in the “Day” of Jan. 21.

Dr. Coralnik records an argument of two Zionists, one of whom contended that the Weizmann-Marshall peace was analogous to Sedan at the end of the Franco-German War, the other that it was analogous to Locarno. “You say Sedan!” Dr. Coralnik quotes one of the Zionist disputants. “Why? Does that not mean catastrophe? Sedan means surrendering the fort and the army, the surrender of the field marshal and the emperor. Sedan means Bismarck. Who then is the Bismarck and who the Marshal Bazaine or Napoleon III in this case? Surely you do not mean to say that Mr. Marshall is a second Bismarck and the Zionist Organization the Napoleon III. You cannot be so lacking in humor. I tell you: It is Locarno. Two or three statesmen gathered round a table, had a fine talk and agreed on a permanent peace–or the beginning of a peace if you must be punctilious.

The Sedanist and the Locarnist argued until a third person interfered, we are told further and said: “It is neither Sedan nor Locarno, neither a catastrophe nor the arrival of salvation, but–if you wish to stick to war terminology–Versailles.” Dr. Coralnik then proceeds to explain:

“The chief point in the Versailles treaty is not the political, nor even the economic, but rather the moral one. You remember: the Germans were ready to make many sacrifices–Alsace-Lorraine, Schleswig, even a part of Silesia and the corridor; they gave away everything without blinking an eye. Only in one respect they were stubborn, one thing they can not forget the question of guilt. What would it matter if the Versailles treaty declared that they the Germans, were the only guilty ones for the war? But it does matter to them. They do not want to appear before the world as the guilty ones.

“And it is this–the Versailles feature–that is so characteristic of the peace concluded, or, at any rate, proclaimed in Mocca Temple.”

Dr. Coralnik then proceeds to criticize Dr. Weizmann for having made too ## a concession to the non-Zionist group in the matter of guilt for the unfortunate controversy over the Russize colonization plan. Analyzing Dr. Weizmann’s letter to Mr. Marshall, the writes says:

“Now let as see what Dr. Weizmann tells the other party”. He writes: ‘On the other hand, those in charge of the activities of the United Jewish Campaign and the Joint Distribution Committee very naturally focused their interest on the problems presented by Eastern Europe… They, therefore, resented an attitude which they looked upon as hampering them in their campaign.’ Note the words ‘naturally’ and ‘therefore’. Why was it so natural? And if it was natural on their part why was the attitude of their opponents so unnatural for that side, and does not the word ‘therefore’ convey an admission that they were justified in their resentment?

“Understand, this is not quibbling, no lawyer’s word juggling. I do not wish to enter here into the essence of the question proper. Whether the Zionists were entirely wrong, whether no justification could be found for them–that is not important. What is important is, that the letter of the Zionist leader puts the blame entirely on one side, the Zionist side, and builds upon that the peace. This is Versailles. And I can imagine that in New York the proceedings were exactly like those in Versailles, before the peace treaty was signed in the salon of mirrors. And I assure you, I feel with Dr. Weizmann all the pain that a leader should and must feel when he is compelled to speak in this manner to his party–steruly to those he is leading; mildly to those who, at best, desire to be co-leaders.

“True,” we read on, “Mr. Marshall was tactful, generous and gentlemanly enough in his letter not to mention even by one word the controversy with the Zionists. But neither did be mention Palestine. He spoke about the meaning of peace, about unity, about ‘contributions to civilization and culture and to the welfare of mandkind.’ Golden worlds, which could be put into the ‘Sayings of the Fathers’–if they were not there already–but the essential thing, the concrete proposition itself: Palestine, reconstruction, the Agency, obligations, economic and political perspectives–the smoke of the peace pipe obscured these things completely.

“And now–what next?

“The peace is signed. A Versailles peace, but still better than war. Between Versailles and Maroe–centainly the choice lies with Versailles.”

HERMAN BERNSTEIN FETED ON EVE OF DEPARTURE FOR WORLD TOUR

A farewell dinner to Herman Bernstein was given at the Hotel Astor on Thursday evening. January 20, on the eve of his departure for a trip around the world. Mr. Bernstein sailed on Saturday on the Homeric.

A bust of Mr. Bernstein by Moses W. Dykaar was presented to him.

Herbert S. Houston acted as toast-master. Among the speakers were Dr. Alfred William Anthany, Joseph Barendess, Jonah J. Goldstein. Sophie Irene Loeb. Dr. Charles S. Macfarland, David M. Mosessohn and Oswald Garrison Villard.