Digest of Public Opinion on Jewish Matters

[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 a new constructive spirit in American Jewish life was reflected in the Washington session of the American Jewish Congress is voiced by the “New Palestine,” organ of the Zionist Organization of America, in an editorial entitled “Lessons of the Washington Congress.”

Referring to the Congress sessions of the past, the “New Palestine” (Feb. 25) says they were replete with “clashes and controversies, the denunciations intended for the general press, the seeking for sensational issues.”

“This was a method which has its good as well as its bad points,” the paper says. “Very little thought used to be given to such activities as would build up a reserve of good-will–a reserve of constructive work upon which the organization could be maintained between sessions of the Congress. The protocol of the Washington session reveals, however, a new spirit which is symptomatic of present conditions in our life. Except for one unfortunate incident–the introduction to the discussion on the National Community Chest, which was couched in a tone reminiscent of pioneering days-the addresses as well as the debates seem animated with a desire to contribute to the establishment of the American Jewish Congress upon constructive lines. It seemed to be the feeling that more con be accomplished through the creation of good-will than by first emphasizing and then building upon differences of opinion. The Congress is peculiarly fitted to become a unifying agency, and can of all organizations thrive best by employing the methods of peace and understanding. True to its principles, it must become representative of all Israel and must reflect its personality, its peculiarities and its virtues and views.”

Going back to the origin of the American Jewish Congress and the conflict of forces which brought it into existence, the “New Palestine” says:

” When the proposal to establish an American Jewish Congress on democratic Inies was flung into the arena of discussion, it became necessary to disturb the even flow of American Jewish life. The seriousness of Jewish conditions made such a movement imperative. Responsibility for American Jewish affairs was at that time vested in a small group of well-meaning men who, by force of habit or inclination, did not believe in the utility or feasibility of creating a democratic responsibility in American Jewry. They had organized themselves for the protection of Jewish interests and for the representation of Jewish opinion, and they occupied the same field the American Jewish Congress proposed to occupy, and, naturally, there was resistance and consequent struggle and controversy. In this struggle, we Zionists played an important part, for at that time, before the Balfour Declaration was issued, we felt that a broad, general Jewish support of the Zionist aim was essential for our success, especially as there was no ground for anticipating such support from the predominant bodies representative of American Jewish public opinion. The struggle had a good conclusion for there emerged out of it- cooperation of all classes and elements in the first session of the American Jewish Congress, the endorsement of the Balfour Declaration, the resolution urging the assignment of the Palestine Mandate to the British Government, and other acts that contributed tremendously to the success of the Zionist movement.

“Unfortunately, there was a break in the united support given to the American Jewish Congress, and we now have, on the one side, the American Jewish Congress representative of the democratic factors in American Jewish life nationalistic in spirit, and, on the other side, the American Jewish Committee which remains steadfast in its adherence to its old traditions although, officially and unofficially, the personnel that constitutes its leadership has gone a great way toward merging with the fundamental objectives on which there seems to be, at this time, general agreement in American Jewish life.

“We have come to another station in our progress. It may be said that the implications of the Weizmann-Marshall agreement affect not only the purposes of building the Jewish National Home in Palestine, but also all other Jewish interests. A new mood has been created-a feeling that, through cooperative effort and the achievement of practical results, controversy and differences of opinion can be made to play a secondary part and not the predominant role which it has played hitherto. The assertion will not be contradicted that there prevails throughout American Jewish life a longing for common understanding in all the purposes of Jewish life, and that upon the basis of that desire a great deal of good can be achieved for the whole House of Israel.”