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.]

An explanation of the term “priority of Palestine,” which was the crux of the recent controversy in American Jewry, is put forth by the “New Palestine,” official organ of the Zionist Organization of America, in its March 11 issue. The paper says:

“Zionists on the other side of the water-including, of course, the Palestinians-are engaged in discussing the much abused phrase ‘priority of Palestine’ which was thrown into a recent exchange of letters, and they are giving to the discussion the best intellectual attention possible for them. These letervation for non-Zionists, whose susceptibilities had to be considered, with regard to the exceptional claims of Palestine, which, it was said, they should not be asked to admit. An appeal was made to the tolerance of Zionists, who were asked to allow for such a difference in viewpoint inasmuch as such a viewpoint did not preclude cooperation in the making of the Jewish National Home, in which, it appears, all Jews are now interested. The reservation was made for such participating non-Zionists in order to make it easy for them to join hands with the Zionists in the common work. It was not intended that Zionists should abandon or compromise their own views with regard to the priority of Palestine, or that they should cease their educational efforts to have their views accepted by other Jews.

“It is necessary to bear in mind, in order that misunderstandings shall be avoided, that the term ‘priority,’ as used, came into being as the expression of a fear that another Jewish activity might itself, in fact, make such priority claims upon the attention of American Jewry. The priority of Palestine was thus invoked in order to have Palestine included in a general Jewish program of activities on a basis of equality. The term ‘priority’ was being used with relation to a controversy, and it must be so taken and not for purposes of general discussion.

“Aside from the circumstances which gave rise to the recent use of the term, the priority or primacy of Palestine has a meaning in which are involved basic Zionist principles. It does not mean, as it has been crassly put, that the claims of Palestine must first be satisfied before any other Jewish need shall be placated. It does not mean that the claims of Palestine obliterate all other Jewish interests. It does not mean that everything in Jewish life should be sacrificed for Palestine.”

Reviewing the history of the development of the Zionist idea and the circumstances which led to the conviction that “Zionism has become the one curative as well as creative effort of the Jewish people upon which our future is being established,” the “New Palestine” concludes: “It is the understanding and appreciation of the value of Zion in Jewish life which makes it possible for the Zionist to see, with fervor and sincerity, that, of all the things there are in Jewish life, Palestine is paramount, Palestine comes first, Palestine deserves the best that is in us. In that sense we speak of the priority of Palestine, and it is our hope and prayer that, in time, all Jews will come to the same conviction, sharing the vision and fervor to sacrifice for Eretz Israel, which are the outstanding features of a true Zionist life.”

“AMERICAN ISRAELITE” RIDICULES “CONFESSIONAL” IN SYNAGOGUE

The establishment of personal confession in his synagogue by Rabbi Thurman ? St. Louis is ridiculed by the “American Israelite”, Reform organ, which observes in its issue of March 10:

“Rabbi Thurman states that it is his intention to set definite hours during the week for those ‘who desire to avail themselves of the opportunity to unburden themselves cither of their sins or their troubles.’ Rabbi Thurman shows great modesty, inasmuch as he does not promise absolution. He only says: ‘If they seek for advice we shall try to give it to them.’ One hardly knows whether to take this adoption of a Roman Catholic institution seriously, or to laugh at the whole business. Probably the majority of Rabbi Thurman’s coreligionists and perhaps of his own congregation will only laugh at him.”

The “Chicago Chronicle”, dwelling on the same subject, remarks:

“The Reverend Harry Emerson Fosdick has appealed for the reinstatement of the confessional in the Protestant churches. Whether this is good or bad, it is not for us to say. But when Rabbi Samuel Thurman of the United Hebrew Temple of St. Louis, endorses the Reverend Fosdick by announcing that he, too, will be a repository of confessions, then the horse is of a different complexion.

“The foundation of Jewish law is that there shall be no intermediary between man and God. The hereditary priesthood in the Temple was an exception to this rule, but even here the innovation was not accepted by the people at large, but was imposed by authority from above. During medieval times the Rabbi was not a spiritual leader as the term is understood today, but only a wise man, schooled in the law, and a Judge of the people of Israel. Any professing man could act as a rabbi, if he was of good moral character. This traditional feature of the Rabbinate has lasted down to the present day.”

The Minnesota House Committee on Education recommended indefinite postponement of an anti-evolution bill. The committee voted 12 to 5.