Editorials

Mr. Bernard Deutsch, president of the American Jewish Congress, released to the press a letter he received from Dr. Cyrus Adler, president of the American Jewish Committee, as well as his own reply. Dr. Adler, in his letter to the American Jewish Congress, urged postponement of the protest demonstration scheduled for May 10. Mr. Deutsch rushed to publish this correspondence without permission.

This airing of our differences in the general press is bound to bewilder the public at large and prove detrimental to the effectiveness of protest actions. Whether or not one agrees with the viewpoint expressed by Dr. Adler, there can be no doubt that his suggestion was offered in a spirit of earnestness and sincerity. The deliberately arrogant reply of the president of the American Jewish Congress must have the effect of further intensifying existing friction and of preventing the establishment of a united front without which all efforts on behalf of the Jews of Germany will hardly be crowned with complete success.

This tendency in our community to transform differences of viewpoint into personal antagonism by venomous attacks, arouses bitterness in Jewish life which paralyzes every constructive endeavor even in the face of one of the greatest catastrophes in our history.

Mr. Deutsch’s studied endeavor to insult Dr. Adler confers no credit upon nor does it add prestige to his organization. In permitting public Jewish discussion to be brought down to this low level, Mr. Deutsch betrays a lack of Jewish and cultural background hardly commendable in one who aspires to be the spokesman of American Jewry.

While the Congress terms itself a democratic body, this development is not surprising in an organization where service to the community, or intellectual achievement, or the gift of statesmanship are not the criteria for election to leadership but rather where the presidency is handed out to the highest bidder.

The boisterous language in which his letter is couched, the insinuations it voices, the boastfulness which characterizes it, displays on the part of the American Jewish Congress a frantic desire to prevent the re-establishment of unity for which the Jewish public is clamoring.

The B’nai B’rith, the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, the Independent Order of Brith Sholom, the Rabbinical Assembly of the Jewish Theological Seminary and Jewish Communities throughout the country were urging a united front in unequivocal terms. In reply to these appeals, the American Jewish Committee declared its readiness to resume cooperation while the American Jewish Congress, thus far, has found no time to respond. Time was lacking to negotiate for peace and unity but leisure was abundant for indulging in a lengthy outburst in the general press. It is our earnest conviction that no mass demonstration or any other measure will be fully effective unless a united front is established and our community ceases to offer the public the sad spectacle of fratricidal dissension.

Dr. Stephen Wise is not persona grata in Washington. Everyone seems to know this except Dr. Wise. President Roosevelt, then Governor of New York, in a communication to Dr. Wise a year ago, used language making it obvious that Dr. Wise can hardly be an effectual spokesman for the Jewish community with the present administration. Were Dr. Wise well-advised, he would not impose his leadership on the Jewish community in this present emergency. Instead of antagonizing, he should bend every effort to obtain the cooperation of those who have better contacts. It would be folly on the part of the Jewish people to place today at the helm of their affairs one who does not command the unreserved regard of the government.

American Jewry succeeded in establishing a united front with regard to the upbuilding of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, by the creation of the Jewish Agency for Palestine. With regard to the cause of Palestine, serious difficulties involving ideology, conviction and principle existed. Nevertheless, it proved possible to compromise those differences and difficulties. With regard to the fight against anti-Semitism, no difference of ideology exists. The divergence of views applies only to questions of procedure, method and tactics. If the effectiveness of whatever measure suggested is to be the only criterion upon which decision is to be reached, prompt agreement with regard to procedure should be possible. The situation is paradoxical. It should be easier to establish a united front in the fight against anti-Semitism than it was with regard to the cause of Palestine. A cablegram from London reports that a committee, headed by Lionel Rothschild, has been created with the intention of coordinating all efforts for the assistance of German Jewry. Polish Jewry, always so hopelessly divided and known for its intransigeant party strife, has this time at least succeeded in establishing a united front. Should this really be impossible in our country?

Prof. Mordecai Kaplan has given apt expression to what is the need of the moment in his opening address before the Rabbinical Assembly of the Jewish Theological Seminary, when he said: “This is not the time to find fault with one another for protesting, or failing to protest. We should bear with one another if we make mistakes, and try new methods if the old have not proved successful, without imagining that our reputation for diplomacy or consistency is at stake. We must not allow ourselves to be swayed by specious appeals to democracy to break the common and united front which we must present to the outside world if we want our protests to be taken seriously. However much we may wrangle among ourselves, in the face of our enemies we must not recklessly throw away the strategic advantage afforded by those Jews who happen to exercise an influence in the non-Jewish world simply because we begrudge them that influence. There may be an honest difference of opinion as to the method to be employed in combating Jew hatred. But once a decision has been arrived at after due deliberation, it is nothing less than treason to the welfare of our people for any individual or group that has taken part in such deliberation to depart from the course of action decided upon.”

THE STEUBEN SOCIETY

The Steuben Society has adopted a resolution in which an attempt is made to whitewash the German government. This resolution compares the deprivation of the most elementary rights of 600,000 German Jews with the dismissal of Republican officials when the Democrats come into office, or vice versa. This comparison falsifies the situation to the point of malice or absurdity. Jews have not been dismissed from public office nor have Jewish lawyers, physicians and teachers been removed from their positions because of their political convictions. Not by any manner of means. For the first time in the history of mankind the legislation of a great country has been based on discrimination on a racial basis. The establishment of a union between state and race, identifying membership in a factitiously superior race—in this case the Germanic—with the rights of citizenship is the aim of the National Socialists. This and nothing else is the issue. The Steuben Society resolution contains not one word of indignation against this attempt to exterminate 600,000 men and women, guilty of no other crime than that of belonging to the Jewish race. The resolution refers to the recent statement of the American Jewish Committee and gleefully quotes that passage in which public demonstrations and boycott are declared to be futile. The Steuben Society deliberately disregarded those parts of the statement of the American Jewish Committee which condemned recent occurrences in Germany in no doubtful terms and expressed confidence that the civilized world would continue to lift its voice in denunciation. It is regrettable that the statement of the American Jewish Committee was released to the general press instead of being communicated only to the Jewish organizations throughout this country.