J. D. B. News Letter

The so-called literary and public opinion trials have become the mode in the Jewish community of Paris. They were brought into fashion by the well known tragic Club de Faubourg and the no less tragic Leo Foldes. Rarely, however, have these trials brought any clarity into the situations from which they were evolved. Primarily they served for publicity purposes developing into stormy duels causing a great deal of heat and beclouding the entire issue.

In particular this was the outcome with the trials affecting the Jewish student body, an offspring of the Association of Jewish Students of France. The very thought of a trial with procurer, judge, witnesses, defendants, etc., lent to a very serious and painful problem a decidedly not serious theatricality. From the very outset the character of the trial was such that it contradicted itself, since it could not either psychologically or legally carry out a sentence of guilty imposed on the Jewish student body. At the same time it could not in justice to its communal mission absolve the Jewish student youth of the charge of insufficient sacrifice for Jewish national interests and of the race for material gain. It was obvious therefore that the jury composed of the most distinguished Jewish leaders of Paris and including such personalities as Hillel Zlatapolsky, S. Schneur, Dr. M. Krainin, Z. Tiomkrin, would not mete out punishment but was itself punished in being forced to answer such a cardinal problem with only half phrases and to seek “more propitious circumstances.”

The situation, however, never reached this stage. The idealistic tone of the procedure was never very high. The civil prosecutor, the poet, David Einhorn, delivered a Bundist Party address, criticized the Jewish youth for its participation in the Chalutz movement, aiming to go to Palestine instead of remaining in the Diaspora with the Jewish masses. Dr. Leo Motzkin, the defense counsel, attempted to raise the level of the proceedings. Unfortunately a third uninvited factor intervened transforming the whole process into an ugly, shameful and scandalous battle.

The local Jewish communists provided the third uninivted factor. This is not the first occasion in which communists have succeeded in breaking up Jewish meetings. Four years ago the communists determined not to permit Jabotinsky and the Revisionists to hold meetings in Paris. Several times they succeeded in preventing such meetings. Then for a while there was quiet. Under the preesnt regime, however, the communists seem to have forgotten about the unpleasant side of scandal making and have renewed their class warfare. They broke up a meeting of the Ort, prevented the conclusion of three meetings of the Palestine Club, (Continued on Page 4)

A group of a hundred communist meeting breakers arrived at the session, took up their position, in the rear of the hall, and one half hour after the opening, began their work. The first scandal broke while the first witness, Mlle. C. Greenberg, occupied the stand. Among other questions she asked the civil prosecutor, Mr. Einhorn, whether the Jewish students display a healthy interest in the Jewish working masses. Why this should have aroused the irc of the communists is not understandable. But the moment it was asked, a terrible tumult filled the hall, shouts, invective were flung at the assemblage. The guards immediately surrounded the trouble makers, and demanded they maintain order. A redoubled clamor was the answer to this request. Words led to blows. The communists were astounded. Such energetic action was totally unexpected. There certainly would have been some very positive results from this private Jewish “argument” had not the Hall administration, afraid for the breakage of windows and chairs, called in the police. The French police know no subtleties. They immediately surrounded the trouble makers, deflated their rowdyism with severe blows, and led out a couple of communists with beaten up faces. Peace once more reigned in the hall. The communists have no affection for the police.

The trial continued. The witnesses, the procuror, the civil prosecutor, were heard respectfully. When Dr. Leo Motzkin rose to speak, the reserve of the communists burst its bounds. In the first place Motzkin is a Zionist. Then he dared to say a few words about the “Crime Against Socialism in East Europe.” This was too much for the temper of the Communists. With the police gone from the hall, their courage returned. As the audience loudly applauded Dr. Motzkin’s words, they hissed, shouted, whistled in derision, pounded with their chairs. The hall guards intervened but their intervention was unnecessary for the police once more arrived on the scene. Mercilessly they quelled the disturbers. Bloody beaten figures were dragged from the hall. The assemblage was torn with shouts and cries. Several fainted. The audience was greatly aroused. A number left in haste. The scene was ugly and shameful. The literary and public opinion trial developed into a bloody battle. They argued with shouts and fists instead of with ideas. Thus a private Jewish enterprise was liquidated with the help of the French police.

The second group of communist disturbers was hurried out of the hall Dr. Motzkin began his speech anew. After their bloody lesson, the remaining communists remained quiet. One of them, however, could not contain himself and called out to Dr. Motzkin “Fascist.” The audience laughed and protested. With difficulty the process was brought to a finish. But no decision was reached. Dr. Krainin, chairman of the jury, declared, because of the lateness of the hour, it was not possible to reach a conclusion, and that the decision would be announced in the press.

That is how the trial of the Jewish student body ended. It is a tragic chapter in Jewish communal life in Paris. The one bright outlook is that the bloody lesson of that evening will break up the communist forces that have undertaken this scandalous reign of terror at Jewish public meetings.