Jewish Press in the U.S. Discusses Outcome of Zionist Convention

The Jewish press in the United States and Canada devotes much spece and attention to a consideration of the results of the Zionist convention in Pittsburgh and its possible effect on the fate of the movement in this country. Although the action of the majority of delegates, vindicating their leader and displaying a high measure of loyalty, is generally praised, both the administration and the opposition are taken to task in the press comments.

The American Israelite, Cincinnati: Rabbi Max Heller, writing in the Israelite sums up as follows.

“Will Zionist prestige suffer from a decision which puts us on the defensive? It has been, largely, though not all the way through, a division between the classes and the masses; the masses have won, it will be said, because they were swept away by their emotions. To this it may be reported that emotions, sometimes, well from instincts, and that intuitions have often proved wiser than cold reason.

“But there were not a few of us who had no personal ties to be swayed by who were untouched by animosities, remote from all selfish interests, calm and sober, on the whole, in the midst of the storm. The arguments which guided us were these: The irreplaceableness of Lipsky, conceded universally, even by his enemies, from first to last; his preeminent ability as a speaker and writer, his enormous prestige with the great masses, his invaluble experience; his great services to the cause in the course of thirty years of modest, forceful, eminently successful leadership; his steadfast cooperation with Weizmann and all of the world leaders in the promotion of a Zionist policy which must not suffer interruption.

“The world outside of Zionism (and a small section within Zionism) may condemn us for clinging to a leader to whose shortcomings and errors we cannot be blind: it may denounce, with special emphasis, the many rabbis who are following the leadership of a man who has committed no personal dishonesty, but a number of grave irregularities both financial and political; we are willing to follow an imperfect leader; our trust in his supreme fitness has not been shaken materially; and we are tired of the suicidal practice which rewards heroic self-sacrifice with the thorn-crown of tragic martyrdom.”

The Detroit Jewish Chronicle: “There was only one elevating period at the convention, and that was when Mr. Lipsky, read his excellent and beautiful message. But it ended right there. In his message Mr. Lipsky rose above controversy. He was guided by his love for Zion and his anxiety to see Palestine speedily redeemed. But he failed to keep the convention on the high plane he set for it in his message; except for the personal issues, not a single problem affecting Palestine was brought to the attention of the convention, until its closing moments. As a result. Mr. Lipsky was the victor but not Zionism.

“Both administration and opposition forces failed to lift an ideal above the narrowness of a personal conflict. Blame, therefore, for the turbulence and mob-rule of the meetings are attributable to both factions. The leaders of the two opposing groups have as a result lost in prestige. They came as giant champions of a giant cause, and they emerged as pygmies.

“Behold, how the mighty have fallen!”

The Canadian Jewish Chronicle, Montreal: “The Opposition have had their opportunity to force the spotlight on all the acts of the Administration and to air their grievances that had been accumulating for many years. Now that it has all been fought out in the open, there is no reason why all controversy over these matters should not now become a thing of the past and forgotten.

“For years we have been doing out utmost to bring the non-Zionist forces of America into alliance for the benefit of Palestine. After much arduous intrigue tangible results were achieved when the Commissioners on behalf of the Jewish Agency recently met in London and committed themselves to work for the restoration of Palestine.

“It would be nothing sort of tragic now if the Zionist forces themselves should waste their strength in internal dissensions. The Convention has voted confidence in Mr. Lipsky and his Executive. Their good deeds have outweighed their errors. From now on the controversial issues must be relegated to the scrapheap, and all must settle down again to the main business of Zionism.”

The Jewish Criterion, Pittsburgh, writing on the “Case of Mr. Lipsky. concludes: “Mr. Lipsky is too valuable to the Zionist movement to in any way undermine his morale or to deprive itself of his services. It may be that as president the Organization requires a different type of mind exactly as some universities require a business man a money-raiser, a handshaker and a politician all combined in their president. Then they have a dean. It is regrettable that this matter could not have been threshed out in secret, as there is nothing that is of value to the general public except to give it the opportunity for gossip and unfavorable comment, all of which does the Zionist movement no good.

“That wash line that was displayed in the public’s front yard could just as well have been hung out in the back yard of the Zionists and the same result could have been achieved.”

Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, Milwaukee: “The Pittsburgh convention did the Zionist movement no good, but we don’t think it did it any harm. It would be sad reflection on the soundness of the movement itself that a personal squabble of its leaders could affect it for good or evil. There was no principle or fundamental issue involved. Whether the Zionist Organization of America be governed by a President with or without administrative power, or by a committee, cabinet, praesidium or council of seven is of little moment to the ultimate success of the Palestine project.

“It was a beautiful tribute the delegates paid to Louis Lipsky by reelecting him to leadership in recognitionot his thirty years of labor for the movement. To have ousted Lipsky under personal fire at this time would have been the height of ingratitude and disloyalty to a man who has practically sacrificed his life to the cause. But the vociferous shouts of exultation and victory of his parisan followers and their derisive jibes at his losing opponents may become doleful dirges if Louis Lipsky is to be such an issue as to threaten an irreparable division in the organization. Be it to the credit and glory of Louis Lipsky that he sensed such an “issue” in his own personality and decided before the convention to withdaw from leadership in the interest of peace and harmony. But charges were openly made against his personal honesty at the convention and he was forced to compromise his word to save his honor by standing for re-election. He acted logically and rightly. The charges against him were withdrawn by those who uttered them and there is now a deplorable side-issue fight among the “opposition” leaders themselves as to who was responsible for the unfortunate accusations. This miserable dispute and all personal quarreling must cease, and if the personal leadership of Louis Lipsky is to persist as on “issue” to the detriment of the movement, then Mr. Lipsky should be permitted to withdraw. No movement worth while is entirely dependent on one man, and no one man is indispensable to any worth while movement. If Zionism is a democratic ideal it cannot afford to hero-worship any individual.