The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (as reported in the J.T.A. Bulletin of Nov. 12th.) sent a deputation recently to Dr. F. D. Malan, the Minister of the Interior in the South African Union Government, to convey to him the concern of the Board at the threat which he made earlier in the month that if the Jews of the country do not stop opposing the Immigration Restriction Law, the Government Party will hit back at them by awakening antisemitism in South Africa. In the course of the submission made by the deputation to the Minister his attention was also directed to a book called “The Riddle of the Jew’s Success”, published in Germany, translated into English and sent from England to the Minister (Dr. Malan), who had replied to the translator and publisher, Mr. Pownall, through his private secretary, Mr. W. Louw: “I am desired by the Minister of the Interior to thank you for your letter and the copy of Fritsch’s book “The Riddle of the Jew’s Success”. He is at the moment still reading the book and finds it most interesting and informative. As the responsible Minister, he desires to express his appreciation of your interest in South Africa’s problem in this connection and the solution thereof by the Government”.
The book is venomously antisemitic, the submission of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies continued, and may be summed up in the following few lines appearing on page 67: “Therefore do not forget: we are in a state of war with the Jews. But, if a nation has declared war upon us, and advances with hostile intent into our country, it no longer behoves us to ask: is that particular individual a good or bad man? – but from that moment, each of them must be regarded as our enemy, and against whom we must defend ourselves”.
Judging by the terms of the Minister’s acknowledgment, it went on, he seems to have felt that the object of sending him the book was to enlighten him on the Jewish problem as it has developed in European countries, and to enable him the better to appreciate and deal with it in South Africa, where a Jewish problem has never existed, and where it can only be raised by those who for party purposes create it.
The English publishers are utilising the Minister’s acknowledgment for advertising purposes, and we deem it our duty to bring this to his notice.
The South African Jewish Board of Deputies has now received a reply to its submission from the Minister of the Interior in the course of which his private secretary, Mr. Louw, dealing with the protest made against “the Minister’s alleged personal animosity towards the Jews as instanced by certain correspondence submitted”, writes:
It is quite evident that this allegation would not have been made if the courteous reply to Mr. Pownall had been properly understood by the deputation and especially if no improper and unauthorised use of that reply had been made for advertising purposes. Apart from a cursory review of its contents the Minister had, when his acknowledgment was dispatched, evidently not read the book complained of, and on its merits and demerits he therefore did not and could not pass judgment. Mr. Pownall’s accompanying letter, also replied to, was merely an expression of his personal interest in the Quota Act, and it is inconceivable that the Minister’s courteous acknowledgment of this fact can give any cause for reasonable objection.
“IT IS VERY EASY TO ROUSE A FEELING OF HATE TOWARDS THE JEWS IN THIS COUNTRY”: WE FEEL IMPELLED TO BRING TO THE MINISTER’S NOTICE FOLLOWING ACTS BY HIS GOVERNMENT WHICH HAVE PROFOUNDLY AGITATED OUR COMMUNITY FOR SOME TIME
The South African Jewish Board of Deputies went on to deal at length in the course of its submission to Dr. Malan with his statement made on November 2nd., warning the Jews of the consequences if they continued to oppose the Immigration Quota Restriction Law.
The Minister is labouring under quite a wrong impression as to the real cause of Jewish opposition to the quota Bill, the Board contended. Our main objection is to the discrimination against Jewish immigrants – a stigma cast upon a proud people which should not be imposed by our legislators and which in a free country we should not be called upon to endure in silence, especially as the general restriction of immigration, if desired, can be achieved by other means; and far from “Being afraid to come out in the open” we have loudly voiced our protest from public platforms.
The mere fact that the Opposition with very few exceptions supported the Bill must satisfy the Minister, it added, that his assumption of revengeful motive against his own party is quite unfounded.
The Jews are keenly appreciative of kindness extended towards them, whether by political parties or individuals, the submission went on, but in the spirit of utter candour which the importance of this interview demands, we feel impelled to bring to the Minister’s notice the following acts by his Government which have profoundly agitated our Community for some time – more especially in vies of the Minister’s statement that “the Jews have in the past always had a friend in the Nationalist Party”.
(1). In the first draft of the Quota Bill the date for its taking effect was the 1st. of July. The only utterance by any other member of his party was a suggestion that the date be altered to the 1st. of May. This was immediately adopted by the Government and prevented a further comparatively small number of immigrants from entering the Union before the doors were finally bolted: (2) the Government increased the cost of naturalisation which hits the poor Jew, and does not add an appreciable sum to the State’s revenue; (3) Section 69 of Act 29 of 1926 gives power to deport persons convicted under the Insolvency Act Ordinance no matter how trivial the offence may be.
The ex-Minister of Justice, the Mon. Tielman Roos, declared it was not intended to apply to Europeans. This has been confirmed by the Prime Minister, and yet deportation orders have been served on Jews, inflicting incalculable hardships and torture of mind both upon the individual and all Jewry.
Taking the Minister’s interview as a whole, the impression created on the Jewish mind is that it constitutes an attempt, unintentional perhaps, to terrify Jews either into joining his political party or into keeping silent, though labouring under a keen sense of injustice.
The Jewish Community as such is not a political body, and its members who belong to any political party do so not as Jews but as citizens.
We feel, the submission concluded, that the “warning” by the Minister that “it is very easy to rouse a feeling of hate towards the Jews in the country” is calculated more than anything else to tend towards outbreaks against isolated Jews in the country districts.
DR. MALAN’S EXPLANATION: NEVER INTENDED TO SUGGEST JEWS AS SUCH HAD NO RIGHT TO OPPOSE ANY MEASURE THEY DID NOT CONSIDER IN THEIR INTEREST: QUOTA BILL WAS IN INTEREST OF JEWS THEMSELVES IN SPITE OF THEIR OPPOSITION AS SHOWN BY MARKED SOFTENING OF ANTI-JEWISH FEELING: WARNING WAS THAT OF A FRIEND NOT A FOE
It was never in the Minister’s mind, the reply to the submission says, to suggest that the Jewish Board of Deputies ever initiated or took part in any organisation of a political nature. The assurances given by the Deputation on this point he therefore could and did readily accept. In the second place it was never intended to suggest that Jews, as such, had no right to oppose any measure which they did not consider to be in their interest or that they had no right to organise themselves in opposition to any political party if they chose to do so. This right naturally cannot be denied to any citizen or any group of citizens. In the third place it was not suggested that Jews generally are organising to revenge themselves against the National Party. On the contrary it was definitely and emphatically stated at the interview that there are many Jews who, in the interest of Jewry itself, would and actually do oppose such organisation whatever their personal views about the Quota Act may be. The Minister’s warning, therefore, was not and could not be directed to them. If anything, it could on the contrary only have been calculated to strengthen their hands against any departure on the part of others from that time honoured and sound principle that in their own interests Jews as such should not wage political warfare.
The warning in the interview was explicitly directed to another section – and unfortunately a very large one – which has organised, and is still organising, Jews as such for the purpose of defeating the present Government, and which is for this purpose exploiting the feeling aroused by the Quota Act. About the facts as stated there can be no doubt, as they have been confirmed from time to time by information from various sources and recently also by what was very apparent in the Cape North West.
The motive underlying the introduction of the Quota Bill, as explained at the time, was the prevention of a new racial problem in the country due to increasing nervousness on account of the growing influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe. That the Bill was also in the interest of the Jews themselves in spite of their opposition, is clearly shown by the fact that the Quota Act has resulted in a general relaxation of the tension previously existing and in a very marked softening of anti-Jewish feeling. In these circumstances it must be clear to everybody that the movement to exploit Jewish resentment against the Quota Act for party political purposes can only resuscitate those feelings of animosity which have fortunately subsided and must inevitably lead to party political reprisals, which would be as little in the interest of the Jews as in that of the country as a whole. In fact, the position must be made infinitely worse because the feeling of animosity previously engendered only by racial and economic considerations will in this case be vastly reinforced by that bitterness which inevitably arises from the necessities of political defence. So far from being unjustified and uncalled for the Minister’s statement must be considered to have been necessary and timely.
Except for certain specified acts, the reply further says, the Minister’s general statement that “the Jews have in the past always had a friend in the National Party” does not seem to have been questioned by the deputation. Possibly they felt that the acts complained of could be easily set off by such other acts as the very considerable reduction of naturalisation fees since the present Government took office and more especially the removal in 1924 of that stigma then so grievously felt by the Jewish Community arising from the improper application by the previous Government of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Immigration Act. As far as the acts complained of are concerned one must be ruled out from the Minister’s reply, viz., that dealing with the insolvency law. The deputation freely acknowledge that the alleged undertaking by Mr. Tielman Roos that the deportation would not be applied to Europeans was not given in public but privately. In these circumstances the Minister is not in a position to judge whether the practical administration of the act amounts to a breach of faith or not. The grievance in connection with the coming into operation of the Quota Act is easily understood in the light of Jewish feeling at the time. On the other hand it will be admitted that restriction having once been decided upon it would have been unwise for the Government to allow a special last moment rush of immigrants which to a considerable extent would have defeated the object of the Bill. When the amendment complained of to move forward the date, was accepted, the Government was actually in possession of information that such a rush was expected. At the same time it must not be forgotten that possible hardships resulting from the alteration of the date were largely removed by other subsequent amendments granting greater facilities than were originally anticipated for the entrance of wives and children. In connection with naturalisation fees it is sufficient to state that they have been increased only to about 50 per cent. of what they once were; that this step had become necessary owing to the present financial stringency; and that financially the step has so far been amply justified. It is hardly necessary to remind further that the increase affects aliens generally and does not specifically apply to Jews only.
The Minister begs you to read his interview in the light of this explanation and hopes that as a result you may regard his warning as that of a friend and not as that of a foe.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
