The Reader’s Forum

The editors reserve the right to excerpt all letters exceeding 250 words in length. All letters must bear the name and address of the writer, although not necessarily for publication

To the Editor, Jewish Daily Bulletin:

The letter of Mr. Louis I. Newman, which appears in your issue of January 4, is built entirely on the headlines which you used to characterize my report to the meeting of the Administrative Committee of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, namely, “Locker Favors Policy of Placating Britain.” May I point out that I neither used that word in my report nor is this characterization of it justified by its contents. If Mr. Newman would have preferred to read the extracts of my report instead of attacking me on account of an expression which the Bulletin found necessary to include in its headline, he may have come to quite a different conclusion.

I must reject the insinuation of Mr. Newman that I have “placed Jewry in the wrong.” A great part of my report was devoted to an exposition of the ways and methods in which the Executive tries to place Jewry in the right in relation to the Mandatory Government in such questions, e.g. as immigration and Legislative Council. I described in detail our permanent effort to obtain from the Mandatory Government a widening of the scope of immigration and our struggle against the introduction of a Legislative Council in Palestine.

What I attacked was certainly not the instance on our rights or our duty to criticize actions of government and to protest when necessary, but I condemned a state of mind which still seems to prevail in some circles—and which is reflected in the letter of Mr. Louis I. Newman himself—who characteristically speaks about a “program of protest and criticism” in such a manner as to indicate that a “program of protest and criticism” is the primary element of our relations with the Mandatory Power.

I said that in our view the normal status of our relations with the Mandatory Government must be that of cooperation, and that protest and criticism must be reserved for occasions which necessitate them. Everyone who is acquainted with our public affairs knows that the Executive, whether under the leadership of Weizmann or otherwise, did not hesitate to give public expression, in very determined forms, to our grievances when it thought that we were faced with real danger or obstacles.

Mr. Louis I. Newman will be interested to know that among those who entirely agreed with the views expressed by me in my report was Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, whom he thinks it his duty to ‘defend’ against me and my political friends. Rabbi Wise even drafted the resolution of entire approval of the policy of the Executive on immigration and Legislative Council which was unanimously adopted by Zionists and non-Zionists in the Administrative Committee. Mr. Louis I. Newman seems to be one of those who can never forget old grievances, whether justified or unjustified. Whatever differences of opinion may have existed in a past period, we are living now in 1935 —and to speak now about our relations with the government in the same terms as during the Pass-field White Paper is everything but a sign of Zionist responsibility.

Berl Locker.

Jan. 4, 1935,

New York City.

CONDEMNS QUOTA CRY

To the Editor, Jewish Daily Bulletin:

In your issue of January 4, Eugene Lyons very properly hits at those who having achieved success in the professions are so ready to admit a quota system in those same professions against their fellow Jews. The very idea of any system based upon race and creed is or should be abhorrent to anyone priding himself on his American citizenship. That it is insidious anti-Semitism no one who has given the matter thought can deny.

There might be some logic in urging a general quota applicable to all citizens, permitting so many doctors, lawyers etc., but to make its application dependent on racial or religious grounds should be hateful to all who have imbibed the spirit and motivation of our government.

It is unfortunate that support to the pernicious racial and religious quota idea is being fostered by many who assume themselves to be superior Jews. Thus some parents eagerly seek admission for their children to quota governed institutions of learning and pride themselves upon achieving success in their efforts, just as some Jews pride themselves upon being admitted to hotels that openly exclude Jews as a class. Such people do not seem to realize that they are giving approval to an anti-Semitic spirit that will have a tendency to grow and increase by this very background of Jewish support.

The ideal of every Jew in these United States should and must be to become a worthy American citizen, subject to and eagerly performing all the duties and obligations and having all the rights and privileges inherent in such citizenship.

Joseph Rosenzweig.

Jan. 4, 1935,

New York City.