W. J. C. Opens Four-day Meeting on Jewish Problems in Many Countries

The Jewish situation in France, North Africa, Eastern Europe as well as the situation in Israel, was reviewed here today by Dr. Nahum Goldmann at the opening session of the four-day meeting of the executive of the World Jewish Congress. The meeting is being attended by 70 delegates representing Jewish communities in 64 countries.

Dr. Nahum Goldmann, president of the Congress, revealed that the WJC was in touch with Soviet authorities to examine the possibility of sending a delegation to Eastern Europe. The purpose of such a delegation, he said, “Would be to give East European Jewry a feeling that as Jews they had not been forgotten” and to establish common efforts with them in Jewish cultural fields.

“We do not complain that the official, formal position of the Jews there is not one of equality of right,” he noted, but there are reasons to complain about the spiritual development of these communities. The least that could be asked for is that the Jews be accorded the same measure of autonomy in their communal life as the Orthodox Church.”

“Unfortunately,” Dr. Goldmann observed, the question of France is on the WJC agenda, because of the Poujade movement. Regardless of what Pierre Poujade affirms or denies about the anti-Semitic character of his movement, Dr. Goldmann pointed out, his election campaign was characterized by “demagogic anti-Semitic outbursts.” The French Jewish community is strong enough to defend itself, and the situation does not yet require intervention by world Jewish organizations, he said.

DR. GOLDMANN REVIEWS JEWISH SITUATION IN MOROCCO, TUNIS

The situation in Morocco, he went on, will merit the attention of world Jewry for some time to come. Despite assurances by the Sultan and Moroccan political leaders, Dr. Goldmann asserted, the position of the Jews is bound to be affected by worsening economic conditions in that country. A partial solution for Moroccan Jewry is immigration to Israel, he suggested, but the majority of Jews will have to remain in Morocco, partly because of Israel’s inability to absorb all who want to go. He warned that the Jews would have to see that the received written guarantees, in the Moroccan constitution, to implement the pledges on Jewish rights recently given by Moroccan leaders.

For the time being, the WJC president continued, the situation in Tunis is satisfactory. There are no signs of a problem there–as long as the Neo-Destour Party remains in power. In Algeria, where new arrangements are being discussed, the situation of the Jews will bear watching, he stressed. Up to now, because of the fact that Algeria was part of metropolitan France, its Jews received the same treatment as all French citizens.

Touching briefly upon the conditions of Jews in the Arab countries around Israel, Dr. Goldmann reported that in Egypt the Jews were now better treated than they were a few years ago. Lebanese Jews live an orderly life as they have always done, he pointed out. Some Jews have left Syria for Israel and very few remain in Iraq, the remainder having migrated to Israel.

ISRAEL PROBLEMS TO RECEIVE PRIORITY AT THE W.J.C. SESSION

Dr. Goldmann told the Congress executive session and a press conference, where he was faced by reporters and television cameramen, that Israel’s problems will not be solved in a matter of months and that during the long process Israel will have to turn primarily to world Jewry for material support. Israel’s problems will receive priority consideration at the current meeting, he emphasized.

He reviewed Israel’s requests for arms to balance the supplies being received by the Arab states, and noted that Israel was not seeking a guarantee of its permanent boundaries. These boundaries, he said, could be changed by peaceful agreement, but not by aggression. He declared that as a result of his Guildhall speech last November, Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden had almost eliminated Britain from a useful role in the Arab-Israel dispute by taking a position before the negotiations even began. Sir Anthony’s approach was morally and politically unfair, he underlined.