Search JTA's historical archive dating back to 1923

Digest of Public Opinion on Jewish Matters

September 7, 1926
See Original Daily Bulletin From This Date

[The purpose of the Digest is informative: Preference is given to papers not generally accessible to our readers. Quotation does not indicate approval.–Editor.]

Louis Marshall’s statement that the rights guaranteed by the national minority treaties are essentially the same as those guaranteed to citizens by the United States Constitution and therefore the Turkish Jews had no right to renounce their minority rights, is approved by the “Philadelphia Jewish Times.”

In its issue of Sept. 3, the paper says, in part:

“We learn that the Turkish Government induced these Jewish notables to renounce their rights upon some condition whereby certain other privileges are promised them. These privileges, however, fall far below the rights they might have obtained had they accepted them through the provisions of the Lausanne Treaty. The ‘American Israelite’ seems to exult in the thought that the Turkish Jews are Turks first and Jews afterwards. The same could be said, of course, for the Jews of Hungary, who seem to feel that they are primarily Magyars and Jews at the very last. There are many such persons in every country who take this means of ingratiating themselves with those whom they would like to imitate.

“Mr. Marshall is right when he says that the rights guaranteed by the National Minorities Treaties are essentially the same as those guaranteed to citizens by the United States Constitution. His words should be deeply imprinted upon the hearts of all men. We quote from his statement: As far as I am concerned, I would rather die ten thousand deaths than to show myself so lacking in manly courage as to sell my birthright of liberty and equality for temporary safety.'”


The opinion that there is unity in American Jewry and the only real division is on the question of Jewish nationalism and Zionism is voiced by the “American Israel” of Sept. 2.

Referring to the various rabbinical seminaries that have been established in American Jewry, the paper continues thus:

“These widely varying institutions are typical of the divisions in American Jewry. We have the strictly orthodox, the moderately orthodox, the middle of the road, the moderately reform, the ultra-reform and the Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashana and Kaddish Jew, each holding firmly to his own views.

“In a number of instances these differences of opinion have resulted in the useless duplication of philanthropic institutions, especially hospitals, homes for indigent aged and infirm and orphans homes.

“Here the main dividing factor is the matter of ‘Kashruth,’ not only according to the commands of Mosaic Law, but also the requirements added after the Scriptural era by the Rabbis and other Talmudical authorities.

“Yet all these divisions in American Jewry, inremediable as they apparently appear are, after all, not so wide, not so important as they seem.

“Whenever persecution becomes violent, as it is at present in Europe, and misfortune in its direct forms comes upon our brethren anywhere, the truth of the old maxim. ‘All Israel are brethren’ is sure to be again verified and help is given unstintedly by all Jews, regardless of the particular kind of Judaism they may profess. This has been splendidly exemplified during the last few years in which brief-period American Jewry, in addition to private benefactions, has contributed not less, probably more than one hundred million dollars for the alleviation of the misery brought upon suffering coreligionists through the fanaticism and barbarism of their Christian countrymen.

“After all, there is more or less unity in American Jewry. If there is any real division today it is on the question of Zionism and that, except as it refers to Nationalism, is of no vital importance.”

Recommended from JTA