those of the Jewish faith or community who want to go there. But Palestine is no final solution. If democracy is to survive, then the kind of stupid intolerance of which anti-Semitism is an example must die; and if democracy does not survive, the Jewish people will be no safer in Palestine than in Germany. Nor will any of us who respect ourselves and our neighbors be safe.

"No one can read Mr. Van Paassen and doubt his disinterested zeal to help the poor and heavy laden. One can read him and gravely doubt, as the present reviewer does, that his book will advance the cause of tolerance in this world one bit."

Zivion in the Forward (December 11): "The Jewish Conference is alive only when there is something in the air which has to do with a commonwealth in Palestine and is asleep when it concerns rescue work for the Jews in the Diaspora ** Rabbi Wise knew very well that his demand could not become a part of the resolution, and Congressman Rogers told him specifically that the inclusion of the Palestine demand would mean the doom of the resolution, because the American Government now wants to avoid any public statements concerning Palestine and that the House Committee for Foreign Affairs will not adopt any resolutions dealing with the political problems of Palestine."

*

A JTA report from London quotes Andre MacLaren, a Laborite member of Parliament, as saying that "* * the Arabs feel that the Zionists have prevented any approach to self-government by insisting that it cannot be granted until the Arabs are a minority.' Declaring that Palestine has already made a notable contribution to the solution of the Jewish problem, he asserts that Palestine, in itself, cannot solve that problem. Both moderate Arabs and Jews, he concludes, desire a policy which will replace the present turmoil, and possible bloodshed, with peace and "traditional quiet."

Major Edgar Dessen (in a private communication sent from the Middle East): "The gay and beautiful city of Tel-Aviv is loaded to the gunwales with German Jews, Austrian Jews, Slavic Jews, Jews of all nations. And what do they dream of day and night and speak of incessantly-of returning to Berlin, to Vienna, to Warsaw, to all of their native hearths-and that, mind you, despite the terrible stories that most of them can tell about the circumstances of their leaving. Finish the war, establish the peace and then watch the exodus.

"Deep thinkers in Palestine who know a great deal more of the situation than I do, such as Dr. Davidowitz, formerly an American rabbi, concede this point. Secondly, the same thinkers are not sure of the advisability of establishing a Jewish state, of associating a religion with a political ideology and thus lending credence to the babblings of the anti-Semite."

From the pamphlet "The Races of Mankind," by Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish of the Public Affairs Committee: "Jews are people who practice the Jewish religion. They are of all races, even Negro and Mongolian. European Jews are of many different biological types; physically they resemble the populations among whom they live. The so-called 'Jewish type' is a Mediterranean type, and no more 'Jewish' than the South Italian. Wherever Jews are persecuted or discriminated against, they cling to their old ways and keep apart from the rest of the population and develop socalled 'Jewish' traits. But these are not racial or 'Jewish'; they disappear under conditions where assimilation is easy."

[Information Bulletin of The American Council for Judaism, Inc., No. 7, Philadelphia, Pa., January 31, 1944]

NATION OR RELIGION, WHICH?

Much more than the immediate disposition of the uncertain political future of Palestine is involved in the present controversy over Jewish nationalism. The fate of Jewish nationalistic aspirations in Palestine is an aspect-important, but only one aspect-in a conflict between two fundamentally opposed and irreconcilable interpretations of Jewish life and destiny.

On the one hand there is the Zionist-Nationalist school which contends that the normal status of Jews is that of a national group. Jews, the Zionist claims, are a nation-abnormalized (and therefore a problem) because unlike all other nations they have no territory in which to exercise the sovereign authority of political statehood. This is the fundamental concept; this is the Zionist interpretation of Jewish history. On that basis the Zionists agitate for a solution to the Jewish problem in terms of the creation of a Jewish State.

Not always is the explicit language used. That varies from time to time, depending upon immediate, political expediencies. It is as bold as it dares to be and as cautious as it has to be. At its boldest, the Zoinist speaks clearly of a Jewish Nation and of Palestine as a Jewish State. When prudence indicates a need for circumspection there is drawn into use a vocabulary of milder, substatute words: "nationhood," "nationality," "national group," "people," "peoplehood" and, in speaking of Palestine, the term "Jewish homeland."

Yet in historic perspective, the aim of Jewish nationalism is clear and classic. It is now, as it was in the days of Herzl, the establishment of Jewish political Statehood in some area of the earth and as a necessary instrument for that purposethe identification of Jews as members of a national group.

Whatever the circumlocutions used, the sense of the Zionist ideology is clear: that Jews are essentially a nation and that like other nationals, Jews are entitled to have and must possess a sovereign territory.

There is another viewpoint in Jewish life; the viewpoint of the American Council for Judaism and of myriads of other like-minded Jews here and in other countries of the world. That viewpoint holds that Jews are essentially a religious community and that their normal status is as members of the Jewish faith. This viewpoint holds that Judaism long ago outgrew and shed its nationalistic implications; that the genius of the Jew is inherent in his perception of a religion of universal values.

As members of a religious community, Jews are entitled to the civic and political equality of their conationals in all of the countries in which they live or to which they choose to go.

This viewpoint considers the tragic plight of the Jews as the product of antidemocratic forces which, among other devices, exaggerate the nationalistic definitions of Jewish life, and exploit them to serve their own reactionary ends.

So

Nazi philosophy seizes upon mythical claims of race and nationality to divide the Jew from his fellows and to drive a wedge into democratic life. Thus a Mosley of England chatters about Jews as a foreign element. Thus the cry of the French anti-Semite is "on your way to Jerusalem."

The viewpoint of the American of Jewish faith is pivoted on the extension of the benefits of emancipation. It holds that only as a religious community can Jews have the status of equal citizens in their homelands and continue to remain Jews. It rejects the defeatist philosophy that anti-Semitism represents the norm of civilized life from which there is escape by isolation into a petty national state. The difference is thus clear. What is perhaps not as clear is that programs for relief of Jews, for political and religious equality and for our spitirual development follow different patterns as a result of these basic viewpoints. For both of these philosophies of Jewish life are dynamic and the many institutions and organizations of Jewish life take on, inevitably, the coloration of either the nationalistic or antinationalistic philosophy. Between the two there is no neutral ground for any Jew concerned selflessly with the destiny of Jewry or out of enlightened self-interest with his own status in his own milieu.

It is clear then why a fuller study of these viewpoints is imperative. The differences are so challenging and immediate that every Jew must find it necessary to declare himself. In so profound a division there is no escape from the necessity of choice. There can be no halfway house. The so-called non-Zionist, the so-called neutral will, if he is sincerely concerned 'with his role as a Jew, have to ask himself what he believes, where he stands and give the unequivocal answer that he has not yet given.

We are, therefore, gratified to notice that along with the discussion over the political fate of Palestine, there is emerging this process of reexamination of the character and destiny of Jewish life. For a time it seemed as if the ZionistNationalist doctrine would go unchallenged. In the natural community of concern with Jewish suffering on which all Jews are united-in the passionate outpouring of sympathy for victims of brutality, we ran the risk of losing sight of a fundamental issue in Jewish life. We all but overlooked a difference in viewpoint, serious in its immediate significance and compact with meaning for the survival and future fate of Jews.

That difference is real and cannot be thoughtlessly submerged. It must be known and upon the basis of that knowledge, each Jew must make his choice. Only with such full knowledge of the differences involved can the Jews of America and elsewhere even hope to shape their future with wisdom, against the broad perspective of history. Upon the answer given depends the healthy continuance of Jewish life here and abroad and the world's outlook upon Jews for an indefinite period in the future.

BRIEFS

An interesting article by Erika Mann, daughter of Thomas Mann, who has just returned from a visit to Palestine, appears in the January 8 issue of Liberty Magazine. Her article is entitled "The Powder Keg of Palestine," and contains among other material describing the conflict in Palestine, the following interesting section:

"In the building owned in Jerusalem by the Jewish Agency I talked with the head of the Political Department, Mr. Moshe Shertok. Was there any compromise solution he might be willing to accept?

"Vehemently he shook his head. 'Look here,' he exclaimed. "This is no matter for bargaining. This is a matter of life or death for our people. Why, even if I wanted to, I couldn't possibly sign away their rights. Even if I did, Jews would continue to come to Palestine. The absorbing capacity of this country is far from exhausted. In order to exploit all possibilities, we'll need more people; and, as matters stand, more and more Jews will need to come here. Just how many Palestine will be able to absorb I could not say. Perhaps two million, perhaps four

'But the Arabs?" I ventured.

"'Indeed!' he said. "The Arabs! They keep fighting against the very nature of things. And why? We have done nothing to alarm them. None of their rights has been injured. Nor would we ever prejudice any of their legitimate interests. This they ought to know, since we've always scrupulously avoided exploiting our skills to their disadvantage. We've been trying, not without success, to teach them how to run their own business effectively and to the benefit of the whole. So what are they afraid of?'

"They are afraid of your nationalism'."

Premier John Curtin of Australia, a member of the Australian Labor Party, is reliably reported to have opposed the adoption of a resolution asking for Jewish representation at the Peace Table. The resolution was also to have registered the opposition of the Australian Labor Conference to anti-Semitism and its condemnation of Nazi atrocities.

A spokesman for Premier Curtin maintained that exception was taken only to that part of the resolution dealing with Jewish representation at the Peace talks. "We have condemned anti-Semitism on more than one occasion," one of the labor leaders said, "but we are not willing to commit ourselves on the issue of recognizing the Jewish race as a nation."

The American Council for Judaism formally announced its opposition to the White Paper in a statement issued by Lessing Rosenwald, president of the Council. In the statement he declared:

"We of the American Council for Judaism record our unqualified opposition to these provisions. In behalf of the substantial section of American Jews whose views on the Jewish problem coincide with ours, we petition our government to use its best offices to prevail upon the British Government not to proceed with so prejudicial and unjust a policy. Opposition is based in the fundamental fact that proposals which exclude Jews, as Jews, from right of entry and restrict Jews, as Jews, from acquisition of land, do violence to the fundamental concept of democratic equality and thus to the very purposes and ideals to which the United Nations are pledged."

This foregoing statement is as clear and unequivocal as any that has been issued by any group that favors Jewish migration and settlement in Palestine. It makes collaboration possible among all elements and sections of American Jewry.

Will the hard bitten factionists who are opposed to the Council, because it believes in a Palestinian state in which Jews, Arabs, and Christians have equal political rights, refuse to make some effort to get united action on this vitally important matter of the abrogation of the White Paper?

Would it not be infinitely better if all factions, elements and selections of American Jewry made united representations to the Government of the United States, to the end that the British be persuaded to change its policy, than to continue to assail other organizations as not entitled to speak for American Jewry?

We do not expect men to compromise on fundamental convictions, but because they will not or cannot do this is no good reason why they cannot unite on those things on which they do agree.

There are times when differences should be forgotten, and this is one of those times. The immediate abrogation of the White Paper is of greater importance than any ideological programs that may or may not be realized in the future.

Unity on this matter may mean the saving of thousands of lives of men, women and children now living in the inferno of Europe. The saving of a human life is a positive achievement.

Ideologies have been and are changed and even abandoned and repudiated. The tragic history of mankind is a long tale of ideologies warmly embraced and then rejected for a different one. But a human life once lost cannot be restored

or another one substituted for it.

The fight to abrogate the White Paper is an opportunity for united action. Let us not miss the opportunity. -From the Detroit Jewish Chronicle, January 14, 1944.

William Zukerman, a well-informed journalist, writes the following in an article in the January issue of New Currents, in an appraisal of the American Jewish Conference:

"For the last generation a struggle has been going on in most Jewish communities in the world, including also the American, between two fundamental Jewish philosophies and ways of life. One holds that the present and future of the Jews in most countries of the world lies in the places where they were born, live, work, and contribute their energies; that the homes and the real interests of the Jews are in the countries of their birth, or immigration, such as the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, where Jews have lived for generations and centuries. Another view holds that the real home of the Jews is Palestine; that all other places of Jewish abode are merely temporary residences; that the real problems of Jewry are in Palestine, and that all Jewish interests should, therefore, be focused there. "In most European countries before the war, this controversy between Palestine and the Diaspora was a vital issue of Jewish life, and it was fought with much passion. In this country, fortunately, the controversy was never acute and it never reached the dimensions it did in Europe. American Jews, non-Zionists and Zionists alike, have found a middle road on this question. They assumed almost overwhelmingly that the United States was, in the nationalistic sense, different from most countries in Europe, and that here the Jews can find a home and have a future. On the other hand, they also realized that there were Jewish communities in Europe which were not as fortunate as we are, and that these Jews needed a home in Palestine. American Jews have, therefore, always given generously of their sympathy and financial aid to the upbuilding of Palestine, but at the same time they steered clear of the political nationalistic aspects of Zionism which were the chief interest of the European Zionists.

"But with the rise of Naziism and anti-Semitism in Europe, stronger national istic tendencies have begun to stir among European Zionists and have also reached the United States. The financial and moral support which American Jews have given Palestine has become insufficient, and a persistent effort has been started to draw American non-Zionist Jews into the political and nationalistic issues of Zionism. Chief among these at the present moment is the question of a Jewish Commonwealth, i. e., a Jewish State immediately after the war."

A. C. J. NOTES

In the six weeks since its inception, the San Francisco Section of the American Council for Judaism has obtained a membership more than double that of the local chapter of the National Zionist Organization.

A mailing list of approximately 2,000 names was obtained without recourse to official lists of organizations. An envelope containing a copy of Rabbi Irving F. Reichert's Yom Kippur Sermon, "Where Do You Stand," a reprint of the Council's statement of principles from the New York Times) (August 30), a membership application,__self-addressed envelope, a letter from the membership chairman, Mr. Harry F. Camp, and a request for names of interested people was sent to the mailing list. Over 10 percent of those solicited joined within sixty hours andJour mailing list was augmented by about 300 names. Signed membership application averaging 20 a day continue to arrive at our office and our mailing list now contains over 3,500 names.

An office was opened under the supervision of Mrs. Joseph Ehrman, Jr., with a paid Executive Secretary, and volunteers who assist in addressing envelopes and sending out our literature. The office is open daily. The Rabbi, the Membership Chairman and members of his committee are always available for consultation and information.

The membership committee continues to be in the process of formation. This group, and their guests, meet every Thursday evening at Council headquarters. Rabbi Reichert gives a fifteen minute informal talk on our aims and principles. Questions and general discussion follow. Everyone is urged to contribute to the discussion. Attendance at these meetings is between thirty and fifty.

The membership committee represents a cross section of San Francisco Jewry. Small luncheon and dinner meetings have been held which have been most successful. Rabbi Reichert or Mr. Camp speak informally at these meetings and our literature is distributed. A Speaker's Bureau has been given an indoctrination course by Rabbi Reichert, and members of this group are always available to speak at these meetings.

A letter will be sent to the Board of Directors of all Jewish Organizations requesting permission to have a speaker appear at one of their open, meetings to give information about the American Council.

Membership on our Board of Directors has been accepted by fifty men and women representing various groups in San Francisco. The Executive Committee of seven, meets weekly. Plans are now being made for a large meeting for our members and guests to be held late in January or February.

JEAN MEIER EHRMAN,

Vice Chairman, Membership Committee.

REPLY TO ZIONISM

WHY MANY AMERICANS OF JEWISH FAITH ARE OPPOSED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE

(By Lessing J. Rosenwald)

In Life's article of May 31 His Majesty, Ibn Saud, gave expression to the Arabs' viewpoint of the Jewish problem in Palestine.

Great numbers of Americans of Jewish faith do not consider the establishment of a National Jewish State in Palestine, or elsewhere, to be a part of a constructive or desirable solution of the post-war Jewish problems. In the United States this opinion is held by an organization known as the American Council for Judaism, Inc., while in England an organization maintaining a similar viewpoint is known as the Jewish Fellowship.

It is doubtful if the Palestine question will be settled on the basis of complicated historical claims to the land; practical considerations will undoubtedly play the leading role. Those of Jewish faith who oppose the creation of a National Jewish State hold that it embraces the very racist theories and nationalistic philosophies that have become so prevalent in recent years, that have caused untold suffering to the world, and particularly to the Jews. Those who hold this view contend that race and nationality long ago became obsolete as realities in Jewish history; that they remain now only as a reaction to discrimination and persecution. Exception is taken to those doctrines related to the efforts to establish a Jewish political state which stress the racialism, the nationalism, and the homelessness of the Jews as Jews.

The Jews of the world share common traditions and ethical concepts which find their derivations in the same religious source. Under normal conditions they share no universal craving for either Jewish statehood, or even for Palestine itself. Between the years 1920 and the rise of Hitlerism, 1933, the Jewish population increase in Palestine (immigration less emigration) was negligible. The truth of history is that for centuries Jews have considered themselves nationals of those countries in which they have lived. Whenever free to do so, they have assumed, and will again assume, full responsibilities of citizenship. Those countries in which the Jews have lived have been their homes; those lands their homelands. They have been successful in integrating their lives into their environments; they have maintained their distinctiveness only in the field of religion.

As a result of the bigotry, sadism and ambition for world conquest of the Axis Powers, millions of Jews who had homes in and were nationals of other lands have been violently deported and made victims of indescribable barbarism. No other group has been so brutally attacked, and for one reason only-on the false claim that there are racial barriers or nationalistic impulses that separate Jews from other Likewise, millions of non-Jews have been torn from their homes, but for entirely different reasons.

men.