A Controversy of Zion: Zionism and Its Foes, in The Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia) V – January 8, 1943: We Reject Zionism, by Rabbi Hyman J. Schachtel

A Controversy of Zion – V

“The problem was the denial of fundamental human rights.
It was part and parcel of
the same onrushing forces of darkness
which sent hundreds of thousands of Catholic and Protestant faith out of their homes and countries,
and which finally precipitated the war.”

***

“The followers of Judaism look upon Palestine as the cradle of their faith,
but they regard the world as their domicile,
so that, together will all other God-revering men and women,
they may work out a way of life which shall bring justice and peace to all.
The Jews are essentially a religious community,
whose mission is to lead themselves towards,
and co-operate with others into, the way of righteousness.”

As the fifth of its series of six articles covering the opposition to Zionism – in the context of the late 1942 establishment of the American Council for Judaism, and, opposition to the Council by pro-Zionist Rabbis from across the religious spectrum of the Jews of the United States – on January 8, 1943 the Jewish Exponent granted the Council an opportunity to discuss and elaborate upon its beliefs and aims.  This came in the form of an essay by Rabbi Hyman J. Schachtel, who at the time was Rabbi at Congregation Shaaray Tefila in New York City.  

Rabbi Schachtel’s essay is well-written, sensibly laid out, and, clearly explains the ACJ’s attitude toward pro-Zionist activism, the perception of the place (for lack of a better word) of the Jewish people historically and theologically in Europe in particular and in Western civilization in general, the origin and nature of the unprecedented crisis then facing the Jews of Europe, and, ultimately, the postwar future of the Jewish people.  Yet, regardless of the quality and forcefulness of the Rabbi’s essay in literary and emotional terms – and yes, it is well written – several aspects of it are striking:  They kind of “jump out”, whether “now”, in the hindsight of eighty years, and I’d think even “then”, in early 1943.

First, I find it more than disconcerting that Rabbi Schachtel introduces the essay by describing pro-Zionist activity in terms of being a blitzkrieg.  The word can be understood as an ostensibly neutral term simply pertaining to military tactics – combined arms engaged in a rapid movement and force concentration designed to break through a foes defenses over a changing front, ultimately aimed at a decisive defeat (this is derived from Wikipedia).  But, it’s the very 1943 timing of Schactel’s essay, and the association of the term blitzkrieg with the Wehrmacht in the opening phases of WW II (though the word dates back to the 1920s) that disparages Zionism by indirectly and subtlely associating Jewish nationalism with the worst manifestation of nationalism then prevalent in the West.  (Though of course Nazism was foremost national socialism.)  It’s just one word. 

But, the symbolism of words can carry great weight.  

Of greater import, the essay reveals astonishing naivete and misunderstanding about the existing predicament of the Jews of Germany, and Europe in general, even as the Shoah was ongoing.  Schachtel’s, “…onrushing forces of darkness which sent hundreds of thousands of Catholic and Protestant faith out of their homes and countries,” were emphatically not identical to those prevailing against the Jews of Europe in origin, magnitude, and relentlessness.  To write so – as with other assertions in the essay – reveals a remarkable level of provinciality; a way perceiving the (then) present through the prism of the past, let alone a past that never genuinely existed; or a striking example of denial.

However, the essay is correct in respect of being consistent with the foundations of Reform (and now “Progressive”) Judaism:  Reflective of currents of thought prevailing with the advent of the Enlightenment and, Jewish political emancipation particularly as the latter emerged and spread from Napoleonic France, the Jews are seen – through the window of a kind of christological secularism – as a purely religious body, unmoored from place and time, fated to dissolve – a la Immanuel Kant’s “Euthanasia of Judaism” – into the hoped for and quietly nullifying comfort of a universalist future. 

History has shown differently.

It will continue to do so.

An Anti-Zionist Leader States the Position of His Group
WE REJECT ZIONISM

By RABBI HYMAN J. SCHACHTEL

The Jewish Exponent
January 8, 1943

In recent weeks a group of anti-Zionist Rabbis have formed an organization called the American Council for Judaism, whose purpose is to combat Zionism and to hinder the establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine.  An opportunity is here afforded to Rabbi Schachtel of New York, a member of this group, to state its position.  As a background to this article, some sentences from the recent address of former President Herbert Hoover may be in point.  In reviewing the prospects for peace and stability, he said: “Idealism must have a balance wheel of realism – that is, if the day’s work is to be done.  We cannot ignore the wickedness of the human animal and the wickedness of some dynamic forces.  Every realist knows that the dynamic forces of nationalism, of economic interest, of ideologies, of militarism, of imperialism, of fear, hate, revenge and personal ambition have not died out in the world.”

American Jewry is being subjected to a blitzkrieg by the political Zionists.  They fill the press and platform.  They miss no opportunity to try to convince us that we are Jews by race and nationality.  Palestine is our hope and salvation, they insist.  Not until a Jewish State in Palestine is a fact, they declare, will we stop anti-Semitism and end what they call our tragic sense of homelessness.

But the blitzkrieg has failed.  Only fifty thousand are members of the Zionist Organization of America.  Even in this comparatively small number there are many who have given their support to developments in Palestine without by any means subscribing to the Zionist political platform.  Of course this does not stop the zealous political Zionist from making it seem as if this legitimate philanthropic concern embraces a completely defeatist pessimism for the Jews in the postwar world; makes acceptable a concept of mass immigration; approves political objectives unrelated to the strictly humanitarian considerations.

I, for one, differ from political Zionists in their historical appraisal of the Jews in Europe.  True, the last two decades have been bitter ones in some countries, but those decades were only part of a stream of history which in the last century and a half has shown enormous progress in the expansion of freedom.  The development and achievement of the Jews in Europe in the last 150 years are not to be measured only by a recapitulation of their disabilities and advantages.  It is no more accurate to make that stress than it is to describe the history of the Jews in Palestine only in terms of the tensions of the last 20 years, the friction between Arab and Jew, the outbreaks and pogroms against the Jews.  That is not history.  That is a partisan portrait.

There are in particular two points that seem to me to need emphasis.  The first relates to the political Zionist’s lack of faith.  For to maintain that postwar Europe will be eternally and unchangeably hostile to the Jew is to call the objectives of the United Nations so much poppycock and to imply that the world tomorrow will only carry on the evils of the world of yesterday.  It is to accept a barren philosophy of defeatism to believe that while the Axis will be defeated, the Axis ideology will be triumphant.  It is to grant Hitler NOW his victory in making Europe “Judenrein (without Jews)”.

In such a world it appears to me that it is a little naïve to assume that Jews who cannot be safe in Europe can be safe in Palestine.  By what flight of the imagination can we see a world where the climate of public opinion is so hostile to the Jews up to the Eastern Mediterranean as to force his emigration; but from that point on, the climate miraculously changes so as to offer a peaceful home for millions of Jews?

The second point that calls particularly for refutation is the so-called historic homelessness of the Jews which the political Zionist continually stresses.  Here I must confess I don’t know what they mean.  We American Jews are not homeless.  The British Jews fighting valiantly for Britain do not regard themselves as homeless.  Nor do the Russian Jews shedding their blood along the 2,000-mile-front.  Nor do the Polish Jews fighting with their Christian fellow-citizens in the ranks of the Polish army.  If there are Jews who feel homeless, that emotion derives not from an abstract philosophy but from the reality of persecution.  Palestine itself has had within the last 10 years a large increase in its Jewish population.  But it was no mystical concept of homelessness that brought them there.  Quite the contrary; it was lack of democracy, it was fascism that sent thousands of Jews to Palestine from Germany and neighboring countries, just as it sent thousands of them to other parts of the world.  The problem was the denial of fundamental human rights.  It was part and parcel of the same onrushing forces of darkness which sent hundreds of thousands of Catholic and Protestant faith out of their homes and countries, and which finally precipitated the war.

If Europe is emancipated – if Europe after the war has a new birth of freedom, there will be no need for artificial lands of refuge for forced migrants.  And if Europe and the world are not so emancipated then there is refuge nowhere.

The followers of Judaism look upon Palestine as the cradle of their faith, but they regard the world as their domicile, so that, together will all other God-revering men and women, they may work out a way of life which shall bring justice and peace to all.  The Jews are essentially a religious community, whose mission is to lead themselves towards, and co-operate with others into, the way of righteousness.

God bless the Jews who have settled in Palestine.  May they find there, and we shall help them to do so, the fullest development of their religious, economic and cultural aspirations.  After the war we hope that as many Jew who so desire may go to Palestine and there become free Palestinians whose religion is Judaism even as we here are, and shall continue to be, free Americans whose religion is Judaism.  But what we want for Jews after this war is what we want for all people.  We want a world in which Jews, wherever they live, are free citizens entitled to the same privileges and subject to the same responsibilities as all other free citizens.

It is because the majority of American Jews believe in this that they reject Political Zionism.  No amount of paid advertisement in the press with their long list of endorsements by well-meaning, yet misled Christians will change our mind.  Nor will the Zionist spokesmen, who claim to speak for all Jewry, persuade us.

The political Zionists have looked backwards too long.  Let them turn around and see the future: let them open their hearts to confidence and faith that this war of the United Nations will end in the triumph of the Atlantic Charter, and in the reassertion everywhere of the dignity of all human beings.

And to conclude: January 15, 1943: “The “Bogey” of Zionism”, by Rabbi Simon Greenberg

Rabbi Hyman Judah Schachtel, at…

Wikipedia

FindAGrave

Texas State Historical Association

This video, from Howard Mortman’s YouTube channel, shows Rabbi Schachtel at the inauguration of President Lyndon Johnson in 1965.

A Controversy of Zion: Zionism and Its Foes, in The Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia) II – December 18, 1942: Form Group to Fight Zionism in U.S.A. and Palestine

A Controversy of Zion – II

For your consideration: Some thoughts, the naïveté of which are only exceeded by their unintended irony…

“We have spoken in the past of European Judaism,
we speak of Palestinian Judaism,” he said.
“There is no reason why for Jewish Americans
there shall not be a modern, vibrant, vigorous application of Jewish faith
which will be thoroughly and dominantly American.

“In advocating the formation of an American Council of Judaism,
we do not in any way minimize our kinship with our brothers
in every land and in every other interpretation of Judaism.
We merely say to our neighbors and to the world at large
that for us here in America our prayers and our customs
will be so shaped as to be intelligible not only to our children
but to all Americans and that we shall so use our Jewish heritage
that all who may wish to come to our temples will find themselves at home.
Thus, on our part,
the oft-repeated aim to Bring Christian and Jew together
will become more than a pious phrase or a publicity slogan.
It will become a sincere program of better understanding.”

Rabbi William F. Rosenblum, 1942

______________________________

Continuing with the Jewish Exponent’s mid-WW II articles about opposition to Zionism organized from within – but not entirely representing – Reform Judaism, and, countervailing forces from Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, let alone the Reform movement itself, here’s the newspaper’s second article.  From December 18, 1942, it’s one of three on this topic published on this date. 

This article focuses on the creation of the American Council for Judaism, in the text actually titled the “Council for American Judaism”.  Reporting comes from the “Independent Jewish Press Service, Inc.”, an organization – described in an extensively footnoted entry at Wikipedia – as having been founded in 1935, based in New York, and active in the 1940s.  The Service was under the leadership of Martha Neumark (executive director in the early 40s) and Dr. Judd L. Teller, one of its reporters having been Bernard Lerner, and ceased activity at the end of 1948.  Neumark was the first American women to have been accepted to Rabbinical School (at Hebrew Union College).  (However, she was only permitted to earn a “…qualification as a religious school principal instead of ordination, though she had spent 7 and a half years in rabbinical school.”)  

The Exponent’s article covers the initial two meetings of the Council, held on November 2 and November 23, 1942, at Temple Rodeph Shalom.  Though the reporter’s name is not given, the Philadelphia associations – Rodeph Shalom having been the setting of the two meetings, the Exponent’s detailed coverage of those events, the fact that the organization was founded in Philadelphia, and the mention of Attorney Morris Wolf and Lessing Rosenwald of that city – suggest to me that an IJPS correspondent or stringer simply sat in on one or both meetings, or, received information about the Council’s formation from one of its attendees.  More likely – given the level of detail, quotes, and unflattering anecdotes – the former.  

The Exponent’s article first summarizes the main points pertaining to the Council’s creation, and then goes into much deeper detail about the events, personalities, and agendas of the two meetings.  Particularly interesting are the reported claim by Rabbi William Fineshriber about interacting with Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and, Rabbi Morris Lazaron’s attempt “to “see” Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes, in order to present the Council’s anti-Zionist position. 

The article closes with statements by Rabbi Louis Wolsey and Rabbi William F. Rosenblum which present the ethos and aims of the Council.  In that regard, it’s essential to present this quote from Rabbi Wolsey’s FindAGrave biographical profile:

“Beginning in the fall of 1944, however, Wolsey began to experience a sense of alienation from the anti-Zionist movement.  He felt that [Elmer] Berger and Wallach ran the ACJ in an “undemocratic fashion” and that they overemphasized ACJ’s anti-Zionist aspects rather than its Reform principles.  As a result, Wolsey resigned as vice-president in December 1945 and thereafter became totally inactive in the ACJ.

In 1948, upon the creation of the State of Israel, Wolsey formally withdrew as a member of the American Council for Judaism.  In a statement released to the press, he called for the dissolution of the Council and pleaded for an effort to heal all wounds in order to strengthen Israel by creating a united spiritual front of American Jews.  Wolsey’s recognition for the realities of the situation and his willingness to state his changed position in public won him much acclaim.”

And so, the article:

Form Group to Fight Zionism in U.S.A. and Palestine

The Jewish Exponent
December 18, 1942

EDITOR’S NOTE: The story which follows is an exclusive account dealing with the formation of the Council for American Judaism, released to its subscribers by the Independent Jewish Press Service, Inc.

PHILADELPHIA (JPS) – With the objective of splitting all of American Jewish life, war has been pledged on Zionism and on all persons and institutions sympathetic to that program, with the wealth of influential Jews and the power even of irreligious Jews mobilized in order to smash every gain the Zionist movement has made in the United States and Palestine in forty years.

That is the goal set for itself by the group called the Council for American Judaism, which was born in this city six weeks ago although its birth was announced only this week.  Dedicated to battle against those who would build up the Jewish National Home in Palestine, the initial meeting was held in Temple Rodeph Shalom, Philadelphia.  The anti-Zionist rabbis held their first gathering here on November 2nd and perfected their plans on November 23rd.  Behind them, they contend, are some of the most powerful and wealthy Jews in America, who, one of the conveners alleged, have the power of persuasion over the State Department and ready access to present these anti-Zionist views to other members of the United States Cabinet.

The Independent Jewish Press Service has learned the secret background of the Council and, because of the extraordinary issues raised and the outstanding personalities involved, decided to make the lengthy material available to the general public.

These are some of the elements involved in a drama which derives special significance from the present situation in Europe, where millions of Jews are being slaughtered by the Nazis.

(1)  A small group of anti-Zionist Reform rabbis, many of them retired from their pulpits, has undertaken a wide-ranging political program against Zionism, to which these Rabbis allegedly object because it is political in character.  Asserting that Zionism is “secular” and “irreligious” and that is why Reform Judaism, as they understand it, opposes it, these anti-Zionist rabbis have decided to enlist irreligious Jews as well as the religious in order to attempt to achieve their anti-Zionist aims, long rejected by the majority of American Jewish leaders.

(2)  The names of Morris Wolf, prominent Philadelphia lawyer, associated with Lessing Rosenwald of this city, Henry Ittleson, wealthy head of Commercial Investment Trust; Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times; Samuel Leidesdorf, prominent New York accountant; Paul Baerwald, Honorary Chairman of the Joint Distribution Committee, are among those of laymen involved in the remarkable story.

(3)  Match that lit the antizionist fire of these rabbis and laymen into flame was Sidney Wallach, until recently “educational director” of the American Jewish Committee, retiring from that body under unknown circumstances.  But a decade ago, Mr. Wallach was the editor of The New Palestine, official organ of the Zionist Organization of America.  Another person associated with the tale is Dr. Maurice Hexter, now Executive Vice-President of the New York Jewish Federation, but prior to that for many years in Palestine as the Felix Warburg named member of the Jewish Agency Executive.

(4)  Secretary of State Hull’s department can be “reached” by this anti-Zionist group, one member of it, Rabbi William Fineshriber, of this city, claims, quoting a statement of anti-Zionist intent by one of the leading members of the State Department.

(5)  Rabbi Lazaron also undertook to “see” Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes before he delivered his speech on December 6th at the National Council of the United Palestine Appeal in New York in order to present the anti-Zionist position to the Secretary.  Whether he “saw: him or not, Mr. Ickes said not one word about Palestine at a national Palestine gathering.

(6)  Among the epithets hurled at various other leading American Jewish personalities were these: Adolph H. Rosenberg, head of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, was described as an “appeaser” by Rabbi Louis Wolsey, of Philadelphia; Rabbi James G. Heller, President of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, and Rabbi Israel Goldstein, President of the Synagogue Council of America, were both denounced as using these organizations for Zionist purposes; the American Jewish Committee itself, under present control, was charged with having “ducked” the Zionist issue.

Campaign for Large Funds

To achieve its purposes, the Council for American Judaism, a name proposed by Rabbi Lazaron, has launched a campaign for $25,000 in the first month.  On the advice of a “public relations” counsel that it would look “nicer” to have a rabbi instead of a layman as the executive director of the organization, youthful Rabbi Elmer Berger, of Flint, Mich., was appointed to the post.

Meeting of November 2nd

The story is best told as it unfolded, itself at two intimate and private meetings at Rabbi Wolsey’s Rodeph Shalom.  Rabbi Wolsey was in the chair.  Others present were venerable Rabbi Samuel Goldenson, of New York’s Temple Emanuel-El, William Rosenau, Morris Lazaron, A.D. Shaw and Abraham Shusterman, the last four of Baltimore, Rabbi William Fineshriber, H.J. Schachtel, and Isaac Landman of new York, Norman Gerstenfeld, of Washington; emeritus David Phillipson, of Cincinnati; emeritus Solomon Foster, of Newark; and C.A. Rubenstein, of Baltimore.

Rabbi Samuel Goldstein introduced Mr. Sidney Wallach, until recently with the American Jewish Committee but now a “free lance” in public relations.  Mr. Wallach, once the editor of the official Zionist journal, told the group that non-Zionism was the most important issue in American Jewish life and that the failure of this cause would be harmful to everything American Jewry values.  The opposition movement is the last stand of the anti-Zionist forces, he stressed, and to achieve its objective an organized group must be fought with organization.  The Zionists, he charged, have captured the organs and media of public opinion.  In his view, the number of Zionists is very small.  Most of them had been “taken in” and were, in reality, only philanthropically minded.  He said it would be regrettable if the anti-nationalist fight remained Reform.  A place should be found for the non-Reform, even in the irreligious anti-Zionist.  Let the irreligious Jew find his place in American Jewish life, but not the place the Zionists want him to have.  The American Jewish Committee, he charged, has “ducked” this issue.  Its members were not aggressively anti-Zionist, although they were and are basically anti-Zionist.

Mr. Wallach’s plan involved “grooming for action” several thousand people, at least one representative in every city who would fight for a hearing and who would have, according to Mr. Wallach, the same function as a Christian Science representative in a community.  He declared that Dr. Magnes was “crucified” by the Jewish press.  To reveal this, he stated, would reveal the unreliability of the Zionists, showing the parallelism between the German 19th century mysticism and Zionist ideology.  This would help show up Zionist errors.  Even the “gad-fly,” he declared, has a place in the establishing of truth.

At this point, Mr. Wallach modestly suggested that he did not want to earn his living doing this type of public relations but, after all, he would have to have the “burden of making a living lifted” from him, if he were to do this public relations work.

Rabbi David Phillipson said he had come from Cincinnati to present the point of view of Mr. Adolph Rosenberg, leader of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations.  Mr. Rosenberg felt the group must have a “positive” view, with Americanism as its central theme.  The only salvation for Judaism, he felt, was to identify this movement with Americanism.  Dr. Phillipson said he shared that view and would return to Cincinnati to organize a group on that basis.  But this was not satisfactory to Rabbi Wolsey, with said that in his relations with the U.A.H.C., Mr. Rosenberg had been an appeaser.

Rabbi Rosenau said that the Baltimore rabbis had given a great deal of thought to this cause.  It was their endeavor to create a non-U.A.H.C. organ of Reform Judaism.  It was his thought, however, that stressing of the American keynote would cast aspersion on thousands of those who differ.  They claim to be Americans and are loyal Americans.  The movement, he felt, is a religious one in opposing Zionism.

Rabbi Schachtel was impatient to proceed with practical matters and said the immediate engagement of a person such as Mr. Wallach was essential.  Rabbi Fineshriber agreed that the group ought to follow Mr. Wallach’s plan.  It was necessary to have a person like Wallach or to start a magazine, for financial reasons.

Mr. Wallach responded that a “man’s size job must be done by a man,” whether himself or somebody else.  He felt it would be wise to get clarification of the views of Wendell Willkie and Secretary Hull on Zionism.  In his view, money-raising for anti-Zionist purposes should be very easy.  He knew many men who would be ready to contribute.

Dr. Goldenson agreed to this, saying once a man was engaged the financial support would flow in.

Rabbi Foster was opposed to joining with irreligious Jews, saying his antagonism to Zionism was of religious origin.

Rabbi Lazaron asked the practical questions:  How much would Wallach’s services entail?  What would he do if he had the money?  How would he raise the money?

Mr. Wallach said he would need from $7,200 to $7,500 a year.  He would get busy doing the kind of thing he had been talking about, get a hearing for anti-Zionism.  One magazine was not enough.  If we show we mean business, Wallach said, groups in every city will contribute, especially if we can get tax-exemption.  The zealots in every city must be found.  He believed that anti-nationalism would strengthen Reform, rather than Reform strengthen anti-nationalism.

Rabbi Gerstenfeld, of Washington, was satisfied.  He would call his laymen together promptly to raise funds.

Would Use Yiddish Press

Mr. Wallach suggested a key group of individuals in New York to supervise the spending of the money and the conduct of the work.  This group would have to have freedom to work and to make decisions.  The Yiddish press, he suggested, should be approached, so that with “friends” inside, an occasional item would be published to inject doubt of Zionism in the readers’ minds.

Rabbi Schachtel wanted to know whether “our movement is to be pro-Reform or anti-nationalist”.  In his view, the main program should be “anti-nationalist”.  Rabbi Lazaron said he did not like to see an anti-program but a positive one.  Rabbi Shaw agreed.

Then the discussion went on, with suggestions being offered for various types of magazines, methods of getting tax exemption, and getting speakers onto various lecture platforms.  Rabbi Goldenson asked whether the group should identify itself solely with Reform or strike the larger American note.  He was for the latter, although sole identification with either would be a limitation on any money-raising venture.

It was Rabbi Gerstenfeld, seconded by Rabbi Phillipson, who proposed that $25,000 be raised in one month, that Mr. Wallach be engaged and a program be worked out for the year.  The motion carried.

After adjournment for lunch, Dr. Goldenson started off the afternoon proceedings by reading the letter in the New York Times of November 1st, from Dr. Judah L. Magnes, President of the Hebrew University.  Each of the men, led off by Rabbi Phillipson, explained how he was going to raise funds in his city for this crusade.  With Rabbi Lazaron as chairman, a committee was appointed to formulate objectives.  Other members were Goldenson, Schachtel, Gerstenfeld, and Fineshriber.

Rabbi Wise Reports on Meeting

The second meeting of the group, called in the same temple, here, on November 23rd, heard a letter read from Rabbi Jonah B. Wise, of New York, a national chairman of the United Jewish Appeal and fund-raising chairman of the Joint Distribution Committee, who described a meeting held in New York on November 16th to consider purposes in which Rabbi Wolsey’s group was extremely interested.

Rabbi Wise dismissed the importance of the answer to the 95 anti-Zionist rabbis singed by 733 rabbis.  He declared that only 199 of 476 members of the Central Conference of American Rabbis were included.  He pointed out that neither Dr. Julian Morgenstern, President of the Hebrew Union College, nor Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, President of the Jewish Theological Seminary, had joined the 733 rabbis.

Another letter was then read by Rabbi Wolsey from Rabbi Jonah B. Wise.  In it the latter described a meeting in New York, on November 16th.  Those present were:  Alan M. Stroock, son of the late President of the American Jewish Committee; William Rosenwald, President of the national Refugee Service and a national chairman of the United Jewish Appeal; Paul Baerwald, honorary chairman of the Joint Distribution Committee; Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, who, in four years, made no contribution to the United Jewish Appeal on the ground of his principle objection to Palestine; Edward M.M. Warburg, a lieutenant and chairman of the Joint Distribution Committee; Maurice Hexter, once a member of the Jewish Agency Executive in Jerusalem; George Backer, president of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency; Samuel Leidesdorf, treasurer of the New York United Jewish Appeal; Edgar Nathan, Manhattan Borough president; Henry S. Hendricks, and Henry Ittleson, head of the Commercial Investment Trust.  Excuses for absence were sent by Judge Samuel Rosenman, confidant of President Roosevelt; Lewis Rosenstiel, head of Schenley Distillers; Nathan Ohrbach, New York merchant; and Alexander Kahn, managing editor of the Jewish Daily Forward; Joseph M. Proskauer, anti-Zionist candidate for the Presidency of the American Jewish Commiteee, conveyed his views to the group in a letter.

Rabbi Wise told the Philadelphia meeting in his letter to Rabbi Wolsey that the New York gathering of November 16th had reached certain conclusions on their common interests and that Maurice Hexter had been instructed to report as soon as possible on a program of procedure and an outline of probably enterprise.  Rabbi Wise concluded that he and Rabbi Goldstein were very much pleased with the results of the meeting.  There is no doubt, Rabbi Jonah Wise reported, that these laymen mean business.  What the Zionists regarded as a victory for themselves the men present at the Rabbi Wise meeting regarded, on the contrary, as a victory for their own viewpoint.  The reference was to a big story in The New York Times (whose publisher was present at the Wise meeting and who is related by marriage to Rabbi Wise), headed “733 Rabbis Rebuke Anti-Zionist Jews.”  The anti-Zionists at the Wise meeting regarded the story as an evidence of progress and as giving public notice that not all American Jews were Zionists.

At this point Rabbi Israel Goldstein, President of the Synagogue Council, came in for sharp criticism from Rabbi Schachtel, who charged that Goldstein was using the Synagogue Council for Zionist purposes.  He reported that he had secured the consent of Rabbi James Heller for a change in the constitution to permit, hereafter, a vote by majority instead of unanimously.  As criticism was offered, letters were read in criticism of Rabbi Julius Gordon, of St. Louis, for his activities as chairman of the Committee on Palestine of the C.C.A.R.  He was alleged to be acting without authority.  Rabbi Heller and Rabbi Barnett Brickner, of Cleveland, were charged with making replacements on C.C.A.R. commissions of Zionists almost exclusively.

During the discussion on the question of an executive director, it was pointed out that Sidney Wallach has advised that it would be better for a rabbi than a layman to be chosen.  Rabbi Elmer Berger was then selected to obtain “a salary commensurate with the position”.  A lay public relations adviser, t be Wallach, was also agreed upon, the actual choice to await the gathering of funds.

Rabbi Fineshriber then summed up the achievements of the group: 1. We have stirred up the Zionists and the country at large to a realization of the opposition; 2. We have started the first effective collective action on the part of American rabbis in opposition to Jewish nationalism; 3. Rabbi Lazaron has to his credit the achievement of wide publicity for Arthur Hays Sulzberger’s anti-Zionist speech in Baltimore; 4. We have 96 actively interested rabbis.

Rabbi Lazaron reported that he has already received some funds for his so-called Lay-Rabbinate Committee, the forerunner of which is now the Council of American Judaism, a name unanimously chosen after Rabbi Lazaron had suggested it.  It was pointed out that the name has several advantages.  1. It meets the desires of the financial backers; 2. It meets the request of Adolph Rosenberg, President of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, for emphasis on Americanism; 3. It defines the aims of the group, it was said.

Rabbi William Rosenblum, of New York, was chosen chairman of a committee, with Rabbi Schachtel and Nathan Perilman, assistant Rabbi Goldenson, to draw up incorporation papers and a constitution.  They will submit their work to Lazaron, Wolsey, David Lefkowitz, of Dallas; Julius Feibelman, of New Orleans; Irving Reichert, of San Francisco; Louis Binstock, of Chicago; and Dr. Leo Franklin, retired Detroit rabbi.

The management of a lecture bureau, to send speakers all over the country to spread anti-Zionism, was entrusted to Solomon Foster, retired rabbi of Newark, who will operate the bureau form his home.  Rabbi Foster reported he had already obtained $1,500 in Newark for his work.

The rabbis, who continuously emphasize that they are in favor of the upbuilding of Palestine although they oppose Zionism, agreed that it would be an excellent thing to have their next meeting in New York on December 7th, because it was the day following the meeting of the National Council of the United Palestine Appeal, which is a non-partisan fund-raising organization for Palestine.  They could then deal with the subject matter of that meeting.

__________

Rabbi Wolsey’s Statement

PHILADELPHIA. – In explaining the functions of the Council for Judaism, Rabbi Wolsey said the plans for the American Council for Judaism were formulated at a meeting last June in Atlantic City, “with the purpose of combating nationalistic and secularistic trends in Jewish life”.

“We are definitely opposed to a Jewish State, a Jewish flag or a Jewish army,” he said.  “We are interested in the development of Palestine as a refuge for persecuted Jews, but are opposed to the idea of a political State under Jewish domination in Palestine or anywhere else.”

Rabbi William F. Rosenblum, of Temple Israel, New York City, chairman of one of the organizing committees, in addressing his congregation, declared that while Judaism was a universal religion, it was evident that the spiritual capital of world Judaism after the war would be in the United States.

“We have spoken in the past of European Judaism, we speak of Palestinian Judaism,” he said.  “There is no reason why for Jewish Americans there shall not be a modern, vibrant, vigorous application of Jewish faith which will be thoroughly and dominantly American.

“The members of this congregation have heard me advocate such an accent on our Jewish faith for the last twelve years.  In advocating the formation of an American Council of Judaism, we do not in any way minimize our kinship with our brothers in every land and in every other interpretation of Judaism.  We merely say to our neighbors and to the world at large that for us here in America our prayers and our customs will be so shaped as to be intelligible not only to our children but to all Americans and that we shall so use our Jewish heritage that all who may wish to come to our temples will find themselves at home.  Thus, on our part, the oft-repeated aim to Bring Christian and Jew together will become more than a pious phrase or a publicity slogan.  It will become a sincere program of better understanding.”

Appearing Next: December 18, 1942 “ZOA President Replies to Anti-Zionist Group”

The American Council for Judaism, at…

The American Council for Judaism (the organization’s own web page)

Wikipedia

Jewish Virtual Library

A Controversy of Zion: Zionism and Its Foes, in The Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia) I – November 20, 1942: 733 Rabbis Rap Opponents of Zionism

A Controversy of Zion – I

“They are not ex-Jews or non-Jews,
because many of them are and remain deeply involved Jewishly,
despite their harsh dissent.
Many un-Jews are active in forms of Jewish leadership,
running Jewish studies departments,
speaking from rabbinic pulpits,
hosting Shabbat dinners.
For many of these un-Jews,
the public and communal staging of their anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist beliefs
appears to be the badge of a superior form of Judaism,
stripped of its unsavory and unethical “ethnocentric” and “colonialist” baggage.”

– Natan Sharansky and Gil Troy, “The Un-Jews“, 2021

______________________________

From late November of 1942 through early January of 1943, Philadelphia’s Jewish Exponent published six articles that explored opposition to Zionism, explained the moral and historical imperative of the revival of Jewish statehood amidst the terrible context of the early 1940s and the anticipated urgency of post-war years, and, delved into the motivation and rationale for opposition to Zionism. 

The articles are:

November 20, 1942: 733 Rabbis Rap Opponents of Zionism
December 18, 1942: Form Group to Fight Zionism in U.S.A. and Palestine
December 18, 1942: ZOA President Replies to Anti-Zionist Group
December 18, 1942: 36 Local Rabbis Support Jewish Home in Palestine
January 8, 1943: We Reject Zionism (by Rabbi Hyman J. Schachtel)
January 15, 1943: The “Bogey” of Zionism (by Rabbi Simon Greenberg)

The impetus for these articles was, unsurprisingly, no different in 1943 than 2023: Ambivalence about – if not flat-out opposition to – Jewish peoplehood, nationhood, and statehood, as expressed by individuals who’d attained positions of prominence and leadership in both the American Jewish Community and wider society, who viewed the “place” and future of the Jewish people along a continuum spanning the founding premises of Reform Judaism, and, secular universalism.  

The Exponent’s articles were in response to a “Statement of Principles” released in mid-1942 by a group of ninety Reform Rabbis – these men later to form the nucleus of the American Council for Judaism – who were members of but not acting within the auspices of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the central organization of Reform Rabbis in the United States and Canada.  The Statement declared that this group of Rabbis could not, “…support the political emphasis in the Zionist program which diverts attention from the historical Jewish role as a religious community and which confuses people as to the nature of Judaism.”

Unfortunately (!), I’ve been unable to find the full text of the Statement of Principles.  However, the origin and gist of the document is described in this American Council for Judaism 1969 Memorandum (for those interested, WorldCat Record ID 694520404!): 

“In 1942, at its annual conference held that year in Cincinnati, Ohio, the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) passed a pro-Zionist resolution supporting the formation of a Jewish army in Palestine.  This resolution nullified a 1935 CCAR agreement which stated that the CCAR would remain neutral on the Zionist issue. Immediately after the 1942 conference, several non-Zionist rabbis met to discuss their displeasure with the resolution.

“As a result of this meeting, sixteen CCAR rabbis, led by men such as Louis Wolsey, William Fineshriber, and Morris Lazaron, addressed letters to CCAR members concerning the formation of a Jewish “anti-nationalist” organization.  Although various attempts were made to appease the “anti-nationalists” (on the grounds that they would split the CCAR as well as the American Jewish community) they remained adamant and held a meeting in early June.”

This is probably the meeting described by Howard Robert Greenstein in his PhD Thesis, “The Changing Attitudes Toward Zionism in Reform Judaism, 1937-1948”:

“On June 1, 1942, the non-Zionist rabbis convened in Atlantic City and organized the association which subsequently became the American Council for Judaism.  On June 2, the founders of this organization also issued a statement of principles which declared in part that “… realising the dearness of Palestine and its importance in relieving world problems, (the Council) members will render unstinted aid to all Jews in their economic, cultural and spiritual endeavors there.  But … (we) cannot support the political emphasis in the Zionist program which diverts attention from the historical Jewish role as a religious community and which confuses people as to the nature of Judaism.

This is consistent with the ACJ’s 1969 Memorandum: “At this meeting a “Statement of Principles” was formulated.  In essence, the “Principles” declared that the non-Zionists supported Palestine and Palestinean rehabilitation but, in light of their universalistic interpretation of Jewish history and destiny, and also their concern for the welfare and status of the Jewish people living in other parts of the world, they could not “subscribe to or support the political emphasis now paramount in the Zionist program.”  Futhermore, they could not help but believe “that Jewish nationalism tends to confuse our fellowmen about our place and function in society and diverts our own attention from our historic role to live as a religious community wherever we may dwell.”

“In August of that year, this “Statement,” signed by 90 Reform rabbis and lay leaders, was released to the press. By the end of 1942, this group of “anti-nationalists” had chosen a name for itself: the American Council for Judaism (ACJ). They adopted a constitution and named Elmer Berger, a rabbi from Flint, Michigan, as executive director.  On March 19, 1943 the American Council for Judaism was incorporated in the state of New York and, by the end of the year, a slate of officers was selected.  As president, the Council chose Lessing Rosenwald; as vice-presidents, Rabbi Louis Binstock, Fred F. Florence, Ralph W. Mack, Rabbi Irving Reichert and Rabbi Louis Wolsey; and as treasurer, D. Hays Solis-Cohen.”

And here we come to the impetus for the Exponent’s series of articles, as described by Greenstein: “The “coup de grace” of repudiation appeared in the forum of a declaration entitled, “Zionism — An Affirmation of Judaism” signed by 757 Orthodox, Conservative and Reform rabbis.  Circulated primarily under the direction of Stephen S. Wise, Abba Hlllel Silver, James Heller, Philip Bernstein, Joshua Loth Liebman and Barnett Brickner, the document charged that the non-Zionist statement “comes as a cruel blow” and that opposition to the restoration of a Jewish homeland at such a critical hour has been “unwise and unkind.”  The signatories rejected the Council’s attack upon the “political” aspects of Zionism by declaring that “there can be little hope of opening the doors of Palestine for Jewish immigration after the war without effective political action.”

Which brings us to the first of the Exponent’s six articles, below…

The article focuses on a statement of over seven hundred Rabbis in response to the “Statement of Principles” issued by the above-mentioned group of non-Zionist Reform Rabbis.  Interestingly, the number of rabbis differs: Howard Greenstein states that the response was signed by 757 Rabbis, while the Exponent gives a total of 733.  How to explain the discrepancy?  I don’t know!  In any event, though I don’t have the full text of the Rabbis’ response, the Exponent’s excerpt should suffice.  As you can see from the hyperlinks in the Exponent’s article (hyperlinks of May 2023, not 1942!) three of the four listed organizations are still very much in existence. 

I hadn’t known – until writing this post – that the The Synagogue Council of America, as founded in 1926, actually encompassed Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism.  As stated at Wikipedia, “The organization dissolved in 1994, facing financial difficulties and fractiousness among its members, the organization effectively collapsed after a proposal to relocate the council’s offices from Manhattan to White Plains, New York, where it would have been housed in a Reform congregation, was rejected by Orthodox members of the organization.  Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of the Orthodox Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun served as the organization’s final president lamented the lack of “people who are really interested in maintaining the organization.”  Steven Bayme considers that the Council’s collapse was symbolic of the general Orthodox 1drift to the right, and raised serious questions of how orthodoxy can cooperate with the broader Jewish community in areas of external protection, support for Israel and Jewish continuity.” 

All well and good, but it depends on one’s perspective: Could not the Synagogue Council’s dissolution instead be attributed to the ideological movement of Reform Judaism (and in 2023, hardly just Reform Judaism!) under the combined, ongoing, and accelerating influences of secularism and autonomy underlying contemporary Western civilization back to its original, founding principles?    

And so, the Exponent’s article:

733 Rabbis Rap Opponents of Zionism
The Jewish Exponent
November 20, 1942

In an action said to be without precedent in the history of American Jewry, 733 Rabbis, including the heads of all the national rabbinical associations and drawn from all wings of religious Jewry in America, this week issued a joint pronouncement severely rebuking Jewish opponents of Zionism as dealing a “cruel blow” to the Jewish people.  The statement declares that “the defeat of Hitler will not of itself normalize Jewish life in Europe” and points out that after the war “Europe will be so ravaged and war-torn that large masses of Jewish will elect migration to Palestine as a solution of their personal problems.”

Prominent among the signatories are Rabbi James G. Heller of Cincinnati, President of American Rabbis; Rabbi Louis M. Levitsky of Newark, President of the Rabbinical Assembly of America; Rabbi B.L. Levinthal of Philadelphia, member of the Praesidium of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis; Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein of New York, President of the Rabbinical Council of America, and Rabbi Israel Goldstein of New York, President of the Synagogue Council of America.  These leaders recently called on Secretary of State Hull and presented to him a memorandum in support of Zionism, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration which is being observed this month throughout the country.

The declaration now made public is a rejoinder to the statement recently made by a group of Reform Rabbis regarded as unfriendly to the Zionist cause.

The statement refutes the charge that Zionism is a secularist movement and asserts that “it has its origins and roots in the authoritative religious texts of Judaism” and scores anti-Zionism as “a departure from the Jewish religion”.  It defends the political program of the Zionist movement as an indispensable means for assuring large-scale Jewish colonization in the Homeland and affirms that “the settlement of a half million Jews in Palestine since the last war was made possible by political action which culminated in the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate”.  It adds “there can be little hope of opening the doors of Palestine for mass Jewish immigration after the war without effective political action.”

Scouting the idea that Jews in Palestine should be prevented from ultimately constituting a majority of the population, the rabbinical pronouncement declares that those who are opposing the movement render “a grave disservice” and adds “it may well be that to the degree to which their efforts are at all effective, Jews who might otherwise have found a haven in Palestine will be denied one.”  They also state “to the Jews of Palestine facing the greatest danger in their history and fighting hard to maintain morale and hope in the teeth of the totalitarian menace” anti-Zionist agitation comes as a “cruel blow”.

Continuing, the statement declares “the noblest spirits in American life – statesmen, scholars, writers, ministers and leaders of labor and industry have lent their sympathy and encouragement to the movement.

“The freedom which, we have faith, will come to all men and nations after this war, must come not only to Jews as individuals wherever they live, permitting them to share freedom on a place of equality with all other men, but also to the Jewish people, as men, restored to its homeland, where where at long last it will be a free people within a world federation of free peoples.”

Coming up next:  December 18, 1942 “Form Group to Fight Zionism in U.S.A. and Palestine”

Three links…

American Council for Judaism memorandum, March, 1969.  WorldCat record id: 694520404

Greenstein, Howard Robert, The Changing Attitudes Toward Zionism in Reform Judaism, 1937-1948, Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1973

Sharansky, Natan, and Troy, Gil, The Un-Jews – The Jewish attempt to cancel Israel and Jewish peoplehood, Tablet, June 26, 2021