The following letter was written by New School For Social Research founder and director Alvin Saunders Johnson (1874-1971). It’s his commentary on the book The Jewish Dilemma (1945) by anti-Zionist activist and then American Council of Judaism president Rabbi Elmer Berger. The book argues against the impending establishment of the new state of Israel. The letter makes clear that Professor Johnson fully agreed with Berger’s arguments in the book, for many reasons very well stated in the letter. The letter is dated 14 August 1945, only a week after the atomic bombings of Japan which ended World War 2. It had been also over six months since the Russian liberation of the Nazi concentration camps, and three months since the surrender of the Nazis. News of the concentration camps became rapidly disseminated after the liberation of the camps and the surrender of Germany, so we must assume that Johnson wrote this with full knowledge of the atrocities. I found this letter among family papers. Rabbi Berger was for long a close friend of our family. I’m very impressed that it cogently summarizes the best arguments of the time against the establishment of the state of Israel, and its arguments remain relevant and compelling now. I believe this letter is of some historical interest and value and that it should not pass from the light of the historical record, so I’m posting it here for anyone who may be interested to see. Copies of the original letter are below. Text of the letter:
Dear Mr Wallach,
I thank you for letting me see the proofs of Elmer Berger’s The Jewish Dilemma. It is a courageous book, enlightening and convincing. It ought to be widely read by both Jews and non-Jews. For the problem it sets is a problem near the very heart of liberalism.
Shall the Jew follow the line of emancipation and integration with the society in which he lives, or shall he work to maintain the separation of “exile,” devoting all his energies not only to the creation of a Jewish national state in Palestine, but to the establishment of the principle of dual allegiance for all Jews everywhere? That is the dilemma.
As a liberal Gentile I am compelled to regard the first of the alternatives as the only policy consonant with the times. Great progress has been made in this direction in the last century and a half by America and Western Europe, as well as by Russia. Two thirds of the Jews of the world have been formally emancipated, and under the aegis of the United Nations even the barbaric corridor from the Baltic to the Black Sea has been compelled to renounce political discrimination against the Jew. There remains in social and professional anti-semitism many vestiges of medieval intolerance. Little by little the evil of discrimination is abating, although it flares up from time to time, to present new problems to liberalism. The millions of Jews in America, England, France, Belgium, Holland, Scandinavia and Switzerland do, however, find themselves living in as great security as the rest of the population. This is also true of the Jews of Soviet Russia.
The alternative policy is that of maintaining and developing Jewish separatism, a policy which flowers in universal Zionism. I agree with Dr Berger that this policy, however dear to certain leaders and their romantic followers, has no sound basis in contemporary life. The Jews are possessed of a noble religion, which every responsible person regards with respect. Dr Berger, like liberals of every creed, maintains that this religion is the only bond uniting the Jews in a community. Homogeneity of blood is a pure myth. Descent from the Hebrews of ancient Palestine must be regarded as a shadowy claim, in view of the fact that Judaism was one of the most effective proselytizing religions down to the conquest of power over the Roman Empire by the Christian churches. The alleged universal yearning of Jews to return to Palestine is pure romance.
As a liberal humanitarian I have been ardently in favor of the development of a Palestinian state, with doors open to all Jews who suffer under the oppression of benighted governments. I have rejoiced in the progress the Jews have made in redeeming the waste places and setting up modern settlements in Palestine. I am anxious to see so substantial a Jewish fraction of the Palestinian population that they may be able to defend themselves against the barbarism of the surrounding peoples. But I am compelled to reject the conception of a Jewish state, and to reject utterly the conception of a universal Zionism, centering in such a state and transforming Jews everywhere from citizens of full allegiance to the countries where they live to citizens of dual allegiance. In all this I am in complete agreement with Mr Berger.
The history of Zionism, as presented by Mr Berger, is a remarkable example of what a few determined men can do by persistent efforts of agitation and propaganda, by diplomacy and on occasion by chicanery. An anachronistic state form has been conjured up, with power to exert influence upon the governments of great powers and capacity to compel assent of vast numbers of Jews whose real interests and inclinations lead them toward the opposite policy of emancipation and integration. One can only admire the energy of the Zionist leaders, however much one may deplore this intrusion of medievalism into modern life.
Were there no anti-semitism there could be no Zionism. But Zionism itself capitalizes [on] the theory that the Jews are a peculiar people, unfitted for real integration with the peoples among whom they live. How far Zionism shares in the responsibility for the terrible flare-up of anti-semitism no one can say. But no one can doubt that the Zionist agitation works powerfully today against emancipation and integration of the Jews. The Zionists intend it to have this result. Do the masses of good American citizens of the Jewish faith approve?
Sincerely,
Alvin Johnson
Director
"The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was "given" by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East."~ "Message from Bertrand Russell to the International Conference of Parliamentarians in Cairo, February 1970," reprinted in The New York Times (1970-02-23).
No comments:
Post a Comment