The Maccabaean

To the Editor of THE MACCABAEAN :

DEAR SIR:

The September issue of THE MACCABAEAN prints, together with a protocol of which I am one of the signatories, two editorials, one of direct comment, the other of indirect, upon that protocol. I desire herewith to state my opinion with respect to each.

1. The first editorial is the leading article. Under the caption of “Academic Zionists” it designates Jewish university men who are Zionists, as mere “closet- men,” and invites them “to come back to our people and lead them.” I wondered, as I read that well-worded complaint, where the writer had learned all he asserts concerning “academic Zionists’—that their number on the fingers of my two hands the movement no service. I am myself, I suppose, one of these “academic Zionists.” At least, I earn my bread of exile as a teacher in a university, and I am in communication more or less intimate with other Zionists similarly engaged in other universities. I can count their “large” member on the fingers of my two hands. Each is the leader and teacher of a group of students that at most numbers twenty, and each is giving whatever time and energy the necessary routine leaves him, to the development in these young men of a sense of loyalty and service toward Zion, with all that that implies. Each hopes against hope to remove the dearth of leaders which the editorial so rightly laments. Each has set himself consciously, and often at the hazard of his position and his academic future, the task of developing in the young Jews whom he can persuade to listen to him, the Hebraic spirit, and active devotion to Hebraic ideals. It is true that very few of these men have made any noise or attracted to themselves public attention. But it is not true “that they render no service,” that “they are content with the solution of the dilemma of their own lives.” They are fighting for the future of Zionism

in the profoundest and most vital sense. For they have set themselves, at great risk, upon the firing-line, where the leaders of the generation to come are in the making, and they hazard, often, their all to make that generation Zionistic. In view of these facts, it would have been wiser to ascertain the truth about the "academic Zionist" before making them subjects of adverse judgment. But then, we Zionists have the habit of condemning first and investigating afterwards.

2. This habit is nowhere so clear as in the second editorial. That is offensive. I was almost going to say wilfully offensive, but I trust and prefer to believe, only blindly so. Under the caption "Premature Criticism," it accuses Messrs. Sheffer, Hurwitz, Silverman, Spear and myself of having offered in our signed statement, which appears on page 75 of the same issue "premature and uncalled-for criticism" of the new Actions Committee.

For this accusation there can be only one excuse—that the writer has not read our protocol, but had based his comment on hearsay. I leave to the readers of THE MACCABAEAN to judge of the value of such an excuse. But for myself and my fellow-signers I wish to say emphatically that we not only make no mention of the new Actions Committee, but that we should have spoken of it with good will and commendation if we had mentioned it.

Our statement has only one purpose. Its purpose is to define the position of the groups we represent with respect to the Basle program. We believe that such a definition is necessary in view of the fact that the whole Congress was divided in its attitude toward that program. We believe that such a statement was necessary because of the imminent duty of every Zionist to declare himself for or against that program. We believe that every Zionist will be required by circumstances sooner or later so to declare himself. Hence the excellent and hopeful letter of the Actions Committee alters our position not a jot.