This seems to be a wholly inaccurate statement of the facts, and an unwarranted characterization of the uprising of the Palestinian Jews in the language controversy. The inference is that the serious differences within the Technicum were due to the unreasonable demands of the Zionists. But the fact is, the American directors resigned for no such reason, but because differences of opinion had arisen between them and the Hilfsverein, with which the Zionists had altogether nothing to do. The reprehensible tactics referred to have been amply described in the booklet issued by the Actions Comite on the Language Controversy. This account does not warrant casting any blame either upon the Palestine Jews or the Zionist organization.
The Federation of American Zionists thus replied to Mr. Schiff’s letter:
To The American Hebrew:—
No one questions the right of Mr. Jacob H. Schiff to advise American Jews as to their Jewish duties. As the leading American Jewish philanthropist, he has given generously to many Jewish causes, and has seldom been content with merely giving his wealth. His views have always been received with respect and attention, for he has at all times spoken with restraint and with appreciation of the responsibility of his position.
It is astounding, therefore to find him, in his last letter to The American Hebrew engaged in a deliberate attempt to discredit the Zionist organization.
It is not of interest to us how Mr. Schiff was persuaded to become interested in the Technieum. Nor is it fair to beclond and belittle the issue by himiting it to the wholly peaceful controversy that arose in the Curatorium of the Teehnieum, and which was peacefully, it was presumed, settled there. So far as the Technieum is concerned, the records have been published. They show to any fair-minded observer that the fault does not lie with the Zionist members of the Curatorium. These men found themselves in the minority, and resigned. As men of honor, whose nationalist views were known to all, they could not countenance a reversal of policy in the Technicum that would exclude Hebrew as the predominant language, Then the American directors entered upon the scene, and unanimously offered a compromise that went much further than the original demands of the Zionist members. This compromise was acceptable to all, and according to its terms new Zionist representatives were elected, and it was thought that the entire controversy had been settled in peaceful, parlia-
mentary fashion. What subsequent difficulties arose are not known to the Jewish public. The Zionists took no part in these difficulties as the American directors well know.
The Technicum is not the issue. It is the language controversy, of which the Technicum was only an incident, that provoked the uprising in Palestine, which Mr. Schiff interprets to the discredit of the Zionists. So far as Palestine was concerned, the Technicum incident was merely the climax of the struggle for home-rule, for the right of an awakened Jewry to interpret its own life in its own terms.
Mr. Schiff speaks of a comparatively small group of Jewish Nationalists, as if this small group, led by Dr. Schmarya Levin, had provoked the uprising against the Hilfsverein schools. The fact is substantiated by the records that all Jews in Palestine who have been leading in the "reclamation of the land of our birth from the slough of degradation into which it had fallen," to use Mr. Schiff's own words uttered in January, were back of the protest. These Palestinians of the new Yishub had succeeded in establishing schools in which the Hebraic spirit was predominant. They had created an independent Jewish cultural life, built colonies and erected cities. Against them, contending for position, were such organizations as the Alliance Universelle Israelite and the Hilfsverein der Deutschen Juden. These organizations, especially the Hilfsverein, were already giving way to the legitimate demands of Palestinian Jewry. At this puncture, in preparation for the opening of the Technicum, the Hilfsverein deliberately changed its policy in many of its schools. Then the Hilfsverein representatives on the Technicum board secured the defeat of a proposal that the new institution should become in principle aligned with the aspirations of the new Yishub. To the Palestinians this meant treason to Jewish interest, and as one man they rose against the "invaders" of their land.
They answered in the spirit of free men. The weapon they used was not the weapon of violence, as would have been the case in any German, French, or American community had any one attempted to perpetrate so disloyal an act. It was the weapon of peaceful boycott. New schools were opened. Funds were contributed by the Palestinians, and funds were asked of the Diaspora. Teachers in the Hilfsverein schools resigned their positions without a murmur. Children refused to attend these schools, and parents would not send them. All Palestine was in agreement. Never was a protest carried on with such restraint. It was felt that the entire Jewish world was the witness of the reassertion of national dignity by free Jews in Palestine. It was a sight that strengthened our Jewish pride, and made us feel that at last in Pal-