The Maccabaean

Truth; the Truth never reached them, but today with Judaism breaking down, with the prison house of Jewish thought shattered by the Russian Revolution, the whole modern educational system will prove to be the most potent menace that official Judaism has ever faced. Christendom, however, must not bring truth to the Jew with the knout; but first purge its own heart by living Christ, so that through the ranks of a Jewish people whose minds will soon be freed, Christ himself can win his true throne as their and the world’s Messiah. Then as Paul the individual, so can the nation now become the great missionary people of the world and “beginning at Jerusalem, lead the world into the fulness of the stature of the manhood of Christ.”

It seems hard to treat Mr. Mathews seriously despite his voicing the serious belief that many official Christians have, that the restoration of the Jews to Palestine heralds the second coming of Christ. It would seem that few Christians ever take the trouble to find out what the Jews believe about the Messiah.” Can we recommend to Mr. Mathews and to the “young Jew” of the book that they set about discovering the essential differences between Christianity and Judaism before they delude themselves with false hopes.

EMILY SOLIS-COHEN.

* * *

A New Task for America

ABRAHAM M. RIHBANY, America Save the Near East. The Beacon Press, Boston. Pp. 164 ($1.00).

Mr. Rihbany, whose articles in the Atlantic some time ago, and whose books have excited deserved interest, makes an urgent plea to America to assume the organization of the Syrian provinces of the former Turkish Empire. He believes America clearly summoned to the task by her fortunately disinterested position and the high idealism of her international outlook, and he knows of no objection that cannot be overcome, while he finds every other proposed solution open to serious difficulties.

Mr. Rihbany considers all Syria, from Alexandretta to Raphia as a unit geographically, and he is no doubt right. But geographical considerations, while very important, are not all-important. There is a spiritual frontier which is as effective as a natural barrier. In the consciousness of the inhabitants and in that of so much of the rest of the world as is at all interested in this section, Palestine certainly, and the Lebanon almost equally, form as distinct subdivisions of Syria, as though they were marked off by roaring streams or dificult mountain ranges.. Mr. Rihbany was born on the Lebanon. When he tells us that he cannot recall that the Maronites and Druses of his native land regarded themselves as living in any other part of the world than Syria, he says something that no one will dispute. But the important thing is that the majority of the Lebanese are very sure that their section deserves to be treated as a unit by itself, and could not be properly administered as an integral part of a larger Syria. And as to that feeling, Mr. Rihbany himself brings strong evidence.

For Zionists, the most important part of the book is, of course, the chapter on the Zionist Movement, Mr. Rihbany has scant sympathy for the desire of his former com-

patriots to make the Lebanon a separate commonwealth, and he can, therefore, scarcely be expected to show larger consideration for similar aspirations of Jews. He points out some of the difficulties presented by the existence of a Palestinian population. It is well that he does so, since perfervid Zionists are prone to ignore them, and it is helpful to be reminded how sharply these difficulties loom to those who stand wholly outside the current of the Zionist movement. Otherwise, there is little that is new or particularly valuable in Mr. Rihbany’s presentment. It would not be difficult to refute his contention that the Jew has no other standing in Palestine than that of any other person who might choose to make his home there. The right of the Jews to consider Palestine their homeland is not wholly based upon the fact that their remote ancestors conquered it more than three thousand years ago. Conquest for conquest, that of the Mohammedan Arabs is as good, and much more recent. But in Palestine, the Jews created a definite polity with definite achievements, one of which was a literature that even in a fragmentary form has been of immeasurable influence, and the other a spiritual uplift that sustains at least half the present inhabitants of the world. No other conquerors or inhabitants of Palestine created such a polity, and for that reason the name of Palestine is definitely and permanently associated in the minds of most men, with the Jews. That, and not the sword of Joshua or the marauding inroads of the Habiri, constitutes the Jewish claim to call Palestine his homeland.

All this does not derogate from the indubitable rights of those who, as a matter of fact, now actually inhabit the land. But Mr. Rihbany has quoted Mr. Brandeis’ pamphlet on the Jewish problem, to little purpose, if he can find in official Zionist utterances any attempt to derogate from these rights. It is plainly brought out that only if and when the Jews form a majority of the inhabitants of Palestine, will Palestine be really under Jewish rule. But it is asked, that nothing shall be done now that will make a Jewish Palestine in the future impossible, and that no settlement entered into now shall definitely exclude the re-establishment of a Jewish polity on the soil where once such a polity bore rich and abundant fruit. To do so is not to ask for privileges above the rest of the inhabitants, as Mr. Rihbany seems to think, but to ask that a solution important for the Jews as for the world at large, be not artificially barred.

Mr. Rihbany's plea to America is warmly and eloquently made. English Zionists have a habit of dismissing an American protectorate over Palestine as wholly impracticable. It is not quite clear why it should be so considered. None the less, it is not likely that the writer’s arguments will be heeded. Most Americans doubtless feel that "England can well be invested with the trusteeship of Palestine in the interests of the present and future inhabitants, and of the world. ’

The final suggestion of the book of a federal scheme of government has already occurred to Zionists and non-Zionists. It is, however, a much looser form of federal organization than that of the United States— which Mr. Rihbany desires to take as his model—that will best meet the needs of the situation. If Syria should become three, or four, or five locally autonomous commonwealths, the federal principle might be pres-

ent in a Supreme Federal Court, that should finally decide all interstate controversies, either political or economic. Such a court might call up memories of its unfortunate predecessor in Central America. But it is precisely that experience that can best show us how its efficiency can be preserved and guaranteed.

MAX RADIN.

On the Two Dissenting Votes

EDITOR MACCABAEAN.

DEAR SIR:

In the interest of historical accuracy and of the “square deal” I desire, partly to correct, partly to dissent from your statement that "the one man who stood out in mute dissent” (against our Palestine resolution) “will forever be marked in the annals of Jewish life as a bizarre and obstinate individual . who knew not the moral iniquity of standing out against the expressed will of a people to be free.”

There were two delegates who voted against the resolution, one representing Pittsburgh, one Louisiana. Both of them are men of the very highest type, each eminent, not only in the legal profession, but in conspicuous civil service, both of them sincerely devoted to the cause of their people, with a record of generous self-sacrifice in its behalf. The one has a national reputation as a civic reformer of rare courage and successful leadership: the other, very much younger, has a fine State record for public spirit and Jewisli lovalty.

These men were comparatively silent from no lack of courage, but probably because they felt themselves outnumbered, and concluded that, to argue the matter would have been useless; these men, as I can testify, do not lock their minds in mere stubbornness; they do not belong to those Anti-Zionists who put up quarantines against all championship of Zionism; .it is their rearing and environment which disable them from appreciating the force of those compelling facts and imperious conditions which cry aloud for Zionism as the one relief.

To stand out against the self-determination of one's own people is, of course, an unenviable post to choose; yet one may do so in honest -error, under the despotism of one’s education and environment, without thereby incurring any guilt of “moral iniquity.” To my feeling one may, at one and the same- time, honor the upright courage with which a man clings to convictions and yet deplore and condemn the intellectual in elasticity which cannot adjust itself to new truths and urgent duties. Every onward move of the world thus leaves behind, in fatuous protest, a few excellent men whose one error is that they apply to the facts of today the viewpoints of yesterday. j

MAX HELLER.

ANNOUNCEMENT

"England and Palestine," by Herbert Seidebotham, will be reviewed by Dr. Max Radin, in the April MACCABAEAN.