The Maccabaean

Organization: Essence of the Idea

GREAT is the power of the phrase, not only among our hoi polloi but among our intelligentsia as well. "A Kingdom for a phrase" seems to be the universal outcry—the stronger and the more intoxicating, the better. Of this, the Zionist Convention just behind us has furnished new proof. Most estimates of its activities approximately come to this:

"True, there has been a contest, a serious, beautiful combat between the younger and the older elements, between progressives and conservatives, a fine struggle for a responsible rule of the masses, but what are the issues, the plans?" In gravely critical times like these, a convention passes without inspiring slogans. There is a general hankering, a nostalgia after sonorous passwords—after the phrase. What should be asked, however is: Of what profit are the most beautiful issues if they remain, after all, a dead letter?

There was never any surcease in the formulation of "inspiring issues." But "inspiring issues," however timely, are of no avail if there are not the right men on top to carry them to the masses, to support them by grouping around them the right forms of organization, to vitalize them and endow them with energy through popularization, to protect them in action by a far-sighted policy of realization.

Take, for example, the last Pittsburg Convention. There was rank abundance of slogans and "inspiring issues." It adopted an extensive program—a new decalogue. Our press organs ran riot with jubilation. An entire cluster of beautiful phrases caught their imagination. Plenty of ink was spilled over the new program. Enthusiasts fed their fancy with vistas a la Bellamy about Eretz-Yisroel. According to the opinion of those who expect of a convention the turning out of a great many "inspiring issues," Pittsburg was certainly a great success. Was Pittsburg a success in the pragmatic aftermath? The answer must be: No! A beautiful program turning Eretz-Yisroel into a semi-socialist commonwealth did not affect the attitude of an administration which did and omitted to do whatever it pleased, whenever it pleased, without consulting even its own executive, let alone its constituents. The natural discontent and pessimism of the broad masses reacted perceptibly upon our work. "Inspiring issues" didn't help—on the contrary, they were a bitter parody upon the actual situation. Zionists everywhere remained indifferent to the program, because it was not their program, anyway. It did not penetrate their innermost consciousness because they were unprepared. The program was imposed upon them from the outside. A few doctrinaires, a few enthusiasts, a few people of real social experience went into committee session and imposed a program upon the convention under cover of a general "hurrah" sentiment of jubilation. The program did not penetrate through the flesh and bone of the delegates—no one even attempted a thorough illumination. The delegates did not understand the responsibilities they incurred, they did not perceive the cogent social logic behind the program. The program had no true popular effect. Personally, I happen to be for most of the provisions of the program, but it was clear, at the time of its adoption, that this is not the right way of making a platform for the Zionist masses to stand on. One cannot superimpose such a comprehensive program upon the masses at one stroke. Far-reaching

preparations are necessary for such a feat. To realize the principles embodied in a program, the Zionist masses must first understand them, digest them, assimilate them. Acceptance or rejection must come afterwards. Pittsburg, therefore, with all its "inspiring issues," did not accomplish a great deal.

In the concretization of issues devolved upon us in the light of new political and economic facts, we are burdened with immense tasks. Our policy as enunciated by our leader, Mr. Brandeis, makes it imperative that we form new coalitions with Kehillas, with personalities which may be of the utmost importance for the realization of our ideals. Men and groups of men, not issues, are therefore of pressing immediate concern. We are confronted with the necessity of carrying on an immense propaganda through speech, through the written word, through Kinematographic presentation, with all the modern potentialities of reaching the young in their schools so as to bring them Eretz-Yisroel. This means an enormous amount of work and splendid possibilities. The work requires a department of its own. It requires definite plans and policies. Ways and means must be sought and found—above all, it requires men of heart and understanding to think and to do. Such men cannot be found on every highway—they have to be looked for, encouraged, put into their right places and brought into contact with the Zionist masses through proper forms of organization. The question of organization is therefore the Alpha and the Omego of successful work and a convention like that of Chicago, which accomplished important feats tending toward democratic reorganization, is therefore entitled to our grateful recollection. In enabling us to work, it has gone far toward ridding us from the domination of the phrase.

ABRAHAM GOLDBERG.

Impressions of Impressions

I HAVE been reading the impressions appearing in the Jewish press of the Twenty-Second Annual Convention of the Zionist Organization of America (The American Israelite, stoically defying time and change, still calls it the Federation of American Zionists), and I have come to the conclusion that the Chicago Convention was the most successful ever held and also the worst failure; that it was the most imposingly impressive and the most pitifully insignificant gathering; that it was richest in content and entirely empty of meaning; that it was clearest in illuci- dating the issues before it and that it was the most confused gathering ever held; that it was the most inspiring and most insipid assemblage, that in a word it was the best and worst Convention we have ever held.

So you see my mind is all made up, and as all the newspapers are undoubtedly correct in their estimates, I am firm in my own opinion and ready to express myself in unrestrained and untrammeled manner. But though I have determined to be firm in my view, I confess to having moments of weakness when I am very much puzzled as to how one convention could be all of these things at one and the same time, moments when I am greatly perplexed by the complete contrast between the various descriptions of the meeting of delegates held in the Western Metropolis. One writer for a newspaper in Chicago goes so far as to say that there was no convention at all, and in