Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

rage Six THE SOUTHERN ISRAELITE Friday, Januarv 27, 1950 Thft Southern Israelite Published weekly by Southern Newspaper Enterprises, Inc., 312 Ivy Street, N. E.. Atlanta 3, Oeorgia. WAlnut 0791-0792. M. Stephen Schiffer, publisher; Adolph Rosenberg, editor; Willy Pels, business manager. Entered as second class matter at the post of fice,Atlanta, Georgia, under the Act of March 3, 1879. Yearly subscription, three dollars. The Southern Israelite invites literary contributions and correspondence but is not to be considered as sharing the views expressed by writers. Deadline is 9:00 a. m. Wednesday but material received earlier will have a much better chance ef publication. PANORAMA by David Schwartz On A PQstage Stamp From Our Bible For, lo, He thot formoth the mountains, and createth the wind, And declareth unto man what is his thought, That maketh the morning darkness, And treadeth upon the high places of the earth; The Lord, the God of Hosts, is His name. Amos 4:13. Council of Judaism Struck Out A stinging, well-deserved rebuke has been directed against the American Council for Judaism by the National Community Relations Advisory Council and by the or ganizations within its membership which have demon strated their responsibility to American Jewry. Among these are the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, ADL of B’nai B’rith, Jewish Labor Com mittee, Jewish War Veterans, the Union of American He brew Congregations and others. Gist of the condemnation is that the Council for Juda ism has in effect become an anti-Semitic organization apd alone is publicly perpetrating the bogey of “dual loyalty” and other unfounded charges in the public press. Ii\ other words, repudiated by an overwhelming majority among Jewry, they have violated good taste and are seeking allies in fields where hatlers wait such opportunities about a matter which at best is a subject of family con sideration alone. To the editor, the Council for Judaism has the same “raison d’etre” in modern Jewish life as the ’36 Landon- for-President Club would have in the modern political world. In both instances, the events which motivated the creation of the groups have disappeared through the turn of destiny. Members of both groups in the democratic principle of freedom have a perfect right to continue col lecting dues from suckers, to perpetrate their thinking, no matter that there is now neither rhyme nor reason for such. If the one-time conscientious members of the Lan- don-for-President-Club were interested in Republicanism, there are current opportunities for the valid expression of their philosophy,, without their clasping futilely to an ar chaic organization. If the fact of Landon’s defeat had been a too bitter pill for them to swallow, they could fulminate .forever without changing the fait accompli. Same is true of the Council of Judaism. It is a strange illusion which members must have that by continuance of an outmoded organization they can pretend the State of Israel does not exist. Hypocritically, the group has on the one hand pro fessed friendship for Israel while with the other foully stabbing it in the back. Many of the sincere and conscien tious members who were opposed to Israel at the start have recognized the very facts before their eyes and properly, sanely and adultly have transferred their ener gies into channels where they could have a positive and wise effect on Jewish events. If the current members of the Council of Judaism were truly interested in nation alism and public relations, they would transfer their energies to organizations which today are forthrightly dealing with these factors and which have been con cerned with them long before the Council for Judaism was established. The right of the members however to belong to the Council for Judaism, no matter how antiquated and out moded it is as a group, and to differ with the thinking of any other group is pot an issue in the N.C.R.A.C. state ment. The members have the right in a democratic world to their own views and their own organization. The ques tion is whether a Jewish group, defeated and discredited in its pseudo-concepts should pursue the matter with the vigor of the anti-Semite among non-Jews. Of this course, there can be no valid defense and the action of the N.C.R. A.C. is appropriate. Incidentally, this rebuke was released only to the English-Jewish press and is not being public ized in the public press. Lafayette Withstands the Test Guest Editorial Lafayette College was tempted. There was wavering. There was hesitancy. For a while the shadows of bigotry and religious prejudice, concealed behind a thinly gilded coating, seemed to have the upper hand. A fair referee would be compelled to credit these sinister forces with the first round. Nor was the devil without his advocates. The age-old arguments were brought forth and repeated as though they had never been heard before. The law, too, was in voked . . . read in a manner aimed to salve a guilty con science. But the early victory was not for long. Before the week was out decency prevailed. By now the sorry facts are generally known: Ten years ago a man who had been in the U. S. diplomatic service for thirty years died, leaving his wealth .estimated at $140,000, to Lafayette College. The Post Office this month issued one of the first stamps carrying a picture of a Jew. The Oompers stamp. It was is sued on the occasion of the hundred anniversary of the birth of Samuel Gompers, the organizer and until his death the president of the American Federation of Labor. The story of Gompers is a kind of Horatio Alger saga. He was not native bom. He was brought to America by his par ents when he was a boy of 10. The Civil War was being fought at the time of his arrival. In fact, little Sam arrived just after the Battle of Gettysburg, the great battle which sent the legion of Lee rolling back wards to the south and made the Confederacy abandon the thought of carrying the fight into the north—the great battle which was to be immortalized in the famous Gettysburg ad dress of Abraham Lincoln. At the time, Europe had a labor problem—a very acute one—but America, while it had a slavery problem, did not have much of a labor problem. The country as a whole was largely rural, but in the few short de cades after Civil War, a rapid industrialization was to take place. It seems odd that it was given to Samuel Gompers to organize and crystallize the labor movement in America. Physically, he was not an im pressive man. He was short of stature, hardly more than five feet tall. And he was a Jew to boot. That was no asset for him in his Career. Yet he was elect ed and rtelected and in his autobiography he tells us that he never in his life sought nomination or election to office. And I think it’s true. Somehow ' it was generally conceded that for his time he filled the bill more suitably than any other man. He had his assets. First, he had a booming voice. When he spoke, he required no micro phone. It reached out like an organ and filled every cranny in the auditorium. Again, while he was no profound thinker, the fact that he had had European and Jewish contacts was an aid to him. He had read a little of Karl Marx’s writings on trade unionism, and while the Communism of Marx made no appeal to him, Marx’s writ ings on trade unionism appar ently helped him in developing his philosophy on the role of the labor unions. He was a cigar maker by trade. In fact, the tobacco workers at the time, the cigar and cigarette makers, were al most all Jews. Before the Civil War, cigarettes were not smoked in America. Cigarettes were made in Russia and in Turkey. It was the Jews who introduced them from abroad. Such a man for instance as Oscar Hammerstein, who intro duced grand opera in America, was also like Gompers original ly a cigar maker. The Dukes got all of their original cigar ette makers from the East Side of New York. Cigar making was a kind of labor which was conducive to intellectual discussion and that probably helped Gompers in his career .The cigar workers were accustomed to have one of their men read something to them while they worked. The workers would gather a little fund to pay the time he lost while he read to them, for the time lost from his own. work. Generally, after the reading there would be discussion. This was a time when there was a (Continued on page eight) BETWEEN US by Boris Smolar Domestic Affairs % Jewish Calendar HAMISHAH ASAR BISHY AT Thursday. February 2 PURIM Friday, March 3 PESACII Saturday, April 1 '(First Seder) Sunday, April 9 (Last Day) SHAVUOS Monday, May 22 Tuesday, May 23 A process of retrenchment is now going on in all major Jewish organizations in this country . . . Staffs are being reduced and projects are being curtailed . . . The Joint Distri bution Committee, the Ameri can Jewish Committee and a number of other organizations have eliminated from their programs a number of publica tions which they published, or planned to publish . . . The J. D. C. has also closed its reg ional offices in Cleveland, Chi cago and Los Angeles, thus re ducing the personnel of its De partment of Community Ser vice and Information . . . The American Zionist Coun cil and the Z.O.A. are similarly losing members of their staffs . . . The United Service for New American is contemplat ing a drastic reduction in its staff . . . The American Jewish Congress and the office of the World Jewish Congress long ago undertook staff reductions ... In the J.D.C., the 40 staff members of the Community Service Department and the Publicity Department have been reduced to 16 . . . In general the J.D.C. head quarters staff in New York, formerly numbering 299 (in cluding the staff of SOS), has been decreased to 106 . . . The J.D.C. overseas staff—Amer ican, South African and Cana dian welfare workers, doctors, educators and other specialists —numbering 243 in 1948, now stands at 177 . . . * * * * * ISRAEL AFFAIRS Now that Jerusalem has practically been proclaimed the capital of Israel in a reso lution presented by the Israel Government to the parliament, it can be revealed that the de cision to move to Jerusalem was not taken lightly by the Cabinet ... It was the out come of a short but serious Terms of the bequest revealed a week ago Thursday, pro vided that the money now becoming available is to be used for scholarships for “American born” students, “Jew’s and Catholics excepted.” An Orphans Court judge approved the bequest and a spokesman for the college said it would be accepted “although we don’t like the strings attached that smack of religious discrimination.” Recently the trustees of the college, meeting in New York City, voted to respect the bequest. Speaking for the trus tees, Dr. Ralph S. Hutchinson Lafayette president, issued a statement explaining that “while the proceeds were to have been used for general endowment,, the fact remains that the legacy contains an inoperative clause discrimi nating against Jews and Catholics. The board has there fore taken action declining the legacy as containing in timation of discrimination which is contrary to the his tory, practice and ideals of Lafayette College.” To this is added the well-known “my best friends” paragraph: “La fayette’s enrollment has always included a large number of Jews and some Catholics,, of its most distinguished alumni are among them.” Doubtless a truism as well es tablished when the offer was first accepted several days earlier. How’ever, since end results are what count, the event must go dow’n as a triumph for decency and real Americanism. ***** However, one cannot dismiss this unsavory incident without further observations :One is that the lay leader ship of the college rose to the occasion at a time w’hen its scholastic leadership was ready to yield. Second: That one as bigoted as tRe donor could have been in the United States diplomatic service for thirty years. —JEWISH EXPONENT—Philadelphia. crisis in the government Premier David Ben Gut ion had always advocated a return to Jerusalem, but other Cabinet members desisted . . . The three religious Ministers and Dov Joseph, Minister of Supply, were in favor of moving from Tel Aviv . . . Minister of Fi nance Eliezer Kaplan opposed it on economy grounds . . . Minister of Justice Felix Ros- enblueth advised caution . . The role which the Soviet dele gates played at the United Na tions in insisting on the inter nationalization of Jerusalem has brought a clarity into what had been for a long time a heavy strain of doubt in Is- rael-Cominform relations . . . Israel’s policy of neutrality toward the East has, because of the hostile Russian move, been displaced by a consider able freedom to attack and criticize Russia . . . The period of cautious rope-walking be tween East and West is now over in Israel, and no one ex cept the Communists is very sorry about it . . . While Russia has thus lost virtually all good will in Israel and a great deal of official friendliness, she did not gain the goodwill of the Arab governments she sup ported . . . These governments can never be pro-Kussian and in fact are continuing as before to receive arms from the West.