Newspaper Page Text
Pig* Four
THE SOUTHERN ISRAELITE
Friday, Oct. 30, 1970
Report From The British Isles For 3730
By S. J. Goldsmith
n was election year in Anglo-
Jewry as well as in the country.
In the year 5730 British Jews
have elected a new Board of
Deputies which is the representa
tive body of British Jews—and
the envy of other Jewish com
munities, including American
Jewry. The Board was first es
tablished in the year 1760, and
its first president was Benja
min Mendes Da Costa, a Seph
ardi, of course. About the presi
dent of our day—a little later.
Like Rome, the new Board
was not born in a day. The
elections to the Board were
spread over two months or so,
because not all synagogues vote
on the same day. The new Board
has 408 members, which works
out at one deputy for eleven
hundred Jews. Out of the four
hundred eight members, sixty-
six are representatives of vari
ous organizations and institu
tions—an innovation of recent
years—and seven are represen
tatives of Commonwealth con-
' “gregations.
Alderman Michael M. FiiUer,
a Conservative member of Par
liament, has been re-elected
President of the Board. There is
no significance whatsoever in
his being a Conservative. The
Board had in its time Conserva
tive, Liberal and Socialist Pres
idents. They are being elected
solely on their Jewish merits and
achievements. Despite the over
whelming synagogai representa
tion, the Board is basically a
secular body. But there is no
other method of electing a Jew
ish representation in this coun
try, because national censuses
do not record the faith of peo
ple, and so there ! is no register
of Jews—or Roijpan Catholics,
or Protestants, fo» that matter.
When one speaks of a new
Board in the year under review,
one means a newly-elected Board.
It is by far not a t>ew-look Board.
In this day and age, the Board
still uses the old piethod of send
ing delegations t4 her Majesty’s
Government. Such delegations are
Invariably listened to very polite
ly but their representations are
more often than not ignored.
Minorities have no influence
here in matters of foreign policy.
And that includes Israel, of
course. There is not a single in
stance in the whole post-war his
tory of the Board when a Board
delegation managed to change a
Government decision, or influence
Government action, in regard to
Israel or the Middle East. This is
freely acknowledged by the
leaders of the Board.
On the other hand, the Board
has a considerable influence In
all matters affecting British Jews.
In other words, the Board does
much better at the Home Office
than it does at the Foreign Of
fice . . . But its main achieve
ment is that it is there, that Bri
tish Jews have a representative
body to speak for all of them.
There is no doubt that the
new Board will continue to co
operate closely with interna
tional Jewish bodies and to work
on behalf of Soviet Jews. It will
of course continue its dedicated
support of Israel on all levels
and in all circumstances.
The other noteworthy event of
the year was the centenary of
the United Synagogue. It was
marked by a reception which
was attended by the Queen and
the Duke of Edinburgh. It was
JEWISH CALENDAR
•HANUKA
Dec. 23-30
Wednesday-Wednesday
*TU BISHEVAT
Feb. 10, Wednesday
•FAST OF ESTHER
Mar. 10, Wednesday
•PURIM
Mar. 11, Thursday
•PASSOVER
Apr. 10, Saturday
(first day)
Apr. 17, Saturday
(eighth day)
•ISRAEL
INDEPENDENCE DAT
Apr. 30, Friday
•HOLIDAY BEGINS
SUNDOWN PREVIOUS DAY
the usual royal occasion. The
Queen talked to those intro
duced to her while the Duke,
being what he is, talked to those
he wanted to talk to in an in
formal way.
But of course such occasions
are judged not by what trans
pired during a couple of hours
of anti-climax but by the very
fact that they took place. A visit
by the Queen is a mark of rec
ognition; it confirms upon the
hosts respectability, distinction.
It makes them proud of being
British. And the Queea was
visiting all British Jews and not
only a group of synagogues, be
cause the party was held under
the patronage of the Board of
Deputies. The visit was duly re
corded in the annals of Anglo-
Jewish history . . .
Social snobbery is inevitable
on such occasions. Everybody
Continued on page 5
BORIS SMOLAR Editor-in-Chief Emeritus, JTA
BETWEEN YOU AND ME
THE SOUTHERN ISRAELITE
Published weekly by Souther* Newspaper Enterprises, 390 Courtland
St, N. E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, TR 0-8249, TR 0-8240. Second class
postage paid at Atlanta, Georgia. Yearly subscription, $7.50. The
Southern Israelite invites literary oontrlbutlsns and correspondence
but is not to be considered as during the views expressed by writers.
DSADUNE is 5 P M. FRIDAY, bat material received earlier will
have a much better chance of publioattoo.
Adolph Rosenberg, Editor and Publisher
Kathleen Nease, Vida Goldgar, Edward M. Kahn
Kathy Wood, Harry Rose, Betty Meyer, Gertrude Burnham
Georgia Press Assn.
Seven Arts Features
Jewish Telegraphic!
Agency
World Union Press
Vote! Vote! Vote!—November 3
Each election time, news media, civic groups, clergymen,
public-spirited citizens — to say nothing of the candidates —
urge and exhort the public to Vote! Vote! Vote!
Yet, post-election figures more often than not show a
general apathy and “civic laziness” on the part of the elector
ate. Less than half of those eligible to vote actually did cast
their ballot in the last Georgia election, for instance.
Many close elections in toe past put the lie to the often-
heard, “Oh, well, my one vote won’t matter.” It was perhaps
simpler in days gone by when Georgia was a one-party state.
But that situation is rapidly changing. More Southern states
are following in varying degrees. Strong candidates repre
sent both major parties in several races. There is a choice.
Voting is a privilege, a priority of good citizenship and an
opportunity to have a voice in our government.
We do not this year endorse specific candidates. We do
urge our readers to vote—to get their friends to vote—to
make themselves a part of our electoral system.
COMMUNAL AFFAIRS
Jews living in the larger communities are
hardly aware of the fact that there are more than
120 small cities with a Jewish population of less
than 5,000. They include 37 communities with less
2,000 Jews and a similar number of communities
counting less than 1,000 Jews.
These communities embrace about 225,000 Jew
ish persons. This total equals the combined Jewish
population of Austria, Germany, Italy, Greece,
Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Spain,
Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland
and Luxemburg. In other words—the number of
Jews living in small communities in this country
is as large as the total number of Jews in all the
free countries of Europe, plus Czechoslovakia,
with the exception of England and France.
How Jewishly do the Jews in the small towns
live? What is the quality of Jewish life in small
communities?
The Council of Jewish Federations and Wel
fare Funds has undertaken a study on this sub
ject. It sought to establish whether the Jews in
the small communities are giving generous finan
cial support for Jewish causes; what is the propor
tion of children enrolled for Jewish educa
tion; how large is the number of Jfews
in each of these communities subscribing
to English-Jewish weeklies and other pub
lications dealing with Jewish concerns and
cultural expression; what kind of Jewish institu
tions function there; are the congregations there
Reform, Conservative or Orthodox. It also sought
data and information on various other aspects of
Jewish communal life.
The result of this study, conducted by Martin
Greenberg, CJWF director of research, produced
a very interesting picture of the characteristics of
the small Jewish communities. Many of these
characteristics are, of course, influenced by the
size of the community, since some small com
munities are substantially smaller than others.
• • •
SMALL TOWN GENEROSITY
On the average, Jews in small towns constitute
more than 2 percent of the total population in the
area. But the smaller the Jewish population, the
more Jews constitute a minority within the total
community, the CJFWF survey shows. In com
munities with a Jewish population of 4,000-5,000,
Jews constitute about 5M> percent of the total pop
ulation. In communities with a Jewish population
of under 1,000, Jews constitute less than 1 percent
of the population.
The 120 small communities surveyed constitute
6.7 percent of the U. S. Jewish population located
outside of New York. But they contributed a
little less than 11 percent of the 1966 fund-raising
campaign results, and were more responsive to
the 1967 emergency campaign of the United Jew
ish Appeal.
There was a substantial difference in the
average per capita gift between states. The con
tributions in the small communities in Louisiana
were the highest—four times as much as the
average per capita contributions in the small
communities in California which were the lowest
contributions. Iowa and Indiana average per cap
ita gifts were more than three times higher than
in the small communities in Florida, New York
and New Jersey. In Tennessee, Ohio Pennsyl
vania, Alabama. Illinois, and Michigan the average
contribution was higher than in Texas, Wisconsin,
Virginia and Massachussets
There is a moderately strong correlation be
tween per capita contributions to the local com
munity campaign and per capita Israel Bond sales.
Communities that are relatively high in per
capita contributions for the general campaign con
ducted for local, national and overseas needs are
relatively equally high in their sale of Israel Bonds.
Those which were lower in contributions for the
general campaign were correspondingly lower in
the Israel Bond sale. On the average, however, for
every $100 contributed to the general campaign,
communities bought $70 of Israel Bonds.
• * •
SMALL COMMUNITY PROFILE
Most of the small communities are affiliated
with the Council of Jewish Federations and Wel
fare Funds which is the central advisory body
of Jewish communal problems. More than 30 per
cent of the small cities have a Jewish Family
Service; about 45 percent have a Jewish com
munity center. One out of every three commun
ities has a Home for Aged.
Reform congregations are more popular in the
small town than Conservative congregations. On
the average, the Reform congregations lead by
about 11 percent. However, in communities with
4,000 to 5,000 Jewish population, Conservative con
gregations lead by about 55 percent. In commun
ities with tess than 1,000 Jews, the Reform con
gregations lead by about 17 percent.
The smaller the Jewish community, the less
likely it is to have an Orthodox synagogue. Almost
two-thirds of the communities with 4000-5000
Jews have at least one Orthodox synagogue, but
in communities with less than 1,000 Jewish popu
lation only about 14 percent have at least one
Orthdox synagogue.
No clear picture is obtainable on Jewish edu
cation in the small towns. The American Associ
ation of Jewish Education has conducted a series
of census reports of Jewish schools in the country.
But it received full information from only 30
small communities which is only one-fourth of the
small communities surveyed by the CJFWF. There
is a considerable variation in enrollment for Jew
ish education among the 30 communities from
whom reports were received. The range includes
“highs” in which about 30 percent of the Jewish
population is enrolled for Jewish education—to
“low” in which only 6 percent is enrolled. In
seven of the 30 communities, all students go to
a Jewish school only once a week. In the re
mainder, the highest is two-and-a-half sessions a
week.
In subscriptions to English-Jewish publications,
the larger of the small Jewish communities
purchase the most subscriptions. But on a per
capita basis, the smaller cities have more sub
scriptions. More than one-third of all subscrip
tions are for Commentary magazine. Others sub
scribe to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency news
bulletins and to English-Jewish weeklies. A con
siderable number subscribe also to the books of
the Jewish Publication Society.
Copyright 1970, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Inc.
PAID POLITICAL AD
PAID POLITICAL AD
Re-Elect __
Devereaux McClatchey
Let’s
Keep Moving
house of Representatives