The Present Crisis in American Jewry
A Plea for Reconciliation
By Israel Friedlaender
ISRAEL FRIEDLAENDER (born in Russia, 1876), attended the Universities of Berlin and Strassburg (Ph.D., 1901); called to the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1903, where he is now the Sabato Morais Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis. Professor Friedlaender is not only the author, editor, and translator of a number of scholarly works but his wide observation of Jewish life in various countries, coupled with his broad historic knowledge, have enabled him to write and speak on present Jewish problems with exceptional authority and insight, as for example in his new book, "The Jews of Russia and Poland." His lectures before Menorah Societies have been particularly stimulating and have made him a great favorite with University students.
VARIOUS occurrences of recent date have revealed a rift in American Jewry which if not healed in time is likely to result in a permanent schism. The agitation centering around the question of a Jewish Congress is not the cause of this rift; it is rather an effect or a symptom betokening the profound difference of opinion and sentiment which at present divides the Jews of America. In the realignment of American Jewry which this struggle is calling forth, the Zionists and the non-Zionists of this country—the former centering around their local organization, the latter represented by the American Jewish Committee—have been taking opposite sides. Those of us whose Judaism is broad enough to embrace with equal loyalty the ideals of Zionism and the interests of American Judaism, cannot but view with the deepest concern the possibility of a permanent conflict between these two sections of American Jewry, a conflict fraught with the gravest consequences, not only for the Jewish cause in this country in general but also for the Zionist movement—a conflict, moreover, in which no victory achieved by either side can be anything but a Pyrrhic victory.
The situation is one that demands careful thought and delicate action. Only a few of us are in a position to influence the course of events by acting, but many of us may help to clarify the situation by thinking. A correct diagnosis is an indispensable preliminary to a cure, and it is only by finding out whether the issues underlying the present struggle represent a chronic and perhaps irremediable conflict, or are rather the effect of an acute and therefore curable misunderstanding, that a proper solution may be discovered and proposed. It is from this point of view that an attempt is here made to analyze the present situation in American Jewry, to trace the causes which have produced it, and to point out the consequences which are unavoidable unless a remedy be applied in time.
The Two Issues in American Jewry
TO my mind there are two fundamental issues which separate the two groups in American Jewry from one another. They may be expressed in the following terms: 1, Diaspora versus Palestine; 2, Religion versus Nationalism.
Without any desire to lose myself in philosophic subtleties, I shall, for the sake of brevity, adopt the Hegelian language and explain the development of these issues on the principle of Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis, i. e., of the initial prevalence of one extreme, of its yielding subsequently to the opposite extreme, and of the final harmonization of the two in a higher unity, combining the essential features of both. I shall endeavor to point out that the Synthesis forms the ground on which both parties may cooperate, without sacrificing an iota of their respective convictions.
The first issue, expressed in the formula "Diaspora versus Palestine," hinges on the question as to whether the Jewish people finds its best opportunities for development in the Diaspora, i. e., as an integral part of the nations in whose midst it lives, or, away from the other nations, as a separate entity, on its own soil in Palestine.
The Rise and Fall of "Diaspora Judaism"
WHEN modern Jewry, after the isolation of centuries, suddenly emerged from the Ghetto to seek a place in the sun in the midst of the Christian environment, the thesis adopted by it was Diaspora. Consumed with the desire for emancipation, for sharing the benefits and attractions of the new life around them, the Jews discarded the hope for an independent national existence in Palestine, which had been their lode-star throughout the ages. Diaspora as opposed to Palestine, and as exclusive of it, became the slogan of emancipated Jewry. The Jewish religion was refitted to harmonize with this new striving for material and cultural progress. Reform Judaism arose, the main object of which was to break down the previous separateness of the Jews; and the theory of a "Jewish mission" sprang into life, not as a spontaneous growth of Jewish tradition, but as a forced hothouse product of practical life—a theory which proclaimed that an isolated Jewish existence in Palestine was subversive of the very essence of Judaism, that the mission of the Jewish people was to propagate monotheism among the nations of the earth, and that this mission could only be carried out in the Dispersion, in the midst of the nations which were to be the objects of that mission.
As time progressed, however, the "Diaspora" thesis gradually lost its force. Emancipation failed to fulfill the ardent hopes attached to it. The nations refused to allow the Jews to participate fully and unrestrictedly in the general life of the country. Anti-Semitism, manifesting itself in the crude form of hatred, or under the subtle guise of prejudice, turned, in many cases, the liberties previously granted to the Jews into a scrap of paper. On the other hand, the dangers of this extreme Diaspora Judaism, at first little thought of, began to loom larger and larger. The rush for emancipation threatened not only to disrupt the unity of the Jewish people throughout the world, which had been maintained during the ages of suffering and persecution, but it also led large and important sections of Jewry to assimilation, that is, to complete absorption.
The Antithesis "Palestine" and Its Inadequacy
AS a protest against the thesis "Diaspora," its opposite came to life, the antithesis "Palestine." Political Zionism sprang into being, loudly proclaiming that emancipation was a failure; that Judaism had no chance of life in the Dispersion, and that the only salvation of Jewry lay in being transferred to Palestine. Zionism or assimilation was the alternative placed before the Jewish people. All efforts of Jewry, as the last attempt to escape annihilation, were to be focused on the obtaining of a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine. All Jewish endeavors in the Diaspora were deprecated, because consecrated to a cause which was foredoomed to failure.
It was not long before the antithesis, too, began to reveal its deficiencies. The difficulties of reaching the Zionist goal very soon proved far greater than had been anticipated in the blissful ecstasy of the Zionist honeymoon. The ultimate consummation of the national hope receded further and further before the longing gaze of the Jewish people, and no longer held out an immediate remedy for the pressing needs of suffering Jewry. The conviction also gradually gained ground that, even under the most favorable of circumstances, Palestine could only harbor a fraction of the Jewish, people, and that the vast bulk of Jews would still remain in the lands of the Diaspora. Zionists who were looking reality in the face could not accept the view of the extremists, who were ready to save a small portion of the Jewish people at the cost of abandoning to its fate the enormous majority thereof.
Opposing Ideals Fused Into Spiritual Zionism
AS a result, a new formula asserted itself: Diaspora plus Palestine. It was the combination between the two extremes of Diaspora existence and Palestine existence. This synthesis, generally called Cultural or Spiritual Zionism, proclaimed that Palestine was indispensable for the continuation of Judaism, for it was the only spot where the spirit of Judaism, undisturbed by conflicting influences, could develop normally and unfold all its hidden possibilities, and the only bond of unity which could save the scattered members of the race from falling asunder into disjointed fragments. The Diaspora, on the other hand, as the dwelling place of the overwhelming majority of the Jewish people, had problems of its own which clamored equally for solution.
Hence the Jewish task became a double one: the Jews in every country, while participating to the full in the life of their environment—for the return to the Ghetto was neither desirable nor possible—had to endeavor to secure a maximum of elbowroom for the development of their own section of Jewry, while as part of universal Israel they had to keep up their contact with the Jews throughout the world and labor with them for the realization of the common Jewish hope, that of a spiritual center in the historic land of Judaism. Diaspora without Palestine was impossible, because without the refreshing breath of a healthy Jewish life in Palestine it was bound to wither and dry up. Palestine without the Diaspora was equally impossible, because it lacked the backing of the people as a whole, and was in danger of becoming a petty and obscure corner in the vast expanse of the Jewish Dispersion, a sort of Jewish Nigeria.
This synthesis was not a pale cast of thought, the flimsy product of an imaginative brain. It had its prototype in the actual facts of history. For during several centuries preceding the dissolution of the Jewish state, Palestine was the spiritual center of Judaism, in the sense just indicated. The Jews outside of Palestine were superior, not only in numbers, but also in wealth and influence, to those of Palestine. The Jews of Egypt, and the same applies to other countries of that period, were closely associated with the cultural and material aspirations of their environment. Philo was one of the most illustrious representatives of the Hellenic culture of his age; these Diaspora Jews even found it necessary to translate the Holy Writings into Greek. Yet they were, at the same time, loyal to Palestine. They paid their Shekel, they made their annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem, and looked upon the Holy Land as the spiritual center of all Jewry.
The Second Issue: Religion vs. Nationalism
THE other fundamental issue on which Jewish opinion is divided is closely associated with the preceding one; it hinges on the formula Religion versus Nationalism. From its earliest beginnings down to the time of modern emancipation, Judaism represented an indissoluble combination of nationalism and religion. Though ultimately intended to appeal to the whole of humanity, Judaism was essentially a national religion. Its bearer was a national community which zealously guarded its racial purity, and its external manifestations assumed the forms of a national life. Again the Jewish people was, first and foremost, a religious nation. Its sole reason for existence was, in the belief of every one of its members, "to know the Lord" and to make Him known to others. A Jew who did not believe in the fundamentals of the Jewish creed or who did not observe the fundamentals of the Jewish ceremonial was as much of a monstrosity as the Jew who denied the common racial descent of the Jews in the past, or their common national destiny in the future.
The departure of the Jews from the Ghetto and their entrance into modern life marked a turning point also in this direction. Filled with the desire of becoming part of the nations in whose midst they lived, modern Jews were ready, and thought they were compelled, to deny the national character of Judaism. The Jews were now labelled as Germans or Frenchmen of the Mosaic persuasion, who were divided from their fellow-citizens by the purely spiritual affiliations of religious faith—the same affiliations which divided the Christian population. Here, too, Reform Judaism was quick to meet the demands of practical life. It began to chop off all the elements in Judaism which betrayed a national character, both in the domain of doctrine and of practice, though it halted half way, and down to this day still acknowledges, in flagrant contradiction with its own theory, a number of rites and ceremonies which bear an unmistakable racial imprint.
This transformation of Judaism, or rather this transformation of Jewish terminology—for, in many cases, it was merely a question of terms—was greatly stimulated by the development of nationalism in Western Europe, where the structure of the modern state excluded, or was thought to exclude, a diversity of nationalities, while the principle of religious toleration left enough room for a variety of religious beliefs. As a result, those Jews who lost their religious affiliations were bound to feel that they were outcasts in the religious community of Israel: they became either konfessionslos or, by a curious perversion of logic and conscience, became members of the dominant faith.
The Rapprochement of Religionists and Nationalists
THE thesis "Judaism as Religion" was followed by the antithesis "Judaism as Nationalism." It is interesting to observe that the antithesis came from the Jews of Eastern Europe who, in their overwhelming majority, were adherents of strict orthodoxy. Those Jews of Russia and Poland who had drifted away from their religious moorings were neither psychologically nor physically in a position to abandon Judaism: psychologically, because they were too strongly saturated with Jewish culture and Jewish associations to tear themselves away from the influence of Judaism; physically, because they were excluded from participating in the life of the environment and were forced to remain within the fold. Living as the Eastern Jews did in compact masses, they found it easier, both in theory and in practice, to emphasize the national aspect of the Jewish community. As a result, a doctrine sprang up which looked upon Jewry as an essentially racial or national entity, in which religion was merely one of the many passing phases of its historical development. If among the champions of the thesis "Religion" there were Jews who celebrated the Ninth of Ab as a holiday because it marked, in their eyes, the end of Jewry as a nation, there were, among the others, the adherents of the antithesis "Nationalism," Jews who arranged entertainments on the Day of Atonement, as a public protest against the religious character ascribed to Judaism.
Here, too, however, the synthesis was gradually paving its way, and the formula "Religion plus Nationalism" was supplanting the thesis "Judaism as Religion" and the antithesis "Judaism as Nationalism." The religionists, that is, the believers in the purely religious character of Judaism, began to realize the devastating effect of their doctrine on Jewish life and development, while the nationalists, without sacrificing their convictions—for religion, least of all sentiments, can be forced on modern men—began to appreciate the overwhelming influence of the Jewish religion as a historic factor in the life of the Jewish people, and were ready to acknowledge the difficulty and the danger of squeezing an officially nationalistic Jewry into the narrow frame of the modern Nationalstaat.
This mutual rapprochement resulted, gradually, in a tacit agreement—an agreement far more durable than a legal compact, because founded on sentiment rather than on law—which implied the recognition of Judaism as composed of Religion and Nationalism, but left sufficient room to include the two extreme types of Jews: those whose loyalty to Judaism was entirely fed from the fountain of religion, and those whose devotion to Judaism was altogether grounded in race consciousness.
The Growth of Diaspora Judaism in America
THIS development, which may be traced in various countries of modern Europe, nowhere assumed such huge proportions and such striking manifestations as it did in America. The struggle, hinging on the two opposite doctrines, was nowhere else so well defined and nowhere else fraught with so many tangible consequences as in America, for the reason that American Jewry, as no other Jewry in the world, was made up of two different elements, sharply divided in their traditions and associations, as well as in their mental and psychological complexion. The Jews hailing from the lands of emancipation in Western Europe, who are conventionally, though not quite accurately, designated as German Jews, brought over with them the theses Diaspora as against Palestine, and Religion as against Nationalism. The immigrants from Eastern Europe, the children of the Ghetto, who with equal inaccuracy are termed Russian Jews, carried with them the antitheses Palestine as against Diaspora and, as represented by the extremists among them, Nationalism as against Religion. The fanatics of Diaspora Judaism and of Judaism as a pure faith are to be found exclusively among the "German" Jews. The radical adherents of Palestine and of Jewish nationalism are recruited entirely from the ranks of "Russian" Jews.
These issues were of particular and immediate significance for the Jews in this country; for America has, in less than one generation, become the second largest center of the Jewish Diaspora, and bids fair to become the first, instead of the second, within another generation. No other country in the world offers, even approximately, such a favorable combination of opportunities for the development of a Diaspora Judaism, as does America: economic possibilities, vast and sparsely populated territories, freedom of action, liberty of conscience, equality of citizenship, appreciation of the fundamentals of Judaism, variety of population, excluding a rigidly nationalistic state policy, and other similar factors. It is no wonder, therefore, that in no other country did Reform Judaism, as the incarnation of Diaspora Judaism, attain such luxurious growth as it did in America. It discarded, more radically than in Europe, the national elements still clinging to Judaism, and it solemnly proclaimed that Judaism was wholly and exclusively a religious faith, and that America was the Zion and Washington the Jerusalem of American Israel.
The Opposition: The Palestinian Sentiment of Russian Jews
ON the other hand, the emigrants from Russia brought the antithesis on the scene. They quickly perceived the decomposing effect of American life upon Jewish doctrine and practice, and they became convinced more firmly than ever that Diaspora Judaism was a failure, and that the only antidote was Palestine and nothing but Palestine. The nationalists among them beheld in the very same factors in which the German Jews saw the possibilities of a Diaspora Judaism, the chances for organizing Jewry on purely nationalistic lines. Nowhere else, except perhaps in Russia, can be found a greater amount of Palestinian sentiment, as well as a larger manifestation of a one-sided Jewish nationalism, than is to be met with in this country.
This conflict of ideas became extraordinarily aggravated by numerous influences of a personal character. The division between the so-called German Jews and the so-called Russian Jews was not limited to a difference in theory. It was equally nourished by far-reaching differences in economic and social position and in the entire range of mental development. The German Jews were the natives; the Russian Jews were the newcomers. The German Jews were the rich; the Russian Jews were the poor. The German Jews were the dispensers of charity; the Russian Jews were the receivers of it. The German Jews were the employers; the Russian Jews were the employees. The German Jews were deliberate, reserved, practical, sticklers for formalities, with a marked ability for organization; the Russian Jews were quick-tempered, emotional, theorizing, haters of formalities, with a decided bent toward individualism. An enormous amount of explosives had been accumulating between the two sections, which if lit by a spark might have disrupted the edifice of American Israel, still in the process of construction.
The Promise of Union and Harmony
AND yet, not only was the conflict averted, but the impending struggle gave way to hearty and extensive cooperation, such as cannot be witnessed elsewhere in the whole Jewish world (one recalls particularly the analogy of England) where East and West seem never to meet. As the two sections came into closer contact with one another, they learned to understand one another and to appreciate their respective points of view. This cooperation was not founded upon the flimsy framework of political expediency. It was grounded in that synthesis of Jewish life which combines in a higher unity the essential elements of the doctrines formerly believed to be exclusive of one another. The German Jews, while emphasizing the needs of Diaspora Judaism and anxious to build up its largest manifestation in America, learned to appreciate the quickening and ennobling effect upon the Diaspora of a normal Hebrew life in Palestine, and became interested in the regeneration of the Holy Land. The Russian Jews, on the other hand, though laying particular stress on the possibilities of Judaism in Palestine, put their shoulder to the wheel and were ready to assist in rearing the great structure of Judaism in America. The so-called religionists, while looking upon Judaism as a faith, were yet disinclined to repudiate the purely nationalistic Jews, whose enthusiasm and devotion they admired even though it flowed from a source they did not officially acknowledge. The so-called nationalists, basing their Judaism on race consciousness, realized that a common foundation of Judaism in this country could only be laid along the lines of religious affiliation.
This cooperation found tangible expression in the recent participation of American Jews in the upbuilding of Palestine, a participation which one will vainly look for in a similar group (I am not speaking of isolated individuals) in other countries. The same desire for a better understanding was further embodied in the movement toward Kehillah organization, which, though centering around the Jewish religion, still clearly implied the national element in Judaism.
There was every reason to hope that this cooperation, which had been so happily inaugurated between the two sections, would become more intimate and more extensive, and that the interaction of the heterogeneous elements of American Jewish life would resolve itself in a great and strong harmony. America bade fair to become an ideal Jewish center, where the practical wisdom of emancipated Jewry and the idealistic intensity of Ghetto Jewry would be merged in one united Jewish community, fully conscious of its duty as the future leader of the Jewish Diaspora and acknowledging its indebtedness to the center of all Jews in the land of our Fathers.
The Old Conflict Revived
SUDDENLY, however, a reaction seems to have set in, which threatens to disrupt the harmony hitherto prevailing. This reaction, which is fraught with grave consequences for the future of American Judaism no less than for the Zionist movement, dates from, or at least coincides with, the struggle centering around the Haifa Technikum. This is not the place to enter into an analysis of that momentous issue. It is enough to state that the bond of unity was disrupted with rude hands, and the old conflict hinging on the issues of Diaspora and Nationalism broke out with new fury. Again we see Diaspora Judaism pitched against Palestinian Judaism, and Religion against Nationalism. Reason has given way to passion, and discrimination to generalization. The Jews of the new Palestine, who have given of their life-blood to the rejuvenation of our homeland, are sweepingly declared to be "anarchists," while, on the other hand, American Jews who, with single-hearted devotion, have been the builders of the great Jewish center in the New World, are contemptuously sneered at as "assimilationists."
In this mood of distrust and prejudice, American Jewry was overtaken by the great crisis resulting from the World War, and the disharmony prevailing between the two factions soon found tangible expression in the struggle over a Jewish Congress. The two elements of American Jewry were clearly divided on the issue: the German or native Jews, represented by leading members of the American Jewish Committee, were opposed to the calling of a congress, while the Russian or immigrant Jews, speaking largely through the Zionist organization, clamored for it.
From what has preceded I believe it may be safely concluded that this demand for a congress on the one hand, and the opposition to it on the other, are not rooted in diametrically opposed and deeply implanted theories of Judaism but are rather the expression of different moods or temperaments. The immigrant Jews who were directly concerned in the war, since its horrors affected their homelands and the kin they left behind, and who were impulsive and sentimental, felt the burning need of crying out in their despair, and were ready to face the consequences which might result from this outcry. The native Jews, whose sympathy with their far-off brethren, profound though it was, could hardly, in the nature of the case, be more than indirect and whose accustomed reserve and self-restraint enabled them to judge the issues more calmly, shrunk from the risks which in their opinion were implied in an open protest of the Jewish people before the inflamed public opinion of the non-Jewish world. It is not my intention, nor is it my function, to render judgment in so momentous an hour on an issue concerning which Jewish opinion is diametrically yet honestly divided. But it is necessary to point out that whichever side may be in the right: serious as may be the dangers of holding a congress or not, the dangers involved in a split over this question are incalculably more serious. Such a split may not only result in permanent and perhaps irreparable injury to the Jewish cause in America and to the Zionist movement in this country, but may also, by aligning the two sections of American Jewry against one another, spell nothing short of disaster to the Jewish people as a whole. The stakes involved in this conflict are infinitely greater than the issue which has given rise to it.
The Structure of American Judaism Endangered
SO far as American Judaism is concerned, the practical results of this strife between Zionists and non-Zionists in America,—to leave aside all theoretical considerations,—may prove to be fatal. It will reopen the gap between the two elements of American Jewry which had been almost filled. The work of American Judaism has been done by both elements. Prominent non-Zionists and even anti-Zionists have frequently and gratefully acknowledged the debt which American Israel owes to the cooperation of the Zionists. The institutions of American Jewry depend to a large extent for their existence upon the non-Zionists, who may now by the force of reaction be driven into anti-Zionism. But the progress of these institutions just as largely depends upon those who are Zionists. The withdrawal of the Zionists from American Jewish work—and such withdrawal may become a moral duty for the Zionists who are loyal to the movement and respect their convictions—might mean a complete standstill in the life of American Jewry. Perhaps there are a few among us who are skeptical about the fate of American Judaism, and who therefore see no harm in hastening its disintegration. But those of us who are profoundly concerned about the future of the two and one-half million Jews who are now in America, and of twice that number who may one day be here, cannot but view with the utmost anxiety the danger of wrecking what promises to become the greatest Jewish center in the history of the Jews since their dispersion.
As for the Zionist movement, one cannot help doubting whether Zionism, even if it succeeded in defeating its opponents, would thereby obtain its object. I am not speaking of the very considerable material injury which the movement will suffer from the indifference and hostility of the other side. I am rather thinking of the dangers incurred by Zionism itself if, having repulsed the so-called classes, it becomes a one-sided movement of the masses. Of course, no Zionist can be otherwise than deeply gratified by the prospect of Zionism becoming a cause of the people, but unless it manages to preserve the balance of power within the Jewish community, it will be exposed to risks from another source. Zionism is beset with so many difficulties that it dare not burden itself with problems extraneous to it. The injection of political or economic issues into the movement is fraught with incalculable consequences for the future of the movement in this country. These issues are so extensive in their bearings and so vital in their manifestations that if superimposed on the delicate structure of Zionism they may crush it, never to rise again.
Zionism must, therefore, remain neutral. While including all Jews, it dare not identify itself with any section of them. It dare not be either a movement of the classes or of the masses. While holding scrupulously aloof from the issues which divide modern Jewry as part of modern humanity, it must keep its eye fixed on one point, the securing of a Jewish center for the Jewish people as a whole, in which the ills that afflict humanity may be cured in the prophetic spirit of justice and righteousness.
A Plea for Peace and Cooperation
THE practical conclusion of these considerations is clear. It is a plea for reconciliation, for a return to that Synthesis which was on the point of becoming the common ground of all American Israel. American Judaism needs peace to carry out the great task confronting it. Zionism is no less in need of peace in order to gain the hearts of those whose hearts are still Jewish. The very possibility of a conflict has bred a spirit of suspicion and unfriendliness which falls like a blight upon every attempt at united action. The non-Zionists may succeed in defeating their opponents; they can never dispense with Zionism which is a driving force in American Jewish life. The victory may perch on the banners of the Zionists but they can never forego the assistance of the non-Zionists who still form the backbone of American Jewry. Representing the common longings of the Jewish people throughout the world, Zionism should serve as a leaven, quickening and stimulating the Jewish activities of this country, and rescue them from the greatest danger of Diaspora Judaism, the danger of provincialism, of falling away from the main body of universal Israel. In the particular situation confronting us Zionism ought to assert the claims of Palestine, in addition to those of the Diaspora. But the Zionists cannot replace the present agencies of American Jewish life, nor can they dispense with the cooperation of the non-Zionists. Such cooperation, based on the synthesis Palestine plus Diaspora, would be of equal benefit to both parties. Zionism and non-Zionism have only one real enemy: it is Assimilation, which preaches the suicide of Judaism. But all those who are concerned about the preservation of Judaism, in whatever shape or by whatever means, have the right to be recognized, if not as fellow workers in Zion, at least as fellow workers in Israel.
The Supreme Test for the Jews of America
LASTLY, if cooperation and harmony between the Zionists and the non-Zionists be permanently needed for the welfare of American Judaism, they are needed a thousandfold now when the catastrophe which has overwhelmed the ancient centers of Jewry has turned the eyes and the hopes of the whole Jewish world toward the Jews of this country. Ever since the Jews of Russia, fleeing from the wrath of the oppressor, began to wend their steps toward these hospitable shores, thoughtful European Jews have been looking upon America as the future center of the Jewish Diaspora. And as time progressed, as the numbers and the energies of the Old Jewish World assembled more and more in the New, American Jewry has been steadily advancing toward this exalted position of Jewish hegemony. But what, in the natural course of events, might have been the fruit of slow and gradual ripening, has now been thrust upon us as the sudden result of the World War. Crippled European Jewry is now looking, and will look more and more, to the Jewry of America not only for comfort and support, but also for light and leading, for spiritual advice and guidance, and the Jewry of America, the only Jewry of consequence unscathed by the world struggle, cannot but assume the responsibility.
Nor is the Jewry of America at liberty to choose. There is an ancient Jewish legend which, with a subtle touch of sarcasm, tells us that when the Lord, having descended upon Mount Sinai, was about to bestow the Torah upon the Jews, the latter, shrinking from the obligations imposed by it, made an attempt to refuse the proffered gift. Thereupon the Lord lifted the mountain over their heads and angrily exclaimed: "If ye accept my Law, well and good. If not, ye shall be crushed on the spot!" And the Jews, yielding no less to the promptings of duty than to the dictates of wisdom, quickly recanted and declared: "We will do and obey!" American Jewry will either be the leader of Jewry or it will not be. Let it fail to respond to the great call of history,—and it will unfailingly relapse into the obscurity and sluggishness of its former parochialism. This great world crisis will be either the making or the unmaking of American Jewry, and no Jew whose mind is unclouded by the ephemeral passions of party strife can do aught except ardently pray that the Jews of America may emerge in triumph from their supreme test.
