Jewish Post, Indianapolis, Marion County, 10 September 1948 — Page 7

Friday, September 10, 1948

IHE NATIONAL JEWISH POST — —m'r

Rosenwald Challenges Proofs Dual Loyalties Phoney

Ed. Note: The Post carried on Aug:. 13 an analysts by its managing editor o fthe tangled issue of dual loyalties as preachby the American Council for Judaism. Mr. Lessing Rosenwald, president of the Council, has accepted the invitation in that analysis to submit proofs. In erms of the specific arguments against the position, that the issue was a valid one. The Post herewith presents the text of the statement by the Council official. A rebuttal will be presented soon in Tile Post. By LESSING ROSENWALD I welcome Mr. Gallob’s invitation to present our views on the "Dual Loyalty” question that he raised in his article in the August issue of the National Jewish Post. Until recently Zionists have dismissed such a possibility as of

no consequence; or have vilified the Council as appearing to impugn their loyalty to the United States. Now, belatedly, in LUe persons of Rabbi Phillip Bernstein and Dr. Emanuel Neumann —and in the reflections of many others—the Zionists have admitted, in the first instance that the threat of “dual loyalty” is real and, in the second, that Zionism's pcsition before the proclamation of Israel was anamolous. As recently as the meeting of world Zionists in Tel Aviv, Dr. Neumann, according to a J.T.A. report, “stressed the ‘great danger' involved in the creation of ‘two nations’—Israeli and Jewish.” What the Council has always contended—and still does—is that Zionism is a movement of a foreign nationalism. Those who participate in it therefore, are participants in two nationalisms; that of Zionism (now Israel) and that of the country of their citizenship, in this instance, the United States. To whatever extent Zionists accept responsibilities for, and rights in, (free Jewish immigration) a country other than the United States, they may be said to possess loyalties to two nationalisms. The members of the Council have rejected any such “Jewish” nationalism for themselves. We are Jews by religion. National loyalty is not a concept subject to Mr. Gallob’s “semantics.” Semantics can be used only to evade the clear definition of national loyalty. A citizen of the United States can have only one national loyalty. A citimain a citizen of the United States, on a basis of equality of rights and obligations. Neither Mr. Galiob nor any one else is in a position to assume that loyalty is a matter of semantics or that he has the right to establish his own standards of loyalty. This is dear from the official text of the United States oath of allegiance with provides: "... I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen . , . and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion . . National loyalty to the United States is single, undivided and exclusive. Anything else is dual loyalty. II Mr. Galiob does not even try to disprove the necessity for a single loyalty but endeavors to rationalize dual loyalties. He does not argue that in Zionism dual loyalties do not exist; he implicitly admits that in Zionism dual loyalties do exist. His tests of loyalty are really efforts to prove that despite legal and moral codes to the contrary, Zionists are entertaining no risks in supporting two loyalties because (a) An insufficient number of Americans who are not Jews do not recognize Zionism as a second national loyalty (b) Thus far the second national loyalty of Zionism has not been in conflict with national interests of the United States —and he asumes that

they “never can,” and (c) There are other groups that entertain similar dual loyalties and "the sin is evidently too popular for any U. S. Government to have ever dared (sic) move to halt such activity. . . . No American government ever will.” It bears repetition to say that in all this, Mr. Galiob has not denied “dual loyalties.” He has admitted them. He therefore joins Rabbi Bernstein and Dr. Neumann in acknowledging that Jews who allowed—and allow— Zionism to represent them are placing themselves in the anamolous position of adhering to two nationalisms at one and the same time. m Mr. Gallob's Argument resolves itself into speculation over the wisdom or unwisdom of Jews subjecting themselves to that anamolous position. Since he is an active Zionist it is fair to assume that he considers “the strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and consciousness” and its consequent loyalties a course of wisdom. Let us examine the basis of his belief. (1) “Dual loyalties” is a wise course to be pursued by American Jews, argues Mr. Galiob, because "the issue of dual loyalties is without meaning unless it can be proved that p majority of U. S. non-Jews believe in such a possibility.” Mr. Galiob would have the firtt report of a fire in the house delivered with the ashes. Does the mariner wait until his ship is on the rocks before he charts his course through dangerous shoals? The vast majority of the American people, other than of German descent (and perhaps many who were of German descent), tolerated the Bund for a long time, before they realized that “dual loyalties” were Involved. Dramatically the United States government one day applied its legal definition of loyalty, which is precise and which transcends semantics. (2) Mr. Galiob says America^, Jews should pursue a course of "dual loyalty” because “the issue of dual loyalty must stand the simple test of reasoning.” Of itself, that is meaningless without the standards from which one will reason. Mr. Galiob then sets down his standards. "Disloyalty (is this the same as dual loyalty?) can only mean that a situation exists in which the commitments of a United States Jew as a Zionist clash with the announced position of the United States on a policy clearly deemed vital to the security of the nation and a policy supported by a majority of American citizens.” Mr. Galiob also has set down a complicated set of conditions which he contends are necessary to invalidate his argument that dual loyalty is wise. Unfortunately for Mr. Gallob’s argument. United States' law does not agree with him. Here again, “loyalty” and "allegiance” are not a question of semantics: “Every citizen of the United States, whether actually a resident or abiding wif\in the same.

• » • or in any pTace subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or in any foreign country, who, without the permission or authority of the government, u.t ctly or indirectly, comment. ” ■ .* carries on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or aiiy officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the givernment of the United States; and every person, being a citizen of or a resident within the United States, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and not duly authorized, who counsels, advises, as assists in any such correspondence with such intent, shall be fined not more than $5,000 and imprisoned not more than three years.” (My italics) The import of this law is clear. No private, individual citizen can possibly be in a position to competently judge when a “dispute” or “controversy” or a “defeat” of “measures of the government of the United States” may be involved in the far-flung, intricate international relations of our country. This law therefore was designed to protect American citizens by preventing them from putting themselves in a position where they might ever conceivably be torn between conflicting national interests—or be influenced by their co-existence. It should be observed that infringement of this law is determined by the act of “every citizen” and includes indirect as well as direct action. The opinion of a majority of American citizens has nothing to do with it. Nor does the law stipulate that the conflict of interests must involve a matter “vital to the security of the nation.” These considerations do not determine if a violation has been committed but they may determine whether or not the government will prosecute any violation of the law. Mr. Galiob then proceeds to argue his case by saying that there has never been a situation wherein his conditions have been faced by Zionists. He is not even correct on that score. At least two situations in the last five years come to mind. In 1944, Zionists pressed the Congress of the United States to pass their resolution abrogating the White Paper and supporting their claim for a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine. After the House Foreign Affairs Committee held public hearings on the resolution, the War Department opposed the Resolution on the grounds of military security. Last March when the United States urged the United Nations to drop partition of Palestine and consider a trusteeship, Secretary Marshall publicly explained the move as having been dictated by “vital elements of our national security.” We may be facing still another crisis—and Zionists know it. Israel has its reservations about United Nations Mediator Count Bemadotte. The Israeli government has already taken over most of Jerusalem, contrary to the General Assembly recommendation and both Israeli officials and Dr. Emanuel Neumann have declared that Zionist claims to all of Palestine may be revived. The United Nations may agree to all of these Israeli-Zionist demands. But it may not. Bi-par-tisan foreign policy in the United States has declared the United Nations is vital to American interests. In view of these circumstances, even accepting Mr. Gallob’s definition, which we certainly do not, one might well ask if Zionist pressures to lift the arms em-

bargo may not be contrary to the national interests of the United States. . Mr. Galiob rests his case upon quicksands. While these conflicts of interest between Zionist nationalism and American nationalism,.in the past have not produced official action against people who have loyalty to both nationalisms, there is no guarantee that future conflicts will enjoy the same immunity. Mr. Gailob would again have us lock the barn after the horse has been stolen. Once American Jews are confronted with Mr. Gallob’s conditions, it will be too late to disavow Zionist hegemony. The grim tragedy of Jews in England and the Jews in Arab lands is eloquent testament to the visionless advice of Mr. Galiob on this score. (3) Mr. Galiob also argues for "dual loyalties” in the part of American Jews by declaring that “the issue of. dual loyalties is without meaning unless it can be proved that parallel behavior by other Americans toward the nations to which they admitta bond also is a case of dual loyalty.” Zionists who face the situation candidly know that the trite analogies to the Irish and Czechs are fallacious. There have been several confessions of the fallacy in recent months. But since we are dealing with American Zionism, the word of a vice-president of the ZOA may be the best evidence to adduce. Recently, Mr. Mortimer May declared, "We dare not overlook that we who live in the Diaspora are going to be influenced for good or for ill by the degree of success, or lack thereof, of the new state (Israel). Our relations with this new state are bound to be closer, and to affect our lives and our position in other lands than in the case of other people. As an illustration of this statement Czechoslovakia came recently under Communist control, but it has not greatly affected the position *of Czechs or Slovaks in the United States. Such a possibility is remote and aimost unthinkable in the case of Israel. But would the position of Jews in the United States be wholly unaffected by the political evolution and complexion of the State of Israel?” Mr. Galiob then proceeds to distort the Council’s position to prove his case by saying, “It is a basic premise of the Council’s ideology that Jews are part of the U. S. body politic precisely like other ethnic groups.” (My italics) The Council does not claim, and never has claimed, to represent its membership or any other Jews, as an ethnic group. This is so patent that it needs no further explanation. Mr. Gailob knows that the Council represents Its membership as Jews by religion. “Religious" is not a synonym for “ethnic.” The United States is founded upon the principle of individual rights. Our argument for equjd rights and responsibilities for Jews is based upon the assumption that Jews, as Individual American citizens are entitled to and must have such rights. Those rights Include the right of Jews as a group, to worship by their own religion, Judaism. They do not include the right to foster another nationalism in this country. Independent action by an American citizen of assisting a foreign state, is not a fundamental right. This was made clear recently by a Federal Judge. In February of 1948, six boys who had been apprehended shipping arms to Zionist forces in Palestine were given suspended sentences by Judge Sylvester J. Ryan. The Judge explained his

lenient sentence was due to the fact that he realized the boys' action had been “rash and impulsive” but not “for personal gain or profit.” . But—added Judge Ryan— “There are many who feel that like aid should be extended to others similarly situated in other countries and lands. But if all of our citzens who entertained these thoughts were to ship arms to them, a grave and chaotic situation would result. “Our government in the conduct of its international affairs is accomplishing much in its efforts to right those wrongs and remedy those conditions. It is the duty of every loyal citizen to assist our government In this work by not embarrassing it.” (My italics). Despite such a ruling by a Federal court, Mr. Gailob sa/s that his sin is “too popular Jbr any U. S. Government” to dare (Mr. Gallob’s word) to halt iL The statement in itself implies a limitation upon U. S. Governmental authority, imposed by considerations of a foreign nationalism. If any U. S. Government should take Mr. Gallob’s “dare,” he will find that it is “later than he thinks.” But over and abovfc Mr. Gallob’s willingness to gamble in this fashion, there is the further fact that even the other “ethnic” groups to which Mr. Gailob makes Jews analgous, lost their ethnic peculiarities and loyalties with the passage of time. They become integrated with American nationalism. They lose their for-eign-national identity and their “dual loyalty.” This is contrary to the objective of Zionism. It seeks to extend, deepen and expand them. It demands not less for its share of the “dual loyalty” each year. It demands more. Herzl, who really knew Zionism, faced the consequences of dual loyalties frankly, one of these consequences was that if being a Jew meant being a Zionist, he could not be both a Jew and a normal citizen of the country of his citizenship. Faced with this dilemma for the Jews of France, who did not accept Zionism, Herzl wrote, petulantly as he usually did in the face of opposition, “Very well, then let them be Frenchmen.” IV The Council does not have to prove its case. It is upheld by the laws of the United States, whether governmental policy at any given moment, enforces those laws or not. Dual loyalty is inherent in any variant of dual nationalism, like Zionism. Those who are prepared to accept Mr. Gallob’s premise that loyalty is a matter of semantics; that it is determined by popular whims and political expediencies* are still free to do so in the United States. But let them adopt this rash course with full knowledge. As for the membership of the American Council for Judaism we will have none of it. For us there is now and will be a single, undivided national loyalty to the United States of America* We have no intention of leaving unchallenged a condition where loyalty will be tested only in the catastrophe that is the essence of every one of Mr. Gallob's “proofs.” While Zionism stands “watch and ward” over Israel, we members of the American Council for Judaism dedicate our minds, spirits and resources to the long neglected task of creating a life for Jews in the United States that will be free of the tragedies wrought by Jewish nationalism elsewhere and designed ia the pattern of a single American national loyalty.