Jewish Post, Indianapolis, Marion County, 5 January 1962 — Page 11

i y—

Biggest Deterrent Is Fenr The big deterrent to positive Jewish development in America is fear — fear of being different or criticized. The Jew in America is afraid to be Jewish. He misreads the true attitude of America, which not only does not demand uniformity, but rather encourages diversity. That is if one reads American destiny from the standpoint of those who have made America great, and if our country is to play the role in history for which she is endowed. The American Jew was anti-Zionist prior to the advent of Hitlerism. Hitlerism taught the Irgun that a Jewish life was as valuable as any other life. This lesson, the American Jewish community had to learn before it supported the Zionist endeavor to rebuild a Jewish homeland. But today we have reverted to our old fearful stand, and we let our decisions be determined too much by what the non-Jew would think. The kind of courageous leadership that would make the American Jew understand that he is truest to Americanism when he is truest to himself, and that caution and cowardice are as unAmerican as they are unJewish, does not seem to be in the offing. A survey of the Jewish horizon shows only apathy and a self-defeating satisfaction. Perhaps it is the economic prosperity which has led us astray. If this means that this is merely a period of entrenchment leading to new forward steps as we consolidate our position, then no one can object. But if it means we are vegetating instead of moving on, then our situation is indeed unfortunate. Are We Afraid of Aliyah? If one were to offer a good-sized reward to the average American Jew to name the president of the Zionist Organization of America who preceded Max Bressler, the present incumbent, the chances are that the reward would go

unclaimed.

Yet when a few years from now the same question is asked about the man who preceded the then president, the answer could be readily forthcoming. Does this mean that the Zionist Organization of America has been revived into blooming activity by Mr. Bressler? Unfortunately not. Neither Mr. Bressler nor any one else on the horizon has the ability to breathe life into those

dry bones.

But Mr. Bressler has initiated a project which although hardly on its way at present may under more vigorous cultivation in the next few years transform the Zionist Organization of America into a major instrument of the Jewish community. With little fanfare and not too much inspiration, it seems to us, Mr. Bressler has launched an aliyah committee. This committee has wisely moved quite slowly, even though with little imagination, to gather information and make contacts. So far it hasn’t sent one American Jew

to Israel.

But the potential is there. Many Zionists, and for that matter most Jews, have so little understanding of Jewish and world history, that if they wouldn’t actually obstruct the development of a fairsized aliyah movement to Israel, they most certainly wouldn’t support it. History, on the other hand, will designate the appearance of the new Israel through whosever efforts as a dominant achievement of this century. There are two tendencies in America today. One is to withdraw from world activity in the hopes of reviving a long-lost world where isolation was possible. The other is for America to play the role destiny has outlined for her. Obviously the Jew should be only on one side. Yet if the American Jew frozen by fear fails to help Israel to grow to economic and full political independence, he is siding with those who are afraid of progress in the area of a developing world outlook. Mr. Bressler’s committee then, if it begins to function on a wide scale, can be the most important activity in the American Jewish community in years. We laud Mr. Bressler for what he has done, and hope he is able to achieve a successful movement of vigorous young American Jews imbued with the idea of helping Israel and motivated by American and Jewish ideals. The American Rabbi' We’ve had a chance to read the first few issues of “The American Rabbi” and we’re happy to have played a small role in the birth of this worthwhile new monthly publication directed at the needs of the practicing rabbi. A Jewish editor whose views we admire took the position that the new publication was only another entry into an already overcrowded field and its promoters were motivated by unworthy aims. This is a harsh and uninspired view. . It is true that twenty years ago there were hardly any worthwhile Jewish publications, while today there are many competing for the favor of Jewish readers. Yet this is all to the good. If “The American Rabbi” does not fill a role, or its backers find the going too tough (this is its worst pitfall) it will founder. But anyone who feels the urge to make a contribution to Jewish reading, should not only not be discouraged, but rather should get all possible help and support.

EDITOR'S CHAIR . . .

For a long time, we have attempted to analyze the approach of those who when visiting a country where Jews were in a precarious position recommended that it was the duty, whether they articulated it that way or not, of their coreligionists there to stay and play their role in bringing about a stable and hopefully, a representative government. This could be a valid position. Jews should not avoid danger merely to save themselves. They have an obligation to stick it out just like any other element in the community. In fact, because Jews know the value of free government perhaps more than most groups, they therefore might have even a greater obligation than the so-called nationals of the land to pitch in with the forces of progress and help to weld a responsible government. We’re writing this in the office of Rabbi Leon Kronish of Temple Beth Sholom in Miami Beach where this morning in referring to Exodus he pointed out that this was the first instance, but not the last in Jewish history where Jews were the victims of rumor-mongering to the effect that they were disloyal and alien, although their contributions to society in Egypt were of crucial importance. So when a leader of the American Council for Judaism returned from visiting, first Israel, and then North Africa, and cautioned the Jews of North Africa not to flee to Israel but to remain there as equals, we began to think again about this kind of advice. What an American Council foi Judaism official has to say, could be ignored, but the lesson here is worth our consideration. About five years ago, before Morocco cut off communications with Israel, not even mail service is possible from or to Morocco from Israel, a delegation from the American Jewish Committee visited North Africa, and returned with the same advice. Since then, it has become clear that there is little if any future for Jews, but great danger and suppression instead, in North African lands. In Algiers, the Jews are caught in the middle. In Morocco, although they are guaranteed freedom, their future is about the same as that of the Jews of Poland, a much more civilized country, at the time between the two world wars when it began keeping Jews out of colleges, and passed laws, both economic and civil, which foretold the Nazi era. The situation in Poland and now in North Africa is somewhat similar from an economic aspect. As the nationals of a country which seeks its independence become proficient in commerce and the sciences, they find that the Jews, having built the economy are holding down the positions of leadership and importance. The cry then goes up to get rid of the Jews. Anyone that knows Jewish history knows that this has happened time after time and is what is happening in North Africa today. The American Jewish Committee would no doubt like to forget the mistake its delegation made. But no Jewish organization is perfect, and in fact the Committee has achieved so much for Jewry that it need not feel aggravated because it was misled when it failed to read adequately the lesson of Jewish history. As for the Council for Judaism leader, he

was misled in another way too. It has been to Israel that the Moroccan Jews have fled — those that got out in time — and the conclusion the anti-Zionist leader reached was that Israel was mostly to blame for the plight of North African Jewry. The advice of the Council for Judaism, if the leadership wishes t^ be consistent, puts th> organization under obligation to support the extension of freedom in the U.S. Yes? Therefne, when the Council took the position that integral on for the Negro was none of its business, and castigated national Jewish organizations for supporting the fight of the Negro for equality, it was saying one thing to the Jews of North Africa, but something directly opposite to the Jews of the U.S. But consistency does not seem to be a great virtue in Jewish life today. This leads us to the consideration of the position of the Jew in the U.S. Is he standing up straight as a Jew and playing a role, or is he dominated by the need for caution, and therefore losing his strength? We thought about this in connection with the action of Philip Klutznick, whom we admire as the top Jewish leader in the U.S. in dropping all his Jewish roles when he took his position as U S. Minister in the United Nations. We have an idea that this was something that was done in haste and later regretted. That this sets a bad precedent is quite clear. If Phil had persevered and said that nothing in any of his Jewish obligations conflicted in any way with the needs of of his role as a U.S. representative in the UN, and the Axab nations could go to blazes, we would have had another historical situation like that when Lord Rothschild (forgive us if we have the wrong name) refused to take the Christian oath in order to assume the seat in the British Parliament to which he had been elected. We think too in this connection about Brandefs University, and its seeking to find its position in relationship to the Jewsh community. That it will find a healthy and affirmative relationship, we have no doubt. And that it has made its mistakes in this respect, it would be willing to grant. The point we’re trying to make is that a Jew does his most for society when he is the true Jew. This leads to the conclusion that Jews need to know more about Jews and Judaism in order to fulfill their role in society — not just Jewish society. And this brings you full circle to the precepts all throughout Jewish tradition — to study, to study and to study. To escape one’s environment is impossible for most of us. And this includes the writer of this editorial, the Jewish leadership, the rabbis, and of course the average Jew too. Yet if we let the environment engulf us, we are lost. Would anyone throw away his most valuable financial possession if he were in his right mind? If a man were endowed with the gift for composing music, of creating poetry, of genius in any of the arts, would he turn his back on these gifts? Does a Rothschild deny that he is a member of this famous family? Would the inheritor of a famous tradition, cast it aside? The answer in the case of the American Jew is “yes”.

Some Straight Thinking On Jewish, Christian Calendars

By Rabbi Maurice Davis Now is the time for all good chauvinists to come to the aid of their littleness. The year called 1961 draws now to a close, and the voice of the mocker is heard in the land. “That’s not our New

Year!” “Happy goyish New Year!” “W h y should I observe the briss of Je-

Bwbbi D» -is

sus?”

With such courageous words they make believe that they do not observe that which they do

observe. With such brave utterances they pretend they do not calendate precisely as they do calendsLe. Saddest of all, however, they feel that Judaism is somehow defended by such words. Judaism is not defended. It is of-

fended.

Of course we count by the civil calendar. We live by it. Witness the phrase, “The Jewish holidays came early this year.” Early? Rosh Hashanah came where it always comes, on the first day of Tishri. It was early only in comparison to the civil calendar by which we count. We use it every bit as much as do all the people* of the earth. The civil calendar is precisely that to us, a civil calendar. And it is no compromise with Judaism to count by it. We have done it for centuries, and we shall prob-

ably long continue so to do. Our only scruple ought to be in not attributing to it a religious char-

acter.

We do not say “B.C.” (Before Christ), and we do not say “A.D.” (Anno Domini) for these have more to do with Christianity than with calendation. But, we can refer to the calendar without kneeling at a shrine. We say, “B.C.E.” (Before the Christian — or Common —- Era.) And we say, “C.E.” (Of the Christian — or Common — Era). We accept neither the holidays,

nor the faith of Christianity. We do accept, however, the working hypothesis of a calendar made universal by Christianity. To pretend otherwise is to live a sham. The Jewish calendar is our religious calendar. The civil calendar is a way of counting. And if the New Year (January 1) becomes a time for inward thoughts, and noble resolves, i* Judaism the less? I don’t find anyone protesting the use of Arabic numeral*.

The NATIONAL JEWISH POST OB(J OPINION Published every Friday In five editions by The National Jewish POST «11 N. Park Ave. Indianapolis 6, Indiana — ME (rose 4-1307 AM editorial correspondence should be addressed te the New York Office *4 Fifth Ave. Subscription price - . $7CO per year Single copies, I Sc; Back issues, 25c for 1959-60. 50c befere that. NATIONAL EDITION •4 Fifth Ave. - New York 11, N. Y. - Al S-MM GABRIEL COHEN, Editor «ni Publisher CHARLES ROTH. Executive Editor EARLE D. MARKS Executive Director FRANK CROSS Circulation manager SAM SHU IMA N Advertising Direct cr

Chi • I

4 1307

icaga Edition 72 E. 11th St., Chicago, III. HArrison 7-TOM ndiana Edition, Box 1633, Indianapolis 6, Ind. MEIrose 1-1307 • Kentucky Edition, 422 Citizens Building Louiv vide Ky., JUniper 4-7201 - Missouri Edition 6235 Olive Blvd. St. Louis 24, Mo. WYdown 3-2842 • Israel Offica Gabri-I Root Manager Gilead; Rd. Delt Root. Taipiotk Jerusalem Telephone 22019

Friday, January 5, 1962