Sometimes, even a fifty-year-old headline can make current
news. One such headline from over half a century ago read,
"The candidate for president, Dr. Weizmann, advises
maintaining the refugees in the camps for the sake of `the
stability of Zionism in the country.'" These words, which
represent a very distorted, even fearsome, attitude with
regard to the bitter fate of persecuted Jews, people who
survived the devastating Holocaust by the skin of their teeth
-- says everything about the Zionist movement, whose
centennial was `celebrated' this past year.
Dr. Chaim Weizmann served as president of the World Zionist
Organization for many years. As a gesture of appreciation for
his services for the Zionist cause, he was chosen to serve as
the first president of the State of Israel and this,
incidentally, was even before he came here to settle.
This is the same Dr. Weizmann who, at the Zionist Congress of
5697 (1937) declared, "The hope of the six million Jews is
concentrated upon it. From the depths of the tragedy I seek
to rescue two million of the youth. The old folk will perish;
they must await their fate. They are like economic and
ethical dust in a cruel world. Only the branch of the youth
will survive. The old people must step aside and make peace
with this."
R' Moshe Sheinfeld z'l, who cited these words in the
second of a series of "J'Accuse -- Min Hameitzar,"
brings another quotation from a letter of the administrator
of the United Jewish Appeal, in a reply to a request from the
sea captain who, in Shevat 1940, conveyed a shipful of
refugees and asked for money to be able to continue the
journey to Eretz Yisroel. "Many of the passengers are old men
and women. They are not suited for such a difficult voyage.
Young people are needed for the land of Israel who understand
the essence of a Jewish homeland. It would be considered a
terrible weapon against Eretz Yisroel if it were flooded with
unproductive elements; they would undermine our efforts at
establishing a state."
*
The two excerpts are virtually identical in content, in the
message they convey. Aliya is good and significant
only in proportion to the measure that it serves the goals of
Zionism. The goal in 1937 and 1940 was to establish a Zionist
state at all cost. The goal in 1948, according to the version
of Dr. Weizmann, was to preserve a specific character for the
new state, as stated further on, "We must not jeopardize the
Zionist stability of Eretz Yisroel in the first two or three
years of its independence."
This was no abstract argument about the political, economic
or social purpose, but a very risky gamble with Jewish lives,
no less. And this, after the bloodbath of the Holocaust,
after the extermination of six million Jews which left a mere
remnant of survivors -- literally one from a city, two from a
family -- which fought bitterly for the right to claim a
little corner where it could safely resume the business of
life. But the British mandate government in Palestine sealed
the gates before the suffering, miserable refugees, survivors
of the D. P. camps in Europe or imprisoned by the British in
the detention camps in Cyprus.
At this point, up rose the future president of the Jewish
homeland and demanded that the gates of the land be opened
only to those who fit the image designed by Zionist
leadership, those who adapted themselves to their ideals.
At this stage, at the onset of statehood, the Zionist plot to
operate a selektzia among the D.P.s who sought to make
aliya failed, but it had operated successfully for
many years before, when the Zionist parties collaborated to
limit to the barest minimum the immigration of
chareidi Jews to Eretz Yisroel. Of all the immigration
certificates which England issued to the Zionist
Organization, only 6 % went to orthodox Jews, and this only
after a bitter battle waged by the Agudath Israel World
Movement in an assault of petitions and meetings held with
different factions of the British government.
Furthermore, the `principle' that was behind the diplomacy of
the Zionist movement, to gain control of the land and reserve
it only for those who found favor in the eyes of the Zionist
leadership, continued to operate even after statehood, albeit
with a different method, one which is employed to this very
day. What the secular regime failed to avert from the aspect
of the right of immigration extended to every Jew, especially
after the passing of the Law of Return, it accomplished later
through the power setup of anti-religious coercion against
the hundreds of thousands of immigrants during the fifties
and sixties, and continues to ensure through the immigration
of masses of gentiles from Russia, as if from humanistic
motives. But the goal is one and the same, to `preserve the
stability of Zionism in Eretz Yisroel,' as worded by Dr.
Chaim Weizmann.
This method stands behind the subversive attempt of the
Reform and their ilk to insinuate themselves into the fabric
of the land and to receive legitimacy and recognition, with
the enthusiastic support of the Zionist parties. This is
another attempt to preserve Zionist stability. The state is
thus the vehicle whereby Zionism can continue to maintain the
setup it has established against anyone opposed to its
ideology.
*
A different line of thought characterized the Zionist
movement in the past -- and still does: the "preservation of
Zionist stability of Eretz Yisroel." In a meeting of the
directors of the Jewish Agency with the British High
Commissioner in Palestine, Sir Arthur Wokop, which took place
in October 1933, Ben Gurion said, "There is a need for a
selective immigration. Zionism is not a philanthropic
organization; we need here a superior type of Jew who will
develop the national homeland."
When Ben Gurion actually delineated who was worthy of
immigrating, on the opposite platform could be heard
Jabotinsky, who wrote, "What civilian or political, cultural
or commercial chance can a bearded and sidelocked Jew,
standing before us, have?" (Chadshot Ha'Aretz vol.
69).
This approach of selective immigration was originally
presented by the Zionist Workers Union, and found expression
immediately after the Balfour Declaration of 1920. During
this period it was the British Home Ministry that showed
liberalness in immigration, without any limitations. It was
the High Commissioner then, Herbert Samuel, who adapted his
policies to those of the Zionist regime. This fact was
included in a study carried out by Moshe Musak, a member of
the Institute of Contemporary Judaism of the Hebrew
University, as quoted in Research Chapters in the History
of Zionism, published by the Library of Zionism.
Musak titles his work as follows: "Herbert Samuel and the
Modeling of the First Standard-Types of the Immigration
Policy," and on page 299 he describes the situation of
immigration in 1920: "The stream of immigrants was hardly
connected to the legal and bureaucratic standards which
Samuel created to regulate immigration." Exit visas were
plentifully issued by the British consuls without much
adherence to the official criteria of their issuance. Samuel,
who deliberated, himself, directed his question to the London
authorities of whether to limit the size and makeup of the
accompanying family members of a given prospective immigrant.
The British Home Office decided to adopt the most liberal
interpretation of the law and not to establish any
limitations in this area. "Samuel had his reservations
concerning this directive and wrote to London, `This policy
stands in contradiction to the policy which you approved
concerning the limitation of immigration, with regard to the
economic absorption capacity of the land and the arrangements
which were made with the Histadrut concerning the quotas of
immigrants and its responsibility towards those people which
you will recommend." However, notes Musak, the Home Office
employees saw Samuel's demand as an attempt to defend Zionist
interests, that is, to limit the immigration of non- Zionist
elements to Eretz Yisroel, and therefore, his opinion was not
accepted.
*
On page 300, at the beginning of the chapter, "Attempts of
the Histadrut to Limit the Dimensions of Immigration," Musak
tells of Leonard Stein, acting diplomatic secretary of the
Zionist administration in London, who approached the official
British organizations there and asked for a reduction of the
quota of immigrants which had been approved for the first
year at a figure of 16,500 -- to a mere one thousand
people!
On page 301, "In order to restore control of matters to its
hands, the Zionist administration developed, if somewhat
late, a complex method of supervising the activities of its
branches with the aim of effecting a curtailment of
immigration. This method included issuing a limited amount of
immigration certificates to each branch and an introduction
of official recommendation forms which were distributed only
by the Zionist administration office in London." On page 302,
Musak tells that in November 1920, a circular was sent to the
branches explaining that it had been decided to reduce the
quota from 16,500 immigrants to a mere 1,000, and that all of
these must be unmarried men.
A month later, the Zionist administration sent another
circular demanding, among other things, that those in command
should encourage immigration "only of those who are young,
stalwart of heart, imbued with idealism, of the pioneer
spirit, who are undeterred by the prospect of hard physical
labor." Towards the end of this piece, Musak quotes from a
letter written by Samuel to Weizmann on the 20th of January,
1922, in a conspiratory tone. He writes: "Had I not imposed
severe limitations in these past months, thus arousing a
great measure of criticism against me from the Zionist world,
the Zionist Organization would have had to act on its own in
this very direction and raise the same criticism against
itself. I hope that you duly appreciate this valuable service
of mine."
*
We attribute special weight to these quotes, and the names of
those who stated them, for these are harsh facts which did
not prevent, nor do not prevent to this day, the Zionist
propagandists, some of whom crown themselves as `expert
historians,' from carrying on a smear campaign against
chareidi Judaism, headed by Torah leaders. "The prohibition
which they issued against immigration to Eretz Yisroel," so
they claim, prevented the rescue of countless Jews from the
Nazi extermination machine. The culprits who curtailed
immigration and exhibited the true cruelty against Orthodox
Jewry who converged in masses before the immigration offices
in Poland and other eastern European countries, begging for
certificates, are the very ones who blame the Orthodox Jewry
and its leadership for the death of millions of Jews in the
Holocaust, because they opposed immigration to Eretz
Yisroel!
We were privy to this circular reasoning recently, when Amnon
Shapiro, from the Kibbutz Hadati movement, brazenly lashed
out at Torah and chassidic leadership, and especially against
Admor R' Aharon of Belz ztvk'l and his brother, the
Admor of Bilgorai ztvk'l, with the despicable
slanderous accusation that they were to blame for the non-
rescue of masses of Jews from the Nazi death camps -- simply
because "they forbade their followers to emigrate to the
land." The quotes cited above are only a small fraction of
the studies and documentation which prove the very opposite,
but these are blithely dismissed by that writer and others
who continue to propagate these false accusations. (In our
issue of parshas Tetzaveh, 5758, we carried a detailed
discussion of the remarks of the Belzer rabbonim that these
writers refer to.)
The shocking deeds and shortcomings of the Zionist leaders,
which reached their zenith during the worst times for
European Jewry when they silenced reports of the atrocities
and prevented any possible action which could have saved a
remnant -- do not concern this devotee of Zionism, who
continues to present the myth of Zionism as the rescue
movement of Jewry rather than the narrow self-serving
political entity which it was, and whose very small number of
its own people it was interested in saving. To this day,
Zionism serves its own concentrations, through its various
branches and arms, with only the underlying purpose in mind
of maintaining the secular domination in this land, with no
holds barred in reaching this goal, including the mass import
of gentiles from the C.I.S. countries, or in its battle to
gain recognition for the Reform, whose ranks include a huge
percentage of gentiles as well.
*
These distortions against Orthodox Jewry have one purpose: to
present Torah Jewry as a non-legitimate side element, as
opposed to the `truly franchised,' to whom they are prepared
to extend recognition and membership, even though they be the
a-Zionist Reform, who have systematically removed all mention
of Zion from their ritual Temple `services.'
Orthodox Jewry has always been strongly bound up with its
love of the Land, even when in the historic background it was
at strong odds with the Zionist movement. It did not hesitate
to state its clear position regarding the settlement of Eretz
Yisroel according to the laws of the Torah. This is the only
`blame' they can cast on us -- our opposition to the goal of
Dr. Chaim Weizmann and all of the Zionist leadership to
establish a Zionist Land of Israel. This, and this alone --
nothing else.
This was the official policy of Agudath Israel, as was
publicly stated in an official announcement of its World
Executive Committee, issued on 8 Cheshvan, 5691 (1930),
signed by its three chairmen, in Vienna, Warsaw and
Frankfurt: R' Dr. Pinchos Cohen, R' Yitzchok Meir Levine and
Moreinu R' Yaakov Rosenheim. Following are the paragraphs
relating to a fervent endorsement of the immigration and
settlement of Eretz Yisroel:
* World Orthodox Jewry organized through Agudath Israel,
which stands in a negative position to the Zionist movement
and its organization, due to its cultural platform which
denies the true character of the Jewish people, saw in the
Balfour Declaration from the beginning, a possible
realization, on a very broad basis, of the duties of the
people as sanctified by Torah law: the settlement of the Holy
Land and its fruitful development.
* Agudath Israel is, therefore, deeply hurt and disappointed
by the new fundamental premises which were recently
publicized in blatant opposition to the spirit of the Mandate
regarding the immigration policy and the acquiring of lands,
which in effect leads to a prohibition of immigration and
settlement for Jews on holy soil, their ancestral heritage,
and which virtually nullifies the general spirit of the
Balfour Declaration and thus calls for a sharp protest.
* Agudath Israel builds its relationship to the Holy Land
upon eternal foundations which are not dependent upon the
vagaries of passing government diplomacies. Under whatever
conditions that may arise, it will continue its positive
efforts for the spiritual and material construction of the
Holy Land in the greatest measure possible. It invites the
Jewish people not to lose hope, and like our ancestors, it
shall concretize its love for the land in greater measure by
devoting itself to its practical implementation.
