The invitation to abandon illusions regarding [a] situation is an invitation to abandon a situation which has need of illusions.

—Karl Marx.

The recent statement of Lieutenant General Morgan, head of the German Division of UNRRA, that the remaining Jews of Poland are plotting an exodus from Europe, provoked a storm of protest so tragi-comic in its implications as to leave one in despair. The burden of the protests, after one discards the rhetorical name-calling, always a weapon of the weak and the helpless, was that, whatever the Jews of Poland might be planning or doing, exodus was furthest from their thoughts. True, European Jews were on the move; it is true they would like to migrate to fairer or warmer continents; it is likewise true that the surviving remnant could not humanly return to the scenes of their martyrdom to resume spinning the thread of everyday communal existence. The protests readily admitted and stressed all these facts.

But between the lines one caught the refrain of a slightly hysterical plea: Please call the migration of Europe’s Jews what you wish, but do not call it exodus. The word is dynamite. Deep within our consciousness, covered by countless layers of apologetics, bromides, patent medicines, and furious faiths, we bear a horrible suspicion and with it a millenial fear that in the long run no Jewish community in the Diaspora is exempt from the logic of Jewish history. The mention of a Jewish exodus from Europe blasts the protective coverings that conceal our fear and shows us inwardly trembling.

Especially depressing was the fact that even Zionists, who theoretically should be outspoken exponents of exodus at certain historical crises, with but few exceptions failed to meet the challenge courageously by declaring frankly that the historical situation requires a complete exodus from Europe if the Jewish problem there is to be solved. Willy-nilly, one is reminded of an earlier, more “backward” Jewish generation in Europe which nevertheless showed somewhat greater courage.

I believe it is permissible to quote a short dialogue from Sholom Aleichem which is really more apt and revealing than any number of scientific treatises. The Jewish inhabitants of two Ukrainian towns fleeing from pogroms met on the road and exchanged the following profound pleasantries:

“Whither bound, fellow Jews?”

“A business mission.”

What? An entire community on a business mission?”

“And what about you? Aren’t you an entire community?”

“But who said we are on a business mission?”

“If not on a business mission, then where are you going?”

“We’re not going. We’re running.”

“Now you’re talking. And who said we weren’t running?”

Granted that the Jews of Kasrielevke were perhaps frank only with each other. Possibly had a Ukrainian Gentile met them in their flight and queried them as to their doings, they also might have hedged by insisting that they were not running—that it was not an exodus, only a business mission. Otherwise the Ukrainian might, God forbid, have felt insulted that his humanitarian intentions and capacity were thus doubted.

_____________

 

Jews of Eastern Europe, Jews of Poland J are running. The headlong, frantic nature of the flight represents the culmination of a historical process. If spokesmen in the United States and England seek to represent it as a tame movement of refugees instead of an elemental force, the motivation stems from the inherent insecurity of the position of the Jews even in these two countries. To express openly the need for an exodus from any part of Western civilization would be tantamount to a vote of no confidence in their non-Jewish neighbors; naturally, no minority can afford to jeopardize its position to that extent. In a world where the cynical use of force is the rule rather than the exception, such a frank avowal on the part of any minority is a luxury not to be thought of for a moment.

The dilemma of the Jewish minority differs from that of other minority groups in this: whereas the latter are always confronted with a circumscribed and well-defined opponent, such as a ruling nation or a ruling class, Jews, because of their dispersion, are in the status of a minority in relation to civilization. Stirrings within the Jewish group of one country cannot pass unnoticed in countries hundreds of miles removed. The ancient declaration that “Jews are responsible for each other,” uttered many centuries ago, thus finds an application in the modern Western world of which its authors had never dreamed.

_____________

 

The minor tempest aroused by the statement of Lieutenant General Frederick Morgan is but a reflection of a much broader discussion of the question of exodus that has been carried on very frankly “among one’s own,” that is, in the Yiddish press. And it is characteristic of the reasoning of the opponents of an exodus from Europe that they base their arguments not so much on the realistic facts or the practicality of the plan as on its implications for Western Europe and America. “If the European world of the Renaissance, of humanism, of habeas corpus . . . is really as ugly and hopeless as we are told, then what are we basing our hopes on? Is the Hudson holier than the Thames or the Tiber or the Seine?” asks S. Poliakoff in the Day. And Jacob Pat, representing the Social Democratic wing of Jewish opinion which, together with most liberals, anticipated a rosy future in general progress, the rise of the working class and a democratic socialist society, declares in obvious alarm that acceptance of the exodus slogan implies “that the Jewish people all over agree that it is a non-Jewish, an Aryan world where there is no place for Israel. Europe without Jews means a victory for nazism. . . . It would be a suggestion, a lesson: Expel the Jews. Clear the country as Europe was cleared . . .”

Thus we have the hidden fear voiced. It is necessary to have Jews on the Vistula if we are to continue cherishing the illusion of the eternal security of the Jews along the Hudson. Any average psychiatrist could have a field day with the anxiety complexes which, such reasoning reveals, haunts the recesses of our mind. But if the Jews on the Vistula are only a handful remaining from a huge community, what comfort in their continued presence in Poland? However, deep-seated fear and insecurity ask no questions. The token suffices to reassure.

Mr. Pat’s statement suffers similarly from a dreamlike unreality. Europe without Jews means a victory for nazism, he says. But five-sixths of Europe’s Jews are already dead. Hitler’s victory is an undeniable fact in this respect. Is the Hitlerian principle any less victorious as a result of the providentially rapid advance of the Allied armies? Wishfulfilment takes the place of reality. Hope, and perhaps self-delusion, are propped by a symbol.

It should be noted parenthetically that not only Jews but well-meaning non-Jews advance the same line of reasoning. Some of the latter have phrased their thoughts in the following way: If the Jews of Europe decide that it is impossible for them to stay there, is that not a condemnation of our entire civilization? Doesn’t it imply that there is no hope in any of us?

This is a sincere argument based on genuine good will and a true sense of guilt for what has happened during recent years. However, salve for a bad conscience is not a solution. Unintentionally it is also cruel, for the persons reasoning thus are evidently more concerned with their peace of mind than with the welfare of the Jews. They, too, are afraid of the abyss that for twelve years yawned in Europe, and a token remnant of Jews on that continent would reassure them that there is still hope for European civilization.

Such are the subterranean gulfs opened up by the exodus debate. To discuss the practical aspects of such an exodus is not the issue here. It is quite possible that an exodus is impracticable. The political regime in Palestine might prevent it. The closed doors of all the countries suitable for immigration might make it impossible. The momentum of the flight of Poland’s Jews might break against a solid wall of opposition. Such things are possible. We are living, after all, in the 200th century. The globe has been pretty well subdivided and borders and coastlines are well patrolled. A repetition of the Exodus from Egypt is scarcely feasible. The ancient Egyptians lacked machine guns, PT boats, and radar.

What is historically important is not the success or failure of the exodus but the fact that during a grave crisis in the modern history of Europe, five-sixths of the Jewish population of the Continent were exterminated and the remainder confronted with the necessity of an exodus. Should they be compelled to stay by force of political circumstances, a paucity of numbers, the continued hostility of their neighbors, a sense of overpowering despair which will no doubt lead to all sorts of social aberrations—these will leave their mark on the surviving remnant in the coming years. At best, granted a merciful attitude on the part of their neighbors, they may either vanish through assimilation or decline to a status like that of other once thriving Jewish communities, such as those in Iraq or Egypt.

_____________

 

This pattern of Jewish history has repeated itself so often, over such a long period of time, and over such wide latitudes of civilization and geography, we should hardly be surprised by this latter-day manifestation. By now one might reasonably expect us to take it for granted as a historically determined process. It is perhaps a tribute to our vitality that despite all the knocks history has given us, we are always ready for another try.

Somewhat less creditable is the optimism with which we encounter every new historical era and every new domicile, as if each trial were the first one, quite oblivious of our lack of progress. Where would the scientific world be today if each new scientist devoted himself to constant repetitions of Galileo’s experiment in the hope that some day, somewhere, it might produce entirely different results?

For nearly two thousand years the pattern of Jewish history has followed a relatively uniform series of curves. Jewish sojourns in various lands throughout these centuries have been described as divisible into three distinct periods. First comes the period of welcome, when restrictions on Jews are few and they are offered considerable opportunities and privileges. Then follows a period of tolerance. They are no longer met with quite as much friendship; nevertheless conditions are still tolerable. Finally there begins the period of persecution. This need not be a sudden dramatic episode. It may cover a long period of time, and is marked by restrictions, growing intolerance, persecution. The groundwork for an exodus is laid. The exodus itself may not materialize for any number of causes. But the possibility of continuing a normal community life is gone. Processes of degeneration then set in and the community withers—if it is not physically exterminated, or does not find an avenue of escape. Many years later, with the rise of a new social order, it may happen that a Jewish community again finds domicile, and thrives in the very country where it had formerly undergone this metamorphosis. But, allowing for modifications, this process has occurred again and again on varying scales. It was enacted on a large scale in Roman-ruled Egypt, in Parthian-ruled Mesopotamia, in Spain, in Germany during the Middle Ages, in Poland. It has occurred on a smaller scale in numerous other lands and principalities.

If our ancestors failed to draw the logical conclusions from these elementary facts, their failure is understandable. Our ancestors were guided not by reason but by faith and by a religious interpretation of history. One can therefore have no quarrel with them if they took their destiny patiently and fatalistically in the belief that they were expiating former sins, and in the expectation of a final, rewarding Messianic denouement. Similarly, there is justification for the generations of Jews who pinned their faith on political equality after the French Revolution. That was, or seemed to be, a new departure in human affairs, and there was good reason to hope that it would also put an end to the recurring cycles of persecution and expulsion. And then, toward the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, there was the dawning hope of socialism, with its bright promises.

It is scarcely necessary to draw a balance sheet on this era, now coming to an end. In its crisis it has produced the same results, so far as Jews are concerned. When Mr. Poliakoff therefore asks: “If the European world of the Renaissance, of humanism, of habeas corpus . . . is really as ugly and hopeless as we are told, then what are we basing our hopes on?” the “if” appears to be largely rhetorical. The evidence is before our eyes. Indeed there are those who draw optimistic conclusions, citing the numerous cases of kindness, humanity, even self-sacrifice in Europe that led to the saving of thousands of Jewish children. Giving all due credit to the noble individuals in the various European countries who in the face of Hitlerism risked their lives to save Jews, need it be pointed out that a people cannot plan and build its future on such a basis?

Hope for a permanently secure future in a democratic world that recognizes the worth and rights of the individual can be well founded only if we foresee a static society in a state of permanent equilibrium. In such a society the Jewish community within it will enjoy the same, or almost equal, privileges as the rest of the population. But as long as we remain a distinct, yet scattered entity, our favorable position will hang on the three slender threads: law, the good will of our neighbors, and the performance of a useful, not too competitive function in each country. These three threads, however, are the identifying marks of a stable society, not guarantees of its continued stability. When one or more of these begins to show signs of weakening it is time to be concerned for the future.

_____________

 

What then are the solutions? Must we fatalistically submit to periodic recurrences of the kind of thing, the bloodiest manifestation of which we have just witnessed in Europe? What alternatives are offered?

There is the faith in a solution by means of a new and radically changed order. That was the faith of Western European, emancipated Jewry, which pinned its hopes on political freedom and general progress. Many individual Jews succeeded to such an extent in coming to terms with their environment that their relationship to the Jewish people became very tenuous indeed. Yet when the historical hour struck, the westernized German Jew who escaped found himself in Tel Aviv alongside the “cultural” Zionist. They had started from different points, yet history brought them to the same spot.

The era of political democracy thus failed to devise a permanent solution to the Jewish problem by guaranteeing every citizen equal rights. Those who argue that only in a renewed, invigorated democratic order lies the future security of the Jews in the Diaspora counsel a repetition of the experiment of the past century, without offering any evidence that the next crisis will not again avenge itself on the Jews.

Those who preach a social revolution leading toward a classless society as the solution to the Jewish question stand on equally infirm ground. Admission of the need or inevitability of a major social upheaval is a warning in itself that Jews, because of their class status in society as well as their unfortunate historical situation, will have to suffer more than the general population. Whether a successful social revolution would offer a final solution, once its birth pains are over, remains open to grave doubt. The only experience from which we can attempt to learn is the revolution in Russia. There Jews as a group suffered out of proportion at the hands of both the Whites and the Reds.

And on the basis of recent reports we may question whether the revolution solved the Jewish question even from a long-range point of view. Observers who have had an opportunity to visit Soviet areas formerly occupied by the Nazis report that even after twenty-five years of Soviet indoctrination and legislation against anti-Semitism, the Ukrainian population joined the Nazi invaders in considerable numbers in the campaign against Jews. Even more ominous are reports of trends of social stratification among Jews in Russia which lay the foundation for their becoming again a recognizable economic entity within the Soviet organism.

As alternatives there thus remain integral, complete assimilation, national concentration in one territory—which in essence is Zionism—or a renewed affirmation of faith that in the democratic countries of the Western hemisphere Jews reed not suffer the pattern marked by past history.

_____________

 

Assimilation is not a solution of the problem but an attempt to obviate it. Putting the patient out of his misery, even in a painless fashion, is not the same as curing him. But even at that, assimilation is impractical. It cannot be pursued consciously as a unilateral movement. While in temporary historical circumstances it has occurred on a considerable scale, it has never in the past succeeded completely in any Jewish community.

Great centrifugal forces operated for a long time in Germany, Hungary, France, just as they have—and still do—in the United States. Those who fell within this assimilative force were inevitably drawn away from the Jewish community, all ideologies to the contrary notwithstanding. When a turn of the historical wheel drove them back into the orbit of the Jewish people, then they presented a tragic picture indeed. Witness a group of German-Jewish refugees in Palestine who at one time published a journal there, called In Exile. In the Jewish National Home they felt exiled, and yearned for the culture and the landscape that had spewed them out.

Assimilation affects the fringes of the Jewish people and therefore provides no answer to the main question, which is not a numerical one. That question exists and requires a solution whether there are five or fifteen million Jews in the world.

Far more weighty are the arguments of those who contend that a permanently secure status can be attained in the democratic countries. Pointing out that Jews suffered least in those countries of Europe where democracy had struck deepest roots, they conclude that the solution lies in the direction of ever-expanding democracy. The United States, where many different minorities live in relative amity, is pointed out as an especially promising example in this respect. The failure of European society, we are told, is due to laxity in preserving the achievements of civilization. By avoiding Europe’s mistakes and by widening and strengthening the basis of democracy we can be spared our past fate.

It is indeed very difficult to counter this line of reasoning, based as it is on abiding faith. The question—even if it has always happened in the past, why must it also happen here?—allows no decisive answer. It is impossible to submit mathematical proof that the pattern of past Jewish history must inevitably repeat itself everywhere in the Western hemisphere.

But if there is no proof, there does exist a historical probability. The fundamental feature of the Jewish minority—its dispersion—remains a fact. Until this feature is shed, a sense of insecurity will continue to haunt the minds of Jews, throwing them alternately into hysterical panic or elated optimism. And at best, even if the most optimistic predictions for the future are borne out,. only a secure existence as a minority would be assured. The drive toward exodus might not arise, but the minority status itself with all its crippling psychological and social manifestations would remain. For thoughtful, self-respecting Jews this situation will create the urgent sense of the need of some solution. But naturally, there will always be others who will find their status as a minority quite tolerable.

_____________

 

The sole long-range solution remains territorial concentration—in a word, Zionism, since no other territories for national concentration are now under practical consideration. This implies a series of exoduses from different regions of the world whenever historical circumstances make them necessary. Zionism does not presuppose an exodus from a region where one is not called for. It only predicates, on the basis of two thousand years’ experience, that sooner or later any Jewish community will feel this need.

The alarm of Jews elsewhere who are opposed to a Jewish exodus from Europe is at least premature. Bidding farewell to Europe does not imply a call to American Jews to pack up and go, too. If historical processes are unavoidable, neither can they be forced before their time. The foundations of the Jewish community along the Hudson will not be shaken by an exodus of Jews from the banks of the Danube and the Vistula. If our position in the United States is secure for the present, it will remain secure, despite the European movement. How long this security will last it is impossible to predict. Perhaps a generation, perhaps a century or more. From a long-range point of view it would appear that Jews along the Hudson, too, have an appointment with history which it may be impossible to shirk.

The eventual solution of the Jewish problem by a concentration of Jews in Palestine is not simply a numerical solution, either. It would not suffice merely to transport physically the Jews from Warsaw and Vienna to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. (Were that the case, the large number of Jews in the four seaboard counties of the State of New York, which far exceeds the number of Jews in Palestine, would already be a solution, at least in the sense of a territorial concentration of Jews.) The difference, and the germ of the solution, consists in the structure of the community in Palestine, both economically and politically. On the economic side, a planned territorial concentration of the Jews in Palestine provides a normal participation in all necessary branches of economic life—agriculture, industry, services, business. It establishes a self-supporting community not dependent to any large degree on the immediate good will of non-Jewish neighbors, as was the case, for instance, in pre-war Poland.

Even more important would be the political aspect of concentration in Palestine. Not only would inferiority complexes in relation to the non-Jews be eliminated, but the community, striving for self-rule and the normal life of a nation instead of national self-effacement, would become a political factor far out of proportion to its numbers.

A case in point is the now crucial refugee question. The Jews of Palestine, some 600,000 in number, can now not only demand of England and world public opinion that refugees be admitted to Palestine; they are able to act in the matter. They already possess political attributes and institutions that are effective in some measure. Over and above their demand for the opening of the gates of Palestine, Palestinian Jews actually bring thousands of refugees into the country, illegally if necessary, and when “illegal” immigrants are captured and interned, Palestinian Jewish organizations have in the past freed them by force.

Compare the behavior of Palestine’s 600,000 Jews with that of America’s 5,000,000. For about two years several hundred refugees were kept as “guests of the government” in a camp at Oswego, New York. They entered the country legally, but their status until a few weeks ago was not much different from that of prisoners. American Jews neither could nor dared make an issue of the matter, some out of fear that their Americanism would be questioned, others in the age-old spirit of submission to the status of a minority that has learned not to speak out too loudly.

As the Jewish community in Palestine grows, its political strength increases until it approaches that of national sovereignty, within the limits put upon sovereignty in today’s world. It then becomes a free political organism capable of debating its own fate and acting in its own defense, as any other nation does. Zionism is not a panacea to cure all ills. A Jewish nation in Palestine will be subject to wars, social upheavals and other human maladies, as all other countries are. But the additional ailments characteristic of the Jewish situation in the world—national homelessness, dependence on the good will of the immediate neighbor, lack of any means of self-defense in time of crisis, the psychological effects of being constantly on the alert for a blow and the unhealthy, often panicky states of mind it engenders—these and similar liabilities will be eliminated in a Palestine in which Jews would lead a normal national life.

_____________

 

Should we then live entranced henceforth S in the contemplation of what promises to be a certain destiny? Individuals possessing a sense of the tragic in history, albeit few in numbers, have always existed and will continue to fix their gaze on ultimately inevitable denouements. The Jewish people as a group have been marked in modern days by intellectual inquisitiveness and social .activity. Yogi-like trances are certainly not for them.

The average Jew will continue spinning the thread of his life under circumstances favorable or less favorable, as the case may be. Jewish group life will continue boiling and bubbling. Salvation will be pursued via religion, social revolution, democracy and whatever other social movements agitate the scene. Anti-detraction Leagues will defend us; Friendship Councils will soothe us; some will hold up the vision of a rosier social dawn before our eyes; others will seek escape from the group or will be detached from it by powerful social and cultural forces, while the anthropologists will assure us again and again that the shape of our skulls is right, or that Jews have no particular shape of skull, which is even better. Nor need it be a sterile medley of apologetics and vain utopian flights only. As in past eras in Babylon, Spain and Poland, lasting cultural values can, and no doubt will, be created here. The very vitality of Jews and the inner tension in which they live provide the necessary conditions for such creativeness.

We understand that the period of historical social gestation cannot be accelerated. Yet whatever preparations we can make for the future are likely to serve in good stead. In Europe the stage of exodus has been reached. Far-sighted national efforts made decades earlier have prepared the ground in Palestine so that the country is capable of absorbing the present European exodus. Jewish communities in North Africa also appear to be on the verge of exodus, and they could be absorbed by Palestine both socially and economically. A destination for the exodus has thus been created by historical pressures.

The obstacles to the successful conclusion of the exodus are external political factors. Whether these are overcome depends to a good extent on the amount of energy invested. Their successful elimination may some day be of direct significance to us who live along the Hudson.

In any case we must rid ourselves of a certain prudishness in discussing the role of exodus in Jewish history and its application to present-day Europe. Too many people display a tendency in this matter to call a spade an “agricultural implement.” Like sex, discussion of the idea of exodus is taboo among wide circles. But good manners notwithstanding, a serious subject has to be treated accordingly, with a professional disregard of one’s own secret fears and other people’s sensibilities. In the practical world of power politics, a solution of the Jewish problem in Europe by an exodus to Palestine may be side-tracked by such forces as British imperialist interests. But triumphant declarations that Jews will go on living in Europe, when five-sixths of the Jews of Europe have just ceased living and many of the survivors are in flight, can only be considered as an expression of faith and little more.