Twenty- Five years on

In these early summer days, our minds go back to the events of 25 years ago, when the Nazi regime came to an end. On VE Day, many of us joined the crowds which thronged The Mall towards the gates of Buckingham Palace. A trauma which had determined our lives for twelve years had gone: there was no longer a Hitler in this world. The way seemed to be paved for a new pattern of life. Shortly afterwards, our hopes found expression in a Mass Rally of the National Peace Council, held at Central Hall under the chairmanship of Professor Norman Bentwich. At the end, Blake’s ” Jerusalem” hymn was sung. There may have been few occasions on which each of the poet’s words meant so much to so many. Yet we also thought of the words in Heine’s ” Hymnus “: ” In die jauchzenden Triumphgesange tonen die Chorale der Totenfeier.” They applied to families all over the world who had been bereaved during the war, but they had added meaning for us, because our own losses and the circumstances Under which they were sustained went beyond the tragedies which are bound to occur in any war. Had Heine foreseen this tragedy when he conceived the vision of the ” wahnsinnige Juedin, die das Jahrzeitlamplein ihres Kindes wiegt ? ” After all, he had proved right in his forecast that the burning of books was only the prelude to the burning of human beings. Today we know that the hopes for a better World which we cherished a quarter of a century ago were not to be fulfilled. The military wartime alliance between the Western and Eastern Powers did not result in peace-time co-operation, and new tensions developed in all continents. We now also know the price which had, and still has, to be paid for the creation of the sovereign State of Israel. This price does not detract from the ‘”evolutionary fact that, for the first time after almost two thousand years, there is now a place in the world, where Jews may live as Jews, and only as Jews, without the complexities arising from their minority status in |pe Diaspora. One also wonders, how many lives would have been saved, had the State Israel with its ” Law of Retum” already been in existence when the Nazis were in Power. Yet this must not blind us to the fact that the majority of Jews live, and wish to live, in the Diaspora and that, apart from any other considerations, it is also an asset for the State of Israel that it may fall back on their political and economic support. Most Jews in the Diaspora readily render this support. On the other hand, the existence of a Jewish State has not solved, or even alleviated, the problems of Diaspora Jewry, as forecast in old-time ideological debates, but only shifted it to a different plane. Unfortunately, champions of Israel in the Diaspora sometimes unnecessarily impair the chances of their success by dubbing persons who are critical of Israel’s present policy as antisemites or, if they are Jews, as renegades. This appears to be the residue of a ghetto mentality. Israel as a sovereign State is open to criticism as is any other State, and if one compares the Arabs and their protagonists with the Nazis, one cannot be surprised that the opposing forces affix the same label on Israel. It would considerably ease the debate if these emotional slogans were eliminated. Views about the present attitude of the Israeli Government are as divided among readers of this journal as they are divided among all Jews. It also calls for a sense of humility if one undertakes to speak about the fights on the Suez Canal from the safe banks of the Thames. Yet if it is permitted to express a personal opinion, it must be stated that a re-assessment of the situation, as was made by Nahum Goldmann, the former President of the World Zionist Organisation, is to be welcomed. One may differ with him about the course he proposes but the fact that a new approach is necessary to overcome the deadlock can hardly be denied. This is also stressed in an article by Dr. Hans Tramer (Tel Aviv), General Secretary of the Irgun Oley Merkaz Europa (the AJR’s opposite number in Israel), published in the organisation’s ” Mitteilungsblatt” on May 1. Commenting on Dr. Goldmann’s proposals he takes issue with Golda Meir’s claim that Israel’s policy cannot take into consideration the reaction it may create outside the country. ” For a long time all Western governments who are friends of Israel have complained that Israel refuses to make any kind of statement about the future destiny of the occupied territories and that she thus closes the door to any compromise.” Tramer also criticises the settlement of 250 Jewish families in Hebron and stresses the need for pulling out of the present impasse. ” If this Government cannot do this, it must be done by another government”, he writes.