help of pious Jews in Jerusalem and the other sacred cities, Hebron,
Tiberias and Safed, the so-called _halukha_ or dole, in return for which
the Jews in those cities were to win merit for themselves and those who
contributed to their support by study of the law, prayer and pious
observances. St. Paul carried over the same practice into the Christian
Church, causing alms to be collected in the different congregations to
be transferred to Jerusalem for the benefit and support of the
Christians living there. To this day annual collections are taken in the
Roman Catholic churches throughout the world which go to the Franciscans
for the same use in Jerusalem. The Greeks and Armenians have like
customs. In the past there had been no prejudice with regard to these
doles, but now, it was claimed, the Zionist committees were using the
moneys thus collected or contributed to organize and help their people
in a systematized attempt to gain the upper hand in the land.
“Perhaps the attitude of the extremists who possessed the dominating
power in the community can best be shown by the utterances of one of
their own organs, written in Hebrew. (It should be stated that _the
English edition of this journal was, as a rule, quite different in its
contents from the Hebrew edition_.) One article, entitled ‘Malignant
Leprosy,’ is a denunciation of parents who allow their children to go to
any school except those under the control of Jews and conforming to the
demands of the local Zionist Committee. Parents are notified that a list
has been made by the Zionist Committee of all children who are attending
foreign schools, even though they are not subjected to any religious
teaching, and it is demanded that they shall be withdrawn from those
schools and placed in schools where they shall be taught the Hebrew
language, customs and traditions, and kept separate from contamination
by the Gentile, with his different ways and customs. Those teaching in
foreign schools, or schools not complying with the conditions laid down
by this committee, are ordered to withdraw from their positions. The
‘malignant leprosy’ is the contamination by the outside world which
results from education with the Gentiles. It is admitted in this
article, in answer to protests, that the opportunities in some of the
non-Jewish schools, are better than in the Jewish schools—for example,
in the teaching of foreign languages, so important for conducting
business or securing employment; that there is greater diligence in
instructing; and better hours and better care of pupils. Nevertheless,
parents are informed that they must sacrifice for the sake of their race
those chances for their children, doing their best meanwhile to raise
their own schools to the higher level. Those who are failing to live up
to these ideals are designated as ‘traitors’ and by other opprobrious
names, and the article ends with this threat of persecution to any who
do not obey the orders of the Zionist Committee thus conveyed:
“‘Let him know at least that it is forbidden him to be called by the
name of Jew and there is to him no portion or inheritance with his
brethren, and if after a time they will not try to reform, let them
know that we will fight against them by all lawful means at our
disposal. Upon a monument of shame we will put their names for a
reproach and blaming forever, and unto the last generation shall
their deeds be written. If they are supported, their support will
cease, and if they are merchants, with a finger men will shoot at
them, and if they are Rabbis, they will be moved far from their
office, and with the ban shall they be persecuted, and all the
people of the world shall know that there is no mercy in judgment.’
“This was followed about a month later by a second article, also in
Hebrew, entitled ‘Fight and Win,’ which announced that the threatened
persecution would now be carried out:
“‘The names of the traitorous parents and of the boys and girls who
have not taken notice of the warnings ought to be published at once
and without delay, in the papers and on public notices, placarded at
the entrance of every street. The list of these names should be sent
to the heads of every institution and to the rulers of the
synagogues, to hospitals, to those who arrange and solemnize
marriages, and to the directors of the American Jewish Relief Fund,
and so on. It should be the title of “Black List” and “Traitors to
Their People.” An order should go forth to all, and if one of these
men has a son, he shall not be circumcised; in case of death the
body is not to be buried among Israelites; religious marriages will
not be sanctioned; Jewish doctors will not visit their sick; relief
will not be given to them when they are in need, if they are on the
list of the American relief fund—in short, we must hunt them down
until they are annihilated. Men will cry to them: “Out of the way,
unclean, unclean!” Because these people will be considered as
malicious renegades, there can be no connecting link between them
and us. Again, the society of young men and girls of Jerusalem must
accept it as a principle to expel from their societies all those who
visit these schools; to point the finger of scorn at them; and to
make them see that they are put out of the camp. These traitor
scholars, boys and girls, must understand themselves that they are
sinners and transgressors, who are isolated, driven from all
society, separated from the Jewish community, after they have once
despised Israel and its holiness, and it will be interdicted to all
sons of Israel to come near them.... War against the traitors among
our people. War by all means legal. War without pity or mercy; that
the traitors may know that they must not trifle with the sentiment
of a people. Fight and win.’
“The Zionist Committee, _of whom one was an American_, followed this by
a printed announcement that the time of grace had passed and that
forthwith the names of those who were still refractory would be posted
publicly on street-corners, and the boycott begin. Miss Landau, a devout
Jewess, the head of the best and highest Jewish school for girls in the
city, the Eva Rothschild School, one of those, however, whose pupils and
teachers were threatened under these rulings because they would not
follow the dictates of the Zionist Committee, appealed to the civil
authorities. The committee was haled into court and the threatened
boycott enjoined.
“With such an attitude on the part of Zionist leaders in Jerusalem it
might be expected that violence would ensue. Easter is a time of great
excitement and unrest in Jerusalem for Christians, Jews and Moslems
alike, for with Easter coincide the Jewish Passover and the Moslem
pilgrim feast of Nebi Musa, when Moslems gather from all over Palestine
to hear sermons in the Haram Esh-Sherif, and then march to the so-called
tomb of Moses near the Dead Sea. The religious excitement of that season
which vents itself in curses of each against the others, is always
likely to produce physical outbursts if the cursers come into contact
with one another. The Turks wisely segregated at that time each religion
in its own quarter. This, in spite of warnings and requests from the
Moslem religious leaders, the English failed to do, either through
ultra-confidence in the _pax anglicana_, or because of objections from
Jewish representatives against such segregation as applied to them. For
days beforehand hot-heads among the Jews and Moslems were inciting to
riot, and in their quarter Jewish trained bands were preparing for the
conflict, a preparation of which Moslems from long wont probably had no
need. On Easter morning, 1920, the fanatical Moslems of Hebron arrived
at the Jaffa gate with their sacred banner, singing their songs of
religions intolerance. There numerous Jews were waiting to greet them.
The English Tommies with their officers were all in church. Whose
insults were the worst and who struck the first blow is not clear.
Battle was speedily joined. _The Jews were better armed_, with guns
against the Moslem knives; but the Moslems were the better fighters. The
city within the walls was speedily in their hands. The Jews living there
were the old-time Sephardic families, dwelling close-packed in miserable
slums, with no sympathy with Zionism, peaceful and quite unprepared.
Moslem fury vented itself on these poor wretches. Without the walls the
Jews were in the vast majority. All told, by official count there were
at that time 28,000 Jews, 16,000 Christians and 14,500 Moslems in
Jerusalem. What the Moslem did within the walls the Jew endeavored to do
without the walls. Before my eyes an Arab camp just below the great
Jewish quarters was set upon, burned and plundered, the poor inhabitants
fleeing for their lives while guns popped from the Jewish quarter. Two
men were killed there. When the troops reached the scene the great bulk
of rioters whom they rounded up were Jews. The subsequent court
proceedings also seemed to place the chief responsibility for the
outbreak on them. The major sentences were equally divided between Jews
and Moslems, but of _the criminals who received lighter sentences the
majority were Jews_. For a week we lived in a state of siege, not
allowed to pass in or out of the city gates, or to show ourselves on
roof or balcony after sundown, and for months there were guards at every
turn, assemblies were prohibited and there was continual danger of a new
outbreak.
“The appointment of Sir Herbert Samuel, a Jew, as governor of the new
protectorate under the Zionist Mandate, greatly increased the
excitement. In Moslem towns like Nablus it was openly said in my
presence that no Jew might enter the place and live. The Christians, who
had taken no part in the riots, were nevertheless to a man in sympathy
with the Moslems, and one saw the curious spectacle of Cross and
Crescent making common cause. It was prophesied that should Sir Herbert
come as governor, he would never enter Jerusalem alive. In point of
fact, he landed at Jaffa and came up to Jerusalem under strong guard,
_with machine-guns before and behind_, and the following week made a
visit to Nablus and Haifa in the same manner. That was the situation
when I left Palestine. Sir Herbert had at that time just issued his
declaration and his interpretation of the mandate. _English officers and
officials almost to a man were against the Zionist Mandate_, and their
utterances in many cases were extraordinarily frank. Some of the most
prominent and best-trained sought transfers to other posts because of
their feelings on the matter, and some resigned.
“It has since that time been extremely difficult to obtain reliable
information of prevailing conditions. It would seem, however, from all
the information I have been able to gather, that Sir Herbert, who is, I
believe, not himself a Zionist, has acted with singular tact and
discretion. He has shown great fairness and indicated his intention to
govern with impartiality, granting no special favors to any, nor
allowing outside committees or local organizations to dictate or assume
to dictate unfair policies. When I left Palestine, Jews were leaving in
considerable numbers, especially those claiming American citizenship, so
that the outgo was larger than the income. Since then, if I may judge by
reports, Jews have been coming in, chiefly from eastern European
countries, some parasitic and objectionable, others of a higher type.
Some of the latter, graduates of universities, both men and women, may
be seen engaged in hard manual labor, I am told, building roads and the
like, not despising to do such work in order to secure their Palestinian
home and fulfill their aspirations.
“It is too soon to judge the future of the Zionist experiment in
Palestine. If the English authorities will give fair play to all, and if
the Jews will pursue the old policy of the Alliance Israelite and its
schools of seeking to benefit all dwellers of the land alike, to break
down, not to build up, religious, racial and social prejudices, then the
Jew may perhaps overcome the present prejudice against him, and his
invasion of Palestine may prove to be a blessing both to himself and to
the land. The methods of those in control of the Zionist movement in
Palestine while I was there were, however, aimed in the opposite
direction and tended to make the Jew an object of hatred and violence
wherever the opportunity for violence offered. This has been illustrated
again by the recent bloody riot in Jaffa which compelled the expedition
of a British warship to that port; and the order issued holding up all
immigration shows that not Jaffa only but the whole country is unsafe.
_The Jews in Palestine are now protected only by force of British arms.
Were the British troops withdrawn, the Jews would be exterminated by the
angry natives, of whom the Moslems alone outnumber them in the ratio of
more than ten to one; and with such action the neighboring countries
would sympathize, yielding ready assistance if any were required.
Mesopotamia and Egypt are seething with disaffection against British
rule, and racial-religious ferment, and Palestine is to them and to the
Arabs of Arabia a holy land included in the heritage of Islam. Moslem
India also feels this keenly, and the British have been obliged to
withdraw Moslem Indian troops from Palestine, because they will not
fight fellow-Moslems._
“In this country the Jewish problem which we have hitherto had to face
is not a result of religious antipathy. Religiously, politically and
economically, the Jew has the same opportunity as everyone else. The
Jewish problem here has been merely a matter of social prejudice,
resulting from the extremely difficult task of amalgamating with great
rapidity an enormous population, alien in race, culture, custom and
habit. In 1880 there were, according to Jewish statistics, 250,000 Jews
in this country. The Jews now claim 3,500,000, for the most part an
undistributed mass huddled together in a few of the great
cities—one-third of them in New York. Coming in such great numbers in so
short a time and herding together thus, intentionally or unintentionally
they help one another to resist the process of Americanization. This
enormously increases the incidence of social prejudice. Those who have
no conscious prejudice either of religion or of race are in danger of
imbibing or developing such prejudice as a method of protection of their
institutions, their traditions and their habits. The Zionist movement,
with its intentional development of race consciousness and race
peculiarity on the part of the Jew, is an additional obstacle against
the efforts of those Jews and those Christians who are seeking to break
down prejudice and to bring Jew and Christian together within a common
recognition of the Golden Rule: that each should treat the other as he,
in like instance, would wish to be treated by him. One of the greatest
of English Jews, honored and respected by Jew and Christian alike for
his learning, his philanthropy and his godly piety, says of this
racial-political Zionism that it has broken his heart, and set the clock
backward for his people a hundred years. The Christian lover of his
country and his fellow-men may well express a similar feeling on his
side.”
——
Issue of September 17, 1921.
LIII.
How Jews Ruled and Ruined Tammany Hall
Within the memory even of young men, Tammany Hall has been the synonym
of all political trickery, in the vocabulary of popular criticism.
Tammany Hall was held up as the worst example of boss rule and political
corruption that it was possible to find in either of the parties. Its
very name became a stigma.
But even the most unobservant newspaper reader must have observed the
gradual fading out of Tammany Hall from public comment, the cessation of
the bitter criticism, the entire absence of headlines bristling with
ugly charges, and the calling of the hosts of good citizenship to do
battle against the grim bossism that maintained its headquarters at the
Wigwam.
Why this change? Is it due to the dying out of Tammany Hall as a
political force? No, Tammany is still there, as any New York politician
will tell you. Is it due, then, to a reform of that organization? No,
the Tammany tiger has not changed its stripes. Then, perhaps, this
change is due to public sentiment? Not at all. The explanation is to be
found along other lines.
There was a time when fearless publications told the truth about
Tammany, but _Harper’s Weekly_ and others which waged fierce war against
the Tiger, have either gone out of existence or have fallen under
control of the Jews. The silence which has shrouded certain matters must
not be noted and set aside without reference to the changed control of
the press. There was a time when public bodies like the Citizens’ Union
organized to oppose Tammany and to keep a volunteer vigil on its
activities: these groups have succumbed to Jewish contributions and
officership and no longer stand guard.
The outcry against Tammany seemed to be hushed the moment that Tammany
patronage fell into the hands of New York Jews, where it now reposes,
the Kehillah being the real political center, and Tammany but a
distributing station—a sort of organizational “Gentile front” for the
more powerful Kehillah. A few Tammany leaders are permitted to strut out
in front, but everyone knows that from the Wigwam chiefs the power has
departed, it is now to be found in Jewish conferences. Murphy is still
the titular head of Tammany, but like a Samson shorn, he is not feared
and obeyed as of yore. In fact, the Judaization of Tammany Hall is now
complete. Once in a while the Irish—always a match for the Jews—rear
their heads and show battle, but for the most part Jewish money rules
and the Tiger lies down.
Tammany Hall was one of the strongest political organizations ever seen
in the United States, potent not only in municipal and state politics,
but often exercising a decisive influence on national affairs. It was,
without exaggeration, _powerful_.
If there is one quality that attracts Jews, it is power. Wherever the
seat of power may be, thither they swarm obsequiously. As Tammany was
power and the gate of power, it was natural that the Jews of the biggest
Jewish city in the world should court it. Doubtless, they were also
affected by the incongruity of the fact that in the biggest Jewish city,
the most solid political power was non-Jewish. That was a condition
which called for correction.
When the German Jewish banker, Schoenberg, came to this country under
the name of August Belmont to represent the interests of the
Rothschilds, his keen eye at once took in the situation and at once he
began to court the favor of Tammany. He became a member and a supporter.
It was good business for this Jewish banker, because the funds of the
Rothschilds were heavily invested in New York tractions. The properties
of city tractions were and to a great extent still are, as in all
American cities, at the mercy of the local Tammany power, by whatever
name it may be known. Belmont was insinuating himself under the wing of
power to protect the investments for which he was responsible.
August Belmont eventually attained the coveted eminence of Grand Sachem
of the Tammany Society. The Belmont family for a time represented the
sole Jewish banking support of Tammany Hall, but that honor is now
divided among many.
In Richard Croker’s day, when corruption went hand in hand with power,
and power apparently was none the weaker for it, we find that this
notorious leader’s intimate friend, business partner and political
associate was a Jew—Andrew Freedman. Freedman and Croker lived together
at the Democratic Club in Fifth Avenue, Tammany politicians even then
having become rich enough to despise Fourteenth Avenue. Freedman held
the purse strings of the organization, as head of the Committee on
Finance, and he was Croker’s representative and mouthpiece when the
chief went into exile on an over-sea estate.
The most recent Jewish power in Tammany Hall, and one of the most
liberal contributors to Tammany campaign funds, is the lawyer, Samuel
Untermeyer, whose specialty of recent years seems to be to serve as the
battering ram of the Jewish power against interests which it wants
destroyed, and whose efforts are usually camouflaged under exaggerated
journalistic advertisements as being wholly in the public interest. Mr.
Untermeyer is not in particularly good humor with Tammany these days,
because of the recent defeat of his son, Irving Untermeyer, for a
judgeship. There was somewhere a slip. The Jews deserted the Wilson ship
anyway, apparently seeing what was coming in the way of retribution for
the colossal and amazing mismanagement of war business which was
principally in their hands; and in the ensuing mix-up, a scion of the
house of Untermeyer tasted defeat.
Tammany numbers other Jews among its supporters. Nathan Straus, one of
the owners of R. H. Macy & Company, has been for years an active member
of the organization and one of the rulers of its inner councils.
A Jewish ghetto politician, Henry M. Goldfogle, has represented the
Jewish interests in Congress for a number of years, and expected to
continue, but he slipped in the election and has recently been “taken
care of” by a city appointment.
There is also Judge Rosalsky who has been implicated in a number of
interesting matters which illustrate the completeness of the Jewish
network of control in New York City.
One might mention also M. L. Erlanger and Warley Platzek, justices of
the supreme court of the state of New York, but if one began a list of
the Jewish judiciary of that city, where would one end?
Another Tammanyite is Randolph Guggenheimer, founder of the corporation
law firm of Guggenheimer, Untermeyer and Marshall—Untermeyer being the
aforesaid grand inquisitor of Gentile activities generally and Marshall
being head of the American Jewish Committee and the Kehillah.
It was doubtless necessary for a Jewry that contemplated control of the
judiciary as well as special protection for certain powerful Jewish
enterprises that are near enough the borderline of the law to merit
question—it was necessary to obtain control of the supreme political
engine through which favors were disbursed in local politics. And
control of such organizations can always be had by money.
Not that the Jews threw themselves entirely into Tammany. The Jew’s
natural political home seems to be in the Republican party, for thither
he returns after venture elsewhere. But his predilection for the
Republican party does not move the Jew to make the mistake of being
exclusively the partisan of one group. It is better, as he knows, to
control both groups.
As a matter of political fact, strong as is the Jewish element in
Tammany, it is still stronger in the ranks of the Republican party,
while New York Socialism is completely headed and manned by Jews. This
renders it extremely easy for the Jews to swing support in whichever
direction they choose, and for Kehillah to fulfill any threat it may
make. It also insures that any Jewish candidate on any ticket will be
elected. The fluke in the case of young Untermeyer is perhaps not to be
entirely explained politically; other causes were doubtless working in
that matter.
It is a long time since Ferdinand Levy bore the distinction of being the
first Jew in New York to hold a political job. He was only a coroner,
and the man who appointed him was only a fire commissioner, but that
fire commissioner was Richard Croker. And Levy was solidly backed by the
Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, whose success in this matter laid the
foundation for more ambitious demands later.
But at the beginning, the Kehillah Jews adopted the ancient policy, not
of putting forward their own people, but non-Jews who could be useful to
Judah. The difference between pro-Jewish politicians who are not
themselves Jews, and politicians of the Jewish race, is that the former
in office can sometimes go further than the Jew in office can, without
detection. This has been true at least up to this time, but it will
probably not be true very long, now that the people’s eyes are being
opened. The Jewish officeholder is only standing up for his race, but
the “Gentile front” has betrayed the people for the pottage of Jewish
favor.