Page 150
70 Report
of J.Robinson at a Meeting of the American Zionist Emergency
Council (New York, 19 November 1946)
1
MINUTES:ISA 93.03/2268/16
Dr. Robinson: During the last few weeks three important
developments can be registered throwing new light on the Soviet
attitude. First of all is the famous statement of policy of the
Communist Party in the United States of America in regard to its
work among Jewish masses.2 This is a ten-to-fifteen-thousand-word
statement outlining the new line of the policy of the Communist
Party in regard to Jewish problems and especially in regard to
Palestine. It is frankly admitted that whatever has been done so
far was an error and that from now on the policy to be followed is
first, Arab-Jewish understanding, and then--if they reach an
agreement about immigration--immigration can follow. There is a
certain inconsistency in presenting the case, on the one hand, for
an independent Palestine and, on the other hand, [for] a Big Three
trusteeship of Palestine and it is difficult to know what is the
final decision because there are two statements in the same
paragraph. The so-called slogan of a Jewish national home is
bitterly attacked. The idea of a ' world Jewish nation ' is
ridiculed. ' Palestine is completely absent from any future Jewish
cultural
注释：
1. This document is composed of excerpts from stenographic
minutes of a general discussion. Some measure of editing was
necessary owing to garbled and obscure passages, and in some cases
faulty grammar. Editorial deletions and changes are marked with
square brackets. Deletions in the original (mainly proper names
which had been misunderstood by the stenographist or typist) are in
parentheses.
2. The article referred to is the resolution
published 4 November 1946 in the Yiddish communist paper Morgn
freybeyt, which was entitled' Communist, Work among the American
Jewish Masses'. The apparent aim of the statement was to make the
line of the American Communist Party conform tot the interests of
Stalin's foreign policy in the Middle East. It called for British
withdrawal from Palestine and the establishment there of an
independent state.
Page 151
interest'. Some references can be found to so-called democratic
Zionists,which would probably mean communists. The leadership of
the American Zionist Organization is bitterly attacked.
The second, also very
important, new development is the attitude of Yiddish writers and
artists in the Soviet Union in regard to Jewish problems. It is
common knowledge that in the beginning of September a general
attack was begun on Russian literature and drama. Curiously enough
[the] famous report of (...) [Zhdanov] on the deviation of Soviet
writers does not mention Yiddish writers.3 Among its
representatives the report mentions only (...), This
notwithstanding, the Jewish writers convened the next day in Moscow
to do something about (...) support. [...]. One writer said:'There
is too much stress laid on the Jewish disaster and not sufficient
place given to Jewish heroism and --most important-- there is no
exposing of international reactionary Jewry and neglect of the
problems of the new Soviet Five Year Plan.' Most
humiliating of all these features is the suddenly discovered love
of Ukrainians and White Russians for the Jewish people during the
Nazi occupation, which for the last four years were depicted by the
Soviet press as being anti-Jewish--that the Ukrainians actually
allied themselves with the Germans against the Jews. This has been
exposed as being counter-revolutionary, but a writer of an article
about David Berg[el]son suddenly said that he was unfair to
Ukrainians and, indeed, in the next issue of [Eynikeyt] there was a
short story about the virtues of the Ukrainian people. Separation
of Soviet Jewry from world Jewry has been decreed definitely. All
other Jews are finally stigmatized as being reactionary.
The last important factor
is the Soviet attitude in the United Nations, especially now, after
the statement of last week 4 which leaves no doubt about Soviet
policy to be followed there. I am sorry that Jewish journalists are
not sufficiently aware that he [Novikov] was right in his legal
approach which was, in my opinion, a great mistake too, because the
legal approach according to the charter was that there are only two
solutions to the mandate: either trusteeship or true independence,
meaning not fake independence, for fake independence means the
independence of Transjordan. The charter does not establish any
general succession from the League [of Nations] to the United
Nations , nor did the charter establish these two methods by
conferring upon the mandatory power absolute power, because it may
not submit a trusteeship agreement but certainly has recognized the
great importance and the great
注释：
3. Reference is apparently to the campaign initiated by Andrei
Zhdanov beginning in September 1946 and directed toward toward
ideological control of literary and artistic life in the Soviet
Union.
4. See Doc.69.
Page 152
power which the mandatory power will have in determining the
future of any country. The Yiddish newspapers said in this
respect:' True, but Palestine should become a, so-to-say,
democratic Jewish state'. Anyway, here we are with our old problems
and we see that all three elements are somehow integrating: Russia
on the one hand, the remnants of Judaism [in] the USSR on the
second and the communist party all around the world. Indeed there
are only minor deviations, due mostly to the ignorance exhibited in
this article [in] Political Affairs. It does not pay to register
all the mistakes, but I think I would like to say something about
them.
Mr.Lourie: Do you think they are unconscious errors or
intentional?
Dr .Robinson:No,out of sheer ignorance. If we come now to our
basic problem, the problem of what should happen, I certainly do
not profess to possess any prescription on how to deal with the
Soviets in order to win them over. Neither Byrnes nor Bevin has
such a prescription. Nobody has such a prescription, because it is
very difficult. But I believe that if there still exists a trace of
Jewish political feeling, one question should be asked.
Since 1941,if not earlier, a new period started casually in our relationship with the USSR. We casually started appeasing, glorifying--against our better knowledge--passing silently over the most horrible things that were going on. Even during the war, and if I may say so, there was a justification for this as long as the war was going on. Victory against Nazi Germany was the overall consideration and I believe Jews were wise when they abstained from any derogatory remarks or from [supplying] any real information, true information on what was happening in the USSR, both in regard to the Soviet Jews and especially with regard to the so-called refugees. But now 18 months have passed. Therefore there is one thing that is imperative, and that is a change. Now we are starting to discuss the change in our policy. I believe we have to make it clear to ourselves and that is based on three assumptions. The first assumption is that the Jews are still a political factor in the world and especially in the US. We make life for Lord Inverchapel 5 very bitter here, and he feels that if the Jews could have been converted to a pro-British feeling it would have been a great thing for him. Now, first, we have to agree on the fact that we have strength, whatever it may be. We should consider that a Great Power such as America today, the democratic country where foreign policy is also
加载中…