THURSDAY EVENING, August 24, brought the showdown on Nazi Germany. The Congress reconvened just a few hours after Dr. Ruppin's parenthetical transfer disclosure. The agreement's full import had not yet been realized. On first hearing, it sounded like a noble project. German Jewish emigrants would be allowed to take part of their assets to Palestine. Who could argue with such an arrangement? But the maze of provisos and special conditions attached to Haavara were as yet unknown. The magnitude of merchandise traffic, the cooperative economic ventures between the Reich and Palestinian sources, the planned Liquidation Bank, the facts about mandatory loans, the actual mechanism of transfer, and the financial dangers to the German Jews—these were all unknowns.
Besides, there wasn't time to delve into the serpentine issue of transfer. The big issue now facing the delegates was the ultimate resolution on Germany. The German Commission had formulated two majority resolutions, reciting the particular grievances and vested interests of Labor, General Zionists, Radical Zionists, and the Mizrachi. But these contradictory, taped-together resolutions were so devoid of affrontive language toward Germany, so transparently submissive,1 and so disallowing of the anti-Nazi boycott that the Revisionists flaty rejected them. By blocking the unanimous approval required to adopt a resolution, the Revisionists forced their own boycott-mandating minority resolution to a floor debate and vote.
This was the moment Revisionists had waited for. If famed orator Vladimir Jabotinsky could evoke the passions of the delegates to vote for the minority resolution, that single moment of delegate disobedience would determine the fate of the Jewish war against Hitler. The anti-Nazi boycott was truly desired in the hearts of almost all Zionists; only the marshaling demands of a small group of Mapai-aligned leaders was staying a formal worldwide Zionist commitment to boycott. A Congress resolution would be the justification any Zionist body from Paris to Hong Kong needed to devote its resources to the fight. Of course, leading that worldwide act of Jewish self-defense would be Jabotinsky. This would reestablish the leadership of Revisionism within the movement.
Shortly after the session was gaveled to order, presidium chairman Leo Motzkin told the delegates that the Actions Committee had created a special Commission on German Jews to study the problem and prepare binding resolutions for the Congress.2 The secretary then read the Mapai-backed majority resolution: "The Eighteenth Zionist Congress . . . considers it to be its duty to give expression . . . to its consternation at the tragic fate of the German Jews, and its indignation at the discrimination and degradation inflicted upon them. After a century of Jewish emancipation, . . . developments in present-day Germany have gone so far that half a million Jews have been deprived of their elementary human rights, [so far] that through the official sanctioning of racial prejudice the dignity and honor of the Jewish people are insulted, and [so far] that a policy and legislation are enacted whose fundamental principles must destroy the bases of existence of the Jewish people."3
Words of "consternation" characterized the remainder of the resolution. Soft nouns and verbs together with lofty introductory clauses were present throughout. When the resolution mentioned the "suppression of the rights of the Jews by all the powers of the State, unique in its scope and inconceivable in the twentieth century," it called the persecution a vindication "of the century-old Jewish question as depicted by . . . Theodor Herzl."4
The resolution ended with the sentence "In conjunction with our protests . . . the determined will of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home . . . will represent the strongest proof of our national solidarity with the Jews of Germany."5
In other words, Hitler would be fought and the rights of the Jewish people would be preserved by one means and one means only: a Jewish State.
On the other hand, the Revisionists' minority resolution was nothing less than a boycott declaration, even though it cleverly avoided using the actual word boycott and even abstained from mentioning Germany by name. If the Revisionists had wanted a mere symbolic protest, they would have injected far more inflammatory language, but they earnestly wanted their resolution to win. They deliberately avoided trigger words that would make the resolution unacceptable to the average delegate, even the delegates of Mapai. Yet the phrasing conveyed the essence of an unmistakable commitment to economic war.
The Revisionist resolution stated: "The Congress welcomes the decision by the Jewish masses in all countries to use their purchasing power and their economic influence . . . as a factor of world trade for the benefit of the products of only those states which constitutionally recognize the principle of full equality for their Jewish citizens. The Congress is resolved to actively and energetically support the Zionist movement in extending and organizing every serious attempt to implement this just protective measure of the Jewish masses."6
But the Revisionist argument would never be heard. Motzkin announced that after the resolutions were presented, there would be no debate, this by decision of the Mapai-dominated presidium. Revisionist delegate M. Hoffman, founder of Betar, stood and objected. The Revisionists had a minority resolution, and according to the rules, this had to be openly discussed. Radical Zionist Nahum Goldmann answered against debate, asserting that the Commission on German Jews had already debated these resolutions back and forth for days without any progress. He urged that the Congress show unity by considering only the Mapai-based resolution.7 For Goldmann, avoiding the Revisionist boycott declaration also preserved the illusory world boycott premiere that Wise's World Jewish Congress coveted.
Loud protest broke out as the Revisionists demanded a proper debate for their minority resolution. Amid the tumult, Jabotinsky was finally allowed to make a brief statement, actually a plea: Nazism was endangering the "securest foundations of the existence of all Jews the world over. . . . It must be regarded and treated as the affair not only of German Jews but of the entire Jewish people. It is therefore the duty of world Jewry to react with all means of just defense . . . against this attempt to destroy the Jewish people."8 Beyond those few words, no other remarks were allowed.
Motzkin then read the Mapai resolution once more. His elocution was so stilted and so artificially exalted that Jabotinsky openly mocked him by caricaturing the words even as Motzkin spoke. At one point, in an exaggerated inflection, Jabotinsky recited a famous Latin quotation: «Quousque tandem, Cati/ina, abutere patientia nostra?" The quotation referred to Cicero's complaint against a noisome speech in the Senate by Roman archcriminal and conspirator Catiline-"Oh, please, Catiline, tell me how long you will continue to abuse our patience!"9
Motzkin ignored Jabotinsky's ridicule, completed his reading, and then ordered the assembly to vote. The Revisionists demonstratively refused to participate. In the uproar, perhaps just to achieve some sort of decision, all the weary non-Revisionist delegates—including Mizrachi—voted for the majority resolution—265 votes. Because the Revisionists refused to vote, no nays were registered.10
When the Revisionists then demanded that their minority resolution at least be put to vote, Motzkin and the presidium denied that motion as well.11 This crushed the last Revisionist hope that perhaps both the innocuous majority resolution and the minority boycott resolution might both be adopted. At this the Congress lapsed into utter pandemonium.
The Revisionists in a group began a disruptive walkout. Threats and insults were shouted as the Mapai and Revisionist forces faced off. Ushers trying to intervene were themselves manhandled by angry Betarim. Jabotin sky and his wife were suddenly surrounded by a band of Mapai ruffians. One jostled Mrs. Jabotinsky, which brought a cadre of Betarim running. The battle was on, with shouts of scorn and praise for Jabotinsky flying as fast as punches and jabs. Only a squadron of police could separate the combatants. Both sides were ousted from the hall, and the doors locked. Jabotinsky was invited to press charges, but declined.12
In that hour of supreme opportunity, neither fist nor voice was raised to Hitler. It was so much easier to fight each other. And so the moment of consolidation slipped past.
The Zionist Organization had failed. But the question remained: Would the Zionist movement—the men and women around the world who believed in the righteousness of both the Jewish nation and Jewish defense—would these people accept that failure? There was a time to be a Zionist, and there was a time to be a Jew. Only one issue could make any of them understand the difference. That issue was the recently revealed, but little understood, Transfer Agreement.