36. The Golden Orange

---

REICH OFFICIALS reacted nervously to Jabotinsky's break with the Zionist Organization. His August 25 announcement that Revisionism would use its international facilities to coordinate the boycott prompted Nazi leadersto suspect that Jabotinsky was Zionism's other hand, working for the demise of Germany's economy. Alfred Rosenberg, Hitler's personal theorist on Jewish and Zionist affairs, printed a stinging editorial in the August 26 Volkischer Beobachter. Rosenberg labeled the watered-down majority resolution on the German situation as "shocking interference in the internal political affairs of Germany." Because the Congress "was not courageous enough to expel the Jabotinsky-Ied group," Rosenberg concluded that "Jewry is instigating a new campaign against Germany." He warned that the texts of Congress resolutions would be rigorously examined to determine exactly what Zionism's policy would be.¹

Jabotinsky tried not to disappoint the worried Nazis. His followers openly organized boycott meetings with visiting businessmen in Prague. One idea was to make sure that importers switching to non-German suppliers had no difficulty establishing new credit.² The logic was inescapable. If a Jewish-sponsored global finance network could promote German exports, a Jewish-sponsored global network could undermine German exports.

Jabotinsky also announced that he had sent a cable to Samuel Untermyer: "SHOULD LIKE TO COORDINATE REVISIONIST BOYCOTT ACTIVITY WITH YOUR FEDERATION STOP PLEASE INSTRUCT YOUR PARIS REPRESENTATIVE." Elias Ginsburg, a key Jabotinsky organizer in America, was already one of Untermyer's main boycott activists. To underscore his willingness to support Untermyer, Jabotinsky assured Ginsburg, "I need not add what decisive importance we attach to Mr. Untermyer's personality and to the Federation headed by him. It is our fervent wish to coordinate all our activity with this powerful factor."³

Outside Prague, where Jews were beginning to feel a deep sense of betrayal, there was open talk of renouncing the Zionist Organization altogether if the price of allegiance required abandonment of the holy war against Hitler. One of the most outspoken was, of course, Untermyer. During an August 27 Youngstown, Ohio, address to B'nai B'rith lodges from three states-broadcast nationally by CBS radio--Untermyer appealed to the B'nai B'rith rank and file to break with their national leaders and fall in behind the boycott crusade. "Your representatives in the East ... made a grave mistake in aligning you with the American Jewish Committee in opposing the ... boycott, which is the only weapon available ... [against Hitler's] barbarous campaign of extermination. You are thereby unwittingly denying to your stricken brethren in Germany ... [their] only hope of effective relief."⁴

He explained, "These gentlemen [the Committee] are a self-appointed, self-perpetuating body who represent no constituents other than themselves. Unlike your organization, they have no specific mandate from any section of the Jewish people and therefore are accountable to no one for their self-appointed task." B'nai B'rith members needed to understand how they had been misused, Untermyer said. The Congress had "seen the error of its ways, and has had the courage to break away" and join the boycott movement.Would not B'nai B'rith do the same?⁵

Turning to the Zionist Organization and the Transfer Agreement, Unter- myer's threats were equally unbuffered. "The Zionist Organization had no business to enter upon any such negotiations." And he warned, "If they accede to any such terms, or to any terms other than to offer to take care of the very limited number of German Jews whom they can locate in Palestine or care for ... [then] they will rightly destroy their organization in this country."⁶

Untermyer, a leading American Zionist and Palestine contributor, knew that the American wing of the Zionist Organization was an indispensable column upon which the entire world movement balanced. American numbers, American contributions, and American political involvement made American Jewry a powerhouse in Zionism. That power could be shut off-or reconnected to another house, especially the house of Revisionism, which wanted to establish a rival worldwide Zionist organization.

The boycott champion told B'nai B'rith that he well understood the reasoning of many Prague delegates. "[They] had been warned if they voted for a boycott, the absurd abortive negotiations ... to permit German Jews to be taken out of Germany would be terminated." Untermyer declared that he wished the negotiations would be terminated, because "It is playing into the hands of the enemy, and destroying the only opportunity ... to liberate their victims by bringing about the certain economic downfall of the Hitler regime.".⁷

Summoning Jews and non-Jews everywhere to resist the idea of the Transfer Agreement, Untermyer ended his say with these words: "It is simply inconceivable that we should ever become parties to such an unholy compact."⁸

It was clear to Nazi party leaders that dissident Zionist elements might override the relationship Germany had forged with the Zionist Organization. So, on August 27, more leaks ran in the Berlin press. This time, though, the items were not on the Transfer Agreement per se, but one of the purely commercial undertakings between Palestine and Germany. The subject was oranges.

Germany not only held the power over Jewish Palestine's future growth, Germany held the power over Jewish Palestine's very existence. The bulk of the Jewish Palestinian economy was based on just one factor: citrus exports, accounting for about 80 percent of exports and almost as much of the gross national product. Great Britain was the leading purchaser. The second largest customer was Germany. Third Reich importers accounted for roughly 19 percent of the Palestine crop and in 1933 were expected to increase their buying substantially as crop yields grew. Without an utterly successful orange sale for the 1933-34 season, the Palestinian economy would be undermined overnight.⁹

Palestine did not thrive on a mixed economy. Its so-called factories were generally no more than workshops. Its second most important product was soap, representing just a few percent of its gross national product.¹⁰ Moreover, oranges lived by their own clock. They had to be picked, processed, packed, shipped, distributed, and sold on a very tight schedule. Delaying any leg of the journey just a few weeks could devastate the entire crop.

Palestine's 1932 orange crop was 4.3 million cases--roughly a million cases more than the 1931 harvest. In mid-I933 most experts were expecting the coming season to yield more than 6 million crates. Fruit brokers declared Palestine was "drowning in fruit." And yet the world was in a state of depression. Foreign currency in Germany had been curtailed for most nonessential imports. What's more, Spanish oranges were threatening to dangerously undersell Palestinian Jaffas.¹¹

Nothing could have been easier for Germany than to disallow Palestinian orange imports. The result would have been sudden, perhaps insurmountable, economic disaster for Palestine. But Germany had several reasons for wanting Palestine's orange trade to flourish. For one, if Palestine was to be the receptacle for Germany's Jews, it would need to be viable. Purchasing Jaffas was therefore as essential to Nazi planning as solving the Jewish question. In fact, to a large extent, purchasing Jaffas was solving the Jewish question. What's more, a continuing German purchasing power in Palestine was the greatest motive for the Zionist movement to abstain from the boycott. If Germany could not sell her exports, there would be no money to purchase 15 percent or more of the 1933-34 citrus crop.

Furthermore, in view of the expected hardships, all food questions in Germany had been commandeered by both the Reich Ministry for Food and the Nazi party's department for agrarian trade, known as the Land-handelsbund. Wholly apart from the transfer contacts, negotiations had been under way for some months between the Landhandelsbund, German Zionists, and Palestinian citrus brokers.¹² Germany wanted to buy extra oranges, but could not find the foreign currency.

On August 27, the Berliner Tageblatt led the German press in leaking the story: A massive agreement was nearing completion. The Landhandelsbund would take about RM10 million in Palestinian citrus from the coming crop; in return Palestine would take double, perhaps triple that amount in German products. No cash was involved; it was a straight barter. All goods and produce would be shipped on German vessels.¹³

Jews were confused and provoked by the emotionally charged, still hazy Transfer Agreement. But this clearly understandable mutual trade pact between Palestine and Germany ignited the Jewish and even the non-Jewish community to almost universal outrage against the whole question of Zionist dealings with the Hitler regime. Quickly dubbed the "Golden Orange," the revelations suddenly focused the issue clearly in almost everybody's mind. Palestine and Germany were business partners.

At first, the orange deal was not believed. London papers only skeptically picked up the story for their August 27 late-Sunday editions. Scores of angry citizens immediately called Zionist Organization headquarters in London demanding information. When the Zionist Organization denied all knowledge of the orange barter, people turned to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency for details. The JTA, however, could provide little more than what it reprinted from the Berlin papers.¹⁴

Astonished correspondents from the major newspapers and wire services in London and Palestine also tried in vain to verify the report. No one knew anything. In Prague, Zionist leaders issued only emphatic disclaimers that whatever this supposed orange agreement was or wasn't, it was wholly unrelated to the Transfer Agreement.¹⁵

Boycotters were trying to make Germany starve that winter. They could not believe that Palestine would stymie this effort so near success with a food barter for a cashless Reich. British boycott champion Captain Webber was quick to issue a statement of disbelief: "The chief purpose of the German Land Trade League [Landhandelsbund] is to throw ridicule upon the Jewish boycott. Last week I heard a rumor that the Land Trade League was endeavoring to launch something of this kind and personally received assurance from the Zionist Organization that there was nothing whatever in it. Any agreement between Germany and Palestine is naturally an agreement between Germany and Jews; therefore the Zionist Organization would be the first to hear about it. I feel sure that tonight's report has no foundation in fact. I consider it an attempt to belittle us, particularly in the eyes of the United States."¹⁶

Everything was getting confused. The Transfer Agreement ... the barter deal. Surely they were part of the same arrangement? Or were they? The media, the diplomatic community, the world's Jews, the Zionist movement-they were all understandably mixing apples and oranges in comprehending the two agreements. Answers were demanded. Attention focused on the Monday night August 28 plenary session. Not only was Grossman's inter-pellation due to be answered, but the delegates were scheduled to debate Arlosoroff murder allegations openly. Delegate emotion was clearly keyed up, and the debate promised to be explosive. Congress organizers could not allow the confrontation.

So the session was simply canceled.¹⁷

Lacking any credible rebuttals to orange deal reports, hesitant American, European and Palestinian journalists filed dispatches. The articles ran in the Tuesday, August 29, editions.

New York Times: NAZIS REPORT DEAL WITH PALESTINE ... "Berlin. A remarkable announcement by the German Land Trade League [Land-handelsbund] ... indicates, if correct, that the much-heralded Jewish boycott of German goods has certain qualifications. . .. The arrangement, according to this announcement, provides that Germany will import 8 million to 10 million marks' worth of Jaffa oranges, ... [and] Palestine ... will take 20 million marks' worth of German industrial products. The exports to Palestine are to consist principally of agricultural machinery, motors, refrigerators, textiles ... and machinery for ... small manufacturing plants for buttons, leather goods, wicker furniture, and similar household goods .... The goods will be shipped on German vessels." ¹⁸

Palestine Post: PALESTINE TRADE WITH NAZIS ... "Berlin. The Handelsbund ... of the Nazi Party, has stated that the agreement with Palestine whereby ... oranges were to be imported into Germany in exchange for the import of ... manufactured articles is the result of negotiations carried on within the last three years with various Palestinian cooperatives. It also states that a German commission will proceed to Palestine to arrange the details."¹⁹

Jewish Daily Bulletin: BRITISH, PALESTINE GOVERNMENTS, ZIONISTS DENY REPORTS AS NAZIS REVEAL ORANGE DEAL ... "London. Considerable mystification exists here as to the purported Nazi-Palestine agreement ... with the general impression that the reports ... are incorrect, and an attempt to create feeling among the Jews that will lead to a breaking down of the boycott. . .. The Palestine government and the British Colonial Office here deny any knowledge of ... this astonishing and ambiguous agreement. It is pointed out [by Jewish and Zionist sources] that ... apart from the moral aspect of the deal on the anti-Nazi boycott, the agreement would represent a bad bargain."²⁰

Haaretz: ON THE QUESTION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR AN ORANGE SHIPMENT TO GERMANY ... "Berlin. The Landhandelsbund ... of the Nazi Party [said] ... the agreement for a shipment of 18 million marks' worth of oranges ... has not yet definitely been completed. Negotiations are being held at the Reich Ministry for Food."²¹

Sharply worded denunciations from Zionist leaders and rank and file throughout the world poured into the special post office in the Congress hall. One of the most threatening came from Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver of Cleveland, one of American Zionism's towering figures. Repeating the essence of his protest, Rabbi Silver told a Jewish Telegraph Agency interviewer: "If the reports of those two deals are correct, and I for one find them unthinkable and inconceivable, then every Jew who goes to Palestine becomes an importer of German goods into Palestine, and this at a time when we deny Jewry ... of the world the right to trade with Germany." ²²

Unable to conceal his fury, Rabbi Silver declared, "Why, the very idea of Palestinian Jewry negotiating with Hitler about business instead of demanding justice for the persecuted Jews of Germany is unthinkable. One might think that the whole affair was a bankruptcy sale and that the Jews of Palestine were endeavoring to salvage a few bargains for themselves. Palestinian Jewry should be showing the way to unified action and not be willing to victimize the rest of the world for a million crates of oranges." ²³

Understanding full well that the JTA would distribute his remarks throughout the world, Rabbi Silver made the following declaration: "This is a test case. Always Palestine has asked the Jews of the world to sacrifice for Palestine. Now the time has come to ask, will Palestine make a commercial sacrifice for the fifteen million Jews of the world? We say to the Palestinian Jews, we won't trade with the enemy and we won't permit the Jews of Palestine to." ²⁴

Untermyer sent Prague a cablegram demanding that Zionist leaders comprehensively deny the orange agreement. The news was "probably untrue," said Untermyer's cable, and was undoubtedly "spread to injure the boycott that is daily growing more formidable." He then insisted the Eighteenth Zionist Congress disown any pact trafficking in Nazi merchandise, for "world Jewry will tolerate no dealings with Germany and will denounce any body that dares thus to sell our birthright for a mess of potage. We are loyal Palestinians," warned Untermyer, "but the outcome of this struggle is vastly more important than selling oranges."²⁵ Specifying the consequences, Untermyer threatened that unless the orange agreement was immediately investigated and denied, a convention of American Zionists would be summoned forthwith to repudiate the agreement, order the immediate recall of the entire U.S. delegation from Prague, and formally disassociate American Zionism from the Zionist Organization.²⁶

If American Zionist organizers ordered their thirty delegates home, about 10 percent of the Congress would depart. Even American Mapai delegates would be obligated to return if Untermyer could persuade Mapai's American headquarters to pass a binding resolution recalling them. Non-American elements of Mizrachi and Revisionism would be happy to follow, thus subtracting another thirty or forty delegates. And since the American delegates held great power in the General Zionist party and the small Radical Zionist party, perhaps another ten delegates would also be compelled to walk out. Untermyer therefore had the power to trigger the departure of sixty to eighty delegates, or about 25 percent of the entire Congress. But beyond mere numbers, the American delegation played a politically and financially indispensable role in almost every Zionist effort, and this, too, would be lost.

He had doneit before. Just one month earlier, Untermyer had created-on a moment's notice-the World Jewish Economic Federation in Amsterdam. And less than ten days before the Eighteenth Zionist Congress, Untermyer had swayed the American Jewish Congress to abandon Stephen Wise's leadership and by resolution compel him to declare for a boycott. The strong-men of the American Zionist movement were all in Prague. Untermyer could operate in America unchallenged, and had indeed already convinced New York regional Zionist organizations to demand Prague pass a boycott resolution.²⁷

Untermyer wasn't to be toyed with, and Congress leaders knew it.²⁸

The Tuesday morning August 29 session at Prague could not be postponed. Among the first scheduled to speak was Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, boiling with grievances against Mapai. First, Labor was close to engineering the return of Chaim Weizmann as president of the Zionist Organization; Wise despised Weizmann and was determined to prevent his reascendance. Second, because Mapai feared the boycott Wise would proclaim at Geneva and the competition of his World Jewish Congress, Mapai leaders had suddenly forced the Actions Committee to withdraw its endorsement of the Geneva conference. Third, Mapai leaders had encouraged the Board of Deputies to withdraw their co-sponsorship of the Geneva conference and convene their own counterconference in conjunction with the Zionist Organization, this one to coordinate worldwide relief donations.²⁹

Wise was not winning. The best way he could strike back at Mapai was through a dramatic defense of the Revisionists, tying in the unacceptable policies of Weizmann for good measure. Wise began his speech with a stinging rebuke of Weizmann's address in Chicago advocating restricted Jewish settlement. One by one, Wise went on to discredit a range of other controversial Weizmann attitudes. If the delegates supported Weizmann, warned Wise, the movement would never recover.³⁰

Continuing the attack, Wise lashed out directly at Mapai's plans for selective immigration for halutzim, who were steeped since childhood in the idealistic workers' society Mapai hoped to achieve. "Utopia!" cried Wise. "This is what Mapai is planning to create in Palestine. You may actually make a utopia out of the land of Israel, but don't delay its resettlement for the sake of this possible utopia." At this the Revisionists applauded loudly, while Mapai people rose to shout denigrations and denials. Wise went on, accusing the Laborites of trying to create a society in Eretz Yisrael where everyone who did not think like them or belong to their political party would be unable to gain entry or find work. Once more, the Revisionists cheered, while Mapai people hollered catcalls.³¹

At one point, Chairman Motzkin had so much difficulty restraining interruptions, he admonished that if Mapai did not behave he would punish them by letting Wise speak past his time limit. This threat tamed the unruly ones briefly; that is, until Wise ended his provocative speech, declaring that the "Congress must create peace among the factions. The majority represented by the Labor party is responsible for continuing the work in Palestine. But they must not say that only those Jews can enter who share their views." The entire Revisionist group then stood and applauded wildly, shouting congratulations. The Mapai group hissed and booed, calling Wise "ignorant" and a "liar," claiming the Revisionists had fed him lies. ³²

Wise's abrasive speech, coming from a leader of American Zionism, was a great blow to Mapai's prestige at the Congress. His comments conspicuously lacked any reference to the Transfer Agreement or the orange deal, probably because as breaches of the boycott he felt these issues should be confined to the Geneva Conference. However, others had not forgotten. Meir Grossman rose again to demand an answer to his interpellation.

"Three days ago," Grossman shouted, "we were told we would have a reply .... I believe we have shown fairness in waiting for it this long." Aware that Berl Locker had previously promised an answer to either the Congress plenum or a "committee," Grossman tried to head off a closed-door disclosure. "We will not be satisfied with merely a reply to the Political Committee. We want a reply to the Congress. I am asking the chairman whether the Executive will give us a reply."³³

Locker answered: "'The fact that so few plenary sessions have been held is the reason that Grossman's interpellation has not been answered until now. But this is our reply: The Executive has ... determined that the negotiations referred to in the interpellation had not been ordered by the Executive. We are prepared, however, to furnish additional details to the Political Committee. We will leave it up to the Political Committee whether or not it will communicate this reply to the plenary session."³⁴

Chairman Motzkin added: "'I wish to remind all concerned that the bylaws state the following about a reply to interpellations: 'Reply can be given orally or in writing; it can also be refused by the Executive with reason therefore.' "³⁵

If Locker thought that he could deny the Executive's responsibility because the Anglo-Palestine Bank controlled the arrangement, Grossman here too, was one step ahead. "Inasmuch as Mr. Locker has declared that the Zionist Organization has nothing to do with the negotiations," Grossman added, "I wish to ask whether or not the Anglo-Palestine Bank is subject to supervision by the Executive?"³⁶

The answer was obvious. Virtually everyone in the hall knew that the Zionist Organization owned the Anglo-Palestine Bank through subsidiaries and essentially controlled it through the Executive. Before Locker could respond, however, a Mapai delegate, Israel Mereminski, stood up and intervened. "To begin with, the Executive has stated that it has nothing to do with the agreement," Mereminski said. "In the second part of its statement, the Executive declared that ... this was a matter for the Political Committee." Defending Locker from the need to answer further, Mereminski rhetorically asked, "Does the Executive mean that it refuses to make a comprehensive statement before the Political Committee-which deals with all political matters affecting the Congress-has had a chance to examine the matter and decide whether ... the matter is to be submitted to the Congress? If this is the case, I believe it is sufficient reason not to reply to Grossman's inquiry."³⁷

Locker interjected, "In my opinion, the Executive is entitled not to reply to an interpellation by stating the reason therefore .... The Executive wishes to ... furnish all details in its possession to the Political Committee. That should put an end to the matter."³⁸

Motzkin added a helpful clarification: "Mr. Locker's statement should be understood to mean that the Executive will make its statements to the Political Committee; the Congress will then be entitled to deal with it. It is of course possible, Mr. Grossman, that after you have heard the Executive's statement to the Political Committee, you will withdraw your interpellation." ³⁹ Motzkin's comment held out hope that perhaps if Grossman-an alternate member of the Political Committee-were briefed privately behind closed doors, he would understand the sensitivity of the issue and spare the full Congress a floor report.

But Grossman brushed aside any compromise. And since the Congress was due to hold its final session the next day, he added a new demand: "I propose that the Congress order the Executive to make its statement to the Political Committee today, and that the matter be submitted to the [full] Congress this evening or tomorrow morning." ⁴⁰ This was the key demand. By having the statements made to the Political Committee within a few hours and reported at once to the floor, the delegates could then learn all the details and vote on rescinding the Transfer Agreement before the Congress disbanded.

Motzkin looked out at the faces of the delegates. For days, they had been bombarded by rumors, press leaks, and flying allegations. Rank and file back home were all demanding to know the truth about the Transfer Agreement. A response to Grossman's interpellation had been delayed three times, debate had been clotured, and sessions had been canceled.

It could go no further. Chairman Motzkin turned to Berl Locker and said, "We ask the Executive to furnish its statement to the Political Committee today." Cheers burst forth from the Revisionists. Before they became carried away, Motzkin added, "As to the second part [reporting the findings to the full Congress], we will talk about that tomorrow. We will now proceed with the general debate."⁴¹ It is doubtful that in their exuberance the Revisionists were still paying attention. What was important was that finally the delegates would learn what they needed to know about the negotiations with Germany, and what in fact was the Transfer Agreement.