Show OCR
THE NATIONAL JEWISH POSTrti*VPublication ot Post Is Favor” to U.S. Jewry• Editor, Jewish Post:. . . Enclosed please find our renewal for a year’s subscription to TflP lVttional Jewish Post.I want to tel) you how much both my husband and I look forward to reading The Post. We believe you are doing American Jewry a real favor in publishing this newspaper.eoligist, is visiting lecturer at Bradford, Pa.DR. SAMUEL MARGOSHES ACCUSESM. Z. FRANK OF MISQUOTING HIM' Hops on Bandwagon Of Helen Cohen Readers4 4iEditor, Jewish Post:The Women’s Viewpoint, by ,r . Helen Cohen, has more men read-'e ers than women, . . .”Me, too.HARRY GREEN. M. D. Tulsa, Okla.*rdirliieoisn*eoi.B,■rgs.nr*•tieiristr-e•ryoThe person suggesting a name for this new Post feature that is finally accepted will receive a prize of $2.50. Write your suggestions to Samuel Deutsch, The Jewish Post, Box 1633, Indianapolis 6, Ind.In the early days of printing, proofreaders were expected to be familiar with Latin, Greek and Hebrew in addition to other “less familiar” languages.The first Jewish woman in Europe known to have practiced medicine was known as Sarah, who lived in Germany in the 15th century. She obtained permission from Archbishop Johann II to practice within his diocese.The term “Zionism” was coinedby Nathan Birnbaum in 1886. Itsusage was officially adopted in1896. Birnbaum still has a son,Uriel an artist, living in Holland.• • •The longest verse in the Bible is in the Book of Esther (8:9). It contain*. 90 words.'eThe word “Selah” appears in the Bible 74 times. Yet, nobody knows exactly what it means.There is no sound for “w” in the Hebrew^ and Yiddish languages.(Copyright 1953)Editor, Jewish Post:In your issue of Friday, June 19th, M. Z. Frank makes the following statement:“Dr. Samuel Margoshes, in a Yiddish essay in The Day of June 6, expresses concern, not to say, alarm, at the very prospect of the Israeli people looking towards economic self-reliance and freedom from the humiliating dependence on financial generosity of the Jewish communities in the Diaspora.”He then proceeds to impugn my Zionism, classing me with such estimable gentlemen as Alfred Liilienthal, Monroe Deutsch and Morris Lazar on.Mr. Frank’s statement does not begin to square with the truth.In my article in The Day of June 6, I took issue with Eliezer Livneh, Mapai ideologist, who, in an address to teachers in Haifa attacking all such forms of outside aid as UJA, Bonds and American grant-in-aid, counselled the educators to “implant and cultivate a feeling of disgust towards halukah, gifts and dependence on others.”I pointed out that to expect the State of Israel to wrestle, unaided, with the financial problems, chief-1} stemming from the influx of 700,000 persecuted Jews, would be entirely unreasonable, not to say uncharitable, and that the direct consequence of Mr. Livneh’s advice, if followed by all citizens of the State of Israel, would be to close the door before any prospective immigrant, which, in es-sense, would mean to have Israel cease to function as the Nation Home of the Jewish people.It will be seen that any resemblance between what I said in my article and that which Mr. Frank attributed to me is “impurely incoincidental.”SAMUEL MARGOSHES New York Cityeconomic argument, but does not mention his appeal to Livneh as a Zionist.If I understood Margoshes correctly (and I think I understand Yiddish), he claimed that werethe flow of help from the Diaspora to Israel to cease, the bond between Israel and the Diaspora would be severed and the role of the Zionists as the chief welders of the bond would he discontinued. It is the “Zionist” side ofthe Margoshes argument I had in view when I called attention to his distortion of the original Zionist idea.Margoshes misrepresents Livneh’s position as “attacking all such forms of outside aid as UJA, Bonds and American grants inaid.”What Livneh is attacking is the undue reliance on such aid. the assumption that it will last forever, its use for current needs instead of strictly defined constructive capital investment.Incidentally, Livneh is not an official “Mapai ideologist.” He is, rather, a rebel against many current notions and practices within Mapai.His criticism of the way Israel depends on and uses money front outside, is directed in the first place against the Government and the Jewish Agency, both of which are controlled by Mapai.Livneh is the most articulate and the ablest spokesman for a sentiment which is widespread among many Israeli people: they are sick of being shnorrers. But. according to Margoshes (and he is not the only one), no shnor-risrn, no Zionism.M. Z. Frank RepliesIn his debate with Livneh, Dr. Margoshes argues his case on two grounds; economics and Zionism.In his letter to the editor of The Post, Margoshes paraphrases hisThinks M. Z. Frank Loses Us Readers# Editor, Jewish Post:Please cancel my subscription. Don’t think you will have many more subscribers left after a few more articles by M. Z. Frank.JOSEPH GODOWChicago
Your clip comment has been saved and pending for approval before it displayed.