Dalia Ofer.pdf - WNLibrary

An Ambivalent Zionist Leadership 37
The Zionist leadership, hardly recovered from the effects of the Patria,
now had to face the issue of the forced deportation. However, Shertok's fear
that public outrage would lead to mobs in the streets, blocking roads and
preventing British movements, did not materialize. Indeed, the leadership
was taken aback by the absence of public outcry. The silence in the streets
bespoke an abandonment of the struggle for those in need of rescue—of
Zionist ideals. Such an anticlimax evoked profound doubts among the leadership.
Had they failed in their mission to provide direction to the Yishuv?
A wave of self-criticism surged among the leaders, led by Katznelson. He
decried the seeming impotence of the Yishuv, which had stood by silently
while Jews were dragged under cover of night and expelled from the Land
of Israel. He held the leadership responsible for the Yishuv's betrayal of their
Zionist mission.
At the Histadrut labor federation's convention on 9 December 1940, Katznelson
stated that only militancy might have prevented the deportation from
being carried out and called for militancy as the only hope, regardless of
risks. 46
We arc fighting all over the world, on every front; our blood is being spilled
everywhere . . . but for ourselves, for our own liberation, we stop, we deliberate
and we weigh the pros and cons so carefully, more than we ever had for any
problem, great or small.
Katznelson charged that agreeing to a policy that was aimed from the start
at preventing violent attempts at rescue had been a great mistake. It had
crippled further efforts for aliyah and for rescue.
Katznelson's speech aroused a great storm within the labor movement
over the concept of militancy and its implications. Impassioned debate raged
over the sinking of the Patria, over its significance as a case of Jewish resistance,
and over the meaning of illegal aliyah during the war. The controversy
spilled over into the Mapai central committee meeting of 15 December 1940. 47
Kaplan led the opposition to a policy of militant activism. His remarks stressed
political wisdom—knowing when to respond vigorously and when to exercise
restraint. "Even powerful nations must choose carefully when to act and when
to remain silent. We as a weak nation must be all the more careful. ..."
Kaplan contended furthermore that the sinking of the Patria had undermined
the authority of the constituted political bodies of the Yishuv, because the
decision had not been made by the proper authorities and, in fact, had gone
against their will. In his opinion, the Yishuv ought to be satisfied with Britain's
willingness to send refugees to British colonies, since it was a way of saving
them; the outstanding question of their immigration to Palestine was one that
could be resolved after the war.
Kaplan was supported by those among the central committee members
who saw the sinking of the Patria as a moral blot on illegal immigration as a
whole. Joseph Lofban, one of the editors of the Histadrut daily Davar,
deemed the sinking an irresponsible and immoral act, "in comparison to which