The Jewish Trail of Tears The Evian Conference of ... - Haruth.com

advised the U.S. Ambassador to Poland that American “efforts on behalf of German
refugees” must not promote the persecution and expulsion of the “unwanted sections” of
other national groups and the “dumping of these people into the hands of international
charity.” 9 Dr. Nahum Goldmann viewed this new standing committee as potentially useful
if the British would allow increased immigration into Palestine. Therefore, he concluded,
the continuity of a close working relationship was a critical task for Jewish
organizations. 10
Likewise, Dr. Arthur Ruppin believed that the creation of the IGCR was
a “positive” step provided the London-based international committee was “blessed with a
gifted director.” 11
Zalman Rubashov, a correspondent for Davar attending the Evian
Conference, commended both the United States and France for creating a “third way”
that would permit negotiations between the Reich and Jews that would ultimately benefit
Zionist goals. 12
The Zionist leadership, however, was not interested in rescuing Jewish
refugees if it was not tied to increased immigration into Palestine. Without such a
connection “all Zionists wanted was to shrug off the entire matter with all possible
speed.” 13 The French under Bérenger, during the August 3, 1938 meeting in London,
continued to maintain that France had “reached the saturation point” vis-à-vis
9 Thomas Bailey, A Diplomatic History of the American People (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1980), 708 cited in Frank W. Brecher, Reluctant Ally: United States Foreign Policy toward the Jews from
Wilson to Roosevelt (NY: Greenwood Press, 1991), 63.
10 CZA, File S25/9778 cited in Beit-Zvi, “Post-Holocaust Zionism,” 151.
11 A. Ruppin, Chapters of My Life, 303. Ibid., 152.
12 “Listener,” Davar, July 22, 1938. Ibid., 152.
13 Ibid., 152.
305