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

groups of middle-class Jews such as the American Jewish Congress and B’nai B’rith.
B’nai B’rith in 1935, for example, had suggested Birobidzhan as a potential haven for
Polish Jews. 22
The Jewish Labor Committee and the Workmen’s Circle, however,
opposed such plans recognizing the intrinsic difficulties that stood in the way of the
fruition of these schemes. Philosophically they believed in the inherent rights of Jews to
remain within the bounds of their native country and the right of free emigration to any
destination including Palestine; rights that obviated the need for colonization. The
Yiddishe Welt, published in Cleveland on February 4, 1937, commented that many plans
were being conceived for Jewish colonization. “All they amount to is a finger pointed to
a spot on the map. When, however, we say Palestine, that has a meaning and a
certainty.” 23
British historian Martin Gilbert criticized the Evian Conference for adopting a
non-hostile “neutral stance” that, due to its ultimate failure, would “cost a multitude of
lives.” 24 Rafael Medoff highlighted the failure of the American Jewish leadership, who
were on “vacation” or “lunching at the regular hour at their favorite restaurant,” instead
of assuming a more proactive role. 25
He also believed that Roosevelt conceived the
22 Birobidzhan was an attempt to establish a semi-autonomous socialist Jewish settlement in the Far East
of the U.S.S.R. Henry Srebrnik, “Red Star over Birobidzhan: Canadian Jewish Communists and the ‘Jewish
Autonomous Region’ in the Soviet Union,” Labour 44 (Fall 1999): 129-147.
23 Jonathan D. Sarna, The American Jewish Experience (NY: Holmes & Meier, 1986), 245.
24 Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy, (London: Collins, 1986), 65.
25 Rafael Medoff, The Deafening Silence (NY: Shapolsky Publishers, 1988), 11, 12, 13, 154.
318