I
M-T
idoubtedly the rescue
grew, the Franco in
th Spain's \/s were in
legd limbo. Franco had repealed the 1931-RepiibUcan constitution but had not restored the 1876 constitution guarantieelng religious tolerahce to non-Catholics.
Initially, In Franco's Spahi, there was no room for a Jewish community wtich could -openly conduct Its-prayers, circumcise Its sons and provide a Jewish education to Its children. Synj^ogues In Madrid and Barcelona were closed and religious worship was forced underground.
Avni claims that this unpleasant atmosphere prompted Jews to convert. Quoting one witness, he says that 21 out of 25 German Jewish families in. Madrid converted.
Jewish life', he adds, was overshadowed during the first days of the war by the, strident activities of the fascist Falange Espanola movement and the presence of Nazis. Anti-semitic literature, such as Henry Ford's International Jew and Hitler's MeinKampf. found a wide readership as well.     ' '
Yet systematic attacks against Jews were rare.
In the post-1945 period,: conditions gradually improved for Jews. Franco revoked the 1492 Edict of Expulsion In 1968, and in December of that year> he sent his minister of Justice to participate in a ceremony inaugurating a new synagogue in the capital.
Times had certainly changed.
In the 1960s, the Spanish government again had the chance to aid Jews in distress, and it did so in the case of Moroccan aind Egyptian Jewry.
Spain, the Jews, and Franco presents all this information in a dispassionate, straightforward manner. It is a good job of research, but the writing Is on the dry side. Avnl may have written the definitive account of Franco and his relationship with Jews. But two key ingredients are missing: Franco's personal views toward Jews, and bright writing. '
iveness
custom
pur ^ and, . e to seek Agressions ithers who V me way or
iled in the ;moria! — nes and in : social and ' bw. much •: ractice of 1 in these s between members class and 1 religiious
eed of our nd being '
t me offer e; or may n the past lers, plead j.whbm I; vertently.-- ,
■ the past ■
bin ;those ;
■ read this trouble of: irbb^brks Fter week, , piace with
n though . :lsm were ely.
,.for those : reform In ,
•mbers of atipn who. ntly con-dorn each with cap-: iifea<i-4nid spirit or d humble^ t at least\ r captions j ht on the,
wrongly >rsed the he other
extreme, that I "failed to adequately oppose the war." I forgive them, even though 1, continue to believe that their reactions reflect more emotionalism' and wishful thinking than realism and objectivity.
1 did support the first objectives of the war: to push back the PLO terrorists in Lebanon some 40 kilometres so as to protect Israel's northern borderlands from enemy fire. I questioned, the extension of the war. deep into Lebanon to bring order into the Lebanese chaotic social and political cauldron in the belief that such a new; order would be of long-term benefit to Israel.
I confess also that 1. was much, influenced by Mr. Abba Eban's eminently logical arid sober views on that situation. (Without deriving any satisfaction, I feel obliged to say that everything that happened since the, war's extension seems to underscore the
, correctness of Mr. Eban's position:) Fourth, I forgive, albeit with great difficulty, .those among us who, undeir
. the effects of understandable etnotibn-alisni, forgot that our main task was to
: win friends for Israel's cause rather than corner (non-Jewish) friends into the enemy compounds.-
' I also forgive, though with even greater difficulty, those who unhesitatingly questioned the loyalty and patriotism of those who disagreed with certain tactical policies either in Israel or here. I forgive thein because I do not question : their good intentions but I must remind them that good intentions alone can never replace logic and sound reasoning.: . Fifth, 1 cannot — try as I may -—offer forgiveness'to those who loudly proclaim their concern for Israel but who absent themselves from the ranks of thoise who provide, voluntarilyj the fhiandal help that Israel requires at this critical hour. People in that pitiful caitegory are totally bereft of the moral right to speak out, to. be heard or to be forgiven. But, may I be forgiven for not finding It possible to forgive them?
Sixth, I forgive allthose among iis who lacked faith in our Canadian Jewish community. The community's generous response to the special Israel appeal of U J A. and the C J A, especially in view of Canada's economic difficulties, should: dispel, any doubts that one may have entertained about the essentially good state of moral health of our people.
Seventh, I ask forgiveness from my good uncle Eliezer, his bosom friends, Mendle and Sam, and all other members of the reliable band of Thursday night shvitz buddies, for not including their Shohah Tova greetings in thp last column. It was inadvertently, omitted;
Fhially, stace we have all forgiven each other, let us Join hands to meet an: extremely difficult year In the life.of Israel and the Jewish, communities everywhere. Amen. •
I
M-t
The Canadian Jewish News, Thursday, September 23, 1982 - Page 5
Opinion
Historians reveal the
Caiiada tur^^ Jewish refug
By SHELDON kiRSHNER
, Chalm Weizmann, the Zionist leader who would be Israel's first president, agonized on the dilemma facing European Jewry in the 1930s arid 1940s when he mused: "The world seemed to be divided into two parts — those places where the Jews could not live, and those where they could not enter.''
If Nazi Germany fell into the first category, then Canada was surely in the secondcamp.
At a time when persecuted JeWs were desperatelyin search of refuge, any refuge. Canada turned a cold shoulder on them. The world was not a pleasant place for Jews in those dark decades, wracked by Depression arid war, but some countries were more generous than others, when the crunch came.
The U.S. was not a paragon of virtue, but President Franklin Roosevelt admitted mote than 200,000 Jewish refugees in the period spanning 1933-1945, encompassing the accession to power.of Hitler and the end ofWoridWarll. .
Britain had its problems, to be sure, hni the British found room for 70,000 Jews. Impoverished Bolivia took In 14,000. And Canada? Fewer than 5,000! Canada, the land of plenty and opportunity, probably had the worst record for providing sanctuary to oppressed European Jewry.
Two Canadian historians, Irving Abella and Harold Troper, both of whom teach in Toronto^ have written what is undoubtedly the definitive study on the subject. None Is Too Many [Lester & Orpen Dennys, $19.95] Is a powerful, heartrending and well-writtein Indictment of Canadian immigration policy, based almost exclusively on' primary historical materials.
Abella and Troper have done a thorough job of research, and. if they were lawyers trying to secure a conviction, they would succeed. In their book, the Canadian government is found guilty of anti-semit-ism. crass political opportunism, insensi-tivity, indifference and cowardice.
This is a shameful era in the history of Canada, and one reads None Is Too Many with mounting anger and pain. Just imagine how many lives could have been saved, had Ottawa not pursued such a narrow, mean policy.
Canada began to restrict the fiow of immigrants when, . in ; 1928. it cut back drastically on East European immigration. No one in Ottawa bothered to conceal the fact that British and American immigrapts were preferred above all others. Everyone knew .that a good proportion of East European immigrantswere jews.
With the onset of the Depression. Ottawa tightened the ring around Canada, Thomas Crerar, the minister of mines and. resources, was responsible for immigration after the Liberal : Party won the 1935 election. He was a soft-hearted, fuzzy man who knew precious littleabout immigration, and so the perison who really administered the immigration branch was one Frederick Charles Blair.
If there is a villain in None fs Too Many, it must be Blair, who made policy and Implemented It between 1936 and 1943. His successor, A. L. Jolliffe, was cut from the same cloth.
Blair was born in Carlisle, OntJ, in 1874, of Scottish parents. He was a religious man, a church elder arid a diligent civil servant who got hisdue from Ottawa in the form of an award for meritorious service. Mirroring : the anti-immigration spirit of the times, Blair believed he was duty-bound to keep "undesirable'* immigrants oiitof Canada.
As Abella and Troper point out, the term "refugee" was regarded by Blair as a code word for Jews. Blair warned Crerar that unless "safeguards were Instituted, Canada would be "fiooded with Jewish people."
He was proud of his forte to keep Jews from these shores. "Pressure on the part of the; Jewish people to get into Canada• has never been greater than it is now, and 1 am glad to be able to add, after 35 years of experience here, that it was never so well controlled." •■ .  '• ■ •
Despite such views, Blair did not see
himself as an anti-semite. The arrival of Jews in Canada, he opined, would trigger anti-semitism,undermirie the security of the established Jewish community and be of little benefit to the immigrants themselves. Blair would have lis think he was a friend of Jews.' ■
ThiO'elf-contented bureaucrat was only doing his rnasters' bidding, for the fundamental decision to keep Jews out of Canada was a political one. Mackenzie King, the Prime Ministerduring most of the 1920s and again after 1935, had fleeting liberal instincts.
In the final -analysiis, however, he and Blair were on the same wave length. In his. . diary, Ktag wrote disparagingly of Jews and of the danger posed from "too great an intermixture of foreign strains of blood." Convinced, and with good reason, that Quebec would react unfavorably to the admission of Jewish refugees, king noted that Canada must be guided by "realities" and political considerations hi the formtda-tion of policy.
Andsoitwas.
Canada sent a delegation to the 1938 Evian conference, allegedly convened to alleviate the plight of refugees. The Canadian representative expressed sympathy, but words vvere words.
The real Canadian response to Evian was a tightening of restrictions. Conned by Blair, Crerar agreed to raise the necessary capital required of prospective Jewish applicants from $10,000 to $15,000. Yet even $15,000 was not enough in many cases. By 1938, theimmigration^branch was rejecting Jews with assets of $20,{X)0.
Later on, Ottawa would turn thuriibs down on a refugee family with nearly $1 million to invest in Canada and on an internationally-renowned acadiemic with $150,000 and a private annual income of $10,000.
Abella and Troper, having consulted external aJffairs department archives, show how deeply rooted was the prejudice which powered Canadian policy. Norman Robertson, a high-ranking official, said: "We don't want to take too many Jews, but in the present circumstances particulariy, we don't want to say so."
Robertson, too, made it clear that Canada Would rather admit German and Austrian Jews than Jews who were "one step removed from the. ghettos of Poland and Czarist Russia."
These fine distinctions notwithstanding, Canada  wanted no truck with Jewish
refugees. When, in 1938, Crerar stiinned , his cabinet colleagues by announcing that he was prepared to recommend the; admission of 10,000 refugees, an embar-rased silence overtook them all.
Soon, Crerar waTIBrought around, and the question of 10,000 refugees was dropped. Jewish refugees who had already landed in Canada as tourists would be allowed to remain, but no more would be granted admission "lest it might foment an anti-semiticproblem...."
Even Jewish farmers, ensconced In a preferred Immigrant category, were being barred from Canada. This led an official representing the Jewish Colonization Association hi Europe to complain bitteriy. He reported that Canadian railway and shipping companies had been ordered "not to consider requests from Jewish agriculturalists, even if they comply fully with the law."
Meanwhile, because ostensibly only farmers we're being admitted, Jewish officials were advising Jewish doctors, scientists and other, professionals who w.ere applying for immigrant status that they must eriiphasize their "ability to engage in farming and their suitability for a farming , life."
The headlines precipitated, by the St. Louis, the German passenger liner filled vvith Jewish refugees seeking safe haven, did not arouse, any feeling in Ottawa either. Ernest Lapointe, the justice minister, said he was "emphatically opposed" to allowing these Jews into Canada. Blair, characteristically; said "the line must be drawn somewhere."
Canada was as adamant after news leaked out that two million Jews had already been killed in the Holocaust. Huriie Wrong, the under-secretary of state for external affairs, said in reply to a question that Canada was not prepared to rescue the remnant of European Jewry. The solution, • he explained, was not to admit refugees, "but to defeat Germany and thus liberate the Jews of Europe.''
The Jewish community in Canada fought government policy, but with no apparent result. Abella and Troper write that It was small and politically weak and that its protest was barely heard.
Three Jewish MPs, Samuel Jacobs, Sam Factor and A. A. Heaps, initially led the battle in their role as shtadlonim. But they were powerless and their influence was • negligible.
The Canadian Jewish Congress formed a refugee committee under the leadership of Montreal lawyer Satjl Hayes. But Hayes, who was Congress', executive director for
many years, failed to open closed minds in Ottawa.'
According to Abella and Troper, com-rmuiai leaders exhibited timidity and obsequiousness in pretenting the case for a liberal Immigration policy. What Congress feared inost of all, they say, was that Jewish 'demonstrations might both alienate the government and stir an anti-semitic backlash. Congress' role, therefore, '.'was not to mobilize Jewish opinion but to'monltor it-— to guard against any Jewish outburst, spontaneous or otherwise, that might rebound against the community,"
The authors ask whether militant tactics would have worked. Probably not, they think. Ottawa was simply not predisposed to listen.
There were voices in Canada, notably that of Seriator Cairine Wilson, who sought to change the do-nothing poHcy of Mackenzie King. And the majority of newspaper editorialists denounced the "pusillahi^ ■mous" attitude of the government.
Yet most Canadians were not favorably disposed to the refugees. Indeed, Canadians who marched in support of iinmigra-tion were of two minds about the whole issue. As Abella and Troper put it: "Temporary refugees, including Jewish (ones), were one thing, Jewish immigrants another."
The War Information Board to Ottawa found that most Canadians favored restrictive immig^tlon, based partly on racial or national origin. Jewish refugees fared badly in this survey. A 1946 poll revealed that 49 % of respondents felt that Jews would not ; be desirable immigrants.'
In spite of adverse opinion, Canada gradiially opened Its gates in the wake of the war, and the switoh had nothinjg to do with sentiment. C. D. Howe, the hifluentlal minister of reconstruction and supply, was bullish on the economy and he became an outspoken advocate of Increased immigration — includtog that of displaced persons.
Canadian irnmigration laws were anchored on the assumption of a stagnant economy. "The surge of industrial development that Canada underwent during the war made this central pillar . . . obsolete," write Abellaand Troper.
They dismiss the notion that Canada liberalized its policy to divert Jewish immigrants from Palestine, then under a British mandatory regime. "The cabinet was not about to solve British problems by creating Canadian ones."
Through a series of special schemes designed for tailors and furriers, displaced Jeus (including my parents) were per-
A JeWish famUy in Montreal, i:irca 1944, after having arrived from Portugal.
mitted to. immigrate to Canada, Of the 65,000 refugees admitted  into Canada, through March of 1948, fewer than 15% were Jews.
Measured against the magnitude of the problem — 250,000 Jews awaited new homes in the summer of 1947 — the number of Jews who entered Canada to 1948 seems small. "On the other hand, compared to prewar and wartime immigration of Jews,
this figure represents a monumental growth In Jewish refugee Immigration."
A boorning Canada unveiled a new Immigration Act in 1948, and unprecedented numbers of Jews streamed into this country. But by then, general immigration was so large that the Jewish component remained inconspicuous.
Canada had embarked on a new road . . but thebad memories lingered on.
CJC, BB name committees to study white paper
PQ proposak hold vast implications for Jeimh schools
,;;i-.^:v:,:yW;v:^ ■ \
Frederick Charles Blair
By JANICE ARNOLD
MONTREAL —
The Jewish community has been absent so far from one of the most hotly debated issues in vQuebec today: the. ministry of education's proposal to restructure the public school system. ,
The radical overhaul of Quebec schools conceived by Education Minister Camille Laurin has dfawn criticisrii from all concerned sectors: teachers, school admiriis-trators, parents — francophories and anglo-phdnes. Catholics and Protestants, in public arid private schools..
Months before the white paper's official publication in . June, its earlier leaked working documents had already aroused ■ arixiety. .•
, Public protests are expected  to be stepped up this fall by teachers' unions and ; school boards. The government has an- . nounced that it will be accepting briefs on the white paper In March. °
There. are two sections of The Quebec School: A Responsible Force in the Coin-riiunity — as the document is entitled —
. that are of specific iiiterest to the Jewish
; community. ;
'■■ . Section 4.2.4, states:,"A school vail be allowed to offer the teaching of a religion Other. than Catholic or Protestant, eg. Jewish or Orthodox, if a sufficiently large . number of parents so wish."
A basie^hilosophy of the paper is that the school must be a "prime promoter and protector'' of the; rights and freedoms of conscience and religion. Hand in hand with
/ this ideal is the establishment of non-denominational school boards. (Certainly, this in itself can be viewed as a positive development when the lengthy struggle by the Jewish commiinity to gain representa- ; tion bn the Protestant School. Board of Greater Montreal is recalled.)
The other section; 4;2,8is: a_brief outline, of how private schools will fit in with this . new education Systemi It coritains rib direct reference: to 'the. Jewish day schools, but says public and private schools, under the plan, will ■ both be part of "one national -educational system." v The right To -private education wiU
; apparently continue to. be respected but this, says the paper, does not "confer any inherent right to receive public funds for this purpose." .' ; The conditions^
ment grants, it further states/^'will havejto. i be reviewed and clarified; as will the means^ and conditions of payment." . 0.
The proposed greater aiitbriomy for the individual public schools will make them . simil?rnc)~^private scho^ in inariy ways, ^ays the paper. \'. „•,■■. \ Much can be read into these two sections, which is true of the 90-odd page paper as whole. Said lawyer Frank Schles.inger.
Quebec- Region chairman of Canadian Jewish Congress; "In many,ways^the paper is a masterpiece of bureaucratic jargon and doubletalk." ,/
• One thing Schlesingeris; certain of though: "In the long run, if riot the short, the, day schools will be affected ., . . I hope positively but 1 feat not."
Monette Ulin, director-general of the Association of Jewish Day Schools, the umbrella organization.of the 18 elerrientary and 12 secondary Jewish schools in the Montreal area, has been negotiating with Quebec City officials since the beginnirig of the year. -Her opinion is -similar to ; Schlesinger's.
"Thcfre Is only one page to the white paper on private education, but if you read between the lines you get the feeling that eventually the government Is going to midte the public schools so much like private schools that private schools will ho longer be needed, or at least need,to be publicly funded." '^:-,:-::\'\-,-)^::.
Ulin believes tinie is on the side of the ,schools though. With up to five years before the-plan can be put into effect — if it is passed by the National Assembly r— she hopes negotiations will postpone any major . change in the status of the Jewish schools. .
Officially, the Association of Jewish Day Schools has not taken a public;position on. the gaper, President Stephen Lipper feels it would be premature, and possibly detrimental, for the Jewjsh community to take a position now. A great deal is still unclear aboiit the intentions of the plan, both pedagogicaliy andpolitically, he feels.
Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nar B'nth have both struck committees to study the white paper. The CJC committee, chaired by Carl Laxer, a past president of the Association of Jewish Hiy Schools, has not ar yet decided whether CJC should submit a brief to the government on the paper, or, if it does, what approach it should
take.     . -r^y--.'' /. ^'
. The B'nai B'rith's committee; chaired by Jewish Family Services lawyer Mildred ■ Kblodny, also has not decided yet if it will submitabrief to the government.: ■ CJC finds itself caught in the middle: should it primarily represent the interest of the Jewish schools or speak for^alhJewish students, 50 to 60% of whom/attend public schools? -Whether the plan impoverishes or enriches education, in (Quebec is the : appraoch CJC Quebec Region officers.h'afe suggested. /■ ^'■•^
A meeting of the Quebec Region executive and council was held recently to obtain the opinions of members. He fact that only 10% of the 600 persons who received Invitations to the meeting showed up may indicate. that few members of the community underistand the Implications of the white paper.
Ghairriian of the executive Flora Naglie ; said riiore rneetings with the community
would be held in the future before CJC made any representations to the government. ■
. The creation of "Jewish public schools" is such a novel idea that its implications iare only beginning tocome tolight.
The question arises whether the government would regard such schools as a sub--stitute for the Jewish day schools, thereby relieving it, at least partially, from the $11 million (1981 figure) it spends annually in supporting the d3y schools.
The day schools have enjoyed since the mid-60s, with the exception of the first year the Parti Quebecois was in power, the maximum subsidies allocated to private schools.
It's no secret that the government's finances are not in the best order, or that the PQ is opposed to private education in priiiciple.
Even  before  the. white, paper was published, MNA David Payne, a close aide to Camille Laurin. weriton record as being , in favor of Jewish public schools. : Changes have already begun. At the beginning of the. last school year, the; funding system was changed from a straight 80% for the Jewish day schools' secular studies to a complicated formula of fixed rates that rise or fall accordtog to the
amount allotted to public schools. The net result has been a drop of a couple of percentages in grants.
This year, the revenue department rejected day school fees as a charitable donation for tax deduction. ,
Stephen Lipper cautioned those present at the CJC meeting that the Jewish community had better start looking for a means of making up for any reduction in public funds to the schools. \
Still,:the institution of Jewish studies in sortie public schools could be good for Jewish schoolchildren who do not receive Jewish education elsewhere. However, only one,high School today under the PSBGM . has a majority of J6wish,students— Wagar in Cote St. Luc —: arid possibly one or two elementarj' schools, said a PSBGM spokesman, V .?■■:
It is also doubtful that many parents would be tempted to switch their childreri from theday schcK)lsbeca a week are devoted to Jewish studies in a public school. Any ihreat from the point of view of enrolment to the Jewish day SchooLs •would be negligible.
Other 'Jewish- education officials are worried by whiat they see as increased government Jnterverition. in the running of the schools as a threat to the autpriorny of.
the Jewish schools. Linkage with public school councils in their district proposed in the paper, may dilute their association with. their branches in other areas of the city as well as with the network of Jewish schools as a whole, observed the head of one major Jewish day school system.
Comparisons are being made "national--ization'' and "territorialization", of the province's health and socialservices in the 70s; which affected the clientele the Jewish agencies served and their administration.
. Fraiik Schlesinger also questions the political motives behirid the paper. "On the , face,of it. the plan is toward decehtraiiza-tion. but at what point does too much decentralization result in centralization?"
The devolution of power from the school board to the individual schools, which are to be administered largely by parents, may produce a fragmented system of parts too small to have any real power and thus even more dependent than today on the education ministry, he feels. -.'l
The PQ government is not the first to Quebec to propose massive educational reforms, oi)ser\ed Schlesinger, and when they proved unpopular the party suffered at the polls. "Any government today is going to think very, very carefully before It makes any major changes to the schools."
■ Not anti-Jewish It is absurd to think of one or two anti-seimltic incidents to Greece as something the present. Greek govemnient is supporting ["Mounting pall of anti-semltism to Greece'clouds viability of Jewish tourism
there" CJN Aug.~26*]  ., .....•.
In a irecent visit to Prime .Mtolster Andreas Papandrebii's office, representatives of the Jewish community to Greece were reassured that "Greek people are not anti-Jewish and they have proved, particu-, lariy during the Second Worid War, that they are not possessed of even the slightest trace of anti-semitism but, on the contrary, have always shown love for the Greek Jews ' and stood by them during the difficult years ofthatperiod."
DinosSlotIs, :   Press Counsellor, Embassy of Greece Ottowa       ".v :;.^,i-
The Brehra controversy
TheCJN has recently printed a nuriiber of attacks^n Jewish groiips. which publicized their opposition to the invasion of Lebanon. The whole affair recalls the controversy over the groiip Breira in the mid-70s. \
The position of Breira. a.s summed iip in one editorial at the time, was as follows:
"It (Breira)„ calls, for recognition of Israel's right to.exist in conditions of full peace,a phased Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and the creation of security-zones, anS'of a Palestinian state alongside Israel."— .' : - For publicly advocating this position, Breira .was vilified in numerous , Jewish publications as ' "ariti-lsrael,'' a "front for Fatah," etc; Not everyone went alorig with , the witch hurit,:ho%vever. The sarne editorial quoted above went on to riiake 'these' remarks: y-T::-.''-:I,
"To argue, as some do; that Breira is the fourth wheel on the Arab, propaganda bandwagon is utter nonsense.. . . It Would be erroneous to equate public opposition to Israeli policies with outright treasdn.
"To argue that silence is preferable to reasoned debate, on .the Middle East is to invite a McCarthyist suppression of dissent — a darigerous formula jor totalitarian and intellectual impoverishment.    f . V .
"No self-respecting community^ can tolerate the squelching of free speech, especially when the topic under discussion is Israel." u
.the publication-taking this courageoiis stance was none other thafi The Canadian
Jewish News of June 24j-1977. Whether or. . not one believes the invasion of Lebanon and the Likud policy of aiinexihg the West Bank to be niorally justifiable or in Israel's long-tferm interest, we would all benefit by heeding these wise words of a CJN editorial concerned with democracy in pur community. '"■.■■■"^■; ■ .  Daniel Kofman
Jewish Studies B.A. student, McGIHUniversity,     ' . Montreal    , '-r—v
Praise for article .
Janice Arnold's article on the historic perspective . of. Teimple-Emanu EI-Beth-Sholom's lOOth anniversary (GJN Sept. 2) deserves recognition .It is not easy to glean inforrnation from various sources and put it all together in a cohesive and forthright ■ mariner. -T'" ■
Incidentally, there are members of our ° corigregatiori who are direct descendants of ourfoUriders. ,
Sincere thanks to to Miss Arnold and to your riewspaper; for bringing the story of ■ Emanu-Ei-Beth-Sholom into our homes. Falga Fisher •-, Montreal^