 |
|
|
[Page 411]
Translated by Ala Gamulka
Edited by Erica S. Goldman-Brodie
[Page 412]
[Page 413]
Organization of the Communities
After the 1917 revolution, when equal rights were declared for all Russian nationalities, it was possible for the Jewish communities in Bessarabia, for the first time in their history, to use these rights to organize their national lives and to participate in municipal councils and legislative assemblies. The Zionist movement came out of the underground of the war and raised its flag in all Jewish settlements. It quickly passed the organizational phase and planted its stamp on public life in all its various manifestations. This will be discussed as follows.
Beginning of the Organization
The first step of the Jewish community was to organize itself as an independent entity within a local democratic aspect. It is true that, in some places, the community was established without dependence on free, democratic aspects, without outside intervention. Except for Kishinev, where the first elections were held in late July 1918, by a special permit from the new Romanian authorities.[1]
The elections in Kishinev followed democratic rules- general, direct, secret and proportional. The results were: a. Zionists received 22 seats; b. Bund-12; c. democratic intelligentsia (close to the Bund)-3; d. orthodox- 4; Mizrachi-3; e. various non-political groups, mostly with a narrow patronizing bent-15. In total- 69 elected.
From a total of 20 000 eligible voters, only 12 000 voted, i.e., 60%. This indifference on the part of the public can be explained by the depressed mood, unrest and lack of belief in the future which prevailed among the citizens at the beginning of the Romanian conquest of the province. The vague situation influenced the development of the community. In addition: Romania did not have laws about national autonomy. On the other hand, the undermining of the founding of the young community, by the wealthy, strengthened. There was a fear of what national autonomy would
[Page 414]
stop them from using their influence and from levying of taxes. Therefore, they tried hard to curb the activities of the community.
It is known that assimilation did not, as a rule, make deep roots among the Jews of Bessarabia. This was especially true of the villages with 300 people and up- the equivalent of over 100 000 people- about a half of the entire Jewish population of Bessarabia. The spiritual life of the Jews of Bessarabia was based on national Jewish tradition. Most people were a product of traditional Jewish education, be it Heder, house of study or enhanced Heder. There were very few who ignored the national values of the people. They did not have any influence on the masses. It was natural that those who were elected in most of the towns were members of the Zionist movement or its followers. They came with great spirit and energy to build the new national autonomy in their home towns.
However, before the young community was able to establish itself and decide on its plans of operation, the political situation of the province changed. It was annexed by Romania. The existing communities, especially Kishinev, were soon dispersed and everything was back to its previous existence-the Korobka[2] with its unelected collectors and leaders. Again, the social institutions were weakened. Only the local educational issue was resolved. Tarbut with its central office and various branches still in the settlements, began, with courage and energy, to open Hebrew schools. However, in all other public issues, the situation was as sad as it was earlier.
A spark of spirit and rescue came from another direction: the Romanian government was obliged, according to the peace treaty signed by it in 1919-20, to award: “full rights to all Jews residing in old and new areas who are not citizens of another country”. The government reiterated its obligations on 28 March 1923 when the new version of the constitution was approved.
It is a fact that, even earlier, the true representatives of the Jewish community saw it was time to demand, from the government, full rights as a national entity. The initiative was undertaken by the central Ukrainian council in Kishinev which had Jewish representatives. The founding council of representatives, communities and help groups were called to a meeting on 17-19 October 1920. It elected a temporary managing council of 7 members. Its task was to prepare a proposal for a law on Jewish autonomy in Romania.
[Page 415]
The members of the council were: Dr. Yaakov Bernstein-Cohen (chair), engineer Mordechai A. Gotlieb, Nahum M. Roitman- from the Zionist union; Rabbi I. L. Tsirelson- from the Orthodox; A. Rabinovitch- Yiddishists; Leib Trachtenberg and Shmuel Yasky (treasurer)- Poalei Zion; Ben Zion Baltzan- first candidate (came in after Rabbi Tsirelson resigned); Asher Koralnik, one of the editors of “Earth and Work”, was appointed acting treasurer of the council.
Within two months came the proposal for the law concerning autonomy, aptly describing the activities of the local council, the district councils and the all-Romanian one. The proposal was sent to all localities for discussion.
|
|
After some preparatory work, a second conference met, in Kishinev, on 22 January 1921. It included representatives of Jewish communities in Bessarabia. It finalized the proposal for the law[3] that was to be approved by representatives from other provinces- Bukovina, Transylvania, and Old Romania. Afterwards, it would be brought before parliament.
[Page 416]
Struggle with the Orthodox
However, this important national activity was immediately confronted by strong opposition from an Orthodox group. This group included assimilated rich people and complete heretics who became, overnight, true believers. They declared themselves as a branch of Agudat Israel, headed by Rabbi I. L. Tsirelson. The group understood the atmosphere among the masses which emphasized its love for Eretz Israel, but it still declared open war on the Zionist sympathisers when it came to administering Jewish life locally and how Jewish communities were organized in Bessarabia.[4]
At first, Rabbi Tsirelson agreed to participate in the “acting working committee”. However, he changed his mind later. He established a parallel committee under the auspices of Agudat Israel and he organized a conference of people powerful in the synagogues in order to prepare rules which would allow the domination of religious groups over public life.
The democratic agency immediately reacted by publishing[5] editorials in newsletters of committees in the communities, public institutions and the general Jewish population. In these editorials the isolationist activity of the Rabbi was denounced. In the publication #8 of 5.12.20, signed by Bernstein-Cohen and Koralnik, sent to everyone, we read:
[Page 417]
Aside from an organized Jewish population, it is also necessary to form a picture of the Jewish autonomy. It is wrong to allow any party that be to take over this important task and to sanction it.
The agency follows those Jewish organizations that are destructive. It is prepared, at the right time, to announce their activities. The agency will soon publicize its activities and those of others that are intended to build or to destroy Jewish autonomy in Romania.
The acting committee continued the task given to it by the public and brought the proposals to the conference of important people in Kishinev on 22 January, 1921. After some amendments, the committee was instructed to continue its work and to seek approval from other committees in Jewish communities in the province.
The struggle between the democratic faction, mainly consisting of Zionist representatives, and the Tsirelson committee-mostly synagogue leaders and some assimilationists, continued. It was a battle against those who wished to change the self-rule to an autocratic one with an ultra-religious bent. It continued until the end of 1928.
This was not all. There were some serious opponents to the idea of national autonomy among the council of Jewish communities in old Romania (Rigat). They were led by advocate Wilhelm Filderman. He was a well-known assimilationist and strongly opposed the autonomy. He was “close to the authorities” and could overturn anything of which he did not approve. The idea of autonomy was, to him, connected to “revolution” that would become part of the Jews of Bessarabia.
Even the Zionist Federation of Rigat was against it. It felt this would be negative to present activities under the Zionist flag. The issue came to a head at the all-Romania Zionist conference in Galatz in summer of 1921. Representatives of Poalei Zion in Kishinev were invited to give advice[6]. Members of this group took part in discussions about Aliyah and settlement. They also thought there was a need to consecrate the idea of tithing for Keren Hayesod. In addition, they saw the need for national autonomy. However, the chairpersons did not present the latter motion for a vote. They announced that, for political reasons
[Page 418]
it was not possible to make any decision in this matter. The mission then left the conference to the sound of applause of many active delegates, especially the student members of Hashmoniah.
However, the Zionists of Bessarabia did not give up. Sh. Berliand, M. Gotlieb, and especially L. Glantz, I. Wasserman, M. Landau, and I. Skvirsky continued stubbornly in this area for several years. Finally, they were able to organize a “democratic union”, encompassing all factions from among the public organizations in Kishinev, with the purpose of democracy. This union continued discussions with Rabbi Tsirelson's group to prepare a joint constitution for the community. The discussions ended at the end of 1928. There were concessions on basic tenets: voting rights for women and for those 18-20 of age. This is how the religious essence of the community was emphasized.[7]
…Rabbi L. Tsirelson, elected in this conference, 17-19.10 (with his approval), to the acting committee, did not help us to do our work. In addition, for no good reason, he resigned from the position and prepared a stage for himself. He functions for his personal purpose and calls it a committee to prepare a request to the Romanian parliament to approve the constitution of the Jewish community. He will prepare it either by himself or with the assistance of a few others. Rabbi I. L. Tsirelson, with some others who have no authorization, sent a document in the name of the “central committee for the organizing of communities”. This document, in our opinion, is meant to destroy the work of the Jewish institutions, elected by the public, and intended to reorganize the communities. We call upon you to vigorously fight these irresponsible elements who only destroy our national task. Explain to the Jewish masses who are prepared to follow these misleading people that there is a great danger to the building of our self-determination!
Explain to the people the danger facing us from the disintegration of powers. If everyone will present, in the name of his party, a constitution for self-government!
| Status of the Jewish Community Established by Central committee of Bessarabia to organize Jewish communities | Status of the Jewish Community of Kishinev |
| Proposed by the Central committee for the organization of Jewish communities in Bessarabia, 1928 | Printed by M. Decter, Kishinev 1 9 3 0 |
| #35. Proposal for a constitution for The Democratic Union for organizing The Jewish communities. 1928 | #36 Final copy of the constitution of the Jewish community of Kishinev. 1930 |
Minister of Religion collides with the unity of the community
In the meantime, the Jewish community came up against the strong opposition of the Minister of Religion in the government of “National farmers”, who wanted to change a section in the existing law
[Page 419]
defining the Jewish community as a general union of Jews. The Minister was born in Transylvania and he was influenced by the extreme religious sects in Marmoresh. He acted according to their will. The “correction” proposed by him ordered, on the one hand, the curbing of the community to religious matters only and, on the other hand, allowed the possibility to any group of two separate communities- religious and progressive. Even Rabbi Tsirelson opposed this. His plan was to have religious personnel to oversee the entire unified community.
The intention of the Minister of Religion was obvious- to disband the Jewish community, to break up its unity and thus to dominate it. The issue brought about a very strong opposition throughout the country. There were many mass assemblies. The unified committee of Jewish representatives, among them members of parliament, came away from a meeting with the minister empty-handed. The struggle was transferred to parliament in July 1929. Parliamentarian Michael Landau, representing the Zionists of Bessarabia, had been chosen under the Farmers banner. He attacked[8] the minister about his intentions. He was followed by the other parliamentarians- Dr. Theodore Fisher and Dr. Yosef Fisher, Zionists from Transylvania as well as representatives of the ruling party in Bessarabia- Shmuel Rosenberg from Kishinev and Hirsh Hoffman from Beltz. This was also done by Dr. Meir Abner in the Senate[9]. The representative of the Germans, residents of South Bessarabia, the priest Hanash also joined those defending the rights of the Jewish minority. He declared that he would vote with the Jewish representatives against the proposal by the Minister of Religion. There were even some members from the ruling party who joined the Jews. However, it was still a minority.
Finally, a compromise was proposed by the majority of the ruling party. It was an addition to section 4 that obligates the government, when preparing the law, to consult with representatives of autonomous Jewish communities. It was accepted by a vote of 216 for and 32 against.
Immediately after that, a flyer was prepared for all Jews, on behalf of the Jewish organizations, telling them not to take advantage of the possibility of forming two congregations in one place. They were asked to work hard at uniting different factions and to form one community. An appropriate expression of the will and opinion of the Jewish public was soon given at the conference of Jewish organizations and communities held in Bucharest on 23 July 1930.
[Page 420]
Struggle by the Jewish communities against Anti-Semitism
The special conference of the Jewish communities met at the invitation of the Jewish parliamentary club to deal with the rioting of the anti-Semitic university students throughout the country. It consisted thus:
The conference was opened by the main rabbi of Bessarabia, I.L. Tsirelson, with the following words:
[Page 421]
The one encouraging thing, the only one in these tragic moments, for us, was the fact that we did not meet again to find ways to hide, to run away or to keep quiet and accept the decisions of the blows of the Kozists. In this way, our moans would not seem to them, God forbid, as words of incitement. We met in order to arrange advice so we would not be a subject for abuse. We wished to raise a strong voice to defend our rights, our honor and our existence as citizens with full rights.
The antisemites should know that their methods of attack are not original at all. They are the same as those in the past- of the Amalekites, the Crusaders and others like them: destruction, scorn, desecration of holy objects, etc. However, in the meantime, there was a basic change in the character of the victim. The victim, in these days, does not resemble the previous one. It is completely new, very modern. Today it is not without rights and is not prepared to accept the rules just because there “is no bad without good”.
The Jews of this century demand that on the other side of the “good” there should not be any place for “bad”. They demand for themselves a peaceful life, just like other citizens. In other words: the Jews demand that the government adopt radical and forceful ways to block the Kozist denunciation, the subjection to lawlessness and the demagogic propaganda in writing and in speech. In addition, the government must explain well to the masses how much the charges against the Jews do harm to the state itself.
This conference must have as its goal to bring, therefore, in front of the government, the final demands of the one million Jews in the country.
The participants in the conference were widely informed about the rioting in the towns: Kishinev, Beltz, Tirgu-Frumos, Jassy, Pushkan, Galatz, Sotcheva and KImpulung and about the protest against the uncaring attitude of the government on curbing the antisemitic campaign. The government was requested to demand from clerks and judges to do their duty in defending the citizens, to arrest the accused and to compensate the injured.
These are the motions passed at the end of the conference[11]:
The conference of representatives of the Jewish communities and organizations which met on 23 July 1930 in Bucharest, in regards to the antisemitic attacks and the renewal of rioting in Tirgu-Frumos, Beltz, Vama, KImpulung, Borsha, Sotcheva, Balatchana, Kishinev, Jassy, Pushkan and Galatz
[Page 422]
The Jewish population sees, in the burden of this crime, the fact that the authorities did not employ any preventative measures, at the time, against the brutal attack on the Jews in general and in particular, their belongings and their honor. In addition: in some villages and towns the inciters and the masses following them performed their deeds in front of government representatives.
It is important to note that some of the wild incitement was done, in some parts, by government clerks, village teachers and priests. The government was tolerant to the fact that the resentment following the economic crisis in the country was turned against the Jewish population. It, too, was hurt by the crisis. It must also be noted that in spite of what is related above, no serious efforts were made towards the true perpetrators- officially or by individuals. This can only encourage such deeds in the future. We protest, with sadness in our hearts, against this criminal method. We turn again to the government, parliament and all legitimate bodies of the state to openly react in useful ways as necessary in view of the dangerous situation we find ourselves in.
We demand first and foremost: a. to denounce, in a decisive and significant manner, the antisemitic movement; b. to address those government clerks and the judges who did not do their duty and to tell them to mend their ways; c. to arrest and send to trial all those who incite to crime, stealing and ruin of the Jewish community; d. to pay real compensation to those who were hurt; e. to explain to the masses about the danger in the antisemitic incitement.
The conference is turning to the opinions of the population, especially to the intellectuals, to intervene for the good of the case using their mental ability and their reputation, to explain to the masses that the antisemitic movement and its degrading cruelty touch not only the peaceful Jewish population, but also the value of the state itself and its essential interests. The Jewish population hopes that the wise words of the intellectuals will quickly put an end to our suffering and will remove the heavy shadow cast on the good name of the state.
The conference calls on all Jewish communities and organizations in the state and outside of it to come to the aid of those affected by Borsha. It also calls on all Jews, whether they lost their stature or their possessions were destroyed by the hooligans. The conference is asking all our Jewish brethren to publicize this pronouncement in Jewish and non-Jewish press and also
[Page 423]
The conference of important representatives of the Jewish communities and organizations was called by the Jewish parliamentary club on July 23, 1930 in Bucharest in order to deal with the propaganda and the non-stop destruction occurring in various parts of the country. After lectures and reports by members of parliament and local governments were heard, the following decisions were taken: a. the conference values the widespread work done by members of the Jewish parliamentary club, local representatives and all those who helped and it approves it with many thanks; b. Since the present conference has 175 important representatives from all parts of the country, it sees itself as a united group, with judicial powers, of the entire Jewish population in greater Romania, with the authority to deal with its important issues. It thus decides: to establish an upper council of all the Jews in Romania with wide authority. It will, uniquely represent, from now on, the Jewish population. It will conduct, in its name, all necessary activities, for the defence of its rights and interests, except for religious matters.
The upper Jewish council will consist of: a. Jewish parliamentary club; b. eight representatives from Bessarabia; c. seven representatives from Transylvania; d. five representatives from Bukovina; e. nine representatives from Rigat. The council is authorized to add, as needed, additional members. The council will elect from among its members a group of 10: 3 members of parliament, 4 from Rigat and one each from Bukovina, Transylvania and Bessarabia.
The representatives of the Jewish communities and organizations in the country met today, 23 July 1930, in Bucharest, in the Tomis Hall, in order to discuss a most difficult situation of the Jewish community. A danger of death is looming over it and destruction is expected from the antisemitic movement which is increasing its attacks. These representatives lift up their eyes, with great sorrow about the difficult situation in which they find themselves, towards our beloved king. His fatherly love and the sense of justice in his heart serve us in this dire time as the only support and they promise us a happier future.
The present conference reflects the feelings of the entire Jewish community and it expresses to his majesty deep feelings of trust in the group it represents. The community always fulfills its civic duties, with great devotion to the crown. It wishes to have a regime that will promise it equal civil rights as written in the constitution of greater Romania.
[Page 424]
The second issue with the organization of the community- what image and character should be given to the community that is in the first stage of organizing itself. It was discussed in short order since it was obvious to everyone. All decisions were almost unanimous- to postpone the obstacle in the law that allows, in every community, two separate groups, religious and progressive.
This struggle found an ear among the Jewish representatives outside the country. The committee in Paris announced its objection to the religious law in Romania because it hurt Jewish rights. It said its hope was that the Romanian government would, in the future, change its mind in this respect.
As the time for elections in the Jewish community of Kishinev came closer, the temporary committee, in February 1929, began to prepare a list of the Jewish population in town. There were:[12]
These numbers were close to the official census of Jews in Kishinev-41405 as done in December 1930.
The difference of about 2000 people, from one census to the other, can be explained in several ways: a. difference in time of a year and a half between the two censuses; b. the addition of a few nearby villages that occurred in between; c. omission by clerks
Any way, this is how the official census of the Romanian authorities was approved.
The Zionist organization presented a unified list for the first elections held on 3 November 1929. The group of Rabbi Tsirelson was divided in two-Agudat Israel separated from the Orthodox. The latter had many
[Page 425]
assimilationists. Among them were former community leaders named “Union of the Wealthy and Permanent Residents”.
The election campaign, on behalf of the Zionist organization, was conducted on a high level following basic principles for the establishment of a community. It was the only one that brought to the struggle a hint of correct and useful explanation about the purpose of a community and the assignments facing it.
In order to elect 71 members of the community council (sort of a Sanhedrin), there were 14 lists. The mandates based on the elections were: a. Zionist organization-12; b. craftsmen union-13; c. Orthodox-10; d. labor democrats (mainly former Bund and unaffiliated members)- 8; e. Agudat Israel-5. The remaining parties received 2-3 mandates.
The Orthodox group suffered a scary defeat, even if the 5 of Agudat Israel are to be added. They had always maintained that 70% of the Jews of Kishinev were true believers and that gave them the right to govern the Korobka. Now they had to be satisfied with the fact that together with the small parties they had 20 members. However, the fact that the liberal groups were much stronger, brought the hope that the days of the Korobka dominance in the lives of the Jews were ending. From now on there would a period of proper activity, for the good of the public.
The win by the Zionist group was considerable, since at least 10 of the organized Zionists came from other lists. They would join the Zionist organization on all important matters.
These are the names of the first 16 representatives who were active in the community: Dr. Yechezkel Mutchnik, Shlomo Berliand, Nachum Roitman, Rabbi Avraham Polinkovsky, Israel Skvirsky, Attorney Boris Dubinsky, Helena Babitch, engineer Yosef Beigelman, attorney Michael Landau (member of parliament), Rabbi Shmuel Baltzan, Shimshon Schechter, Dr. Eliyahu Epstein, Shlomo Grinberg, Shimon Ortenberg, Rabbi Zev Rosenfeld and Israel Berman.
Dr. Moshe Slutsky was elected chairperson of the community (list #13- unaffiliated and merchants union). He was executive chair of the community and the head doctor of the Jewish hospital as well as a veteran public leader. He received 35 votes for and 32 against. On the other hand, Rabbi Tsirelson had 31 votes for and 36 against. Engineer Yosef Beigelman, the candidate of the Zionists (5 members), received the most votes-55 out of 65 attending. The other candidates had 41-51 votes. Israel Skvirsky, head of Zeirei Zion party, was chosen as chief treasurer.
[Page 426]
He served in that position until his Aliyah in 1932. Rabbi Tsirelson was unanimously elected as honorary chairperson.
The new Romanian regime had eliminated the first legal Kishinev community and others throughout Bessarabia, in 1918. (They had been elected after the 1917 revolution) Eleven years had passed since then and it was now possible to overcome the outside obstacles and to bridge over the inner points of view, in order to build a new hoped-for community. There were many restrictions on the road to the development of a minimal national autonomy. They came from government laws and from internal regulations. There was still the hope that, in time, it would be possible to reach additional progress: first of all – to obtain permission to levy a tax on the Jewish public so that the community could cover the budgets of all institutions-educational and social- connected to it. There was even a claim to the district court in Kishinev about this matter, but there was no success. In spite of the fact that the public liked the elected council, there was not enough collected to cover the needs.
The council did not even complete its term. Its fate was cut short when the government of the nationalistic farmers, led by Voida-Voiavod fell. It was replaced by the liberal regime, led by Duka. New elections for parliament were held in December 1933, (Throughout the history of Romania, every party-even the smallest of small- knew how to manipulate by stealing votes and violence so as to gain a majority). The change in regimes always caused the disintegration of previously elected institutions and the appointment of new committees from among the members of the new party. This time this custom touched the communities of Kishinev and other towns.
In early January 1934, a new council of the Kishinev community was appointed. It was headed by attorney Karol Steinberg- chair of Maccabi in Bessarabia and member of the liberals. Representatives of the Zionist organization were not included. The negative attitude of the Zionists towards mixing into internal matters of the Jewish community by the authorities (in spite of the existing laws) was well known. It must be said that this new committee did not at all wish to take over and it quickly designated a date for the next elections- 22 April 1934.
[Page 427]
These elections had 16 lists- as against 14 in 1929. There was also no ideological difference between most of the lists. There were, thus, 2 lists for Agudat Israel, 3 from synagogue groups, 2 sections of craftsmen, 3 separate lists of the Zionist organization and 3 separate lists from 2 orphanages and Gmilat Chasadim. It was not really a contest between groups and institutions as if they had special interests in the community, but a rivalry between personalities who wished to be elected. The propaganda was conducted on a low level, mainly based on “family” and “synagogue position”.
Unfortunately, the problem affected the Zionist came as well. Zionists who were active in various institutions in town, were caught in the need to appear in separate lists emanating from these institutions. This, in spite of the fact that other important issues in the elections did not carry any weight, the General Zionists looked sideways at the Orthodox, which this time included attorney Karl Steinberg-a liberal and acceptable personality- as candidate for chairmanship. This was enough for Zeirei Zion to appear on a separate list. However, the main reason for the separation was the well-known “petition” of the Revisionists that created headlines among the Jewish public. The leaders of the Zionist-Revisionists wanted the support Rabbi Tsirelson and his group for the “petition”. They made a deal with him to support his Orthodox list, even without demanding representation on it. The revelation of this agreement greatly surprised the General Zionists, but reality came too late. The Zionists were thus divided and appeared in three separate lists: General Zionists, Zeirei Zion and Mizrachi.
The three lists were only represented by 7 members (4 General Zionists, 2 Zeirei Zion and 1 Mizrachi) out of 71 elected; the official Agudat Israel only had 3 while the Orthodox group of Rabbi Tsirelson, together with assimilationists – 6; the “progressives” (remnants of the Bund and Culture League)-5. The biggest gain was made by the Craftsmen Union, with its two streams, who were well organized and disciplined. They gathered 2000 votes and had 22 members.
The Zionists consoled themselves by the fact that many of their members were elected on other lists. Although it was a kind of defeat, Zeirei Zion did not deceive themselves. The age of voters was 21 and up and the youth movement could not participate.
[Page 428]
Those elected were: Shlomo Berliand, attorney Shmuel Rosenhaupt, Shlomo Grinberg and Israel Berman (General Zionists), Shimon Ortenberg and Yechezkel Landau (Zeirei Zion) and Rabbi Avraham Polinkovsky (Mizrachi).
When elections for the chairperson were held, the Zionists did not vote for attorney K. Steinberg. It was due to the fact that he was a candidate of the Orthodox list and the agreement with the Zionist-Revisionists about the “petition”. Thus, the one chosen as vice chair was a candidate of the Zionists- attorney Sh. Rosenhaupt. He was legal counsel of Tarbut and received a great majority. This is what happened to other Zionist candidates: Sh. Berliand and Sh. Ortenberg were chosen to head two important divisions; the former- education and culture and the latter-control committee.
The community was constantly in dire financial straits and so it was difficult to look after education. On the one hand, it was necessary to struggle constantly with the financial committee and on the other hand, with the teachers who demanded at least to be paid on time, even if they did not have parity with schools in other towns. They were often paid several months late. In spite of this, the Zionists were prepared to undertake this heavy task.[13]
The Zionists in Beltz appeared in two separate lists, but they were successful in the elections in the fall of 1934: a. the joint list of Zeirei Zion and Haoved received 10 mandates- 25% of the total; and b. the united Zionist list of General Zionists, Mizrachi and Zionist-Revisionists obtained 7 mandates- 17.5% of the total. Together they had 42.5 of the entire members.
These results did not please the veteran leaders who were “close to the authorities”. They worked towards cancelation of the elections and for the appointment of a temporary committee by the government[14]. It seems they succeeded. At a later date, November 1937 it is said[15] that there were new elections. However, it is not known if these were actual elections or an appointment by the authorities.
[Page 429]
The members were: engineer Yerachmiel Yafe- chair, L. Hoichman and A. Gafter- vice; b. Sheinberg- chief secretary and Frimerman- treasurer; heads of divisions were: Itzkovitz- administration, Grobokupatel- social, Krimsky- culture, Kalichman-taxes and evaluation, Kark- religious matters and Schneerson- review.
Compared to these two, the results in Bendery (6.5.34) seem like an outstanding victory for the Zionists, especially Zeirei Zion. Out of a total of 60 mandates in the community, the Zionist lists received 42. (By the way, in the elections held the previous year, July 1933, the list headed by Moshe Zifshtein of the National Zionists, received 36; the Zionist list, led by attorney Yefim Rubashevsky- 14; and the Democrats, under I.M. Shlein-10. However, since there were many forgeries, there was an appeal and they were annulled).
This time, in May 1934, the elections in Bendery were held with honesty, without any appeals. This is the result:
List B -
Culture League, led by B. Titiner- 8 mandates, 13.3%
List C -
Craftsmen, under P. Landvirt- 10 mandates, 16.7$
List D -
United; General Zionists (12), Zionist-Revisionists (8), Unaffiliated (60) led by A. Gutov (GZ)- total 26 43.3%
As befits a true democratic regime, the community institutions were made up according to mutual agreements. This was a blessing. As follows:
The political and economic situation of the Jews from the mid 1930s brought about changes in the internal life of the Bendery community. The discrimination against the Jews who were members of various parties and their repulsion even inside the party, sent them towards national activity. We must note the inter-party agreement for the distribution of mandates to the executive committee of the community. It was signed in October 1937. The united list for elections included 60 mandates according to the following division[16]:
Zifshtein group-13; “Liberals”-8; Tsaranists-8; craftsmen-7; Democrats-7; United Zionists (ZZ, PZ, Haoved)-7; General Zionists-5; Zionist-Revisionists-5.
At that time, the Jewish community of Bessarabia was young and soft as a legal public body. It was born under difficult circumstance to replace the Korobka. The organized community, in its short life under Romanian rule, was not yet able to balance its financial situation. It was due to lack of authority to levy taxes on its members as well as because of a steady decline in income from meat tax. In the larger cities the number of consumers of non-kosher meat grew. As an example, we can compare the amounts given by the Korobka to institutions in Kishinev in 1929 to those given by the community in 1935. In 1929 the total was 4,707,239 lei (including a few hundred thousand lei in debts for the previous year). In 1935 the institutions received only 2,968,009 lei from the community. This represents a 63% difference. When debts were cleared in 1929, the difference was 70%. This decline came about as a result of the lower estimates of assigned funds. It also meant that some secular institutions were not included in the list to be financed. The value of the state coins was down while the expenses grew.
The economic situation of Bessarabia, in general, and that of the Jews, in particular, was quite low in those years. It can be stated that from a material point of view, the community was simply a new version of the Korobka. This was true in the capital, Kishinev, as well as in smaller towns. It was not even possible to establish, immediately, a legal umbrella organization for all existing communities. Therefore, it was necessary, from time to time, to organize conferences, on a temporary basis, to find a solution.
[Page 431]
The first conference of this kind took place in Bucharest on 23 July 1930. The government had introduced unwanted changes in the law of religion (details please see on page…). There were 43 delegates representing 26 towns in Bessarabia. Also, in October 1935 there was a district conference of the communities in southern Bessarabia, in Romanovka. The agenda was: a. The dire hunger that existed in the area due to the drought in the previous summer. It was necessary to encourage the Jewish community to help out. b. the worsening of relations between the German and Jewish populations in the area. It required the interference by state influencers in the country and outside of it.
A few days earlier, the delegation of the chairman of the Kishinev community- attorney Karol Steinberg, the chairman of the Akkerman community, Moshe Helman and representatives of the Artsiz community (Akkerman district)- urgently to visit the Minister of the Interior, Inkulatz, and to demand from him more guards for Artsiz. This was in order to defend its Jewish citizens from the threats by the Germans. The Minister agreed and the Jews could breathe more easily.
After a short time, on 3 November 1935, there was, in Kishinev, the first all-Bessarabia conference. Aside from the Kishinev representatives, there were 72 delegates from 39 locations.[17]
[Page 432]
Prior to the celebratory opening in the Choral synagogue, where chief Rabbi I. L. Tsirelson spoke, emphasizing the great importance of the Balfour declaration and he compared it to the olive leaf the dove brought to the ark. Similar to the leaf, slightly bitter, so is the declaration riddled with hidden secrets. In spite of this, the light in it is great and is like a searchlight on the shore. Boats with immigrants use this light and come from the right and the left. The searchlight gives us the confidence that soon the sea of tears, in which we have been swimming for a long time, will dry out. The Jewish people will be revived in its homeland.
At the opening of the conference, the chairman, attorney K. Steinberg, and following him Rabbi I.L. Tsirelson, described the difficult tasks faced by this first-time conference. Its main purpose is the establishment of an umbrella organization of all the communities in the province. Also, a basic discussion of two issues needing a solution: the hunger in the south which affected 50,000 Jewish lives and the threats of anti-Semitism on the part of the German residents of the area.
It was decided to establish an aid committee to eliminate the hunger. An emotional appeal was made to Jews throughout Romania and to outside institutions, to help generously in this campaign. The approval of the constitution of the union of communities was postponed for several months, after it is discussed locally.
A central committee of 25 people[18] was chosen. They were tasked with using strong means against the higher government offices, in order to block the racial incitement that was spreading and getting worse every day.
The cooperation between this new public entity and the Jewish party as well as the union of communities in Rigat, considerably eased the heavy suffering of the Jews in southern Bessarabia. It was possible to avert serious threats against them and to ease their fears.
The representatives of Beltz, the second largest town after Kishinev, were not satisfied with the lessening of discussions in two locations only. They decided to “rebel” in Kishinev
[Page 433]
and called for another committee in Beltz. A piercing and sharp argument ensued in the press. Kishinev won. The majority of the communities that took part in Kishinev did not wish to side with a useless activity in this time of need.
The second conference met in Kishinev six months later- 3 May 1936. There were 57 delegates from 32 locations and 10 rabbis representing the rabbinic assembly[19]
Before the conference there was, in the Zionist center, a consultation between the Zionist delegates with members from central committees, in order to coordinate activities to bring in the wanted amendments in the constitution. This was in order to facilitate work for Eretz Israel.
Rabbi I.L. Tsirelson dedicated his opening words to the bloody events in Eretz Israel and to the memory of the victims. He expressed the strong protest of the Jewish community against the criminal attitude of the mandatory government. The protest was sent, by cable, to the British ambassador in Bucharest. During the discussions about the amendments, as proposed by the delegates, there was a proposal by the Zionists to include, in the constitution, that the union of communities must support all institutions involved in rebuilding the land as well as the pioneering movement. The representatives of the Culture League vehemently attacked the proposal because they felt the communities should only deal with local needs and not political ones. However, most of the delegates supported
[Page 434]
the Zionists as the subject of Eretz Israel was important to everyone. Rabbi Tsirelson stated that every Jew's heart belongs to Zion, e.g., Yehudah Halevi and that the Jewish community must not ignore it. The proposal by the Zionists was passed by a great majority with only 4 against.
After the amendments were proposed and the final constitution was approved, the representatives from Beltz, Pinchas Levtov (GZ) and Leib Kleiner (ZZ), explained the disagreement between them and Kishinev in the previous committee. This was done to remove any blame of malice. The committee noted that “it receives with satisfaction the participation of the Beltz representatives in this committee and thus sees the disagreement as canceled”.
Two people from each district were elected to the central committee, in addition to a large delegation from Kishinev. A review and arbitration committee was chosen.[20]
At the end of the conference, a group of representatives of the students union stood up and described their difficulties with the violence against them by antisemitic colleagues. It was decided to encourage special attention by the authorities in order to protect the Jewish students. Also, it was agreed to oblige every community to include in their annual budget a specific sum to support the union of Jewish students.
From then, until the annexation of Bessarabia by the Soviet Union in June 1940, the young community was lacking in means of developing its activities as needed. This was due to the economic stress and the discriminatory attitude of the government towards the Jews. After the political parties were disbanded, among them the Jewish one, it was necessary for the Jewish community to look after the needs of the Jewish public. It was the only national institution representing its interests. In spite of legal restrictions,
[Page 435]
and really for the continuity of what there was and with hope for better times. However, in spite of the pain, this hope was for nought. The condition of the Jews worsened every day and the threat of the Holocaust could be seen on the horizon.
The reorganization of the communities in most towns in Bessarabia, based on democratic elections, continued for several years – from the approval of the religion law in 1928 until 1934/35. This time span can be seen as the final step in the life of the Korobka and the town strongmen until its demise. The authorities were in the habit of forming committees manned by adherents of the political parties, which changed often as being in charge could not change the situation in its entirety. The Korobka, as an independent institution, disappeared. It became a part of the tax department of the Jewish community. This struggle between the old and the new ended in the result that in 1939 there were 39 organized communities.
[Page 436]
Something about communities in provincial towns
Here is some data about several communities in provincial towns. Except from general remarks, the data is taken from lists published in the weekly almanac “Tribuna Braiska” from 1938. It appeared in Jassy, pages 28–7. Some are from Yizkor books dedicated to the memory of these towns and the rest from testaments of former residents residing with us in Eretz Israel. Of course, it is merely a small window into the public lives in these places.
(1390 Jews in 1930-39.5% of the population- against 997 in 1897)
The Ungany congregation received its official status in October 1934. The management was: Chaim Naftalovitz-honorary chair, Issachar Roitman-chair, Moshe Zaldman-treasurer, Chaim Polak-first secretary, and Natan Gertzman-alternate secretary.
The community controlled all the public institutions in town, the cultural-Tarbut school with 5 grades and a library; religious and social- centralized their supervision and looked after their regular upkeep by giving them financial support. The income of the community consisted of indirect taxes (meat tax, matzoh baking, Chevra Kadisha) and from voluntary membership fees-more than 300 participated.
(5354 Jews-95.2% of population- against 7,184 Jews in 1897-96.5% of the population)
The community was founded in 1934. The first elected council consisted of: 5 General Zionists, 4 Zeirei Zion, 2 Mizrachi and 6 others. Total 17 people. No one from the anti Zionists was elected. The representatives were: Dr. A. Trakhtenbroit-chair, Aisik Brig and M. Tilipman-vice chairs, Rabbi Shimshon Efrati, Yeshayahu Epelboim, Zalman Broyda, Binyamin Pitchutch, Noach Dzktzer, Sarah Vartikovsky, Zusia Zilber, Moshe Likerman, Feivel Malchezon, Moshe Nisenbaum, Fishel Frankel, Shalom Tcherkis, Avraham Roiter and Yosef-Leib Shiller.
[Page 437]
From 1934 to 1940, when the province was annexed by the Soviet Union and the authority of the community was stopped, there were 3 more elections to the council. In the second one, 25 were elected and in the third- 27 delegates were chosen. From the public and national point of view there was hardly a change in the make-up of the council. The increase in the number of delegates was mainly because of the craftsmen union.
The council had planned to centralize the activities of all the public institutions in town, but it was not completely successful. It was not possible to immediately balance the budget and it was therefore necessary to give a free hand to those running the various institutions in town so they could find financing outside of the community. This was until the community would be able to establish its material situation. The income of the community in 1936 for a town of 1300 families, with at least a dozen assistance and educational institutions, was quite low. Here are the figures:
The first six years of the democratic community were seen as too short a period of time for the fulfilment of the main purpose- centralization of the public institutions under the umbrella of the community with full financial coverage.
(5786 Jews in 1930 -37.7% of the population as against 9291 in 1897)
Hotin was one of the first towns in Bessarabia in which a democratic community was established immediately after the February Revolution in Tsarist Russia, in 1917. The following were elected: Elchanan Reiss (chair), M. Shore, I. Grinberg, Yosef Epelboim, Aizik Barg and A. Sheinberg. Special conditions did not allow the community council to develop its activities until 1924. Only then was the community able to officially receive a legal standing. This was based on the constitution written and passed in the all-Bessarabia conference. This was only after they gave up the right of women to vote (it did not happen in Kishinev because there was a struggle between the democratic faction and the Korobka people and the Orthodox).
[Page 438]
The infrastructure for the young community was only set in April 1927, when the public was asked to choose its first council. The town residents were quite partial to the expected changes in the life of the community and they participated enthusiastically in the elections. 92% of the population voted and thus put an end to the Korobka. All authority was transferred to the autonomous democratic Jewish regime.
The division of votes according to various lists was: a. democratic bloc, led by Leibush Gelman-3 mandates; b. craftsmen union, headed by Abba Razshaunsky-5 mandates; c. religious and Mizrachi, led by Zushia Bronshteyn- 5 mandates; d. merchants guild, led by Marcus Goldstein – 3 mandates; e. Zionists, headed by Yosef Epelboim- 10 mandates; f. unaffiliated, led by Michael Shore- 9 mandates. The total was 40 members of council. An executive committee of 15 was chosen, headed by Michael Shore.
The first task of the community was to eliminate the different aid institutions that existed in town and to transfer them to the council itself. In addition, the Korobka, Chevra Kadisha and matzos baking came under its jurisdiction. There was also a voluntary tax levied on the members. This was done in order to minimize, as much as possible, the previous tax on kosher slaughtering and the sale of meat.
It was not easy for the community, in its first years, to suppress the strongmen in town. They ruled several important institutions without any public accounting. Finally, it was necessary for them to get used to the new situation. From then on, all community issues were on an even keel. Its life became more normal. In this manner the community received full recognition from the Jewish population as the only representative inside and outside.
In the 1932 elections, there were two lists: a. Zionist parties, craftsmen union and the unaffiliated; b. workers and small merchants. Since it included residents who had not fulfilled their obligations to the community, the list was canceled. This was according to the accepted constitution. The first list was declared as the one elected.
The presidency consisted of: a. Michael Shore-chair, Yosef Epelboim-, Miron Darji, attorney I. Burdnik-vice chairs; Moshe Roizman and Leibush Ludmir-secretaries. The board members were Rabbi Nachum Strakovsky, Zusia Bronshteyn
[Page 439]
B. Weisadler, Dr. L. Zeidman, Sh. Khat, M. Yafe, D. Postilnik, Sh. Feldman, I. Roitman and Abba Rzshaunsky.
Unfortunately, we do not have more details on the ensuing development of communal life in Hotin. We only have what was published in the almanac “Tribuna Yevreska” in Jassy in 1938. The president of the community at that time consisted of: Dr. Lipa Zeidman-chair, Marcus Goldstein and attorney Vulf Roitman-vice chairs, Z. Steinberg- secretary and his assistant was I. Gorenstein.
(4154 Jews in 1930-86.2% of the population against 3898 Jews in 1897)
The Jewish community in Nuvosolitza received official standing after the first elections held in February 1936. The presidency consisted of: attorney Chaim Steinberg, -honorary chair, Asher Feldman-chair, M. Polikman and M. Rosenborn- vice chairs, N. Tchartnus- treasurer and Chaim Dizitzer- chief secretary.
The community removed registration from the official rabbi and centralized all births, marriages and deaths. It also undertook supervision of all public institutions in town and gave them financial assistance. There were preparations made to levy a progressive tax on members of the community. However, is seems they did not have time to complete the program in the few years before the Holocaust.
(5452 Jews in 1930-36.3% of the population compared to 8783 Jews in 1897)
The transition from the Korobka days to the newly elected community began in June 1934. The Ministry of Religion appointed a temporary council to prepare and run the elections. On this council was attorney M. Flexor- chair.
[Page 440]
In the next elections, in February 1938, the following were elected to council: attorney M. Flexor-chair, David Ziser, D. Gitelman and Avraham Helman- vice chairs. Other board members: M. Baron, P. Kumpan, Chaim Prizant, M. Rabei. I. Frachtman, Sh. Bilansky, Z. Veksler, B. Baksansky and A. Shternberg. Five months later, in summer 1938, the following changes took place: M. Rabei-chair, Bilenky, D. Gitelman and Avraham Helman- vice chairs; treasurer- M. Shteinberg, secretary- I. Kitrosar and bookkeeper- I. Kolker; division chairs were -attorney Z. Friedman, M. Baron, Chaim Prizant, N. Shatan, I. Fratman, Z. Veksler and B. Baksansky.
(4216 Jews in 1930- 73.3% of the population compared to 5042 Jews in 1897)
This village was considered one the glorified ones in Bessarabia from a national-Zionist point of view. It was burdened, for many years, by the fights and disagreements, among the Zionists, about the reorganization of the community in the 1930s. The struggle was of the previous leaders, who did not want to voluntarily give up their authority in public institutions, with the “liberals”, who wished to run the community with a chosen council. In addition, there was a strong battle between the General Zionists and Zeirei Zion and WIZO women. They were a unified group in town.
As a result, it was not possible to hold democratic elections. The community was not able to be renewed according to the new constitution. Everything continued as in the dim past.
(3662 Jews in 1930-67.7% of the population compared to 4593 Jews in 1897)
There is no information on when the elected community was established in Kalarash. It was to put an end of the rule of by Korobka during Romanian times before WWII. It is only known that in 1938 the following were at the head: Gavriel Cohen- chair, Zecharya Erlichman and Pinchas Schwartz- vice chairs, Meir Albert and Yoel Broynshteyn-secretaries. It is told also that the community was quite active and supported, financially, the public cultural, religious and social institutions in town.
It seems that the change in the appearance of the community in Kalarash was the fact that the heads of the various institutions in town were now under the direct supervision of an upper body that used its right to review their activities. Actually, this was the image of most of the communities
[Page 441]
In Bessarabia. Due to the special conditions existing then in Romania, they only began their supervision in the mid 1930s. It was natural, therefore, that they did not have enough time to develop their activities in the few years before the Holocaust.
(1969 Jews- 11.4% of the population, compared to 2153 in 1897)
The Jewish community in Kilya (the new one) received legal status in 1927. At its head were Pinchas Nitzis, Hirsh Gamshiavitz and Dr. Noach Rabinovitz. Nachum Davidovitz was in charge of the Chevra Kadisha. At first, the activity of the community was quite limited. It was only after it received, in 1934, a new status, according to the religion law, that there was a meaningful change in its development. The following were elected: Rafael Spruce-chair, Mordechai Gertzovitz and Pinchas Roitman- vice chairs, Yosef Katz-treasurer, and Rafael Davidovitz-secretary. The council consisted of 25 people (including the executive). All public institutions were removed from their previous supervisors and were now under the elected council.
The terrible starvation that invaded south Bessarabia in 1935-36 placed the community council in a very difficult position. It needed to support 200 families for many months. Even if there was some help from the outside, there was much provided by members of the community.
Original Footnotes:
[Page 442]
Translated by Ala Gamulka
Edited by Erica S. Goldman-Brodie
The Jewish community in Kishinev, during the 1917 Revolution, amounted to half of the city population of 100000 citizens. It was very active towards the municipal elections to the Duma[1] in summer 1917. The Zionist list, #2, together with a section of Zeirei Zion, had a successful win in the elections. It was led by Dr. Yakov Bernstein-Cohen and engineer Mark (Mordechai) Gotlieb. The Jewish-socialist bloc, headed by Poalei Zion, did not win even one mandate. The Zionist list obtained 12 mandates (among them 4 Zeirei Zion). The socialist bloc, S.D., S.R. and Bund had a deciding majority of 59 out of 105. The Christian union had run a racial campaign against Jews and socialists (it even openly encouraged slaughter), and had only 13 mandates. Based on these results, Bernstein-Cohen was elected as vice-chair of the Duma and Gotlieb-vice chair of the executive committee.[2]
A similar situation existed in most of the district towns and important villages.
The representatives of the Zionist list announced, at the first festive session of the Duma (19.9.1917) not only opinions about universal issues which were most important at the time, but also minority cases that were simple to resolve. They were for the good of the population, such as: regular supply of food, guarantee of free medical and judicial assistance to those in need, organization of transportation and lighting in town. These were necessary services. The Zionists participated in discussions about these matters in a progressive democratic fashion. That is not all. The Zionists were also involved in questions of a national-Jewish character: rest on Shabbat, to all those who wish to do so, instead of Sunday, no municipal appointments for Jews on Jewish holidays since they would be occupied
[Page 443]
In synagogues (since the holidays were fast approaching, the issue was solved in a positive manner); an effort to dedicate money for the maintenance of schools and social
List of candidates in public places
Kishinev, candidates for Duma
Kishinev Zionist Organization
#37. List of candidates of the Zionist organization in Kishinev for the municipal elections in 1917.
[Page 444]
Institutions as compared to the size of the population. It was necessary to publish municipal rules and instructions in Yiddish and to give rights to Jews to receive services in Hebrew and Yiddish; the fitting in of elementary Jewish schools into the general municipal system; teaching of bible, Jewish literature and the history of the Jewish people according to a curriculum prepared by experts, to Jewish students in public schools under the supervision of the municipality.[3]
It was already discussed in another place, that because of the absence of the chairperson from town, Dr. Bernstein-Cohen became to vice-chair of the council and he chaired the historic meeting on 15 January 1918. He thus received the ultimatum of the Romanian government whose armies arrived, in the meantime, in town, to evict the council of soldiers and workers.
table cellpadding="5" border="0" ><
Bessarabia
43 representatives[10] from 26 towns
Bucovina
19 representatives from 9 towns
Transylvania
24 representatives from 15 towns
Rigat
89 representatives from 16 towns
Totals
175 representatives from 66 towns
It is very sad that in the 20th century, in a constitutional country such as ours, we are obliged to gather people, supposedly of a low race, not to discuss cultural issues, but to decide on ways to defend ourselves from fire, theft and abuse. These are the products of supposedly human beings who have the hearts of animals. It is also very disturbing that the need for defence is sought by those who are mentioned in the “Book of Books” as the chosen people. This the nation that enriched the universe with the Bible and brought help and wisdom
to everyone: in the area of learning, commerce, with energy and activity in all of life's sections.
Protest
lifts its voice in vigorous protest against the indifference, without atonement, of the Romanian government and the local regimes. This is in spite of the warnings and alarms, from our representative and from the attacked population, as well as in the press.
to send their personal contributions to help the victims to rebuild their destroyed houses.
Male
Female
Total
Children under 5
1337
1353
2690
5-21 years old
6464
7305
13769
21+ (voters)
10933
12174
23106
Total
18734
20831
39565
List A -
Zeirei Zion and Haoved, led by David Pisterov- 16 mandates, 26.7%
[Page 430]
Direct tax
200,000 lei
17.7%
From the government
67,000 lei
6.0%
Meat tax
540,000 lei
47.8%
Baking of matzos
20,000 lei
8.0%
Other sources
232,000 lei
20.5%
Total
1,129,000 lei
100.0%
Orgeyev- Ef. Pagis, G. Weinstock;
Ismail- engineer Weksler, Carl Levonton (Kilya), Goldental (Bolgrad);
Akkerman-Moshe Helman, Mishunzho (Tatarbunar). Vaisnerboy (Byramtcha); Gershenson, Wolfson (Tchadir-Lunga);
Beltz- Adv. Zvi Heinichs, Eliezer Hik, Adv. Veisbuch, Dr. Soibelman (Pirlitz), Boris Diner (Falasht); Sternthal (Rishkany);
Bender- Adv. Polonsky, D. Abelman, Rabbi Derbaremdiker, Zeidel Turiansky (Romanovka), Rabbi Yatom (Kaushany);
Hotin- N. Dimant and M. Zeldon (Securany), Dr. Shreiber (Nuvosolitza), Adv. Rosner and David Kushnir (Lipcany), Filipman, Barag and Reuven Bernstein (Brichany);
Soroca- Adv. Pisaravsky (Zuritsa), Fleishman (Britcheva);
Cahul- Adv. Hoichman, Sh. Slodovsky, Moshe Cantor (Leova), Dr. Veinshelboim (Baimaklya);
Kishinev- Rabbi I.L. Tsirelson, engineer Yosef Begelman, Shlomo Berliand, engineer Alexander Zilberman, Yosef Sudit, Israel Skvirsky and member of parliament Sh. Rosenberg; Gabriel Cohen (Kalarash),
“Rinastria” vol.306, 26.7.1930” Return
a. Council: Orgeyev-attorney Yosef Panis, Yakov Volovsky; Ismail-Yakov Motniak, attorney Imas; Akkerman- Moshe Helman, I. Shusterman; Beltz- Yerachmiel Yafe, Leib Kotlyar; Bendery-Asher Gutov, Zeidel Turiansky; Hotin-Dr. Zaidman, attorney Parper; Soroca- attorney Friedman, Dr. N. Fidelman; Cahul- attorney Schwartzman and others
b. Review committee: I. Margalit, David Pisterov, German Chasid, Erlichman, B. Bialotzerkovsky
c. Arbitration committee: Rabbi Moshe Hinshparg, Rabbi Yosef Wertheim, Rabbi David Kaflivtsky, Z. Pintchevsky, Israel Blank, Pinchas Levtov.” Return
The existence of the elected councils did not last. When Bessarabia was annexed by Romania (27 March 1918), they were, at first, limited in their activities. Eventually, the councils were cancelled. In their place, temporary councils were appointed. Their members were followers of the new regime.
At first, the Zionist organization was tasked with overcoming the difficulties of getting used to the new Romanian regime. After a short time, it centered its attention on the fate of the Jewish public. One of the important issues that kept it busy was- participation in municipal administration. As mentioned above, the councils were cancelled and temporary ones replaced them. They were appointed by the Romanian parties that changed often as being in charge. In the big cities-Kishinev and district towns- a few Jews were included from among those who were always close to the ruling party. Even, if, on the surface, there were elections for council, the system did not change and a few Jews were included. However, the Zionist organization in Kishinev did not depend on such representation. It did not agree for its representatives to be included in any “temporary council” without giving the Jewish population a chance to choose its people in a legal manner.
[Page 445]
The Jewish bloc and the United democrats
The years 1925/26 were a time of assault on the Jewish population by the Zionist organization. This was in order to legitimize the rights of the Jewish public. At first, the purpose was to unite, before the coming municipal elections, all the various Jewish organizations that existed then in town. Finally, a plenary session of 63 people was elected. It dealt in coordinating the activities of the “Jewish Democratic Bloc” and finding an elegant solution to forming a unified list. The active Zionists were: Shlomo Berliand, engineer Mordechai Gotlieb, Yakov Vasserman (GZ), Leib Glantz and Israel Skvirsky (ZZ). The latter three were especially vocal. Glantz and Skvirsky had to prepare the proposal by the Bloc. The Zionist organization was shining brightly at that time. A great help was given by N. Sokolov, chair of World Zionist organization, who did an inner tour in Romania. He was nicknamed “Prince of the Jews” by the Romanian press.
The Liberal party was at the helm then. It was seen as corrupt by the public, in general, and by the Jewish population, in particular. This was due to its collision with the national educational process and its denial of the rights of the Jewish minority. It was against the specific commitment of Romania according to the Peace Treaty. The public preferred, at the time, the Tsaranists (Farmers Party)led by Professor Constantin Stara (a native of Bessarabia, son of aristocracy, who became a revolutionary and was exiled by the Tsarist regime to Siberia. He fled from there to Moldova and served as a professor of International Law in Jassy University) and his vice chair, Pan Khalifah. This party, always in the opposition, highly valued the unity of the Jewish public and offered to establish a “Unified democracy” of Jews and Christians, from among all the progressive organizations in town. The purpose was to be part of a unified list, made up half and half of Jews and Christians.
This was an exhausting and intricate construction. It was not easy to straighten everything out, to connect the groups and to form a unified list of 36 of top people-half Jewish and half Christian. The Zionist candidates in this list were: engineer Mordechai Gotlieb (chair of the Zionist organization and head commissar of JNF)- #2. (The first on the list was a representative of the Farmers Party); Attorney Shmuel Rosenhaupt (radical-Zionist and legal advisor of Tarbut, representing ZZ)– # 8; Shlomo Berliand (GZ, chair of Keren Hayesod, a veteran, active member)-#17, Shmuel
[Page 446]
Baltzan (a leader of Mizrachi and a veteran of the movement)-#19; attorney Boris Dubinsky (ZR)- #23; Yakov Vasserman (GZ and director of Keren Hayesod)- was among the first on the list of alternates.
Dr. Vorzar, Eng. M. Gotlieb, Att. S. Medarsky, Dr. M. Slutzky, W. Cristy, Sh. Lichtman, Dr. L. Tumarkin, att. Sh. Rosenhaupt, dep. W. Kazakliu. Eng. A. Zilberman, I. Batich, M. Bernstein, M. Fryger, K. Konstantinov, att. I. Kenigshatz, Eng. Butshinshcan, Sh. Goldenstein, Sh. Berliand, F. Firka, Sh.Baltzan, att. K. Tadarevsky, B. Belatzerkovsky, att. A. Geargiu, att. Dubinsky, I. Panis, A. Gendrich, M. Epstein, G. Popovsky, R. Leibovitch, att. M. Stanevitch, att. M. Sorotchany, I. Gegerescu, att. A. Draganov, Dr. S. Barbadarov, W. Soyatkovsky, dep. P. Khalifah.
Eng. Kuptcha, Eng. D. Pedatchen, I. Vasserman (alternate), I. Shatz, Dikanescu, M. Liberzon, att. T. Gebesov, I. Brat, A. Tzaranist, Lipovsky, Odritch, I. Lapshuk.
#38. List of the United Democrats in Kishinev for municipal elections, February 1926.
The representatives of Zeirei Zion did not demand candidates from their party. In an article published in “Erd und Arbet” (Soil and Labor), signed by Ben-Tzidki (L. Glantz), there is an explanation for this: “Since the election law does not allow small special groups to participate, the only choice for these political and social organizations is to become part of a bloc. If not for an actual win, at least to defeat a reactionary regime” …“We know that the present situation does not permit us any real and positive purposes and so, we decided to give up our place on the list for the benefit of radical-democratic candidates from among the General Zionists”.
The democratic arrangement conquers the citySuccess came soon. In the February 19, 1926 elections, the list of United Democrats won and handily beat
[Page 447]
the Liberal party and its followers. They had been the previous heads of the municipal regime. The Liberal party did not obtain the minimum of 20% of the votes and did not have any representation. The Unified Democrats received all 36 mandates.
The Zionist organization in district cities-Orgeyev, Beltz and Soroca also worked hard to have a unified list of Christians and Jews for the municipal elections and they were successful. The number of Jews elected with these lists-except for those in other lists-was: Beltz-11, Orgeyev-7 and Soroca-7 out of 24.
The Kishinev council had 9 members- the mayor, four Christians and 4 Jews. Among the latter were 2 representatives of the Zionists-attorney Shmuel Rosenhaupt and attorney Boris Dubinsky. There were also 2 others from various Jewish organizations: engineer Alexander Zilberman, a permanent vice mayor and Shmuel Lichtman, head of the finance committee. As chairman, attorney Sebastian Teodorescu, an admirer of Zionism, was chosen. He took part in the festive opening of the JNF council and even gave a substantial donation.
Attorney Sh. Rosenhaupt was taxed with the position of heading the hospitality department. The law which proscribed checking citizenship was aimed mainly against the Jews. Many of them had returned from Ukraine as refugees. Rosenhaupt worked diligently at this job. Over 11 000 family heads, Jews and non-Jews, passed the test during the 3 and a half years he was in charge, and they received certificates with his signature. The chief rabbi, I.L. Tsirelson, valued the hard work of Rosenhaupt and called him “The Righteous Savior”. The Jewish public saw in it a gain for the Zionist organization that knew how to stand up when it needed to do so.
Dispersion of the council and calling of new electionsThis council had been given the mandate for 8 consecutive years (a progressive law, it seems, but only on the outside). However, it was not given the chance to complete its term. Even the National Farmers party (Natzional Tsaristim), which did not believe in democracy, could not withstand the bait to build the council from among its own members. It was not enough that instead of the previous mayor, attorney Sebastian Teodorescu, were now elected
[Page 449]
well-known Zionists. They were joined by the union of Jewish merchants, some from the Craftsmen union, the Orthodox and the union of Gabbais.[4]
The announcement about the independent Jewish list read:
If the unity of the fearful and separated people in the Diaspora is important to you…If the idea of a national Jewish statehood is close to your hearts…If you want your interests in city council to be defended, not by opportunists who came in on the shoulders of a political party, but by those who are alert always to defend our national honor and our own interests- then vote for list #3 with a Star of David at its head.[5]
The list lost decisively with the majority of the Jewish residents behind it. It received 13 mandates[6] out of 36, i.e., 36% of all mandates[7]. There were 7 Zionists: Shlomo Berliand, Shmuel Baltzan, Dr. Eliyahu Epstein, Moshe Epstein, attorney Boris Dubinsky, Moshe Farfel and attorney Shmuel Rosenhaupt. In addition, there were 11 more Jews elected on the list of the National Farmers which received the remaining 23 mandates on council. (The Liberal, Russian Union and others did not receive the minimum vote of 20% and did not have even one mandate). The total number of Jews elected was 24 out of 36(!)[8]
Unfortunately, in some of the other towns, the Zionists were split when they joined one of the general parties (Bendery, Kalarash, etc.). The idea of the independent Jewish list in these places did not succeed. In Leova, Soroka and Kilya the independent lists did not receive the minimum percentages and did not elect even one of its own representatives (Jewish representatives were elected on other lists).
[Page 450]
A presentation of a separate Jewish list was an important national demonstration in itself. On the other hand, the independent Jewish lists in Beltz and Akkerman were able to elect their candidates- 11 out of a total of 24.
Removing the base for a national representationIn the following years, 1931-1933, the parties at the head of the government changed on a yearly basis. Each one had a different method, common in Romania, to appoint, each time, a temporary council to run the city. The people appointed were members of the party and its followers at the time. The Zionist organization did not participate in this political game. It was satisfied with the publication of an announcement to the Jewish population to participate, in full, in the artificial elections held from time to time. The purpose was to increase the general index and thus to block the way for reactionaries and Kozists. The election method was according to each Jew's conscience while still preferring national interests. From then on, the antisemitic parties grew until, finally, all political parties were disbanded. The state decreed the formation of a unified party of “National concentration” and it was possible to represent some national interest.
Original Footnotes:
|
|
JewishGen, Inc. makes no representations regarding the accuracy of
the translation. The reader may wish to refer to the original material
for verification.
JewishGen is not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in the original work and cannot rewrite or edit the text to correct inaccuracies and/or omissions.
Our mission is to produce a translation of the original work and we cannot verify the accuracy of statements or alter facts cited.
The Jews in Bessarabia
Yizkor Book Project
JewishGen Home Page
Copyright © 1999-2024 by JewishGen, Inc.
Updated 21 May 2024 by JH