Polish-Jewish Relations: 1,300 Keyword-Phrase-Indexed Book Reviews (by Jan Peczkis)

Jewish Schools in Poland, 1919-39: Their Philosophy and Development, by Miriam Eisenstein. 1950

Why Should Polish Government Have Supported Jewish Schools That Were Hives of Separatism, Sedition, and Communism? It Did Support Those Jewish Schools That Fostered Jewish Loyalty to Poland

This work is important not only in terms of Jewish education, but also the modes of thinking among pre-WWII Poland’s huge Jewish population–one that was soon to be almost totally wiped out by the Nazi German-made Holocaust. The author describes the main forms of Jewish education and their educational philosophies, and includes many statistics on Jewish schools.

POLISH NONSUPPORT FOR CERTAIN JEWISH SCHOOL SYSTEMS: WELL JUSTIFIED

Author Miriam Eisenstein complains that the Polish government did not generally fund Jewish schools, and considers this a violation of the provisions of the Minorities Treaty. However, as shown below, it is obvious that many of these school systems promoted an aggressive Jewish separatism that was passively or actively hostile to the Polish nation. Why would the Polish government want to support THAT?

YIDDISH AND YIDDISHISM: LINGUISTIC, AND THEN ALSO CULTURAL AND POLITICAL SEPARATISM

The fact that Poland’s Jews spoke Yiddish (modified German language) was an accident of history, caused by the fact that their ancestors had fled persecution in Germany. However, the Bundist-Yiddishist Cysho/Tsysho schools promoted the primacy of Yiddish as one of the central pillars of Jewish self-identity (pp. 7-8, 18-19), and even stubbornly insisted on Yiddish as the main language of instruction. (p. 30). What’s more, it taught Jews that they were a separate nationality that ideally should live in a (Balkanized) “nation of autonomous nationalities”. (p. 8). Were the Polish government to fund Cysho, it would be nourishing a separate nation on Polish soil that moreover was deliberately living in self-imposed apartheid.

Other reasons for the Polish government being unwilling to fund Jewish schools become clear in the following entries:

JEWISH SCHOOLS: ENGINES OF THE ATHEIZATION OF POLAND’S JEWS

In 1936, Polish Cardinal August Hlond made a statement about Jews as freethinkers and vanguards of Bolshevism. Since then, he has frequently been condemned for this statement. But was it true?

Eisenstein comments, (quote) The Bundists…further aimed to give the masses a new spiritual orientation, a secularism to which the primacy of traditional religion must yield. (unquote). (pp. 7-8). In addition, the Bundist/Cysho educational philosophy was unambiguously (if not militantly) atheistic, and not merely–as sometimes stated–anti-clerical. Eisenstein writes, (quote) The new school was definitely of a secular nature. It departed, on the whole, from the Jewish religious tradition, which was declared a tradition of mysticism and fanaticism by the Cysho educational leadership. (unquote). (p. 21).

As for the Zionist Tarbut school system, it, according to Eisenstein, was “permeated with the philosophy of secularism in Jewish life.” (p. 66). A vestige of religion was kept–but only as a cultural phenomenon. (pp. 40-42).

Cardinal Hlond was not the only one who decried the self-atheization of Poland’s Jews. Orthodox Jews also tried to counteract “the wave of rebellion against traditional Judaism” and the “wave of secularism in Jewish life” that was spreading. (p. 73; See also pp. 87-88).

THE ZYDOKOMUNA WORE MANY DIFFERENT GUISES IN POLAND’S JEWISH SCHOOLS

The Bundist/Cysho educational philosophy is conventionally described as “having a socialist frame of reference” (e. g, p. 94) and Marxist. (p. 50). However, “socialism” and “Marxism” are amorphous terms. They can also be used as a euphemism for Communism.

The author realizes that the secularism and socialism of the Cysho schools made them objectionable to the Polish government. Not only was public funding rejected, but concessions to open new Cysho schools were often denied. (p. 38). In addition, Cysho and Tarbut schools were denied government funding because radical political influences on their students were not being countered. (p. 49)

The following statement by Eisenstein is particularly revealing, (quote) Cysho leaders looked to the Russian Revolution as the great revolution of the time, thanks to which a new set of values had been created that the educational undertaking must necessarily take into account in its future course. (unquote). (p. 20). THAT SAYS IT ALL.

For an example of Communism in the Jewish schools of pre-WWII Poland, see:

https://www.jewsandpolesdatabase.org/2021/02/27/jewish-disloyalty-1920-polish-soviet-war-example-zydokomuna-in-jewish-schools-jewish-schools-communism-bernstein/

IMPLICATIONS OF ZIONISM; A NEWLY-POLITICIZED FORM OF OVERT JEWISH SEPARATISM

Zionism was nothing new. It was a modernization of what Jews had believed for the longest time. (This is exemplified by the prayer/wish: “Next year in Jerusalem”.) Eisenstein writes, (quote) The nineteenth century marked a turning point from Messianic to political Zionism, that is, from centuries of patient waiting for the Messiah’s restoration of Jews to Zion to the initial application of human energies to the task of Jewish colonization and settlement in Palestine. (unquote). (p. 11).

ANTI-ZIONIST JEWS RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT ZIONISM IS A FORM OF JEWISH DISLOYALTY TO THE HOST NATION

Local nationalists, such as the Endeks, were not the only ones who saw political Zionism as a form of Jewish disloyalty to their host state. Interestingly, when political Zionism appeared, many rabbis in Germany, England, and the USA, according to Eisenstein, “…viewed the whole attempt of Jews to establish a national state as a contradiction of their oft-declared loyalty to the states in which they lived.” (p. 14).

The Tarbut schools were Zionist, intending to “establish a whole network of educational institutions to mold the young in the Zionist ideology.” (p. 17). This was, of course, an undisguised loyalty to a nation other than Poland. Is it any wonder that the Polish government refused to fund them?

THOSE JEWISH SCHOOLS FAVORABLY VIEWED BY THE POLISH GOVERNMENT

It is manifestly incorrect to accuse the Polish government of being anti-Semitic or otherwise unilaterally antipathetic to Jews, or even to Jewish particularism. It all depended upon the TYPE of Jewish school, what it espoused, and the form of Jewish particularism that was being promoted by it.

Consider the bilingual Jewish schools. Eisenstein comments, (quote) The link with the religious tradition of human society and emphasis on civic rights and responsibilities were, no doubt, important factors in the rather favorable attitude of the government toward the Hebrew-Polish bilingual school. (unquote). (p. 66).

Attention is now focused on the Orthodox and ultraorthodox Jewish schools, notably the Agudah. These included the yeshivoth, hadorim, and Talmud Torahs. The school systems featured the Vaad Yaheshivoth, the Horev (for boys), and Beth Jacob (for girls). (p. 81).

Eisenstein analyzes the factors behind Poland’s acceptance of these schools, (quote) 1. State educational authorities had no reason to suspect this orthodox school network of any “undesirable” political activity, since it had no ties with labor and the socialist movement, as was the case with the Cysho schools, or with the Zionist ideal of a national homeland in Palestine, as was the case with the Tarbut schools. These orthodox schools constituted instead a deeply conservative network that fostered obedience, patriotism, and loyalty to the Polish state, and aimed to perpetuate in the changing social and political scene the ideals and practices embodied in the Jewish religious philosophy. 2. State educational authorities looked with approval upon the acceptance of Polish as the medium of instruction for all secular subjects in the orthodox schools…Thus, owing to a rather favorable state attitude toward it, the orthodox network succeeded in striking deep roots on Polish soil… (unquote). (pp. 80-81).

———————————————————————–

MODERNIZING JEWISH EXISTENCE: JEWS MUST LOSE THEIR AVERSION TO PHYSICAL LABOR

The unpopularity of usury has been made into a saying. See:

https://www.jewsandpolesdatabase.org/2019/11/04/usury-unpopularity-the-reasons-asala/

In the past, Jews had been accused of gravitating to “nonproductive” occupations, such as usury, tavern keeping, and the middleman, as it enabled them to avoid physical labor. Interestingly, the Cysho (Tsysho) philosophy tacitly concurred with at least the latter assessment. Eisenstein comments, (quote) The Cysho leaders, therefore, constantly waged a battle with “the remnants of stubborn Jewish conservatism.” This Jewish conservatism was attacked for fostering a negative attitude toward physical work. This attitude had to be eradicated from the hearts of the young, the Cysho leaders believed, and a love for labor had to be implanted. The school had to become a laboratory for producing workers in ALL phases of human endeavor. (unquote)(Emphasis in original). (p. 21).