explained to Marshall, Schiff had resolved to attack the nationalists even
though he felt very kindly toward the Hebraists. Most offensive to the
Zionists was the banker’s pointed warning: “International, and in particular
American Jewry, had better carefully consider how far in such a state of af-
fairs, it is advisable for the time being to increase its interest in and support
of Palestinian projects and affairs.”^84 Events would prove that by those
words Schiff put his leadership on the line.
Louis Lipsky, chairman of the executive committee of the FAZ, was
quick to reply, and so were other prominent Zionists like Shmarya Levin
and Stephen Wise. Lipsky’s defense of the Zionists cleverly used Schiff’s
own admission in an earlier address on the benefits of Zionism. The
banker’s letter was all the more unfair, Lipsky added, because the develop-
ment of Palestine was the product of Zionist work, not of American Jewish
contributions. Was it proper statesmanship for a leader like Schiff to advise
American Jews to withhold their contributions? By terming the fight for
Hebrew “a struggle for [Jewish] home rule in Palestine” and “for the right
of an awakened Jewry to interpret its own life in its own terms,” the Zion-
ist leader implicitly argued the case of democracy over elitism. Shmarya
Levin agreed that Schiff’s warning was unstatesmanlike. The rabbis had
taught that “wise men should be careful with their words,” and since the
Zionist movement had too great a meaning for Jews to be dismissed so cav-
alierly, he hinted that Schiff had shown his ineptitude as a leader. A more
outspoken editorial in the Jewish Daily News (Yiddish) doubted that Schiff,
an “ordinary philanthropist with a check book,” could understand the
spirit that infused Zionism. “Keep your check book, Mr. Schiff,” it raged,
because Jewish rebirth and liberation, for Schiff’s benefit too, was destined
to come from the people, not from philanthropists.^85
Although Schiff retracted his warning to American Jews, Zionist rabbi
Stephen Wise followed with yet another attack. He charged that wealthy
Jews, shutting themselves out of the Zionist movement and ignoring the
potential strengths of Zionist sentiment, failed as statesmen. Furthermore,
they excluded Zionists from the councils of Jewry and refused to grant the
movement a fair hearing. Like Lipsky, Levin, and the others, Wise at-
tempted to prove how democratic Zionism exposed the weaknesses of elit-
ist leadership. Along the lines of criticism that had greeted the NCRSRM
and the organization of the AJC, Schiff’s detractors harnessed Zionism to
their case against communal stewardship. Anti-Zionist Simon Wolf, a
prominent figure in B’nai B’rith, concluded that “unless [the Zionists] can
rule they would rather ruin.”^86 Schiff claimed that he was not disturbed by
the attacks. Ironically, he said that as a non-Zionist he still hoped for
greater cooperation with Zionists (but not nationalists) in Palestinian
work. Toward that end he pleaded with the Zionists to dissociate them-
selves from the nationalists. In 1915 the Technikum, which Schiff had
186 Jacob H. Schiff