Long ago, an American, persecuted, insulted, scorned in his day, who has since found his way into the pantheon of great American spirits, wrote: "I am in earnest; I will not equivocate; I will not excuse; I will not retreat a single inch; and I will be heard." This is also the declaration and intention of the American Council for Judaism. WHAT OTHERS SAY THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY (September 15, 1943) By an overwhelming majority, the American Jewish Conference at its recent New York convention adopted a resolution in favor of making Palestine "the (sic!) Jewish commonwealth," demanding withdrawal of the British White Paper of 1939 which restricted Jewish immigration and landholding, and calling for unrestricted Jewish immigration into the Holy Land. In other words, the conference, which claimed to be a democratically chosen body representing all American Jewry, went all-out Zionist. The effect was somewhat lessened, however, by two incidents. In one, after the conference had voted, Joseph M. Proskauer, former New York supreme court justice and representative of the American Jewish Committee, announced that that body would not be bound by the resolution. In the other, publication of an anti-Zionist statement by the American Council for Judaism brought on that body an attack of almost unparalleled vituperation, with almost equally severe strictures aginst the New York Times for giving anti-Zionist views space in its news columns. The council opposed the idea of making Palestine a Jewish state, and declared that it should be given a democratic, autonomous government in which "Jews, Moslems and Christians shall be justly represented." Not content simply to uphold the opposing view, the New York body listened while four rabbis branded signers of the non-Zionist statement as "unsportsmanlike,' "impertinent," as guilty of an "attempt to sabotage," of "outrageous action," of "misrepresentation," of "treachery to the cause of Israel," men who had "placed themselves outside the pale of Israel." With such divisions revealed inside Jewry, and such emotional excess manifested by the majority at any sign of dissent, there is little likelihood that the United Nations will deliberately incur the hazards of trouble with the Arabs at this juncture by adopting the policy demanded in the New York gathering. (EDITOR'S NOTE.-The Christian Century's attitude to Jews was illustrated the preceding week in its editorial as follows:) Statistics concerning European Jewry require constant revision to keep them abreast with the appalling reality. Figures were given out last week in a report, compiled after careful study, by the Institute of Jewish Affairs representing the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress. In round numbers, there were, in the European countries now under Axis control, 8,000,000 Jews when Hitler came into power ten years ago. There now remain 3,000,000. What has happened to the other 5,000,000? Three million have been murdered, and 2,000,000 have migrated. Of the migrants, nine-tenths have gone to Russia. The murdered include 1,700,000 who have perished owing to the planned rigors of deportation, and nearly a million who have died by starvation or epidemics resulting from inhuman treatment. Almost a quarter of a million have been killed in actual war. If this were the final report of a completed chapter of barbarism, it would evoke horror, pity, determination to punish the perpetrators, and equal determination to find the means of preventing a recurrence of such frightfulness. These are all appropriate reactions. But since this is only a report of nazi progress toward the announced goal of the complete extermination of the race, it calls also for a search for measures which will, with all possible promptness, stop the slaughter. The fact that it will be impossible to put an immediate and complete end to this reign of terror so long as the nazi regime remains in force should not discourage steps to mitigate its horrors. Four types of action should be taken as quickly as possible: first, send food to the starving wherever it can be sent; second, provide place of asylum and escape for those who can get away, with special consideration of the admission of more refugees to the United States and to Palestine; third, make it known to every Axis soldier and administrator, so far as radio and leaflets can carry the word, that those guilty of specific crimes against Jews or other helpless civilians will be held criminally accountable for their deeds; fourth, defeat the Axis. 95149-44- -9 THE NATION The American Jewish Conference, which met in New York City last week, registered an overwhelming vote in favor of the Zionist idea. The conference was made up of some 500 delegates elected from every section of the country. Only four voted against the resolution calling for a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine, and these four votes seemed to indicate disagreement principally on the question of timing. The conference's spirited demand for the opening of Palestine to Jewish immigration under control of the Jewish Agency and for immediate nullification of the White Paper of 1939 reflects the tremendous increase of support for the Zionist program among American Jews as a result of events in Europe. Recent reports seem to bear out the assumption that by the end of the war no more than a million and a half-at most two million-Jews will be left alive in Europe. The delegates to the conference apparently made the further assumption that anti-Semitism has been so systematically and widely propagated by the Nazis that the Jews who survive will find it impossible to resume a normal life in Europe. Palestine, on the other hand, now offers, in their opinion, a final solution. Observers recently returned claim that with the development of the system of irrigation and hydroelectric power a million additional Jews can be absorbed into agriculture and this in turn would open the way for a million new workers in industry. Certainly the emigration and settlement of those Jews who wish to turn their backs on Europe should be facilitated and the United Nations, acting in concert, should assume the responsibility of working out a permanent policy for Palestine which will take into account the interests and welfare of all concerned. But we cannot accept-and we think it dubious strategy for any minority to accept the proposition that Jews will not be able to live in Europe after a war fought and won in the name of democarcy and racial equality. (EDITOR'S NOTE: We agree. That is one of the basic considerations of the American Council.) THE NEW REPUBLIC A sharp dispute has broken out between two sections of the Jewish community in the United States. The question is whether they should work for a strictly Jewish state in Palestine, or should be content to live in a state without any definite Jewish coloration. The American Council for Judaism opposes the Jewish state and the American Jewish Conference, which has been meeting in New York City, favors it. Whatever may be the merits on either side of this question, it is a disaster that the dispute should have broken out publicly at the present time. The one great problem before the Jews of the world is how to rescue their remaining co-religionists in Europe before they are all massacred. Already this has happened to 3,000,000 and there are only 3,000,000 left. There is a definite and concrete program through which action can be taken immediately to save a large part of these innocent victims. Until it has been carried out, there should be a moratorium on all disputes over long-range policy. We do not mean to suggest of course that the rescue of the Jews is a responsibility of the Jewish community only. It is a charge on the conscience of every person in the world who dares to call himself civilized. (EDITOR'S NOTE.-We, too, feel that it is important to concentrate on practical plans for immediate rescue. The obstacles are raised by those who insist on linking a fifty-year-old political program with the contem. porary urgency of rescuing the remaining Jews of Europe.) SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS * the Lord, our God, is one Lord. (Deuteronomy vi: 4) Out of this war should grow an International Bill of Rights that might become the Magna Carta of all minority peoples the world over. Such an instrumenteffectuated by the nations-would guarantee to all peoples "the protection of life and liberty, equality under the law." That proposal lately emanated from the American Jewish Conference, which met in New York to consider means to rescue persecuted co-religionists from the clutches of the savage, ruthless enemy-so far as possible. Intelligent, humane-minded men in all the free world-regardless of crede or race can approve and support that purpose. They likewise will agree with the conferees that justice and the world's future safety demand that the perpetrators of those foul crimes against Jews and other defenseless, unoffending peoples be tried and punished. The Conference's suggestion that those Jews who can reach Palestine their ancestral homeland-be allowed to make their homes there, also is well founded. At the same time, a clear-cut contribution toward solving the vexed Palestine problem comes from the American Council for Judaism, in Philadelphia. That body would set up no national Jewish state, but a democratic autonomous government in which Christian, Jew, and Moslem would have a voice, “every man enjoying equal rights and bearing equal responsibilities." In effect, that proposal would make Palestine a free country, as America is free-and the Bill of Rights would be the law of that land. The underlying principles are older than the American Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. They were written into the Mosaic Law: "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you." The Prophet Malachi spoke an identical truth: "Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us?" The Council justifiably, therefore, may assert that "racist theories" and exaggerated nationalism such as have brought the present calamity upon_mankind, "long ago became obsolete in Jewish history?" True religion-as Moses and the prophets taught it-equally with veritable democracy, "endows the individual man with rights for which he is answerable only to God." The tragedy of European Jewry-a record of persecution, eviction, robbery and massacre that fills one of history's most hideous pages-thus has its root in the utterly baseless theory (better called a delusion) "that racial barriers or nationalistic impulses separate Jews from other men." The plight of those unoffending victims of the Nazi hate-storm, and many million oppressed fellowmen of other faiths and national origins, should arouse all free men to "profoundest sympathy and unbounded moral indignation." Possessing humane sensibilities, the statesmen who shall write the peace must recognize their obligation to restore those persecuted peoples "to the status jand dignity of men endowed by God with inalienable rights.' In seeking such reparation-so far as it may be had for wrongs which are without measure for the stricken Jews, Czechs, Netherlanders, Poles, Norwegians, and all the other war-victims, the Council properly relies upon "the principles of freedom, justice and humanity to both democracy and religion.' Those are the principles "which shall prevail in the better world for which the United Nations are fighting." BRIEFS "DEMOCRACY" IN CLEVELAND Several weeks ago arrangements were made for a meeting in Cleveland to which representative Jews of the community were invited to hear a presentation of the views of the American Council for Judaism. Lessing J. Rosenwald was scheduled as speaker at that meeting. In advance of the meeting to which no general publicity was given and which was designed only to acquaint Jews with the Council's position, the Cleveland Jewish Community Council through its president, Philmore J. Haber, released a statement to the general and Jewish press condemning in advance the appearance of the Council's spokesman, and expressing "great shock and chagrin" that such a meeting should be arranged for. In response to this demonstration of "democracy," Mr. Rosenwald wrote the following letter: Mr. PHILMORE J. HABER, President, Cleveland Jewish Community Council, SEPTEMBER 23, 1943. Cleveland, Ohio. MY DEAR MR. HABER: During my short stay in Cleveland I saw the statement which was reported to have been released by you to the press and which was published on the morning of September 20. This letter contains no personal animus, nor does it wish in any way to criticize the beliefs expressed by you as those held by the Cleveland Jewish Community Council. The writer views with alarm that a body such as you represent is "deeply shocked and chargrined" because a person having sincere convictions at variance with those held by the Community Council expresses his views on the subject. Have your co-religionists in the fair city of Cleveland so far forgotten the rights of citizenship and of free speech that they utilize such means to proclaim themselves against one of the basic tenets of our Constitution? I venture to suggest that if Palestine should ever become a National Jewish Commonwealth such as you advocate, it will never become the center of culture which you hope for unless the principle of free speech is wholeheartedly granted, and unless honest and divergent viewpoints can be thoroughly discussed in a spirit which will ultimately produce wise and sound courses of action. Very truly yours, To date no reply has been received. LESSING J. ROSENWALD. [Information Bulletin of The American Council for Judaism, Inc., No. 5, Philadelphia, Pa, December 31, 1943] WHAT DOES THE BALFOUR DECLARATION MEAN? By Rabbi Elmer Berger EDITOR'S NOTE.-The review by Rabbi Berger of the history of the efforts to interpret the meaning of the Balfour Declaration is here published as a contribution to the public knowledge of a heatedly-debated and all-too-little known subject. From time to time the "Information Bulletin" will publish similar studies of related subjects. The confusion over a wise and just policy for Palestine has been inherent in the Palestinian, and indeed in the whole Near Eastern, situation for the last 25 years. This confusion of interests is reflected in the McMahon letters to the Arabs, the Sykes-Picot agreement, involving Britain, France, and Russia and in the Balfour Declaration. The McMahon letters and the Sykes-Picot agreement preceded the Balfour Declaration. They provided the background against which the Declaration was issued. The McMahon Correspondence is an exchange of letters between Husain ibn'Ali, Grand Sharif of Mecca, and Sir Henry McMahon, then High Commissioner of Egypt. Eight letters comprise this correspondence. The first is dated July 14, 1915, the last January 30, 1916. In these eight letters, Husain and McMahon discuss the terms upon which the Arabs would throw in their lot with Britain and France against Turkey and Germany in the vitally important war area of the Near East. The goal of the Arabs was independence. The goal of Great Britain was the winning of an ally and protection of her vital communication links in that part of the world. The eight letters represent the attempts of spokesmen of both parties to agree upon terms. The letters gave birth to the first controversy involving Palestine. In discussing the boundaries of the proposed independent Arab territory, these letters never reached a definitive answer as to the fate of Syria, which was then considered to include Palestine. England contended that Syria was never included in the promises made by McMahon to the Arabs. The Arabs insisted that they had never forfeited their claim to the territory but that, to expedite the alliance with Britain, Husain had been willing to postpone settlement of this disputed question. In support of this contention, Husain's fourth letter to McMahon is quoted. That letter, dated January 1, 1916, contains this sentence. 66* * * We shall deem it our duty, at the earliest opportunity after the conclusion of the War, to claim from you Bairut and its coastal regions which we will overlook for the moment on account of France." McMahon had pleaded that he could make no disposition of Syria (Bairut) because of other commitments that England had with France. Thus it is clear that there never was any agreement upon this question, clearly understood and unqualifiedly accepted by both parties. Against this first confusion of interests over the disposition of Syria (including Palestine) there was projected, in April-May 1916, the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Involved in the negotiations which led to the formulation of this document, were the governments of Great Britain, France, and Russia. Only those parts of the agreement involving British and French interests are pertinent to the history of the Balfour Declaration, for the portions of the Turkish Empire, in which Russia had an interest, did not involve the Arab world. The Sykes-Picot Agreement is of simpler construction than the McMahon Correspondence. It pledges France and England "to recognize and uphold an independent Arab State or a Confederation of Arab States * * * under the suzerainty of an Arab Chief." That section of the Near East which roughly corresponds to modern Palestine was to be under "an international administration, of which the form shall be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and after subsequent agreement with the other Allies and representatives of the Sharif of Mecca." In northern Syria, France was to be "at liberty to establish such direct or indirect administration or control" as she "may desire," or as she might "deem fit to establish after agreement with the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States." The same provision was made for English control in what was later to be known as Iraq. A new element of confusion was thus injected. In the McMahon Correspondence the fate of Syria (including Palestine) had been left undetermined. Now, in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, that fate was decided and Palestine, separated from northern Syria, was to be placed under international control, to be agreed upon by the now four interested parties. ARAB CLAIM TO SYRIA The source of confusion was that the Arabs had never forfeited their claim to Syria and for eighteen months, knew nothing of the existence of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Information of the existence of this document first reached Husain in December of 1917, when the Bolshevik party in Russia began to publicize secret documents found in the archives of the Czarist regime. The texts of the SykesPicot Agreement were sent to Husain by the Turks, who hoped to convince Husain that he had been duped. Accompanying the revelation was an offer of a separate Turkish-Arab peace. Husain rejected the peace offer at the exhortation of the British government, which sought to assure him that the agreement had been only "provisional" and that "the striking success of the Arab Revolt, as well as the withdrawal of Russia, had long ago created an altogether different situation." The Arabs were not the only ones who were perturbed by the Agreement. It caused consternation in Zionist circles, after the issuance of the Balfour Declaraation. For the agreement envisaged an internationalization of the Holy Land, in consultation with France, Russia, the Arabs as well as England. The Balfour Declaration, on the other hand, represented_predominantly British interests. Russia had been eliminated from the war. But the previous commitment to France required that Britain and the Zionists deal with her with the greatest circumspection. That Arab agreement was ever invited in the preliminaries preceding the issuance of the Declaration, has never been established. But the Sykes-Picot Agreement was an indispensable forerunner to the Balfour Declaration. Without it, England could not have made any further disposition of Palestinian interests. THE BALFOUR DECLARATION The text of this now famous document was contained in a letter written by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the British cabinet. Arthur James Balfour, to Lord Rothschild which reads as follows: DEAR LORD ROTHSCHILD: FOREIGN OFFICE, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and relgious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist federation. A. W. JAMES BALFOUR. The letter is called "a statement of policy" by the British Royal Commission's report in 1937. The Balfour Declaration became a part of the peace settlements at the end of World War I only in 1920, when the Treaty of Sevres made final |