disposition of the former Turkish provinces, placing them, through the system of Mandates, under the supervision of France and England which were, in turn, responsible to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations. The years between 1917 and 1920 saw the beginnings of the controversy about the meaning of the Balfour Declaration; a controversy that was to widen in scope and deepen in intensity with the passing of years. For the document used language without precedent in diplomatic history. The language of the Declaration was ambiguous because the Declaration sought to satisfy a multiplicy of unharmonious interests. Moreover, the term, "a national home" was an innovation in international affairs.

That the vaguely phrased letter of Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild should have been a source of constant and vexatious speculation as to meaning is not surprising, when it is remembered what varied interests it sought to satisfy with a single stroke. It sought to reconcile the following often incompatible groups: Arabs, Zionists, non-Zionists, France, England, Christians, Moslems, Jews; and, according to Dr. Weizmann, it was so worded as "to prevent anti-Semites from seizing upon the Balfour Declaration as a weapon whereby to bring about the disfranchisement of the Jews." (Dr. Weizmann himself was not unmindful of such a possibility.) Added to all these interests was Woodrow Wilson's insistence upon the right of self-determination of peoples in the construction of the post-war world.

It is not necessary to review here the interpretations placed upon the Declaration by all of these interested groups. Some of the differences have been reconciled. Others remain as serious irritants in the unsettled politics of the Near East.

THE FEISAL-WEIZMANN AGREEMENT

Before the public intrusion of the concept of Jewish National Statehood there seems to have been agreement between representative Arabs and Zionists on the meaning of the Balfour Declaration.

Weizmann himself tried to dispel Arab fears of Zionist aspirations for a Jewish State when in March of 1918, he and W. Ormesby-Gore stopped off in Cairo en route to Palestine. So convincingly did Weizmann make protestations of moderate aspirations that one of Cairo's leading Arabic newspapers took up the task of attempting to allay Arab apprehensions. The paper, al-Muqattam, was owned by Dr. Faris Nimr Pasha, one of the earliest and most vigorous of Arab nationalists. In January, 1919, Emir Feisal and Chaim Weizmann signed an agreement, the main provisions of which were that in the future "constitution and administration of Palestine all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917" (The Balfour Declaration). Jewish immigration and close settlement on the land were to be facilitated. There were to be no religious tests for civil or political rights. "Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control." 1 To this Feisal-Weizmann agreement was added a clause, signed by both men, in which the Arab representative qualified this agreement by these terms: "Provided that the Arabs obtain their independence as demanded by my Memorandum dated the 4th of January, 1919, to the Foreign Office of the Government of Great Britain, I shall concur in the above articles. But if the slightest modification or departure were to be made (sc. in relation to the demands in the Memorandum) I shall not then be bound by a single word of the present agreement which shall be deemed void and of no account or validity, and I shall not be answerable in any way whatsoever.

"FEISAL IBN HUSAIN, "CHAIM WEIZMANN."

On both of these occasions then, for whatever reasons of policy or expediency, Weizmann, as official representative of the Zionists, seems to have spoken in terms of such moderation as to satisfy Arab nationalists. Whatever their unspoken thoughts, the Zionists, from the evidence at hand, did not then publicly interpret the Balfour Declaration to imply sanction for a Jewish National State.

1 Compare with American Jewish Conference Resolution: "The Jewish people pledges itself to scrupulous regard for and preservation of the religious, linguistic and cultural rights of the Arab population of Palestine, and to the civil and religious equality of all its inhabitants before the law. The inviolability of the Holy Places of the various religions shall be guaranteed."

CLASHING NATIONALISMS

Yet, six months after the conclusion of the Feisal-Weizmann agreement, relationships between the Arabs and Jews began to deteriorate. Despite the official and public utterances which refrained from mentioning a Jewish State, it was becoming apparent that there were considerable elements among the Zionists that viewed the Balfour Declaration as a green light to the realization of such a project. This situation is, at least, implicitly reflected in an event of July 2, 1919. On that date, the General Syrian Congress un: nimously passed a series of resolutions, designed to express the wishes of "Moslem, Christian, and Jewish inhabitants" of the lands involved in the Near Eastern negotiations. These resolutions, ten in number, were premised upon "the basic principles proclaimed by President Wilson in condemnation of secret treaties and cause us to enter an emphatic protest against any agreement providing for the dismemberment of Syria and against any undertaking envisaging the recognition of Zionism in southern Syria (Palestine); and we ask for the explicit annulment of all such agreements and undertakings.' Accordingly, the sixth resolution denied the right of France to any part of Syria and resolution seven rejected "the claims of the Zionists for the establishment of a Jewish commonwealth in that part of southern Syria which is known as Palestine. * * * Our Jewish fellow-citizens shall continue to enjoy the rights and to bear the responsibilities which are ours in common.

One element of current interest becomes clear in this recitation of history of the early years of the Balfour Declaration. Arab nationalism has been a real factor in the Near Eastern area. Part of the language of the Balfour Declaration was in acknowledgment of the existence of Arab nationalism.

THE "FOUNDATIONS" FOR A COMMONWEALTH

And the moderation with which Zionists spoke publicly of their aspirations showed that they were aware of the resistance to any attempt to use the Balfour Declaration as the opening wedge for the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine.

Before the great powers could stabilize the Near Eastern situation by a definitive peace, there were, nevertheless, a considerable number of statements pertaining to the Declaration, which used the terms "Jewish Commonwealth" and "Jewish State." So, in March of 1919, Woodrow Wilson could say, "I am persuaded that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations for a Jewish commonwealth." And in November of the same year, Jan Smuts could say, "in generations to come a Jewish state" might rise in Palestine "once again."

There is no reason not to believe that Wilson and Smuts had anything other in mind that an eventual Palestine population, predominantly Jewish, much the same as Italy is composed of a people whose religion is predominantly Catholic. Moreover, it is obvious, that even such an understanding of the Declaration envisaged this the consequence of a natural, evolutionary process, over a period of a great many years. There is, on the other hand, every reason to question the use of names like Wilson and Smuts as having sanctioned a program which would impose political control by a minority of Palestine's population.

As the specific problems of the Near East crystallized, President Wilson was apparently so disturbed by the dangerous potentialities of the situation that in June 1919, he dispatched a commission to the Near East for a careful survey. This commission, known as the King-Crane Commission, was to submit a report which would be of assistance in the final formulation of the peace treaties.

THE KING-CRANE REPORT

With regard to Palestine, the King-Crane Commission gave the following interpretation and definition, "A national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish state." The commission further reported that in its estimation, the establishment of such a state would gravely "trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" and even ventured the opinion after studying Zionist literature "that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine by various forms of purchase." Moreover, the Commission reported that despite wide varieties of opinion on other matters, the entire Arab world was in great opposition to a Jewish state. And the report concluded with the affirmation that if the creation of such a State was to be the interpretation put upon the Balfour Declaration, that interpretation would have to be implemented with force.

"No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners," the report says, "believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by force of arms. What use President Wilson and our State Department made of this report is unknown. It is significant, however, that while the Presidents since Wilson have endorsed the Balfour Declaration, none has endorsed the idea of a Jewish State in Palestine. There is every reason to believe that the resolution adopted by the Congress of the United States in 1922, endorsing the Balfour Declaration, was predicated on the interpretation given in the report of the King-Crane Commission.

Subsequently the British Government made several attempts to clarify the meaning of the Balfour Declaration. The divergence between the Declaration and Zionist demands for a Jewish state is emphasized in such a statement as this, issued by the Haycraft Commission in 1921. "Much we feel might be done to allay the existing hostitlity between the races if responsible persons on both sides could agree to discuss the questions arising between them in a reasonable spirit on the basis that the Arabs should accept implicity the declared policy of the Government on the subject of the Jewish National Home and that Zionist leaders should abandon and repudiate all pretensions that go beyond it."

THE FIRST OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION

The next year, 1922, Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the_Colonies, gave the official attitude of the British Government in a Command Paper, as follows:

"When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a center in which the Jewish people 2 as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacitites, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

"This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.'

This statement of the man who is now Prime Minister, is one of the definitive documents in the history of the Balfour Declaration. We find here, in that clear and precise language for which Mr. Churchill is renowned, an authoritative explanation of the disputed term "national home."

Such was also the interpretation put upon the Balfour Declaration in the White Paper of 1939, which says of Mr. Churchill's definition, "H. M. Government adhere to this interpretation of the Declaration of 1917 and regard it as an authoritative and comprehensive description of the character of the Jewish National Home in Palestine." The 1939 statement says further, "But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate, in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied, could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish state against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish state might be held to be implied in the message from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows:

UNAUTHORIZED STATEMENTS DENOUNCED IN 1922

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as 'Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Govern ment regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated the disappearanec or subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw

2 In the same statement Churchill defined "national" when he described the Jewish community in Palestine as: "This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact 'national' characteristics."

attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish national home, but that such a home should be founded in Palestine."

What then, does the Balfour Declaration mean? That it did not contemplate the establishment of a Jewish state by any artificial means such as directed immigration or immigration controlled solely by Jews, as a sovereign right, is obvious. That it did not contemplate absolute cessation of immigration of Jews, may be fairly presumed.

Moreover the Royal Commission Report of 1937 suggests that the Declaration was issued upon the basis of one indispensable assumption: namely, that Zionist aspirations would not encounter Arab resistance. "It is clear," the report says, "that the policy of the Balfour Declaration was subjected to the operation of the Mandate System in 1919 in the belief that the obligations thereby undertaken towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively would not conflict."

"It must have been obvious from the outset that a very awkward situation would arise if that basic assumption should prove false * * * To foster Jewish immigration in the hope that it might ultimately lead to the creation of a Jewish majority and the establishment of a Jewish state with the consent or at least the acquiescence of the Arabs was one thing It was quite another thing to contemplate, however remotely, the forcible conversion of Palestine into a Jewish state against the will of the Arabs. For that would clearly violate the spirit and intention of the Mandate System. It would mean that national self-determination had been withheld when the Arabs were a majority in Palestine and only conceded when the Jews were a majority. * * * The international recognition of the right of Jews to return to their old homeland did not involve the recognition of the right of Jews to govern Arabs in it against their will.”

The ever-increasing demands of Jewish nationalists, seeking to interpret the document as sanction for the creation of a Jewish National State, despite the official definitions of the original language have long proved an irritant in a troubled world area. It is clear that neither Britain nor America is in any way committed to the establishment of a Jewish State. Jewish Nationalists have, time and again, been served notice as to the meaning of the promise for “a national home." If, despite such notice, they led and continue to lead Jews to assume fantastic interpretations an already agonized Jewry will be pushed further down the long, heart-breaking path to disillusionment and frustration.

[Information Bulletin of the American Council for Judaism, Inc., No. 6, Philadelphia, Pa., January 15, 1944] THE BRITISH WHITE PAPER ON PALESTINE

Cutting across the broad issues relating to the future of Jews all over the world is the widespread, immediate concern in regard to the British White Paper of 1939. This official document, having taken cognizance of the tense situation created by two conflicting nationalist aspirations, attempts a resolution of the problem by proposals that include the stoppage of immigration of Jews into Palestine after a fixed quota of immigrants has been exhausted and restrictions on their further acquisition of land in that country.

We of the American Council for Judaism record our unqualified opposition to those provisions. In behalf of the substantial section of American Jews whose views on Jewish problems coincide with ours, we petition our Government to use its best offices to prevail upon the British Government not to proceed with so prejudicial and unjust a policy.

We base our attitude on this fundamental fact: That proposals which exclude Jews, as Jews, from right of entry and restrict Jews, as Jews, from the acquisition of land, do violence to the fundamental concept of democratic equality and thus to the very purposes and ideals to which the United Nations are pledged.

The American Council for Judaism is dedicated to the view that Jews, a religious community, shall have, as of right and not on sufferance, full equality all over the world. As stated in our Declaration of Principles "For our fellow Jew we ask only this: Equality of rights and obligations with their fellow nationals." This means equality in the countries in which we live and choose to remain; equality to return to those lands from which Jews have been forcibly driven; equality to migrate whever there is an opportunity for migration.

We ask for no special privileges for Jews anywhere in the world. We will resist to the utmost the imposition of any disabilities on Jews anywhere in the world. There is no compromise on this basic demand.

The tragic plight of Jews in various parts of the world is the consequence of the break-down or inadequate implementation of the democratic concept which accords equality of rights and expects equality of obligations. Hope for post-war Jews and, indeed, for all mankind is that inequalities which have obtained in the past shall be permanently removed; and that national and international provisions and sanctions will make impossible a continuation or revival of differential treatment. Yet this very objective, for which in part this war is being fought, is violated in the White Paper.

There is yet time to correct this injustice and to reaffirm in ringing terms the principle of equality of opportunity. Sympathy for the victims of Nazi terror calls for the cancellation of so grievous a discrimination. Fidelity to the traditions of democracy and equality which animate the British people, the American people, and freedom-loving peoples everywhere, calls for the abrogation of a document that projects into the future the very evils and inequities against which the whole civilized world has risen in arms.

We are not unmindful of the nationalist conflict that led to the issuance of the White Paper. Our Statement of Principles declared, "We believe that the intrusion of Jewish national statehood has been a deterrent in Palestine's ability to play an even greater role in offering a haven for the oppressed, and that without the insistence upon such statehood, Palestine would today be harboring more refugees from Nazi terror."

The part played by Jewish nationalism, by the Zionist contention for political power, is made clear in the very White Paper that we oppose. Those who read the White Paper in its entirety will find the record of a long history of controversy deriving from nationalist claims, although the British Government time and again, made it clear that a “national home" was not synonymous with a Jewish National State. In the face of such declarations, Zionists extended rather than modified their demands that the rights of Jews in Palestine be based upon acceptance of a so-called "Jewish State." This was done in the Biltmore Platform and again in the Palestine Resolution of the American Jewish Conference. Such demands have only exacerbated an already serious situation.

We stand at a cross roads of decision, at a time of indescribable tragedy for our co-religionists in Axis Europe. Are we to be occupied with the creation of a Jewish National State? Or are we to be concerned with human lives, the lives of harassed and driven Jews?

We believe it a crucial wrong to confuse the two. One is a contention for a political ideology. The other is a battle for the elementary rights of men.

At the same time that we appeal that the unjust provisions of the White Paper be annulled, we call upon American Jews to organize in strength, out of deep concern for oppressed Jews everywhere, behind a non-nationalistic program to deal with the total Jewish problem. Beyond the abrogation of the White Paper lies the need for a basic solution. That solution, we believe, can come only when there is world wide recognition of the rights of Jews to full equality. It can come in Palestine only when the pretentions to Jewish Statehood are abandoned and we seek instead freedom of migration opportunity based on incontestable rights and not on special privilege. The declaration of our Statement of Principles is beyond challenge from any quarter. "We look forward to the ultimate establishment of a democratic autonomous government in Palestine, wherein Jews, Moslems and Christians shall be justly represented; every man enjoying equal rights and sharing equal responsibilities; a democratic government in which our fellow Jews shall be free Palestineans whose religion is Judaism even as we are American whose religion is Judaism."

BRIEFS

R. L. Duffus in a review in the New York Times of The Forgotten Ally by Pierre Van Paassen.

"Laying aside all Mr. Van Paassen's excesses of statement, and all in which one might wish to agree with him, the old question still remains: Is the Jew a race? Or are the Jews, in the plural, a diversified people adhering to a single religion of a number of sects, with many elements of common culture and tradition?

"Many of us in these days believe in humanity rather than in races and would rather fight for justice in all cities than set aside a few cities of refuge. The idea is not inconsistent with the encouragement of immigration to Palestine for