Solemnity, interrupted by frequent dramatic clashes between the ardent supporters and the relentless opponents of the Jewish Agency extension plan, marked the brilliant debate which, when ended, changed the course of the Zionist movement and joined it with its new, non-Zionist partners to continue the efforts begun thirty years ago for the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home.
All the arguments pro and con that were on the lips of Zionists throughout the world for the past six years since the negotiations for the partnership were started were compressed into one session’s debate, which proceeded along the lines of legal argument within the confines of parliamentary procedure as the discussion on the fifteen articles of the new constitution for the extended Agency went forward until the early hours of Thursday morning. The debate was frequently interrupted for the vote on the respective paragraphs and sub-divisions.
When the session was adjourned, it was against the will of a great number of delegates who, ignoring personal discomfort and exhaustion, demanded a continuation until the question would be disposed of. It was on the insistence of the laborites, who pleaded for an adjournment on the ground that the members of the assembly were exhausted, that adjournment was called, when all articles of the constitution with the exception of its preamble had been passed in the first reading. Observers stated that the laborites’ insistence was motivated more by their desire to provide breathing space for further negotiations concerning the composition of the Executive, than by their longing for rest. They were anxious to prevent the final ratification steps before a definite agreement on the composition of the new Executive and their possible place on it was reached.
SOLEMN SILENCE PERVAILS IN HALL AS DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED
Dr. Lee Motzkin, who presided over the session, ushered in the debate with solemnity befiting the occasion by calling on Dr. Georg Halpern, chairman of the Committee on the Jewish Agency, to read the constitution draft approved by the committee. Every delegate was in his seat. The platform was crowded with members of the Executive and distinguished guests. A number of spectators filled the balconies and listened eagerly to the opening remarks of the speaker. Dr. Stephen S. Wise, in a characteristically isolated position, was noticed standing in the section reserved for visitors. The constitution draft was read paragraph by paragraph by Dr. Gelber, a historian, secretary general of the Congress, in a steady, audible voice. Some disturbance was caused when the ushers were too slow in the distribution of the text of the constitution draft printed on white paper and the various amendments printed on pink sheets. The delegates clamored for copies. At this juncture Israel Mereminsky, rising on behalf of the Poale Zion, labor group, asked for a five minute recess as his party wanted to hold a conference. The chairman declined to order a recess, whereupon the Poale Zion delegates walked out. The Hitachduth delegates, the other labor group, remained in their seats. Soon the Poale Zion delegates returned.
Dr. Halpern, in a brief introduction, described the preamble to the constitution as “satisfying the ideal for which the Zionists had fought for many years.”
“AGREEMENT WITH SUITABLE PARTNERS ON SUITABLE BASIS”
“Those who come into the Agency do so on the basis of the conception of the Jewish National Home. This fact affords the greatest satisfaction to every member of the committee. We are persuaded that we are entering into an agreement with suitable partners on the basis of a suitable instrument. The authors of the constitution have worked devotedly. It rests on the fifty-fifty principle. Fifty per cent are to be Zionists and fifty per cent non-Zionists. There are no barriers. All can go either way, but it is our conviction that this is a one way street leading to Zionism,” Dr. Halpern stated.
The chairman of the Committee on the Jewish Agency then offered explanations of the amendments introduced into the text by the committee and on the minority amendments. He reported that the committee decided to change the tittles in the text proposed by the Executive, “the dissolution of the Agency,” to read, “the termination of the agreement.” There was general consent that the committee’s change represented a more suitable title.
During the reading of the text, the ushers distributed the amendment advocated by the Mizrachi. It read: “The Congress directs the Executive to take measures to the end that the satisfaction of religious requirements be included in the activities of the extended Jewish Agency in Palestine.” It was explained that the adoption of this recommendation was the sole condition which the Mizrachi stipulated for its vote in favor of the Jewish Agency.
MORRIS ROTHENBERG CHAMPIONS AGENCY CAUSE
The debate was opened by Morris Rothenberg, vice-president of the Zionist Organization of America, who played a leading role in the negotiations on behalf of the World Zionist Executive with the American non-Zionist group.
“The Jewish Agency constitution does not represent any compromise,” he said. “Ideological differences exist not only between the Zionists and non-Zionists, but between the Zionists themselves, as was manifested in the 1921 split among the American Zionists at the Cleveland convention. There is only one prerequisite for Zionism, namely the recognition of the Basle program. This program has been recognized in the constitution of the Jewish Agency,” he said.
The speaker expressed his hope that the work in the Jewish Agency will not reveal any differences between Zionists and non-Zionists. They will rather follow the best way possible to solve the common problem. He cited the firm attitude taken by Louis Marshall in the drafting of his paper in the report of the Joint Palestine Survey Commission, setting forth Great Britain’s obligations to Palestine, an attitude which could not be excelled by any Zionist, he said. “Our future partners have much to learn from us; let us not forget that we can learn much from these men who possess great knowledge and experience,” Mr. Rothenberg declared.
WISE AND WEIZMANN IN SHARP CLASH OVER TWO-THIRD MAJORITY RULE
The most dramatic moment in the debate on the Jewish Agency constitution was the clash which occurred between Dr. Stephen S. Wise and Dr. Chaim Weizmann on the most heatedly discussed point in the constitution: the two-thirds majority clause for the dissolution of the extended Jewish Agency. A virtual duel of words occurred, when Dr. Wise, pleading for the amendment to substitute the two-thirds measure by a simple majority, adjured Dr. Weizmann to reopen the negotiations with the non-Zionists on this point and Dr. Weizman replied: “An agreement is an agreement.”
Meer Grossman. Revisionist, started the discussion on the dissolution clause by appealing to the Congress “not to tie the hands of the Zionist Organization in case it finds that the Agency does not work out.” Dr. Max Soloweitchik, Berlin, Radical Zionist, and Mr. Margolis supported the Revisionist amendment for a simple majority.
Abraham Goldberg, representing the Zionist Organization of America, defended the two-thirds majority clause. He declared that the very existence of the Agency depends on the retention of this clause. The non-Zionists will (Continued on Page 6)
not agree to a change on this point, he said.
Dr. Wise, in an impassioned address, vehemently protested against what he termed the “terrorism” of the Executive and charged it with an attempt to force the Congress into accepting the clause. “If we are still free, I do not want Rosenblueth or Weizmann to force us into action. It is true that the Zionist General Council (Actions Committee) adopted this two-thirds provision, but in doing so it violated the decisions of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Zionist Congresses,” he said.
“I ADJURE YOU IN BEHALF OF JEWISH PEOPLE”
“We wish to go into the Agency. I wish to vote for it,” Dr. Wise continued, “but you must not say that we must stay in the Agency nolens volens. Had you asked for the two-thirds provision six years ago, you would not have had any Agency,” Dr. Wise exclaimed, turning to Dr. Weizmann and saying: “Go into the Jewish Agency Council. Tell them you have done all you could but that the Zionist Congress was inexorable. I adjure you to do this in behalf of the Jewish people,” Dr. Wise exclaimed amidst a stormy ovation in his honor.
“DO NOT CLAIM RIGHT TO SPEAK IN BEHALF OF JEWISH PEOPLE”
Dr. Weizmann, who immediately took the floor, stated that he attempted to avoid speaking during the debate in order not to give the impression that the Executive is using pressure.
“The sovereignty of the Zionist Congress is dear to me, no less than to others. I have worked as hard as anybody in this hall to maintain this sovereignty, but still I do not claim the right to speak in behalf of the Jewish people,” Dr. Weizmann retorted. “We have tried. We have negotiated. We have succeeded on some points, but failed on others. But an agreement is an agreement. It is true that the Actions Committee is not the same as the Congress, but its decision is, nevertheless, binding and it would be unfair to the American non-Zionists to change this point now. You are free to make any decision, but we, too, are free to decide how to act when this decision is made,” he declared, intimating that he might resign if he is overridden on this point.
Deputy Gruenbaum interrupted the president of the Zionist Organization by exclaiming; “You told us that the Agency constitution is not yet a fait accompli.” Dr. Weizmann resumed his seat without answering. The question was then directed to the Executive through the praesidium by Dr. Nahum Goldman, an associate of Deputy Gruenbaum in the Radical Zionist party, as to whether it is still possible to reopen the negotiations on this question with the non-Zionists. When the Executive made no reply, the vote was taken with the result that the two-thirds majority rule was upheld by 115 against 88 votes.
LEFT WING SPLITS ON QUESTION
The vote on this question revealed the only split in the ranks of the Left wing. While a great many labor delegates abstained from voting, many Pozle Zion delegates and Hitachduth delegates joined the Zionist Radicals and Revisionists to make up the 84 opposition votes. Two Canadian delegates from the ranks of the General Zionists also voted with the opposition on this point. Among them was Miss Freiman, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Archibald Freiman of Ottawa, who voted with the Radical Zionists while her parents voted with the Center.
FIRST TEST ON LABOR AMENDMENT
The first test of strength in the passage of the constitution was the vote on a labor amendment introduced by S. Kaplansky in behalf of the Poale Zion. He proposed to strike out from the clause dealing with the freedom of the settlers to determine the form of their settlements the words: “so long as the requirements for economic efficiency are fulfilled.” This motion was lost by a majority of 111 to 88, the entire Center group with the exception of the Canadian delegation voting against the amendment. M. Grossman in behalf of the Revisionists declared that his group does not participate in the vote on any of the amendments, except on the dissolution clause.
PRINCIPLE OF JEWISH LABOR HAS UNIVERSAL CONSENT
The defeat the Laborites suffered on this amendment was compensated by the unanimous vote given by the Congress in reiteration of the principle of Jewish labor in all enterprises of the Jewish Agency in Palestine.
When Dr. Chaim Arlosoroff rose to defend a change in the clause dealing with this question to make doubly sure that all undertakings of the Jewish Agency adhere to this principle, he was interrupted by shouts from the Center: “Not needed, all agree.” The amendment was unanimously carried.
MIZRACHI GAINS RECOGNITION FOR RELIGIOUS NEEDS
The Orthodox Zionists, through the Mizrachi group, scored a victory on an issue which agitated the sessions of the previous Zionist Congresses, when the Congress, by a majority of 148 to 12, adopted the Mizrachi resolution reading: “The Congress directs the Executive to take measures to the end that the satisfaction of religious requirements be included in the activities of the extended Jewish Agency in Palestine.”
The vote was effected amidst stormy scenes as the Laborites and other groups attempted to block the passage of this resolution. In addition to their objections in principle to the religious resolution, part of the Laborite delegates sought to prevent its passage because it meant facilitating the creation of a coalition Executive between the General Zionists and the Mizrachists. They asked, through their spokesman, Ben Gurion, to discontinue voting on the resolutions as the hour was late and it was impossible for the Laborites to pass a resolution, authorizing the Executive to affix its signature to the agreement before an Executive was elected. He appeal to the Congress not to make it necessary for the “united labor vote” to vote in opposition. He was corrected, however, by Dr. Arlosoroff, who stated that the Hitachduth labor group is not in agreement with the Poale Zion.
Before the resolution was passed, Rabbi S. Brod, Mizrachist, of Poland, pleaded with the delegates not to compel the Mizrachi to vote against the Jewish Agency pact. The Mizrachi, he said laid emphasis on the points of unity and not on disagreements. “The passage of this resolution does not signal a cultural battle. Do not let the Mizrachi, who supported the Agency for six years, now cast its vote against it,” he said, expressing the belief that the new cooperation through the Agency will be a success.
“REMOVE HERZL’S PORTRAIT,” STRICKER SAYS IN RESIGNATION
Opposition to the extension of the Jewish Agency was voiced in the eleventh hour by the die-hard opponents. Engineer Robert Stricker of Vienna, Radical Zionist, and Richard Lichtheim, Revisionist, Berlin, former member of the Executive, were the principal opposition spokesmen.
“The present-day Zionist leaders lead the Zionists in the opposite direction. Herzl brought forth slaves who left the Zionist Congress as free men.
We came here free, but we are leaving the Congress as slaves. I ask the Congress praesidium,” Robert Stricker declared, pointing to the portrait of Herzl hanging in the center of the platform, “to take down this portrait or to turn its face to the wall !”
Richard Lichtheim, who was given the floor only after his fellow Revisionists demanded it in a turbulent outbreak and a special vote was taken on the point, stated that the Revisionists wish to sound an eleventh-hour warning. He polemized with the contentions of Morris Rothenberg that the Jewish Agency constitution does not represent a compromise. “Why this fifty-fifty principle?” he asked. “Why has the Executive not made a proposal to the non-Zionists for a real unity in behalf of the upbuilding of Palestine if there are no program differences between the Zionists and the non-Zionists? Why should there be no common responsibility for the work? Why this Agency constitution with its chaos and confusion that it must result in for the Zionist Organization? What will be the future of the Zionist Organization and its institutions? Any lawyer will tell you that this Agency constitution is good for nothing, as it is befogged and understandable. There is no doubt that (Continued on Page 8)
the non-Zionists are animated by the best intention, but they have other goals and other methods to take into consideration. Now they are interested in the Russian colonization, later they may be engrossed in the relations between the United States and England,” he said.
Quoting Dr. Herzl’s famous letter to Baron de Hirsch on the importance of the Zionist flag to the Zionist movement, Lichtheim exclaimed: “We revisionists will stand by this flag. We will protect this platform.”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
