Declaring that the present Zionist generation should overcome the consequences of the war and find the road to an Arab-Jewish Locarno, disclosing that one and a half years ago Arab leaders were seeking Jewish aid toward the establishment of a parliament, Dr. Hugo Bergmann, one of the leaders of the Brith Shalom Society in Jerusalem, including among its members Dr. Judah L. Magnes, Martin Buber and, until recently, Dr. Arthur Ruppin, who resigned upon joining the Zionist Executive, formulated the aims of the society by demanding the transformation of Palestine into a bi-national state, active adherence to the White Paper and full cooperation with the Arabs by admitting Arab workmen, employees and officials to Jewish enterprises.
Dr. Bergmann’s views, which were expressed in an article published recently in the “Hapoel Hazair,” are evoking considerable discussion, pro and con, in all circles in Palestine. Partisanship has penetrated even the Hebrew University, where a group of students yesterday walked out of Dr. Bergmann’s lecture, as a protest against his views.
Dr. Bergmann, in an interview with the correspondent of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, amplified his views. Aligning himself with Dr. Judah L. Mages, he called upon Zionist leaders to take the initiative in causing the Government to reconsider the granting of a Legislative Assembly and urged an immediate round table discussion regarding the future relations between Jews and Arabs, and the future government of Palestine.
Dr. Bergmann stated that he disagrees with the Vaad Leumi, Palestine National Council, which at a recent session, expressed its opposition to conversations with the Arabs concerning a National Legislative Assembly on the ground that it would be giving “a premium on violence.”
“The inhabitants of this country have the right to a Legislative Assembly where they would be able to express their views and assist in the government of the country. This would not hurt the Jews, the Brith Shalom leader asserted.
“The Zionist Organization should take the initiative and ask the Government to reopen the negotiations and consider the granting of a Legislative Assembly, consideration of which was suspended because of the riots.
“The following conditions should be and will be acceptable to the Arabs:
“1. The right of Jewish immigration in accordance with the economic capacity of the country, and in accordance with the means at the disposal of the Jewish Agency.
“2. The recognition of Hebrew as the official language of the Hebrew system.
“3. Administrative autonomy of all Jewish districts, following the example of Tel Aviv.
“We cannot get more and we should take the initiative to secure this.
“S. Kaplansky proposed a Legislative Assembly in 1924, but the local Poale Zion Executive declined to accept his plan. There were better conditions then. In 1928 the Arabs asked for a Legislative Assembly, in which they agreed to guarantee and respect the Jewish rights,” Dr. Bergmann asserted.
He disagreed with the theory held by the Zionists that the Arabs have no real national movement, and that all Arab parties are not united against the Zionist theory, he stated. Nor is it true as the Zionists hold, that the fellaheen are unopposed to the Balfour Declaration. In support of his belief he pointed to the fact that during the tour of the Inquiry Commission, there were demonstrations in all the villages, where sentiment was quite strong.
This, he asserted, was a very natural manifestation, since the Arabs fear the talk about a Jewish state and a Jewish majority.
Agreement with Dr. Bergman’s view is expressed by the “Felestin,” Arab publication, which hitherto has strongly opposed the Jews. The “Felestin” reprints Dr. Bergmann’s article, commenting on it : “If the Zionists had attempted to work out a plan similar to Bergmann’s, and in the same spirit, Palestine would have been a much different country today.”
Dr. Bergmann explains his standpoint as follows:
“The events of the summer,” declared Dr. Bergmann, “indicate a new epoch in the history of Zionism. The aims and methods of our work must be radically changed if we are to take into account what has occurred. What up to the present was known and appreciated by only a few of us, has now been revealed to the eyes of the entire world; another national movement is opposing the Zionist movement. The Arab people has carried out “a national revolution” (this is the name the Arab press gives to the recent events) whose only goal is the destruction of the political premises upon which our work rests. Palestine has been transformed into a new Ireland. Our movement, which was proud of being a movement for freedom-to free one nation without enslaving another-appears now, whether rightly or wrongly, in the eyes of the entire
(Continued on Page 7)
Orient and a part of the Occident, as a movement which enslaves the independent development of another people, deprives another people, which has the same right to freedom as we have ourselves, of the free development of its political institutions and takes the ground from under its feet.
“In such an atmosphere Palestine cannot be built up. Even if by some political combination there were a possibility that England would for generations keep a strong garrison in the country, until we have achieved a majority by immigration forced upon the country-even if this were possible we would not want to build up the country, Although hostile propaganda may proclaim to the world that we are an imperialistic movement which intends to enslave the Arab people, we ourselves have not forgotten (even though after the World War fate placed us in another position) that the roots of our movement have been the aim for freedom, the striving for a more just world order. We have not forgotten that at the cradle of Zionism, Laharanno, the Christian friend of Zion, wrote these words: ‘You will be to the Orient the moral pillar because you have written the Book of Books. Be the educators of the Arabs.’
“Let us confess it: since the war. Zionism has not always clearly seen this road toward which Zionism has pointed; we have suffered from the same war fever as other nations. We must free ourselves from it.
“I am not at all an optimist with regard to the possibility of finding this road. A year and a half ago when Arab leaders were seeking our aid in order to obtain a parliament, and displayed, in a number of interviews, their readiness to negotiate with us, this possibility perhaps existed. We did not make use of this possibility because we did not consider ourselves strong enough to carry out those negotiations successfully. Today, such an atmosphere prevails that probably for a long time peace negotiations cannot be thought of.
“The Arabs have just discovered their nationalism. The process of the creation of a national consciousness, which among us took place thirty years ago, is only now beginning among the Arabs. Their resistance against the Balfour Declaration is the most powerful method of kindling Arab nationalism. The prestige of the leaders, which six months ago was most doubtful, is today unlimited, and even if there are among the Arabs men who at heart sympathize with Zionism in some form, they will not for a long time have the courage to stand up against the leaders of the people. The Arabs have just reached the stage where individual egotism is expressed in national sentiment. They have not yet reached that level where the individual finds the courage to oppose an extremist wave out of a realization of national responsibility. Thus, even where there is a will for peace on our part, there does not exist its counterpart on their side.
“The situation therefore is not very encouraging. Nevertheless, we have no other choice. We will never be able to build in an atmosphere of latent or open war as now prevails in Palestine. We must find the road, we must do everything which can possibly be done on our side in order to establish peace with the Arab people, in the hope that if everything is done on our part, there will in the end be also men on the other side who will realize that not conflict, but cooperation between both peoples can secure the future of the country, and who will have the courage to bear the consequences of this realization.
“I say that everything must be done on our side. If ten years have passed since the war-psychology has taken root in our camp, perhaps a number of years will pass before the consequences of this psychology will be extinguished from the souls of our adherents. This educational work of the Zionists is no less difficult than the preparation for an understanding with the Arabs. The manner in which a large part of the Diaspora reacted to the events (the clanking of swords in Poland or in the United States, the senseless resolutions which were adopted, etc.) proves how little the situation in Palestine is understood and how the lowest instincts of the masses have seized part of our press and our organizations. To extinguish these instincts is a difficult task, which must be begun immediately. The only way to carry out this educational work is by unequivocal declarations from the responsible Zionist bodies, and particularly actions which would interpret the Zionist program in such a way as would make it clear to our adherents and opponents that we wish to carry out, to the furthest possible extent, cooperation with the Arabs.
“Some means for such a cooperation shall be shown in the following:
“On June 18, 1922, the Zionist Executive addressed a letter, signed by Dr. Weizmann, to the Colonial Office, giving assurances that the activities of the Zionist Organization will be carried out in accordance with the policy formulated in the White Paper. The Executive gave expression to the hope that the policy of the White Paper will be loyally accepted by all parties and will represent the beginning of a new era of peaceful progress. The Executive thus signed the only official interpretation of the Balfour Declaration which exists. What does this interpretation contain? The following are the most important points:
1. The promise of the establishment of a Jewish National Home in which the Jews live as of right. 2. At the same time the White Paper rejects the interpretation of a Jewish National Home as meaning that Palestine would be “as Jewish as England is English.” 3. The creation of organs of self-determination is promised to the inhabitants of Palestine, the first step being the convocation of a legislative council, the majority of its members being elected.
“The Mandate was recognized on July 24, 1922, after the Zionist Organization had given its official consent to the White Paper. The recognition of the White Paper by the Zionist Executive therefore preceded the Palestine Mandate.
“To our misfortune the Executive has not fulfilled its solemn promise to accept the White Paper loyally. The Balfour Declaration, in the official interpretation of the White Paper, was undoubtedly fit to become the instrument of peace in Palestine. But this promise which we have solemnly given to the outside world has again and again been discredited within our own ranks. We have continued to cultivate the ideology of the Judenstaat in our own circles and have considered the White Paper as a concession which was forced from us and which we were not obliged to fulfill. This created an atmosphere of distrust and resulted in the fact that the White Paper has not been loyally accepted by all parties and the Balfour Declaration remains in the eyes of the Arabs a ‘scarecrow’ which, after that interpretation, it would not have been.
“It would be too late today if the Executive were to again obligate itself by the White Paper. No one would believe it. Today it is no longer declarations but deeds which can prove that the Executive, as it then wrote, wishes to bring about harmonious cooperation with the Arabs.
“Unequivocal recognition of the White Paper within our own organization and cooperation with the Arabs in the spirit of the White Paper, is the only road which we can follow.
“If we wish to express the contents of the White Paper in a short formula, it means: Palestine as a bi-national State. The question which destiny demands of us is whether we wish to recognize this formula with all its consequences, even if such consequences are politically and practically disagreeable.
“I want to give some examples, to show what the consequences would be if we were one of these two State nations-consequences which are fully contradictory to the present ideology of our movement.
“First of all: the State must provide for the fulfillment of the elementary needs of its inhabitants (schools, security, hospitals, etc.) without asking from which of the two nations the taxes are derived which it uses for this purpose. In Switzerland, no one thinks of giving the Italians less schools because their contribution to the taxes is smaller than that of the Germans in the country. In Palestine, however, we are accustomed to considering it an injustice if the elementary needs of the Arabs are paid for out of taxes which we pay. Our entire position, our high standard of living, the fact that we are smaller in number and economically relatively stronger than the Arabs, results in the fact that
(Continued on Page 8)
(Continued from Page 7)
the Arabs derive greater benefits from the fulfilment of the elementary needs of the population. This is simply a consequences of our coming into this impoverished land in order to build it up, but if we wish to be here as a State people, we should not indulge in such accounting as long as the government fulfills its elementary duties towards us also. If with our taxes we facilitate the establishment of Arab elementary schools, if areas which are settled by Arabs are made sanitary-all this is merely a logical consequence of our position in the country. If we really wish to settle the fight, then we must be conscious of our obligations to a common State, particularly when this is the only country where we wish to be a State nation.
“I have given this example of the taxes because it is again and again quoted in our literature, and the writers who undoubtedly would have been shocked if American Jews dared request the government to expend in their behalf exactly as much as it received from them, nevertheless find this demand entirely justified here.
“I want to mention another example: There is the question of concessions. In a Jerusalem Hebrew weekly it was recently mentioned with satisfaction, and emphasized by bold type, that with the concession of the Dead Sea, all concessions for the exploitation of the natural resources of the country are now in Jewish hands. Every right-thinking man must consider this fact, which is by us so joyfully accepted, as an outrage against the native population. What right have we to exclude the native population from the exploitation of these concessions? What would the world say if the Germans went to Poland and secured for themselves the exploitation of all mineral resources? I will be answered: We are not strange usurpers, but citizens of this country. If we are really that-if we are really state-folk of this country inhabited by Jews and Arabs alike, then we must take care that the Jewish capital which pours into the country through these companies should benefit Jews and Arabs, that Jewish and Arab workmen are employed in these enterprises, that Jewish and Arab officials administer them. This is the least we can do to repair the injustice which exists in the fact that “all concessions are in the hands of the Jews.” These are things we must start immediately.
“A special task in the upbuilding of a Jewish-Arab Palestine will be fulfilled by our labor organizations. Two souls exist today in the bodies of our labor leaders. The labor organization on the one hand seeks to obtain the largest possible employment for Jewish workmen. On the other hand, it is a Socialist organization, and as such cannot make any distinction between the Jewish and Arab workman if both are organized in unions and demand the same wages. It is the right of the labor organization to wage the fight against cheap labor, but only too often is the fight against cheap labor and against exploitation only a mask for the fight against the Arab workman. This is the deeper reason for the fact that the labor organization has so far not succeeded in organizing the Arab workmen. It is impossible to organize the Arab workman and fight him at the same time. The labor organization must arrive at a clear Socialist policy. It will have to fight cheap labor, regardless of whether the exploited workman is a Jew or an Arab. It should make no distinction between the Jewish and Arab workman at a moment when the Arab workman is organized in a union and seeks a decent wage policy. Only with such a clear Socialist program will they be able to stand before an international Socialist Forum and only with such a program will labor succeed in organizing the Arab workman and bring about at one of the most important points cooperation between Arabs and Jews.
“I have given a few examples of how cooperation between Jews and Arabs can be brought about, which would prove that Zionism benefits in the upbuilding of Palestine. These examples can be easily enlarged : the establishment of cooperatives in Arab villages with Jewish capital and Jewish instructors; the employment of Arab physicians in our hospitals; Arab officials in our banks; in brief, cooperation in the common upbuilding of a common home. Only if the Zionist work in Palestine is conducted for a number of years in this spirit can we hope that the Arab national movement will consider Zionism as its ally and not as its deadly enemy.”
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.
