What the attitude of the Zionists should be in the future towards Great Britain and the Arabs, is discussed in the "Juedische Rundschau," German Zionist organ, in its November 19th issue. Discussing the attitude of the Zionist Organization towards the Mandatory Power in Palestine, Dr. Felix Danziger, of Jerusalem, questions the wisdom of entrusting the fate of the Zionist movement and of Jewish repatriation to a state which is already "overburdened, not with one but with many Arabic questions, which in its policies in Palestine must bear in mind India, and so on."
Dr. Danziger suggests that it might be far better for another Power to take over the Mandate, a Power not so burdened with Arabic questions, which would still be under the auspices of the League of Nations. "I can very well imagine," he writes, "that the day may come when England itself will welcome this change of responsibility, and when the Jewish cause will gain thereby. Yes, perhaps here we may, through intensive study find the path to a real Arab-Jewish collaboration."
Which Power should be given the Mandate is, he believes, a secondary question, and a matter for political discussions between many parties, with England helping to decide. "In bringing up this question," he continues, "I see only the clear necessity of placing the Jewish cause and its future in Palestine on a firm foundation, of making it independent of one, even if so powerful, state."
If we regard the matter in this spirit, he believes, we may also disregard the childish attempts to pit a competing power against England in Palestine. "The Jewish cause will not gain," he says, "through Palestine’s becoming the football of world polities."
We must bear in mind, he concludes, that the Balfour Declaration, given by England, and attested to by the world, "was and remains only the great promise, which Jewish history will always celebrate as the beginning of a new era. The actual carrying out of this promise is another, a practical question. Security is its first postulate, active support its second. Only these two points must guide the policies of Jewish leaders."
Argument in the same issue for peace between the Arab and the Jew is made by Mordecai ben Ephraim, of Jerusalem. "Though the Arabs may still be carrying a dagger," he writes, "we are not without protection. But does one realize what it means to live in a state of permanent warfare? Should we retreat to the ghetto, even if it be as big as Tel Aviv or the Emek?" Even today, he feels, boycott is impossible between the Arab and the Jew, so closely are the two peoples bound together. Jewish industry needs the Arab market, he writes, not only in Palestine but in Syria, and soon in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
Peace, he states, is a vital necessity. Common sense demands a peace treaty with the Arabs, even though an understanding may have to be postponed. Militarists, he says, sign peace treaties as well as pacifists, and cites the treaty of the French with the Germans in 1871.
That we must know exactly what we want from the Arabs and say what we want to give them in exchange, is his belief. "We want no peace at any price," he concludes, "but we are ready to pay a price if we can leave as heritage to the generations that come after a peace in which they shall be able to live and work and build again. We ask of our leaders that they decide what this price shall be."