Sees Need of Return to Policy of Direct Economic Cooperation Between Jews and Arabs As Aid to Jewish

The need for a definite policy in Palestine by the British government, the conflict in the ranks of Jewry over cooperation with the Arabs in a political sense and Arab-Jewish cooperation in the economic sphere are discussed in three editorials in the current issue of “Near East and India,” a magazine reputedly close to the British Colonial Office.

In the first editorial, “Near East and India” points out that “a clear lead based on the real practicalities of the situation must be given to the people’s Palestine advocates. The British government must resolutely address themselves to a problem which it has hitherto been vaguely hoped time would solve. Whilst time solves certain problems through dying or inanition, the question now agitating the minds of the Arabs and the Zionists will never cease to exist through inanition.”

After declaring that the return of Jewish families to Hebron is an encouraging sign, the magazine says that “nevertheless times are still anxious in Palestine. Whilst the British government is organizing the defence, it must be remembered that the administrative tightening of the machinery must be backed up by a psychological change which shall assuage sentiment and ensure, not compulsory, but voluntary acts of reconciliation and cooperation between the parties concerned. It is important to discover the immediate causes of the disturbances but it is infinitely more important to find out methods of ensuring their non-recurrence which must mean the formulation of a definite policy in Palestine.”

A second editorial, entitled “Zionists in Conflict,” deals with the dispute “now destroying the ranks of Jewry upon the question of cooperation with the Arabs. Every Zionist, of course, pays lip service to the ideal of collaboration with the Arabs but the suggestion of Dr. Magnes, which appeared to recommend itself to liberals, and in America particularly to the non-Zionist section of the Jewish Agency, that the main political demands of the Arabs should now be freely granted, aroused the indignation, if not the dismay, of the more orthodox Zionists. Maurice Samuel, for instance, writing in the ‘New Palestine,’ refers to ‘the collapsed liberal support for Zionism and the consequent intellectual panic among the Jews.’

“No doubt the cleavage of thought between the official Zionists and those they call defeatists is deep but it cannot be believed that the Zionists, howsoever they may be distraught by this unwelcome appearance of internal division, will voluntarily abandon their implied and indeed openly acknowledged hope of a Jewish majority in Palestine and their consequent fears that the establishment in the near future of a national government in Palestine would greatly prejudice the prospects of a Jewish National Home.

“Circumstances may alter cases and it would appear probable, for example, that one of these two programs, official Zionist or ‘defeatist,’ may be modified when the report of the Inquiry Commission is published and the British government has shown indisputably how it intends to shape the future.”

The last editorial declares that in addition to the possibility of an Arab-Jewish rapprochement politically, even more important are ways and means toward Jewish-Arab collaboration in the economic sphere, “which is always infinitely more important than politics. An impartial observer could not think of a more effective way for the Zionists, if they wish to retain their ideals as a concrete possibility, than the adoption of a deliverator policy for the economic redemption of the Arabs.

“A parliament might or might not be a blessing to the people of Palestine, but it is, however, beyond doubt that the spirit of economical collaboration which originally inhabited the minds of Zionists and certain influential Arabs has been departed from. What the Jews have done for the Arabs was mainly as a by-product or willy-nilly. There is little credit in killing mosquitoes for one’s own ends and then proclaiming that one saved the Arabs from malaria.

“It seems there is ample room for a change of outlook in this sphere of economically helping the Arabs. Too narrowly have the Zionists envisaged the problem of colonization, too often have they been content to point out that the Arabs have not a legal claim for grumbling. Debating points are nothing when a people’s daily existence is at stake. It is to be hoped that the Zionists, instead of relating at length to the world the benefits which the advent of immigrants brought to Palestine, should in the future see that the Arabs are helped not incidentally, but as a matter of high policy.

“That difficulties would be encountered in devoting Jewish monies to Arab causes is obvious, but at least that possibility was entertained just after the war, and if the Jewish National Home is to retain any meaning as a historic fact, a return must be made to that early spirit.

“The chain is as strong as its weakest link and Palestine may be judged by its most depressed fellaheen. If the August disturbances have had the effect of rediverting the Zionist movement into the early channels, which were more human and sensible, it is almost possible to say that they have not been in vain.”