Saying He Doesn’t Represent Views of Congress, Weizmann Repeats He Isn’t Candidate

Terming Vladimir Jabotinsky, Revisionist leader and one of the chief crities of his administration, “a man of great ability and quality,” Dr. Chaim Weizmann, in an exclusive interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, today repeated his determination not to accept a nomination for the presidency of the Zionist Organization, an office he formally resigned Wednesday in making his address to the Zionist Congress.

Dr. Weizmann’s statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency was made while the Congress was still heatedly debating the merits or demerits of his administration.

“Jabotinsky and his followers have the courage of their convictions,” Dr. Weizmann declared. “There are many others in the Congress who lean towards the Revisionists’ views but who do not have the courage openly to confess Revisionism.”

While the delegates to the Congress were wondering whether Dr. Weizmann would yet be returned to office despite the heated criticism of his policies and in the face of his own announcement that he had definitely resigned, Dr. Weizmann said, “if anything, my determination not to accept the presidency has been strengthened by the developments at the Congress, I feel I do not represent the views of a large part of the Congress and it would be folly for me to assume the responsibility of leadership in the face of such a large and determined opposition. Besides, I feel really tired.”

Dr. Weizmann expressed his conviction that the Congress will act wisely by accepting Premier MacDonald’s letter as a basis for cooperation with the British government. “If the Congress rejects the letter what will the new Zionist Executive do first after the Congress,” Dr. Weizmann said. “I strongly feel that an agreement with the Arabs is obtainable on the basis of parity.

“If a legislative council should come, equal Arab and Jewish represetation would afford an opportunity for satisfactory cooperation. We would also demand an equal distribution of funds for Arabs and Jews within the development scheme. I do not see how we can demand more.

“Parity does not mean a bi-national state which is vague and does not neceessarily imply parity. I have no sympathy or understanding with the demand for a Jewish majority in Palestine. A majority does not necessarily guarantee security. We may have a majority and still be insecure. A majority is not required for the development of Jewish civilization and culture. The world will construe this demand only in one sense, that we want to acquire a majority in order to drive out the Arabs. Why should we raise a demand which only makes a provocative impression.”

NEXT STORY