Asks Zionist Convention Before Actions Committee Meets to Settle Differences of Brandeis-mack and Li

The attitude of Jacob de Haas toward the question of peace between the Brandeis-Mack and Lipsky factions in American Zionism and the question of a special Zionist convention is discussed in an editorial in Saturday’s “Day.” Says the editorial:

“For a long time there has been talk in Zionist circles about unity between those on the inside and those on the outside, between the administration and the opposition. That the administration is anxious for unity on the basis of equal rights and duties we knew. What does the opposition want?

“If one should regard Mr. de Haas as really the spokesman of the Brandeis-Mack group or of the opposition, we have already heard its word too. In two long articles in the “Day” of Tuesday and Wednesday he spoke, and said whatever he wanted to and as much as he wanted to. And the gist of the entire long speech is: Make room! Let us do the talking!’, and that is all.

“For after all the talk of Mr. de Haas, we only became acquainted with the great appetite of his party, with his anger which is so great that it will only be satisfied with the decapitation of all those people who during the past ten years have stood at the helm of both the American and the World Zionist Organization. Not one head less.

“And as a reward? As a reward he will develop a program of activity which will take in Novomejsky’s Dead Sea concession, Lord Melchett’s orange plantations, the cattle farms of Mikveh Israel, the dairy farms, vegetables and house-building—and ‘when all of these things will be developed we shall have a secure economic basis for a large population in Palestine.’

“And he didn’t even notice that all this is being done in the days of the present administration. These matters have been thought over and carried out by others without Mr. de Haas’s cooperation. If the ‘means of salvation’ are really only the ones which he brings us here, then one would have to give up all hopes for cooperation, and every one would have to go his own way in the future too. In time they would perhaps meet. But in the meantime the effort to bring the two sides together would be hopeless.

“But we have too much respect for the leaders of the Brandeis-Mack group that we should regard their thoughts as coming from de Haas’s lips. We are accustomed to hear from them more noble words and a deeper understanding of national problems. We are convinced that the leaders of the Brandeis-Mack group realize that the questions which are now upon the Zionist agenda have absolutely nothing to do with personal ambitions for revenge, with squaring of old accounts or with cheap desires to come to the forefront of the Zionist movement. They, like ourselves, are animated by the fullest confidence of one towards the other and we are convinced that they, like ourselves, wish to find a way for uniting our efforts in harmonious work for the future upbuilding of Palestine. It isn’t in tse interests of Zionism that people who can do work, who can be useful to Zionism, should remain inactive. And it is against every form of logic to come and say, as de Haas does, that the Brandeis-Mack group will stretch out its hand to Zionism, if you will allow your hand to become paralyzed.

“Of course there are differences of opinion between the Administration and Brandeis and Mack. But these differences can be settled, methods can be reformed, can be changed. The aim will dictate the means that are necessary to bring unity and understanding in our ranks. But compromises can only become a fact if ‘first persons’ will take up the debate.

A convention is necessary now, before the session of the Actions Committee in March. It is necessary now because we are at the eve of the commencement of the great campaign for the United Appeal, and it is absolutely necessary that we secure ourselves against hindrances in the midst of our work.

“The task before which Zionism is placed now demands all the efforts of which the Zionist organization is capable. Therefore before one takes up the work—the political as well as the financial—there must be an assurance of an armistice, at least on the part of the 10-year old opposition. If possible, by creating a common basis for mutual work with it, if absolutely necessary, by entrusting the work into other hands, if there will be full assurance that those hands will do the work better and more successfully.

“But in any event only such a convention can assume the responsibility for such serious matters as those which now face the Zionist movement.”