Digest of Public Opinion on Jewish Matters

[The purpose of the Digest is informative: Preference is given to papers not generally accessible to our readers. Quotation does not indicate approval.–Editor.]

Regret that Julius Rosenwald does not participate in the work of Palestine reconstruction is expressed by the “Jewish Daily News,” in an editorial dealing with Mr. Rosenwald’s recent $3,000,000 contribution for an Industrial Museum in Chicago.

Emphasizing that Mr. Rosenwald’s latest gift reflects honor on the Jews as well as on America in general, the paper proceeds to say:

“But we cannot help feeling somewhat dissatisfied to see that such wealthy Jews, who are in a position to give so much for various worthy causes, give so little for the great work in which the Jewish people is at present engaged–the work of Palestine reconstruction. One can visualize what Jews with such good hearts as Julius Rosenwald could do for Palestine if they were but interested in the rebuilding of the Jewish Homeland.

“And it is precisely this type of men that we lack in our great task. Of all the wealthy Jews throughout the world there is only one, Baron Edmund Rothschild, who builded and is still building Zion. All other wealthy Jews remain at a distance. The Baron in Paris is today still as solitary a figure as he was forty years ago, in regard to Palestine rebuilding.

“In all the time since the Balfour Declaration–and certainly not before that–there has been no really large sum of money contributed by wealthy Jews for Palestine. The largest sum was the half-million given by Mr. Warburg for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and this too was given under not exceptionally favorable conditions.”

DISCUSSES PALESTINE PARLIAMENT

The unconfirmed reports emanating from the “Falastin,” organ of the anti-Zionist Palestine Arab Executive, that secret negotiations have been in progress between the Palestine government and the Arab leaders for the creation of a Palestine parliament, which would contain, according to the demands of the Arabs, some thirty Arab representatives and only three Jews, is discussed editorially by “Rassviet” of Paris, organ of the Zionist Revisionists.

Such a parliament, if created, would be an “illegal absurdity,” declares “Rassviet,” pointing out that in the formation of a Palestine parliament, not the Jewish population of the country alone should be taken as the basis for proportionate representation but the number of Jews all over the world, who constitute the acknowledged colonizing nation and have assumed the responsibility for the rebuilding of the country. The paper explains its attitude on this subject as follows:

“It is unlikely, even improbable, that the British should give such a ‘parliament’ complete legislative powers. In one way or another they will limit such powers in most cases only to what they will find they can approve. No doubt in the question of regulating or limiting Jewish immigration the Arab Parliament would not receive an actual deciding voice; to such an emasculation of the Balfour policy the London government will never agree; nor would the Palestine administration agree. But for us the matter is important not from the theoretical point of view of the ‘rights’ of the Arab Parliament, but because this Parliament would become the official platform for anti-Zionist obstruction.

“In a country,” the paper continued “which was opened with such fiery approval of many governments for colonization, as was Palestine, a Parliament representing only part of the settled population constitutes an illegal absurdity. Such a country according to right and logic should include equally the interests of the settled population and the colonizing nation. The actual consistence of the population today or tomorrow is a temporary factor; to build a representation on such flowing, changing statistics is impossible. A just representation can be created only on the acceptance of the fact that: the Palestine Arabs, numbering three-quarters of a million, are far out numbered by the colonizing nation which is the object of the national Homeland. This proportion, if not exactly at least approximately, should be reflected in the makeup of a representative body in such a country.

“There is nothing new in our point of view. British Imperial politics in the colonies has long ago established that the local representative bodies in those colonies must represent not only the local population but all those elements whose interest in the development of the country has been legally recognized and who bear the responsibility for such development. That is the way the British themselves explain the reason for the presence in their crown lands of parliaments where, side by side with representatives elected by the population, there sit (frequently in the majority) members appointed by the British administration. If you were to tell a British jurist that such appointed members are present there only by virtue of the government’s power, without any moral right whatsoever, he would be astonished and would reply: No, these appointed members represent not the administrator but a nation which is equally interested in the development of those lands and is responsible for their development–the British nation. And he would be right. But if such a right belongs morally to a nation like the British, who, after all, can get along without the Bermuda Islands, then so much the more does it belong morally to the Jewish nation, which besides Palestine has nothing in the world.”