Digest of Public Opinion on Jewisw 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.]

The Weizmann-Marshall agreement on the Jewish Agency ranks in importance next to the Balfour Declaration, in the opinion of the “Jewish Exponent” of Philadelphia. In its Jan. 28 issue the paper observes:

“Next to the Balfour Declaration, through which the nations of the world reaffirmed the historic right of the Jewish people to the land of their fathers, the agreement reached last week between Mr. Marshall, representing those, who for the want of a more positive identification are styled non-Zionists, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the recognized spokesman of the Zionist element in world-Jewry, will be regarded as one of the most significant documents in recent years. As in all generalizations these identifications are fallacious. It is unfair to Mr. Marshall, who has devoted his whole life to the welfare of his people, regardless of their geographic whereabouts, to suddenly limit the scope of his interests. Nor would the most orthodox Zionist, unless totally blind to the problems facing Palestine and to the worth of the man who has done so much for the rehabilitation of that country, claim that its political feature is the only aspect interesting Dr. Weizmann. Bot men stand for considerably more than the superficial identification would imply. this, however, is correct: the two represent world-Jewry in all its varied and varying ramifications. This is why they were best suited for the task, and this too, is one of the reasons so great an interest attaches it self to the document.”

The “American Israelite” views the Weizmann-Marshall agreement and the implications in the newly created situation as follows:

“It must be admitted that Dr. Weizmann is the one man who can save the face of Zionism in the predicament into which its ‘fool friends’ have led it. After the convention in Buffalo last year it was plain to all who took the trouble to give the matter any thought that the American organization was not only riding for a fall, but that the so-called leaders had lost all sense of perspective and would have compromised the American Federation beyond all hope if left to pursue their narrow and outworn ideas. It is highly gratifying and most encouraging, therefore, when the two recognized leaders of American Jewry, David A. Brown and Louis Marshall, at this particular time come to an understanding with one another and with Dr. Weizmann in a manner that will permit the prosecution of the plans of the various bodies affected, in harmony and mutual respect among the various factions. This is the first move on the part of the Zionist leaders that holds out any promise whatever of an amicable adjustment of opinion and a resulting opportunity to coordinate the work by sidetracking the little fellows and putting real leaders in their places.”

In the same issue the “American Israelite” urges the Zionist leaders to issue a statement on “what Zionism of today stands for” for the information of the non-Zionists who will cooperate in the Palestine work. The paper explains thus:

“Since Palestine became a British mandate conditions there have changed and the aims of the Zionists have been very much modified. The world Jewry would therefore very much welcome a clear statement of what Zionism of today stands for, so that they may be understood, especially by the non-Zionists and anti-Zionists who are willing to contribute to making Palestine a home for as many refugee Jews as possible but have no interest in giving dominance to a Jewish minority.”