N.Y. Times Editorial Opposes Formation of Jewish Army and Post-war Zionist State

Asserting that “it would be unwise for the United States to attempt to bring pressure to bear upon the British Government” in the matter of the formation of a Jewish Army in Palestine, the New York Times in its leading editorial today strongly opposes the formation of a “Zionist Army,” and the post-war establishment of a “Zionist State.”

“The hopes of the Jews,” the editorial argues, “can be achieved only by the fulfillment of the Atlantic Charter – by winning of a new world in which Jews along with other religious and national minorities may live peacefully and happily in every nation, enjoying full rights of other citizens.”

The editorial refers to the resolution introduced in the House of Representatives recently by Congressman Somers of New York requesting President Roosevelt to direct the State Department to petition Great Britain to permit the organization of all-Jewish military units in Palestine. Though no action has been taken on this resolution, the proposal which it advances has, according to the Times, “received the endorsement of some members of the Government, and a number of deeply sincere and well-meaning people” who are moved by sympathy for the suffering of Jews in Germany and the Axis-controlled-controlled lands.

OUTLINES TWO REASONS FOR ITS OPPOSITION: ONE PRACTICAL, ONE THEORETICAL

“For two reasons,” the editorial reads, “we believe that these well-meaning people are mistaken and that it would be unwise for the United States to attempt to bring pressure to bear upon the British Government in this matter. The first reason is practical. It is no secret that the British Government is opposed to the plan for creating separate Jewish military units, though it has welcomed the enlistment of Jews in the British forces and though thousands of Jews are now serving under British colors in Palestine and North Africa. The reason for the reluctance to create separate military units is, of course, the long-standing hostility of the Arabs in the Middle East to the proposal to establish a Zionist state in Palestine and the consequent fear of the British Government that the creation of a separate Zionist army would provoke an Arab uprising precisely at a time when the defense of the whole Mediterranean area is already a difficult problem. True, the British Government itself is not free of responsibility for the situation that would be thus created. During the First World War it made contradictory promises to the Arabs mid the Zionists, and these, contradictions have lived to plague it ever since. But the unhappy record of the past is not in itself a sufficient reason for adding to the problems of the British Government now by attempting to bring pressure to bear on it to go against its better judgment.”

The Times editorial then gives the second reason, as follows: “The primary reason for the creation of a separate Zionist army at this time would be, of course, to establish a Zionist state as one of the official war aims of the United Nations. Grant that Palestine has been a place of refuge for a large number of persecuted people, and that when the war is over, there may be some from Axis territories who will prefer to migrate to it or to other lands rather than face the unhappy memories associated with the past. But the wisdom of the Zionist objective has been questioned by many people, including many who are themselves of Jewish faith; and much misunderstanding may arise among people of other faiths if this objective comes to be regarded as an expression of the full hopes of Jews and of those who would right the wrongs done them. These hopes cannot be achieved by the creation of a Zionist state. They can be achieved only by the fulfillment of the Atlantic Charter – by the winning of a new world in which Jews along with other religious and national minorities may live peaceably and happily in every nation, enjoying the full rights of other citizens.”