New Zionist Executive Has Followed Loyally Instructions of Last Zionist Congress and Jewish Agency C

Six months ago, Professor Selig Brodetsky said in presenting his political report to the Conference, the Zionist Congress elected a new President and a new Executive, the former becoming President of the Jewish Agency and the latter part of the new Agency Executive. Much futile controversy has since taken place as to the precise significance of this act. I therefore wish to state at once that the new Executive has interpreted its function to be to follow loyally the instructions of Congress and Council, and in particular to work within the frame of the statement of policy presented by Mr. Sokolov to the Congress at the time of the election of the Zionist Executive. May I, in order to refresh our memories, read the portion referring to political work: “Energetic defence of the rights granted to the Jewish people by the Mandate and co-operation with the Mandatory with a view to the complete implementing of the Mandate, and especially with a view to securing the support of the Mandatory and the Palestine Administration in the upbuilding of the Jewish National Home. Active measures in the economic, social and political fields with a view to bringing about peaceful relations and a rapprochement between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, on the principle that whatever the numerical strength of either people neither shall dominate or be dominated”.

But we are told peculiar things in Warsaw (copied by a newspaper in London), Dr. Brodetsky went on. An anonymous writer in the “Moment” says: “Officially the President is Mr. Sokolov, and Dr. Weizmann does not in reality enjoy any jurisdiction; but in fact the situation is quite different. Up till to-day Great Russell Street has remained Weizmann’s kingdom. Without exception, everybody from Locker and Professor Brodetsky down to the humblest official carries out Weizmann’s commands. He is the master and arbiter; the new Executive is simply ignored. Very little account is taken of the anti-Weizmann wing of the Executive, and this must naturally lead to acute internal friction.”

I do not know who is responsible for this statement, Dr. Brodetsky said, but I declare categorically that it is a baseless. falsehood, the aim of which can only be to discredit the Executive and Dr. Weizmann at one and the same time. This is not the place for an estimate of Dr. Weizmann’s political powers or of his services to our movement. I am not now proposing to speak of the high sense of Zionist discipline displayed by him during the last few months, in his valuable help to keep the finances of the Jewish Agency above bankruptcy. But what I must emphasise here is that Dr. Weizmann has consistently refrained from any interference whatever in the political work of the Executive. Dr. Weizmann carries no responsibility for and has never tried to influence any decision taken by the Executive on political matters. The Executive has never shirked its responsibility, or abdicated his powers to Dr. Weizmann or to anybody else.

CONGRESS INSTRUCTIONS TO NEW EXECUTIVE WERE RESUME DISCUSSIONS WITH MANDATORY POWER TO ENSURE IMPLEMENTING OF PREMIER’S LETTER AND MAKE EVERY POSSIBLE EFFORT BEYOND THAT TO RECOVER ALL RIGHTS SECURED TO JEWS UNDER MANDATE: THIS DR. BRODETSKY SAYS HAS BEEN GUIDING LINE OF EXECUTIVE’S POLITICAL WORK: RECALLS EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION DURING LAST SIX MONTHS-CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT NEW COLONIAL SECRETARY NEW HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR PALESTINE AND NEW HEAD OF PALESTINE DEPARTMENT OF COLONIAL OFFICE

Twelve months ago, when I last reported to the Conference of English Zionists, Dr. Brodetsky continued, we were in the midst of discussions with the Cabinet Sub-Committee appointed by the Labour Cabinet to deal with the situation created by the White Paper of October 1930. The result of these discussions was contained in the Prime Minister’s letter to Dr. Weizmann, published on February 13th., 1931, and in continued conversations, especially about the so-called Development Scheme. When Congress and Council met six months ago, the Prime Minister’s letter was accepted as a basis for further negotlations, particular stress being laid on the necessity for converting the Prime Minister’s letter into an effective determinant of the Administrative practice of the Palestine Government.

I would interpret the general feeling at Basle, Dr. Brodetsky said, as follows: We Jews were profoundly disappointed and hurt by the policy announced in the White Paper of October, 1930, which in most important respects practically annulled the policy of the Mandate. Being invited by the Government which issued that White paper to discuss the situation, we arrived at what we considered to be not a perfectly satisfactory, but a tolerable amelioration of the situation, sufficient at any rate to justify further efforts on our part to make the Mandatory understand and fulfil our claims. We are now in Congress and Council at Basle five months after the publication of the Prime Minister’s letter, and we cannot discern any obvious change in the administrative policy of the Palestine Government. We therefore say to the new Executive: “Resume discussions with the Mandatory Power in order to ensure at least the implementing of the Prime Minister’s letter, and make every possible effort to go beyond that and to recover all the rights guaranteed to the Jews under the Mandate”.

This, Dr. Brodetsky declared, has been the guiding line of the Executive’s political work during the past six months. Co-operation with the Mandatory Power, understanding with the Arabs, have been our aims. Political work in London and in Jerusalem have been most carefully co-ordinated, and everything possible has been done with the Government and with accessible Arab, Moslem and Christian circles.

I need hardly remind you, he went on, of the extra-ordinary situation which has prevailed during these six months the financial crisis in Great Britain, the resignation of the Labour Cabinet in the third week in August, the relinquishment of the gold standard, the General Election and the return of an overwhelmingly “National” House of Commons, and the appointment of a new Cabinet early in November. The immediate consequences for us were that Lord Passfield and Dr. Shiels, Colonial Secretary and Under-Secretary under the Labour Government, left office in the third week in August. Sir John Chancellor also left Palestine on September 1st. A further change took place in the promotion of Sir John Shuckburgh, formerly Head of the Colonial Office Department dealing with Palestine, and his succession by Mr. Parkinson.

IF EXECUTIVE IS ASKED WHETHER IT HAS MADE CONSIDERABLE PROGRESS IN GETTING PREMIER’S LETTER IMPLEMENTED EXECUTIVE COULD NOT SAY YES: MANY EXPLANATIONS CAN BE OFFERED: WE ARE CONFIDENT NEW HIGH COMMISSIONER HAS BEST INTENTIONS AND COLONIAL SECRETARY’S MESSAGE GIVES HOPE FOR BETTER TIME: BUT GOVERNMENT MUST REALISE PATIENCE OF JEWISH PEOPLE BEING VERY SEVERELY TESTED: WE HAVE RIGHT TO REQUEST DEFINITE PRCOF OF GOODWILL IN CARRYING OUT WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY OF THOSE PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH RESUMPTION OF CO-OPERATION WITH GOVERNMENT WAS DECIDED ON

If those who elected the Executive six months ago were to ask us: “Have you made considerable progress in getting the Prime Minister’s letter implemented, and in securing the Mandatory rights of the Jewish people?”, the Executive could not answer “Yes”, Dr. Brodetsky admitted. Many explanations, he said, can be offered. The ever-changing political situation in this country during the last six months, the change in the person of the High Commissioner. We are confident that the new High Commissioner has the best intentions towards our work, and the Colonial Secretary’s message to the American campaign gives us hope for a better time. But the Government must realise that the patience of the Jewish people is being very severely tested. We are watching anxiously to see whether the Prime Minister’s letter is being followed by any amelioration of the position in Palestine. We have so far been disappointed. One may perhaps console us with the fact that the new Government and the new High Commissioner have not yet had time to become fully acquainted with all the facts, and, therefore, have not yet had any real opportunity of introducing changes. But this consolation can only be of a very temporary character. We have a right to request definite proof of goodwill in the carrying out, without further delay, of these principles upon which the resumption of co-operation with His Majesty’s Government was decided upon six months ago at Basle.

PROMISES SEEM TO EVAPORATE ON PASSAGE BETWEEN LONDON AND JERUSALEM SAYS MR. PAUL GOODMAN: I AM ONE OF THOSE WHO BELIEVED NOTHING COULD BE DONE IN PALESTINE WITHOUT FULLEST CO-OPERATION BETWEEN BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND JEWS AND I HAVE BEGUN TO FIND IT DIFFICULT TO DEFEND POLICY OF BRITISH GOVERNMENT IN PALESTINE MR. LEONARD STEIN CONFESSES: BUT SEES NO ALTERNATIVE TO CO-OPERATION WITH BRITISH GOVERNMENT

There has been the Prime Minister’s letter last February, Mr. Paul Goodman said in introducing the political resolutions, and only quite recently we heard from the lips of Mr. J. H. Thomas that we have good reason to feel confident that justice will be done to the Jews in Palestine and that in the words of the Balfour Declaration “His Majesty’s Government will facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home in Palestine”. These promises seem to evaporate on their passage between London and Jerusalem.

I am one of those, Mr. Leonard Stein, the Honorary Counsel to the Jewish Agency said in the discussion which followed, who believed from the start that nothing could be done in palestine without the fullest co-operation between the British Government and the Jews. I would make candid confession. For the first time during the last eighteen months I for one have begun to find it difficult to defend the policy of the British Government in Palestine with the fulness of heart I experienced previously. I have come to feel that

though there have been many exaggerated statements, there is a substratum of truth in them in the fact that we have not had the full measure of co-operation and assistance from the Government we should have had. The Mandate uses the word “facilitate” and that word means what it says.

It is quite true that at the beginning we could not expect a great deal more from the Government than the laying of the foundation of a civilised State in Palestine and for a measure of public security. We must give the Government full credit for what difficulties it had overcome in these respects, but I am bound to say that my faith and complete confidence was shaken by the failure of the Government in August 1929.

My view is, however, that there is really no alternative to co-operation with the British Government. We stand or fall by the measure of such co-operation that is capable of development. There is really no alternative to that, but co-operation naturally infers that it must be reciprocative. There has got to be co-operation, but however just our grievances we don’t get much further by a mere recital of them or by following what is sometimes ap to degenerate into a policy of mere nagging. I think there has been too much of a tendency to nag at the Government, and an inability to distinguish what are the important grievances from what are not so real or important. What we should do is to continue to present to the Government our concrete proposals.

COLONEL KISCH IDENTIFIES HIMSELF WITH WHAT MR. STEIN SAID: THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE: I AM NOT DESPONDENT OF WINNING GOVERNMENT HE SAYS: ARAB PROBLEM IS MAIN CAUSE OF DIFFICULTIES WITH GOVERNMENT: OUR ECONOMIC POSITION WILL BE LIGHTER IF STANDARD OF ARABS IS RAISED

I cannot but identify myself with what Mr. Stein has said, that practically speaking there is no course but to win this Government to carrying out its pledges for facilitating the establishment of the Jewish National Home, Colonel Kisch declared. We cannot think of any other alternative, he said. There is no other alternative. I am not despondent of winning the Government. We have to stick to the task. There is too much “schreien”. We must build up the movement.

Now a word as to the Arabs. I believe that the Arab problem is the main cause of the difficulties we experience with the Government. There are 800,000 Moslems among us. That is a reality. And 500,000 are in an exceedingly backward state. We know these Arabs from three points of view: as neighbours, as competitors and as a market. The neighbourly relation is vital to security. So long as we have an ignorant mass, no police force can give us security. As competitor we have the greatest difficulty for our workers, inasmuch as the impossibly low standard of wages the Arabs are prepared to accept are so much beneath the possible standard of Jewish workers. As to market, we wish well for our boot, shoes and stocking factories, and yet 500,000 Arabs walk about barefoot. Our economic position would be lighter, Colonel Kisch claimed, if the standard of the Arabs was raised.

DR. BRODETSKY SAYS IT IS NOT TRUE NO RESULTS BEEN ACHIEVED IN LAST SIX MONTHS: AS MUCH DIFFICULTY IN GETTING A THREAT REMOVED AS IN GETTING A POSITIVE ADVANTAGE AND WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO KEEP AT A DISTANCE CERTAIN SERIOUS THREATS

It is not true that no results have been achieved in the last six months, Dr. Brodetsky said in replying to the discussion. There is just as much difficulty in getting a threat removed as there is in getting a positive advantage and I can say that during the last few months we have been able to keep at a distance certain serious threats.

As to the question of Mr. Jabotinsky, he added, the Executive tried on three occasions to have the ban of entry to Palestine lifted by representations to the Colonial Office, without success. I asked the Revisionists for full facts for presentation to the Colonial Office, and they sent back a screed that Mr. Jabotinsky had written, in which he stated that he did not wish the Executive to intervene. Nonetheless, we did.

ELEVEN MONTHS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE PUBLICATION OF PREMIER’S LETTER AND POLICY OF PALESTINE ADMINISTRATION NOT BEEN BROUGHT INTO ACCORD SAYS RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY CONFERENCE: SO LONG AS BRITAIN NOT EFFECTIVELY FACILITATING JEWISH IMMIGRATION AND NOT CO-OPERATING IN CONSTRUCTIVE SPIRIT WITH THOSE ENGAGOD IN BUILDING UP JEWISH NATIONAL HOME JEWISH PEOPLE CANNOT CONSIDER GREAT BRITAIN IS FULFILLING ITS PLEDGE: MERE REPETITION OF PLEDGE DOES NOT MEAN IT IS BEING CARRIED INTO EFFECT

This Conference deems it its duty, the resolutions adopted by the Conference read, to bring to the attention of the Government that during the eleven months that have elapsed since the publication of the Prime Minister’s letter to the President of the Jewish Agency, the policy of the Palestine Administration has in no essential respects been-modified so as to bring it into accord with the letter as well as with the spirit of the Prime Minister’s statement. This Conference submits to the Government that so long as the Palestine Administration is not effectively facilitating Jewish immigration into Palestine and is not co-operating in a constructive spirit with those who are engaged in building up of the Jewish National Home, the Jewish people cannot consider that Great Britain is fulfilling its pledge under the Balfour Declaration and its obligations under the Mandate. The mere repetition of a pledge and the re-iteration of an obligation does not mean that these are being carried into effect.

The Conference would especially draw the attention of the Government to the grave situation created by the further check to Jewish immigration into Palestine as a result of the reduction of 1,720 certificates, in the application of the Jewish Agency under the Labour Immigration Schedule for the current six months, to 350 and the retention of 155 of these certificates for disposal by the Government Immigration Department. The attitude and action thus adopted by the Palestine Government in the refusal of the reasoned application of the Jewish Agency for certificates under the Labour Immigration Schedule affect so vitally the fundamental basis on which the Jewish National Home can alone be built that this Conference begs to request most urgently that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should take into immediate consideration the provisions of Article Six of the Mandate, viz: that “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions”.

The Conference expresses the hope that in any action which may result in connection with the proposed Land Development Scheme the claims of the Jews for settlement upon the land shall be promoted on the principle of equality between them and the Arabs and that due regard be had to the close settlement of Jews on State Lands in accordance with the provisions of Article Six of the Mandate, viz: that the Government “shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands, and waste lands not required for public purposes”. This Conference solemnly repudiates charges recently made that the Jews have the intention of encroaching upon the Moslem Holy Places in Palestine and declares such charges as utterly unfounded. This Conference of British Zionists records its emphatic protest against the Statement made in the House of Commons by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 23rd. September 1931, on the retirement of Mr. Norman Bentwich from the position of Attorney-General in the Palestine Administration. This statement, which justified the involuntary retirement of an officer in the Palestine Administration on the ground of “the peculiar racial and political conditions of Palestine”, is a discrimination against Jews, and utterly repugnant to the whole conception of the Jewish National Home in Palestine as well as to the established and cherished traditions of British citizenship.

SUPPORT FOR EXECUTIVE’S ATTITUDE IN REGARD TO REVISIONISTS

This Conference, another resolution says, considers it necessary to state that in its opinion the Resolutions adopted by the Conference of the World Union of Zionists Revisionists held at Calais in September last insofar as its organic relationship with the Zionist Organisation is concerned, are subversive of Zionist discipline and contrary to the interests of Zionism generally, and this Conference, therefore, gives its unqualified support to the attitude adopted on this matter by the Executive of the Zionist Organisation, as set forth in their statement issued on the 14th. December, 1931.

Dr. Weizmann was (as already reported yesterday) elected President of the Federation, and Dr. M. D. Eder, Vice-President. Mr. Simon Marks, Mr. B. Janner, M. P., Mr. I. M. Sieff, and Mr. Leonard Stein were elected London Vice-Presidents, and Professor Brodetsky, Sir Montague Burton, Mr. N. I. Adler and Professor L. B. Namier were elected Provincial Vice-Presidents.

JEWISH NATIONAL FUND’S TRIPLE ANNIVERSARY: FEAR OF A LAND EMBARGO FORCED FUND TO BUY LAND WITHOUT KNOWING HOW IT WAS GOING TO PAY: MONEY MUST NOW BE FOUND: SOME THOUSANDS ALREADY RAISED

It is just fifty years since the movement for the up-building of Palestine started in its very small beginning, and it is just thirty years since the foundation of the Jewish National Fund, Mr. Robert B. Solomon, the President of the Jewish National Fund, said in a statement to the Conference. It has been decided to celebrate this double anniversary in a special manner, and there will be activities all over the world for the purpose of marking the milestone which we are passing. There is also a personal anniversary which I think were should take special notice of this year. It is exactly fifty years since Mr. Ussischkin’s connection with the redemption of the land commenced; fifty years of untiring

and active work in connection with the redemption of the land for the Jewish people. I hope you will not think me out of place if I suggest that you should send to Mr. Ussischkin a telegram of special greeting from this assembly, congratulating him upon attaining his fiftieth year of association with the redemption of the land. He is a doughty fighter, a vigorous personality, a single-purposed man, and one who has seen grow slowly and gradually into reality the dream of a lifetime. It is true to say of him that in no single day during the last fifty years has his ideal been out of his mind, nor has he neglected to advance its progress.

The Jewish National Fund is a popular fund, Mr. Solomon went on, because it puts before Zionists a concrete proposition, something tangible and logical. If we are going to return to Palestine we have got to buy the land before we can return there. We cannot acquire the land in any other way.

So far as the purchase of land is concerned in Palestine curing the past year, you know the fears that we had before us. A land ordinance was threatened which was to come into force last September, to prevent the transfer of land without Government authority. Very dangerously worded, that land ordinance lay at Government House in Palestine, but there was a crisis in England and a change of Government, and the land ordinance is still on the sholf at Government House, with the result that the transfer of land is still obtainable in Palestine. Our leaders being uncertain of the future felt that they should buy whatever land was essential, taking bigger risks so far as payment was concerned.

The second result of the political situation was rather unexpected. Because there was going to be an embargo on the transfer of land, the Arab land-owners said “Buy our land”, in the hope that the transaction would take place before the embargo. So we had on the one hand our own authorities anxious to acquire certain land, and on the other numbers of owners of land anxious to sell. Mr. Ussischkin took his courage in both hands and bought without knowing how he was going to pay. He bought under contracts that made him put down certain deposits and gave him time to find the balances, and he bought in the hope that the Jewish people realising what the land ordinance might mean would endorse his action. Now the time is coming when the money has got to be found for this purchase of land, and particularly in regard to one large piece of land in the Sharon Plain, joining up two colonies, a piece of land of the greatest importance to the Jewish colonies. The sum of £20,000 is needed, and I am glad to be able to tell you that in this country some thousands have been raised towards the purchase of this land. But we are still anxious. We must raise between four and five thousand pounds in the next three or four months.

MRS. SIEFF REPORTS FOR WOMEN ZIONISTS

Mrs. I. M. Sieff, in presenting the report of the Federation of Women Zionists, brought greetings from her husband to the Conference, and a message expressing his regret that illness kept him away. Most of them, she said, were aware that the Federation had been working under difficulties since June. At the International Conference which took place at that time a split occurred in the Executive of the Women’s International Zionist Organisation which particularly affected the work of the Federation. The majority of people who refused to accept office at the last Conference happened to be people responsible for the conduct of the Federation. Despite their difficulties, however, they had decided to carry on and

increase their activities. They inaugurated a scheme for dividing their work into departments, the most helpful and successful of them being the Youth Department. It was started about six months previously, and had already achieved far greater success than had been expected. The Senior movement, if it was not increasing very rapidly intended to carry out its obligations to the full.