Palestine As Our Land; Not Ward of Britain

pend upon the good will of a man, however fine, who in order to live up to the needs of the great influx, would have to multiply his present “magnanimity” twelve or fifteen fold!

The planning of mass immigration assumes an entirely different aspect, however, if it is based upon an inalienable right and the will of a people and not on the mere good will of a man. In other words, when immigration ceases to be tapping, and at times futile tapping at a bolted door, and becomes repatriation and when it is thus officially formulated and fearlessly proclaimed to the whole world, a basis has been created, a foundation laid, upon which it is logically, morally and legally possible to build the structure of mass transplantation. To repatriate means to be re-established in one’s own country. That is something the world at large will understand and sympathize with, particularly since Hitler’s advent has made the Jewish problem acutely international. For that there is the Greek and other precedents. But at present Palestine is not technically our own country. Our legal status with regard to it is as follows: A mandate with ambiguous terms limited by Churchill’s white paper in 1922, all but completely annihilated by Passfield’s “white” paper in 1930 and somewhat modified by Prime Minister McDonald’s letter, which may be interpreted for or against us in accordance with the whims and needs of the Mandatory Power.

From the time of the imposition of these limitations no Zionist Congress has had the courage to reject them and to lay claim to Palestine as the Land of Israel, our country, that is, a uni-national state, in which of course, no other people’s rights shall be prejudiced. This courage the eighteenth Congress must gather up and rectify the grievous error of its last two predecessors.

MEANING OF “NATIONAL HOME”

Zionism once again must be proclaimed what Dr. Herzl proclaimed it to be—a Jewish Commonwealth on both sides of the Jordan. That is what Lord Balfour originally meant by his “national home” and that is how Lord Cecil has construed it time and again. Hence Congress will have to couple any comprehensive Jewish repatriation plan with an official acceptance of Lord Cecil’s construction of the term “national home.” The endorsement of such a resolution by all the Zionist factions would naturally indicate a radical change in attitude toward Zionism and would facilitate cooperation and coordination by all factions within the Zionist movement and possibly bring about a United Zionist front before the Mandatory.

The flotation of a national or international loan for the gigantic project would then also enter the realm of attainable realities. Loans, particularly large loans of many millions of dollars, must be amply guaranteed. History, since the days of Dr. Theodor Herzl, contains sufficient proof to the effect that wealthy individual Jews will not furnish such a guarantee. We, however, need not look to them for it. Our national wealth in Eretz Israel is more than sufficient to guarantee the loan, provided the powers of the Jewish Agency or the Vaad Leumi (National Council) are broadened to include a limited authority to levy taxation on the Jewish community in Palestine. Then a guaranteed, interest-bearing bond issue ceases to be a chimera. What was possible for Tel Aviv on a small scale is possible for Eretz Israel on a large scale.

State builders may reasonably expect the Mandatory to grant this privilege; cultural centrist,—hardly. State builders also must include in their repatriate project a demand for a radical rcorganization of the Palestine Administration and security forces so that Jews are represented in them in numbers fully commensurate with the magnitude of the project and the requirements of peace and tranquility, without which the successful realization of the project is unthinkable.

Thus the main issue confronting the Zionist Congress is closely interlinked with a number of other issues, the solution of which lies largely in the hands of the Mandatory Power.

Will the latter be influenced by a clearly formulated and courageously declared policy along the lines indicated? Will a change of attitude by the Congress toward Zionism bring about a change of attitude by the Mandatory toward Zionism? It would be too optimistic to answer unqualifiedly in the affirmative. The recent publication of the anti-Zionist French Report and the persistent rumors of an impending Legislative Assembly do not encourage such optimism. However, the writer is inclined to believe that it is reasonable to expect a change for the better.

FIRM, DEFINITE, DIGNIFIED STAND

Firstly, let us remember that the vague, vacillating policy of the Congresses and our official leaders must be held at least partly responsible for these reports and rumors. The firm, definite and more dignified course has not as yet been tried. The one time, when we did assume a vigorous stand—immediately after the publication of the Passfield white paper—we won something, the Mac-Donald letter. Secondly, Great Britain has been exceedingly sympathetic to us in our struggle with Hitler. Her motives perhaps are not purely altruistic. She may gain trade at the expense of Germany. She deserves it and is welcome to it. The gain of trade through us may perhaps soften her heart, as the gain of the support of propaganda during the war softened her heart, and at the time resulted in a Jewish Legion and in the Balfour declaration. After all, as far as the attitude toward the Jewish national home is concerned, there are two distinct factions in England and there is no reason why the one sympathetic to us might not prevail.

In the event, however, that the present attitude of Great Britain is persisted in, the Congress must provide for a course of international action through petitions to all the signatories of the mandate and mass demonstrations. Most of the world sees our problem today through distorted mirrors. Our petition of enlightenment would present our problem in its true light. It would indicate to many nations their interest in seeing it solved through State Zionism. A verdict in our favor would inevitably result and Great Britain would eventually accept the verdict.

This is the prime issue of the Congress. Party differences must be composed and subordinated to it, however difficult that may be to achieve. The parties must remember that they exist for the Jewish people and not the Jewish people for them. Such of them as do not, have no place in Zionism.