Search JTA's historical archive dating back to 1923

Question of Legislative Assembly Held over by Government Until Dr. Weizmann’s Return from Palestine:

March 24, 1931
See Original Daily Bulletin From This Date
Advertisement

The question of the Legislative Assembly has been held over by the Government until Dr. Weizmann’s return from Palestine, Dr. M. D. Eder, member of the Political Commission of the Zionist Organisation and President of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, said to-day speaking at a specially convened meeting arranged by the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland to give information regarding the negotiations of the Jewish Agency with the Cabinet Committee of the Government in regard to Palestine Policy.

For our part, Dr. Eder went on, we should not be willing to accept any Legislative Assembly unless a preliminary agreement were come to between the Arabs and the Jews on this question. Just as there has been a Round Table Conference on India, we claim in the same way that there shall be no final settlement on this question until the Jews and the Arabs have met together in conference.

The Honorary Officers of the Zionist Federation, Dr. Eder began, thought it desirable that there should be a conference that afternoon, so that they could come to an understanding of the political position to-day. Another reason was that they were not too well reported in the press of this country. The Barons of the press gave prejudiced views, he said, of what takes place in Zionist circles, by written innuendo, by headings and often by the omission of important statements. He was not out to control the Jewish press or any press, but we expect a newspaper, he said, to give news fairly and squarely, whatever criticism they may have to make about the news. That was why it was important that they should have a talk, especially as to what was the meaning of the Prime Minister’s letter to Dr. Weizmann.

I HAVE NOT HEARD ANY RESPONSIBLE ZIONIST CLAIM MACDONALD LETTER AS VICTORY DR. EDER SAYS: WE WERE NOT OUT TO OBTAIN VICTORIES WE WANTED TO CLEAR AWAY MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND MISSTATEMENTS: NO ONE HAS PUBLICLY DECLARED IT A VICTORY FOR GOVERNMENT.

He wanted to make clear at the beginning one thing about which there was a misconception, Dr. Eder went on. It was said that the Zionist Executive, the Zionist Organisation, the Zionist Federation claimed the MacDonald letter as a great victory for Dr. Weizmann. I have not heard any responsible Zionist claim is as a victory, he said. We were not out to obtain victories. We did not regard it as a dog fight, as to who could get the better. What we were out for was the clearing away of misunderstandings and misstatements. If it is a victory, it is a victory for commonsense. No one, he added, has publicly declared it a victory for the Government.

A second point was that Dr. Weizmann, it was said, was alone responsible. That is not so, Dr. Eder declared. In all the negotiations, the whole of the Executive of the Jewish Agency and the Political Committee were equally involved and equally responsible.

Then again, it had been said that the Executive had been warned not to enter on the negotiations on the basis of the White Paper. I can find no resolution to this effect, he said. It is manifestly absurd. The White Paper was there, and if there had been no White Paper or Hope Simpson report there would have been no question of entering into negotiations for the clearing away of misstatements and misunderstandings. It could only be on the basis of the White Paper that negotiations came into existence at all.

WE GET BACK TO POSITION OF 1922.

Dr. Eder then proceeded to a consideration of the letter from the Prime Minister, saying that he would indicate what had been left over for negotiation. He went seriatim through the resolutions of the General Council of the Zionist Organisation and of the Political Committee of the Jewish Agency adopted last November, and compared those resolutions with the Prime Minister’s letter. The first resolution: “The White Paper tends to reduce the obligation imposed on the British Government in the Mandate towards the Jewish people to an obligation towards the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. This change is in conflict both with the letter and spirit of the Mandate”, had been met, Dr. Eder claimed, by paragraph 3 of the Prime Minister’s letter, recognising that the “undertaking of the Mandate is an undertaking to the Jewish people and not only to the Jewish population of Palestine”. The second resolution, he claimed, had also been met. The third had been left for further negotiation. The fourth resolution, referring to Article 6 of the Mandate, had been very satisfactorily met. The fifth resolution was met by the Government in article 13 of the letter. As to the word “position”, he said, we have had to accept the Government interpretation. The point was whether the word “position” with regard to “other sections of the population”, occurring in Article 6 of the Mandate, meant political and economic or status alone. After consultation with Lord Reading, Judge Brandeis and Dr. Frankfurter, we have had to bow to the Government’s view that position means economic position as well as status.

As to resolution 6, dealing with restrictions on land purchase, that was met, Dr. Eder claimed, by paragraphs 7 and 10 in the letter.

In short, Dr. Eder said, we get back to the position of 1922.

You will see, Dr. Eder said, that the majority of the resolutions passed in November 1930 have been favourably met by the reply of the Government. The tone and temper of the White Paper, especially against the Histadruth, had been rectified. What had been left out in the letter, he went on, were the questions of security, the Legislative Assembly, the Land Development scheme and also the question of the Palestine Administration. How they were going to be dealt with was not quite clear. The land development scheme, he said, is coming up for further negotiation with the Cabinet. In regard to security, two battalions are in Palestine and the police force has been strengthened. There remains one difficult and delicate question – the Palestine Legislature. It is very easy to ask for a change. It is easy to say that the present High Commissioner has shown bias, let us have another.

I have known all the Governors, Dr. Eder said, and I am not going to pick and choose between them. All of them were worse than they could have been, and the same could be said of the Civil Secretaries. After they had been a short time in Palestine their point of view had changed. What is perhaps necessary, he remarked, is a sympathetic Colonial Office. How that is going to be brought about is a question of negotiation.

Let us not believe that by this letter from the Prime Minister we shall be at an end of our political troubles with any Mandatory Power, Dr. Eder continued. In the lifetime of the youngest here – I see some in their twenties – there will always be a question for political negotiation. We shall always be banging at the door for something we have not obtained, and getting less than we want. It is not going to be ended by any letter. It will end only when the Jews of the world have awakened to the needs of Zionism. By that time we can have a million Jews in Palestine, and then we can, I will not say laugh, but show our contempt for any Mandatory Power. for the present it will be a ding dong struggle to build up the Jewish National Home, Dr. Eder concluded, paying a tribute in his closing remarks to Mr. Namier and Mr. Stein for their work in making possible the success of the negotiations.

ACTIONS COMMITTEE INSTRUCTED DR. WEIZMANN AND HIS COLLEAGUES TO NEGOTIATE DR. BRODETSKY SAYS: PREMIER’S LETTER FROM ONE POINT OF VIEW SEEMS ABSOLUTELY UNSATISFACTORY BECAUSE THERE IS NO POSITIVE STATEMENT OF IDEAL OF JEWISH NATIONAL HOME: BUT CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF TERM JEWISH NATIONAL HOME IS SOMETHING WE MUST WORK OUT OURSELVES BY INTERPRETATION WE GIVE IT BY PRACTICAL WORK IN PALESTINE: FOR LAST TEN YEARS OUR ACHIEVEMENT IN PALESTINE HOWEVER MERITORIOUS BEEN ON FAR TOO SMALL A SCALE TO MAKE POSSIBLE RECOGNITION OF OUR INTERPRETATION OF JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.

Dr. Selig Brodetsky, member of the Executive, then replied at length to the criticisms that had been levelled at those responsible for the negotiations. There is no doubt, he said, that it would have been a first-class national disaster if we had not accepted the Government’s invitation to negotiate. The charge that they had exceeded their rights in negotiating was unfounded. The Actions Committee had instructed Dr. Weizmann and his colleagues to negotiate. The negotiations had proceeded in a remarkably amicable manner. One thing was clear, there was a genuine desire on the part of the Government to reach an understanding, so that cooperation with the Jewish Agency could be resumed.

It seems to me, Dr. Brodetsky went on, that the letter, from one point of view, is absolutely unsatisfactory, because the letter does not represent a positive statement of that ideal of a Jewish National Home that I have in my mind when I think of the Jewish National Home. If one asked oneself if this was a successful letter, he said, take the document and compare it with what was said of our work in the White Paper. It seems to me, he continued, that as far as the correct valuation of the term Jewish National Home is concerned, we are still falling short, and we are for a long time to come in front of a very difficult struggle. We must not expect that the true conception of the Jewish National Home is going to be laid down, formulated and maintained in the future, and worked up to, as the result of a purely diplomatic and political disputation. I strongly deny the view, however, that there is no value in obtaining diplomatic and political concessions from the Mandatory Power. On the contrary, I think it is one of the most important phases of our work – the continuous political negotiation with the Government. The correct understanding of the term Jewish National Home, Dr. Brodetsky pursued, is something we must work out ourselves by the interpretation we give it by the practical work in Palestine. And if we show that we mean by the Jewish National Home a large and unlimited immigration into Palestine; if we ourselves show our seriousness, we shall be able to force the acceptance of our views on others. For the last ten years our achievement in Palestine – however meritorious – have been on far too small a scale to make possible the recognition of our interpretation of the Jewish National Home.

It is to be distinctly understood, Dr. Brodetsky declared, that the letter from the Prime Minister represents an entirely uni-lateral act on the part of the Government and does not involve any corresponding statement on the part of the Jewish Agency. It does not say that the Government and the Jewish Agency have discussed things and have come to an agreement. It clearly states-that that it is the Government’s own authoritative statement.

After declaring that Dr. Weizmann was right in setting out his personal view in reply to the letter, Dr. Brodetsky said that he believed that that view would be shared by many Zionists, as it was shared by those who were in the negotiations and those who advised them. He was sure that there was a large body of Jews who felt that the position and situation created by the White Paper had been put right by the Prime Minister’s letter.

There are certain parts of the policy set out in the White Paper, he added, which are not dealt with in the letter, but it must not be inferred from that that matters stand as they did in the White Paper; they are under consideration.

Dr. Brodetsky, referring to the effect of the letter on the Arab spokesmen, said that the effect proved that the document was not to be looked upon as a victory, but as setting right the situation created by the White Paper. It had a positive value in that it laid down for the first time fundamental principles as to Jewish immigration and land settlement.

DISCUSSIONS WITH GOVERNMENT OR PARTS OF GOVERNMENT NOT AT AN END MR. LEONARD STEIN SAYS: DISCUSSIONS ARE CONTINUOUS: AS TO WITH WHOM NEGOTIATIONS ARE TO BE CARRIED ON I CAN GIVE NO DEFINITE RREPLY.

Mr. Leonard Stein, replying to questions as to whether the negotiations were being continued and with whom, said: Negotiation is a vague term. Discussions with the Government or parts of the Government are not at an end. Those discussions are continuous. I have no knowledge as to whether the Cabinet Committee has been re-appointed. It is not to be inferred that it has not been reappointed. It does not mean that there will be no general discussion. As to with whom the negotiations are to be carried on I can give no definite reply. I have no doubt that appropriate means will be found to convey the views of the Jewish Agency to the Government and the Government’s views to the Agency.

Recommended from JTA

Advertisement