News Brief

The political hatred existing between Jewish and Zionist Parties is nowhere more evident, and certainly nowhere more productive of consistent violence, than in Palestine, where the unsatisfactory state of relations between these parties is causing irreparable harm to the prestige and the tranquility of the Yishub. This factional hostility has developed during the first part of March, between the Labor and Revisionist parties, and has led to a series of clashes–in Tel Aviv at the end of Purim, in Magdiel, in Hedera, and in Rehoboth.

Writing objectively and as a non-partisan in Zionist politics, it appears to an established observer that methods more than fundamental policy are to blame for the constant bickering and strife that, almost like an avalanche, have overcome the Left and Right wings of the movement here. Besides injuring the reputation of the Yishub in the eyes of the non-Jewish residents of the Arab, both British and Arab, this internecine warfare–for no less emphatic a description can be used–is ruining any chance that may have existed to establish interparty Jewish unity in the upbuilding of the land.

There is a psychological factor strongly at work in each of the two bitterly-opposed camps. The Revisionists feel that they are being terrorized and made the object of provocative attempts to spur them into action, in view of the attitude taken against them over the arrest of three of their members in the Arlosoroff case: in a word, they are ridden by a “persecution-mania” The Socialist Laborites, on the other hand, contend that the Revisionists are unduly militant in their behavior and that they are blacklegs, refusing to conform to the Histadruth demand that all labor be employed through the Histadruth employment exchanges. No amount of attempted tranquilization has yet succeeded in pacifying either party whose methods are so much opposed.

Speaking at a public meeting, held under the auspices of the Keren Hayesod on the subject of German Jewish settlement in Palestine, Dr. Chaim Weizmann on March 11 drew attention to this fraternal strife, and declared, “Had it not been for the British policeman there would long ago have been civil war between the Jews.” He pointed out the great moral damage this was causing to the prestige of world Jewry, for naturally Palestine was the cynosure of attention these days.

“If a people have not the sublime realization that it must find unifying fundamentals in this time of crisis and danger, then it has no business at all or any elementary basis upon which to evolve as a creating nation; for even a community cannot build in such a way,” he declared. “Unless we appreciate this national danger, then we cannot proceed.” In the course of his frank statement, Dr. Weizmann made biting reference to this phase of Jewish politics.

A sane note has also been struck by M. Glickson, editor of Haaretz, Liberal Hebrew daily, in the course of a long leading article. Characterizing the daily reports of conflicts as “war dispatches,” Glickson points out the absurdity of economic disputes at a time such as this for the Jews, particularly as a strong political bias informs these disputes. He calls for the introduction of a strict national discipline, of a consciousness of the Zionist duty. Whatever the causes of the disputes, the aspects they assume are disgraceful and criminal, he declares. And of these crimes the Bethar and Revisionists cannot alone be accused, whatever their attitude towards the Socialists, for nothing can justify fisticuffs and violence. He accuses the Labor Party of a greater share in the disturbance than the Revisionists because obviously the Laborites are in the majority. When the general Labor constitution of Palestine Jewry is signed, it will have provided the best solution for labor disputes for it will comprise a public obligation to obey its provision.

It is difficult for an outside observer to understand the complications arising from the protracted feud between the Labor organizations and the Revisionists; even Englishmen, government officials or otherwise resident here, cannot understand these constant outbursts of violent feeling among the Jews, clashes that are more bitter and unrestrained than racial enmity. For, argues the Englishman, in fundamental policy the Jews declare they are working for the same end–the upbuilding of a National Home in Palestine by the Jewish people. Why, then, differ upon the point of method when a settlement is so easily reached in other spheres? That is the whole crux of the problem here.