Zionist Executive Criticized for “bad Statesmanship” and Failure to Heed Opposition

Criticism of the Zionist Executive from a number of quarters featured yesterday’s meeting of the Actions Committee of the the World Zionist Organization in session here.

Meer Grossman, Revisionist leader, declared the Executive should have resigned as a demonstration of world protest against the Palestine administration, while Robert Stricker, Radical Zionist, criticized the Executive for “bad statemanship,” and declared the Palestine disturbances were the result of poor leadership.

Solmon Kaplansky, a member of the Zionist Executive and labor leader, was charged with having presented a memorandum to the British Government without authority of the entire Executive, while Mordecai Nurock expressed regret that the Executive had not made concessions to the Zionist Opposition groups in order to obtain the united Zionist front and asked why the Executive had neglected to prepare the political ground work for the meeting of the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations. Heshel Farbstein expressed dissatisfaction with the presentation of the Jewish evidence before the Palestine Inquiry Commission, declaring that the Executive had not made out a clear case for Zionism. Declaring that he believes it criminal to say anything now which might result in the creation of dissention in the Zionist movement, M. M. Ussishkin, head of the Jewish National Fund expressed agreement with the view that the Zionist Executive had not handled the Zionist case before the Inquiry Commission competently. The outrages, he said, had been committed against the Jews, yet throughout the Inquiry the Jews were forced to be on the defensive.

Dr. Chaim Weizmann, President of the Zionist Organization declared the criticism of Mr. Kaplansky to be “base” and asserted that Kaplansky had presented no such memorandum. He also defended the calling of the meeting of the Actions Committee before the publication of the Inquiry Commission’s report by pointing out that the Executive could not forsee the date of publication of the report. Mr. Grossman charged that the Executive exaggerated its own powers and refused the proper cooperation of the opposition. He said that the tone of Dr. Weizmann’s political report failed to inspire him with confidence in the future. The fact that the Executive was unable to obtain changes in the Palestine Administration was a clear indication of the failure of the policy of the present Executive, declared Mr. Stricker. In defense of the Executive, Berl Katzenelson said he believed the criticism to be a stereotyped kind and based mostly on lack of knowledge. Paying tribute to Dr. Weizmann and the political activities of the Executive during the past seven months. Mr. Katzenelson said: “I am opposed to those who avail themselves of certain isolated ideas of Achaad Haam and belittle the broader aspects of Zionism.”

The restriction of Jewish colonization of Transjordania by Palestine was termed an injustice by Dr. Chaim Arlossoroff who defended the Executive, as did Dr. Moses Glucksman, and Dr. A. Goldstein.