      1978, KTO Press, a division of Kraus-Thomson Organization Ltd, Nendeln,
      Lichtenstein ISBN 3 - 262 - 00191 - 0 (Complete Work) ISBN 3 - 262 -
      00153 - 7 (Part III)

      The author of this pamphlet is a well-known English Zionist. He was Hon.
      Secretary of the Joint Zionist Council of the United Kingdom in 1912,
      Joint Editor of the" Zionist" in 1913-14 and Author of pamphlets on
      "History of Zionism" and " Zionism, Its Organisation and Institutions"
      published during the war. From 1917 to 1922 he was Solicitor and
      Secretary to the Zionist Organisation. He is now Legal Adviser to the
      New Zionist Organisation.

    GREAT BRITAIN, THE JEWS AND PALESTINE

    AS the Balfour Declaration originated in the War Cabinet, was
    consummated in the Foreign Office and is being implemented in the
    Colonial Office, and as some of those responsible for it have passed
    away or have retired since its migrations from Department to Department,
    there is necessarily some confusion or misunderstanding as to its raison
    d' etre and importance to the parties primarily concerned. It would,
    therefore, seem opportune to recapitulate briefly the circumstances, the
    inner history and incidents that eventually led to the British Mandate
    for Palestine.

    Those who assisted at the birth of the Balfour Declaration were few in
    number. This makes it important to bring into proper relief the services
    of one who, owing above all to his own modesty, has hitherto remained in
    the background. His services however should take their proper place in
    the front rank alongside of those Englishmen of vision whose services
    are more widely known, including the late Sir Mark Sykes, the Rt. Hon.
    W. Ormsby Gore, The Rt. Hon. Sir Ronald Graham, General Sir George
    Macdonagh and Mr. G. H. Fitzmaurice.

    In the early years of the War great efforts were made by the Zionist
    Leaders, Dr. Weizmann and Mr. Sokolow, chiefly through the late Mr. C.P.
    Scott of the Manchester Guardian, and Sir Herbert Samuel, to induce the
    Cabinet to espouse the cause of Zionism.

    These efforts were, however, without avail. In fact, Sir Herbert Samuel
    has publicly stated that he bad no share in the initiation of the
    negotiations which led to the Balfour Declaration. (*1) The actual
    initiator was Mr. James A. Malcolm and the following is a brief account
    of the circumstances in which the negotiations took place.

    During the critical days of 1916 and of the impending defection of
    Russia, Jewry, as a whole, was against the Czarist regime and had hopes
    that Germany, if victorious, would in certain circumstances give them
    Palestine. Several attempts to bring America into the War on the side of
    the Allies by influencing influential Jewish opinion were made and had
    failed. Mr. James A. Malcolm, who was already aware of German pre-war
    efforts to secure a foothold in Palestine through the Zionist Jews and
    of the abortive Anglo-French démarches at Washington and New York; and
    knew that Mr. Woodrow Wilson, for good and sufficient reasons, always
    attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of a very
    prominent Zionist (Mr. Justice Brandeis, of the U.S. Supreme Court) ;
    and was in dose touch with Mr. Greenberg, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle
    (London) ; and knew that several important Zionist Jewish leaders had
    already gravitated to London from the Continent on the qui vive awaiting
    events ; and appreciated and realised the depth and strength of Jewish
    national aspirations; spontaneously took the initiative, to convince
    first of all Sir Mark Sykes, Under Secretary to the War Cabinet,and
    afterwards Monsieur Georges Picot, of the French Embassy in London, and
    Monsieur Goût of the Quai d'Orsay (Eastern Section), that the best and
    perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American
    President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist
    Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the
    hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and
    elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis.
    Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and
    greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was
    but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret " gentleman's "
    agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or
    approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other
    Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic
    gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through
    pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill will would represent, or
    rather - misrepresent.

    Sir Mark Sykes was Under-Secretary to the War Cabinet specially
    concerned with Near Eastern affairs, and, although at the time scarcely
    acquainted with the Zionist movement, and unaware of the existence of
    its leaders, he had the flair to respond to the arguments advanced by
    Mr. Malcolm as to the strength and importanee of this movement in Jewry,
    in spite of the fact that many wealthy and prominent international or
    semi-assimilated Jews in Europe and America were openly or tacitly
    opposed to it (Zionist movement), or timidly indifferent. MM. Picot and
    Goût were likewise receptive.

    An interesting account of the negotiations carried on in London and
    Paris, and subsequent developments, has already appeared in the Jewish
    press and need not be repeated here in detail, except to recall that
    immediately after the" gentleman's" agreement between Sir Mark Sykes,
    authorised by the War Cabinet, and the Zionist leaders, cable facilities
    through the War Office, the Foreign Office and British Embassies,
    Legations, etc., were given to the latter to communicate the glad
    tidings to their friends and organisations in America and elsewhere, and
    the change in official and public opinion as reflected in the American
    press in favour of joining the Allies in the War, was as gratifying as
    it was surprisingly rapid. .

    The Balfour Declaration, in the words of Professor H. M. V. Temperley,
    (*2) was "a definite contract between the British Government and Jewry."
    The main consideration given by the Jewish people (represented at the
    time by the leaders of the Zionist Organisation) was their help in
    bringing President Wilson to the aid of the Allies. Moreover, officially
    interpreted at the time by Lord Robert Cecil as "Judea for the Jews" in
    the same sense as "Arabia for the Arabs;" the Declaration sent a thrill
    throughout the world. The prior Sykes-Picot Treaty of 1916, according to
    which Northern Palestine was to be politically detached and included in
    Syria (French sphere), was subsequently, at the instance of the Zionist
    leaders, amended (*3) so that the Jewish National Home should comprise
    the whole of Palestine in accordance with the promise previously made to
    them for their services by the British, Allied and American Governments
    and to give full effect to the Balfour Declaration, the terms of which
    had been settled and known to all Allied and associated belligerents,
    including Arabs, before they were made public.

    In Germany, the value of the bargain to the Allies, apparently, was duly
    and carefully noted. In his "Through Thirty Years " Mr. Wickham Steed,
    in a chapter appreciative of the value of Zionist support in America and
    elsewhere to the Allied cause, says General Ludendorff is alleged to
    have said after the War, that: "The Balfour Declaration was the
    cleverest thing done by the Allies in the way of propaganda, and that he
    wished Germany had thought of it first."(*4) As a matter of fact, this
    was said by Ludendorff to Sir Alfred Mond (afterwards Lord Melchett),
    soon after the War. The fact that it was Jewish help that brought U.S.A.
    into the War on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German
    - especially Nazi-minds, and has contributed in no small measure to the
    prominence which anti-Semitism occupies in the Nazi programme.

    An outstanding consideration, though not forming part of the bargain,
    was the great potential value of Zionism in future as an instrument of
    British foreign policy. (In 1917 a Jewish Department was opened in the
    Ministry of Information and several Zionists were in its service.)

    But Zionism in its second stage continued to be under the Foreign Office
    only till 1921, when the Cairo Conference, under Mr. Winston Churchill,
    transferred the cafe of Palestine to the Colonial Office, no doubt
    because that Office is the only Government Department with experience of
    controlling overseas Colonies and fostering their development. It is
    worth noting here that this is the concern of Great Britain only and the
    views, if any, of foreign countries in regard to such colonial
    development are of no great moment. The case of Palestine, however,
    differs entirely from that of any British Colony, or even of other
    British Mandated territories. Firstly, by its historical associations,
    Palestine is of interest to all foreign countries. Secondly, its growth
    is at all times of intense interest to the Jewish inhabitants of the
    countries of the world. To-day, in view of what is happening to Jews in
    Central and Eastern Europe, the speeding up of Palestinian development
    is of poignant necessity in almost all foreign countries, which the
    Foreign Office would obviously be better able to appreciate. Thirdly,
    the constitution of Palestine is sui generis, in that Great Britain is
    the trustee appointed by the League of Nations to administer Palestine
    for the benefit, not only of the present population, but of the Jewish
    people as a whole, who are to " reconstitute their National Home." (*5)
    There is no precedent in Colonial Office experience for the case of
    Palestine, and what happens in and about Palestine can, and does, have
    important repercussions in foreign countries, and it would, therefore,
    be a very useful step if the Foreign Office could be kept fully informed
    of such repercussions.

    Moreover, the fact that the very existence of the future of Jewish
    Palestine depends, from the point of view of international law, on a
    Mandate of the League of Nations has powerfully contributed towards
    making the Jews everywhere into strong supporters of the League of
    Nations. In France, for instance, it is well known that the Jews are
    among the leaders of the pro-League policy. In other lands it is equally
    true, though less well known. For instance, the views of such a man as
    Dr. Einstein - a convinced Zionist believer in the League - count
    heavily in the land where he now dwells - the U.S.A.

    The Mandates Commission of the League has taken its duties of
    supervising the administration of the mandated territories very
    seriously. The Minutes of the Mandates Commission relating to Palestine
    are printed almost in extenso in Zionist periodicals all over the world
    and carefully studied. The undecided British attitude recorded in these
    Minutes has had an unfortunate effect on Jewish minds, especially in
    America. Faith in British promises and in the value of the League has
    been shaken. The three massacres (1920, 1921, 1929) of Jews in Palestine
    under British protection have naturally given very severe shocks to
    Jewish opinion.

    In 1916 and 1917 the Jewish people were led to expect British help in
    building up an autonomous Jewish Commonwealth.(*6) This aspiration has
    been the lodestar of Jewry amidst the gloom of persecution. The Jewish
    problem, which was already serious in 1897 at the time of the founding
    of the Zionist Organisation by Theodor Herzl, has since become
    progressively acute and pressing. The recent letter of resignation of
    Mr. James G. McDonald from the post of High Commissioner for Refugees
    (Jewish and Other) from Germany, throws same light on the tragic
    position of the Jews and urgently calls for infinitely greater effort
    and facilities for them to go there than the High Commissioner for
    Palestine would seem to realise or afford. A people numbering sixteen
    millions cannot be crushed out of existence, but is nevertheless not
    allowed to live or breathe freely. Political and racial hatred,
    religious and economic persecution, harass them in the lands where dwell
    their masses, viz., in Central and Eastern Europe. What is it that keeps
    them from adopting, in the bitterness of their despair, a Samsonlike
    attitude and attempting to pull down the pillars of civilisation? Only
    one thing - the hope of a Jewish Palestine. Remove that hope and
    millions of Jewish youth may be driven into the arms of Bolshevism,
    Communism and other forms of destructive activity.

    The announcement that Palestine, the National Home of the Jews, is to
    have a Parliament with a statutory Arab majority is profoundly moving
    and disturbing the Jewish people. They realise that the Palestine
    Government cannot act without the authority of the British Government.
    They devoutly pray and rightly demand, therefore, that - like the
    Passfield White Paper of 1930 - it might be deferred indefinitely or
    abandoned in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Balfour
    Declaration. The letter of Colonel Wedgwood, M.P., in The Times of
    January 3rd, 1936,(*7) is an admirable and forceful exposure of the
    unnecessary yet alarming situation which cannot be remedied by any such
    device as " cantonisation " of Jews and Arabs recently suggested by Mr.
    Archer Cust, late Assistant Secretary to the Palestine Government.

    The projected Legislative Council in the eyes of World Jewry would, on
    the face of it, certainly lend insidiously and effectively to undermine
    and sabotage the practical realisation of their high national ideals.
    Since the promise of 1917, they regard Great Britain as the appointed
    trustee of Palestine on behalf of the Jewish people all the world over
    and not only the handful of Jews who were in Palestine at the time. The
    Jews consider, and properly, that Great Britain promised them in 1917
    help, not hindrance, facilities, not obstacles, co-operation, not
    sabotage, in the rebuilding of Palestine as their National Home. They
    rightly regard a Parliament with a dominating and openly hostile Arab
    majority, able to impede the Jewish development of the land, as probably
    a thoughtless but undoubtedly a direct breach of trust by the Trustee
    Government.

    Mr. L. S. Amery, M.P., who was one of the Under-Secretaries to the War
    Cabinet, and afterwards Secretary of State for the Dominions and the
    Colonies, writing on the subject of "A Council for Palestine" in The
    Times of January 10th, 1936, states :-

    " It is of the essence of the mandate that the Jewish population of
    Palestine is there, and is entitled to develop, as a matter of
    internationally recognized and affirmed right, and not as a matter of
    sufferance by the Arab population, just as the Arab population is also
    there as of right. The two communities are equal in right and, under
    existing conditions, no system of representation which gives a greater
    voting power to one community than another is consistent with the spirit
    and purpose of the mandate."

    Sir Archibald Sinclair, M.P., from another platform of politics,
    endorses this view :-

    "In accepting the Mandate, we undertook the responsibility for
    establishing the Jewish national home as well as the duty of
    safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of
    Palestine. To devolve a share of our responsibilities for the government
    of Palestine upon a Legislative Council, the statutory majority of whose
    elected members would be pledged to do all in their power to hamper the
    Government in establishing the Jewish national home, would be to open up
    a dreary vista of racial discord and increasing friction which would
    endanger, or at least delay, the accomplishment of the primary purpose
    of the Mandate. If any part of our responsibilities under the Mandate is
    to be shared with elected. representatives of the people of Palestine it
    surely cannot be right to give a statutory majority on the proposed
    council to those who repudiate the Mandate and demand its repeal."--,The
    Times, Feb. 5th, 1936.

    In a debate in the House of Lords, on 26th February, 1936, the projected
    Legislative Council was opposed by Lord Snell, The Earl of Lytton, the
    Marquess of Lothian, Viscount Elibank, Lord Jessel, Lord Melchett, the
    Earl of Mansfield, Viscount Cecil and Lord Marley. It was supported only
    by the Government spokesman, Lord Plymouth.

    In the opinion of Lord Cecil and General Smuts, the League of Nations
    and a Jewish Palestine are the two greatest positive results of the
    Great War. The two things are interdependent to a large extent. A
    Government that has let the world understand clearly that Great Britain
    stands unshakably by the League cannot logically do otherwise with
    regard to Zionism and Palestine.

    Having regard to all the circumstances, the New Zionist Organisation
    (*8) is convinced that the following measures are indispensable if the
    Balfour Declaration is to be implemented as intended and solemnly
    promised:

    1. Abandonment or at least postponement sine die of the legislative
    Council and other proposed legislation contrary to the spirit of the
    Balfour Declaration.

    2. Strengthening the Department of the Foreign Office dealing with
    foreign and League of Nations views regarding Palestine, Jews and
    Zionism.

    3. Declaration by His Majesty's Government of their intention to
    implement fully the Balfour Declaration in order to put art end to Arab
    agitation by interested parties.

    4. A promise of Government facilities for a Plan of Settlement of at
    least one million Jews in Palestine and Transjordan within the next ten
    years.

    The ultimate aim of all these steps is the establishment of a Jewish
    Commonwealth which could properly seek admission as a seventh Dominion
    of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

    To appreciate adequately the above considerations, it may be considered
    desirable to give a resume of recent developments in Zionist Jewry.

    It is not generally realised what devastation the Great War and the
    post-War economic crisis have brought to the Jewish nation. When mighty
    Empires have been shaken to their social and political foundations it is
    not surprising that a weak, scattered and homeless people should have
    been brought nigh to destruction. The strongest centre of Jewry, Russia,
    from which for several generations emanated all that was deeply national
    in modern Jewry, has disappeared. The Russo-Jewish reservoir that
    provided the intellectual leaders of Jewry in our own time - great
    Scholars and learned Rabbis, spiritual leaders like Ahad Haam and
    Bialik, political leaders such as Jabotinsky, Sokolow and Weizmann, and
    all the pioneers of Palestine Colonisation in the last 50 years - has
    been destroyed, some say forever. In the lands of Western Europe and
    America, it was again the Russo-Jewish immigrants or their children who
    kept alive the flame of Jewish national urge and who even to-day mainly
    provide the stream of men and money which is directed to Palestine. In
    the other lands of Eastern and Central Europe where Jewish masses
    congregate, the economic crisis has reduced them to a condition of
    appalling and unbelievable wretchedness.

    Into this unrelieved gloom, the Balfour Declaration penetrated like a
    beam flood-lighting the vision of a home, the prospect of which has kept
    the nation alive. It is no exaggeration to say that the Declaration of
    the British Government in November, 1917, that " His Majesty's
    Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish
    National Home "- was the salvation of Jewry after the War. The
    subsequent stages of the implementing of this promise, the decision of
    the Allied Powers in San Remo in 1920, to place in British hands the
    mandate for Palestine, in order to create the Jewish National home in
    Palestine, the actual juridical mandate approved by the Council of the
    League of Nations, in July 1922, and the growth of the Jewish Settlement
    in Palestine under British administration in the last twelve years, are
    familiar enough. What is not so well known however, is the steady growth
    of profound dissatisfaction among the Jewish masses, during the last ten
    years, in regard to Zionism and the Jewish National Home.

    What are the main causes for this profound dissatisfaction ?

    First and foremost, the masses feel that their leaders have "let them
    down," have failed to utilise the wonderful opportunity given them by
    the British Government in particular and the non-Jewish world in
    general. Their vision and hope of a National home as outlined first by
    Dr. Pinsker in his " Auto-Emancipation" (1882), then more clearly by the
    Founder of Zionism - Theodor Herzl - in his "Jewish State," in 1896, and
    finally after the War by the Zionist leaders at the Peace Conference,
    have appeared to fade and in their stead they see the sad spectre of
    another Jewish minority settlement in Palestine. It is not that they
    expected a fully-equipped Jewish State to have been achieved already.
    What they cannot forgive however is the acceptance, even though
    obviously under moral duress, by their leaders of the position in which
    even the distant prospect of complete national regeneration in a
    National home seems to have faded out. It was mainly for the acceptance
    of this situation that Sir Alfred Mond (afterwards Lord Melchett)
    resigned from the Jewish Agency and that Dr. Weizmann failed to obtain
    re-election as President of the Zionist Organisation in 1931 and 1933,
    in spite of his signal services to the movement for twenty years or
    more. And today among the Jewish masses in Poland, hundreds of thousands
    feel so profoundly that they have been deceived by the Zionist
    Organisation and its present leaders that they have decided to join the
    New Zionist Organisation. 713,000 Zionists went to the poll and elected
    delegates for the Congress held in Vienna, in September, 1935, for this
    purpose; and the numbers of active supporters are swelling daily;
    whereas the voters (including plural voters) represented at the Congress
    of the old Zionist Organisation at Lucerne in August, 1935, were
    632,000.

    Another factor which has given rise to profound misgivings amongst the
    Jewish masses is the growth of left-wing Socialism in Palestine, with
    the spread of extreme doctrines. The blame for this is laid in the first
    instance at the door of the responsible leaders of the Zionist
    Organisation. (*9) Since the end of the war they have permitted or
    fostered, by means of liberal subsidies from Zionist funds, the growth
    of the Poale Zion, until it developed several most unpleasant
    hypertrophic features of which Dictatorship of labour, class war, and
    frequent strikes are the most obvious. The predominance of Poale Zion
    leaders in the present Executive of the Zionist Organisation has
    undermined the confidence of the Jewish masses - who are far more
    Nationalist than Socialist at heart.

    The rise of Hitler to power in Germany, with its ruthless forms of
    anti-Semitism, has driven home the Zionism of Herzl and given a
    tremendous impetus to Jewish national feeling all over the world. A few
    years ago, the view, adopted by Sir Herbert Samuel in 1921, that a
    smallish Jewish model settlement in Palestine living on healthy national
    lines would provide spiritual sustenance for the vast majority of Jewry
    outside Palestine still had a good few adherents, but today, German
    anti-Semitism and its repercussions in other lands, has all but given
    this doctrine its coup de grace. Every Jew now sees clearly that without
    a physical and political as well as a spiritual centre, Jewry stands
    very little chance of survival. This conviction has spread much more
    rapidly than certain Zionist leaders, who have lost touch with the
    masses, realise. The Jewish land hunger has grown immeasurably and the
    Jewish masses feel that Palestine without Transjordan is far too small
    for the urgent and imperative need of Jewish emigration. Transjordan was
    originally part of the mandated territory of Palestine to which the
    Jewish National Home applied. Hence one of the other main points in the
    platform of the new Zionist Organisation is the opening of Transjordan
    to Jewish immigration.

    Another factor which has estranged the masses of Jewry from the old
    Zionist Organisation is its attitude to the Jewish Religion. (*10) The
    old Zionist Organisation declares that Religion is a private affair of
    the individual. The masses of Jewry however instinctively feel that this
    attitude does less than justice to the ideals of social justice
    contained in the Bible and the Prophets and crystallised in Jewish
    tradition through the many centuries. This precious heritage they feel
    should not be thrown away. Was it not their religion which through the
    ages has been the source of their invincible fortitude and preserved
    them as a Nation? Moreover, realising that no civilisation is possible
    without an established form of religion, they have rallied round the New
    Zionist Organisation which does justice to the Jewish tradition.

    The New Zionist Organisation has absorbed the Zionist Revisionists. This
    party was founded in 1925 by Vladimir Jabotinsky to resist the
    tendencies towards defeatism and decay, to keep alive the Herzlian
    tradition and to resist the growing dictatorship and arrogance of the
    Palestine Labour Zionists. The party grew rapidly, and by 1933 at the
    Zionist Congress in Prague, it was already second in size of the parties
    within the organisation. The Leader of the Revisionists has naturally
    become the President of the New Zionist Organisation. This choice
    indicates recognition by the masses of Jewry that the pressing need of
    the time is to strengthen the moral and political foundations of the
    movement.

    Born in Russia about fifty-five years ago, Jabotinsky threw himself from
    early youth into the Zionist movement. Almost alone in Russia in 1915,
    he advocated Jewish support for the Allied Cause (in spite of the
    terribly unjust treatment of the Jews by the Russians), because he saw
    in an Allied Victory the hope of a Jewish Palestine. He conceived the
    idea of a Jewish Legion to fight for Palestine on the side of the Allies
    and carried it through in the teeth of the strongest opposition,
    including that of many of his own friends. (*11) Had it not been for
    this opposition, it is practically certain that he would have rallied a
    large army of Jewish soldiers to lead the capture of Palestine and would
    have been the Jewish Garibaldi. He was in Palestine attached to the
    Jewish battalion under Lord Allenby and was soon recognised by the
    British authorities as a fearless Jewish leader and defender of Jewish
    rights. He resisted the authorities in Palestine during the Arab attacks
    on Jews in 1920, was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment in the
    historic fortress of Acre, but was set free after a few months. This
    episode in his career has naturally endeared him to the masses of Jewry,
    and the prohibition of his re-entry into Palestine has had a similar
    stimulating effect.

    What are the prospects of the New Zionist Organisation? The break-up of
    the Zionist Centre party Conference at Cracow in 1935 indicates clearly
    what was already evident to the clear-sighted, viz., that there are only
    two parties to the struggle in Zionism - the Socialist Left and the
    Revisionist Right. The Left is now suffering for some of the sins
    committed during the last ten years under the influence of the heady
    wine of power and office. Almost every recent Jewish visitor to
    Palestine has returned thoroughly disappointed with the regime of the
    Left. A sound Jewish instinct tells them that advanced Socialism or
    Communism - whatever its advantages in the remoter future - is entirely
    unsuitable for a nascent Jewish National Home. The New Zionists
    emphasise the great traditions of England - fair play, recognition of
    the principle of nationality, free but orderly democracy, and especially
    respect for those who stand up for their rights. The New Zionist
    Organisation is pro-British to the core. It is the rallying centre of
    Jewry in its crisis. It has the Jewish youth on its side, enrolled in
    subsidiary organisations such as the Betar, named after Captain
    Trumpeldor, a Jewish hero, who died fighting in Palestine in 1919. Young
    Jews and Jewesses in Eastern Europe are taught through this organisation
    to prepare themselves for Palestine not only in Hebrew and agriculture
    but also in teamwork, self-defence and obedience to leadership. Reports
    from Eastern Europe attest the fact that Jabotinsky is acclaimed by
    hundreds of thousands of Jewish people and indicate that the New Zionist
    Organisation will be, if it is not already, larger, as well as more
    truly representative of Jewry, than any other body now in existence.

    Steps are being taken to convene as soon as practicable a National
    Assembly of Zionist Jewry representing the larger part of articulate
    Jewry. Every Jew or Jewess over 20, if in favour of the Zionist solution
    of the Jewish problem, has the right to vote for the election of
    delegates to this Assembly. The franchise is not acquired by purchase
    but is true to its name, viz., free and dependent on political
    convictions only. At the same time a well founded plan of large-scale
    colonisation for settling 1.5 - 2 million Jews in Palestine and
    Transjordan over a period of ten years is being prepared by experts for
    submission to the Assembly. As the pressure on Jewry grows, the numbers
    of the New Zionist Organisation will continue to increase, for it is
    based on the firm conviction that the Jewish problem is a world problem,
    and that an untrammelled Jewish National Home on both sides of the
    Jordan is the only and inevitable solution.

    There is overwhelming evidence that if they were allowed to do so by the
    British Government. Trans-Jordan Arabs (comparatively very few in
    number) are most anxious to sell their surplus and uncultivated lands to
    Jewish immigrants at very much lower prices than the Palestine Arab
    proprietors are, in the circumstances demanding and obtaining today for
    theirs.

    The British Empire can afford to wait or hasten slowly; but it will be
    conceded that in their tragic plight the choice before Jewry is either
    speedily to rebuild Palestine or slowly to perish in the Diaspora. The
    words of the traditional Jewish toast - " Next year in Jerusalem"
    (Leshana Habaa Birushalayim) - are therefore no longer conventional
    words, but inspiriting and instinct with meaning and action and must
    assuredly appeal to the sense of humanity and fair play of the British
    Government and people.

    (*1) England and Palestine," lecture delivered by Sir Herbert Samuel,
    published by the Jewish Historical Society, London (February, 1936).

    (*2) History of the Peace Conference in Paris, 1920, volume 6, page 173.

    (*3) Franco-British Convention, December 1920 (Cmd. II9S).

    (*4) Volume 2, page 392.

    (*5) These are the actual words of the Mandate for Palestine - see App.II

    (*6) The Manchester Guardian may be quoted as typical of the
    interpretation placed on the Bal~ur Declaration. In a leading article of
    the Ioth November, I9I7, it wrote as follows : " What it means is that,
    assuming our military successes to be continued and the whole of
    Palestine brought securely under our control, then at the conclusion of
    peace our deliberate policy will be to encourage in every way in our
    power Jewish immigration, to give full security, and no doubt a large
    measure of local autonomy, to the Jewish immigrants, with a view to the
    ultimate establishment of a Jewish State." The views of the leaders of
    British public opinion were collected and published as a brochure
    prepared by the Ministry of Information under the title " Great Britain,
    Palestine and the Jews " in December, I9I7.

    (*7) Reprinted in full on pp. 18--20.

    (*8) Inaugurated at a Congress held in Vienna in September, 1935;
    attended by 350 Zionist Delegates from 34 countries, representing
    713,000 voters, which is the largest number of Jewish voters ever
    recorded.

    (*9) Thus it was the predominance of the Left at the Lucerne Congress in
    August, 1935, which secured the election of Dr. Weizmann as President.

    (*10) The Chief Rabbi, Dr. J. H. Hertz, stated (according to the Jewish
    Telegraphic Agency) at a public meeting in London on the 23rd February,
    1936, that "religious teaching is being blotted out in the Jewish
    schools. Thus, while funds which make possible Zionist schools come from
    Jews alone, these schools and settlements are not Jewish and still,
    except for the language, lack Jewish spirit and teaching. In fact, in
    some schools, Socialism,' not Judaism, is the object of tuition."

    (*11) If required, thousands of Jews would come forward today under his
    leadership to serve in the forces of the Mandatory Power.

    APPENDIX I.

    THE BALFOUR DECLARATION.

    FOREIGN OFFICE,

    2nd November, 1917.

    DEAR LORD ROTHSCHILD, I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf
    of His Majesty's Government the following declaration of sympathy with
    Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by
    the Cabinet: " His Majesty's Government view with favour the
    establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and
    will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this
    object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may
    prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish
    communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by
    Jews in any other country." I should be grateful if you would bring this
    declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

    Yours sincerely, (Signed) ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR.

    APPENDIX II.

    Extract from Preamble to, and Specific Articles of, the Palestine
    Mandate referring to the Jewish National Home:

    Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory
    should be responsible for putting info effect the declaration originally
    made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty,
    and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in
    Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly
    understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil
    and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or
    the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;

    and

    Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection
    of the Jewish people with Palestineand to the grounds for reconstituting
    their national home in that country.

    ...

    2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such
    political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the
    establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble,
    and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for
    safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of
    Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.*

    ...

    4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for
    the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of
    Palestine in such economic, social and other matters - as may affect the
    establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the
    Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of
    the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the
    country.

    The Zionist organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution
    are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as
    such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic
    Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are
    willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

    ...

    6. 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 and shall
    encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article
    4, close settlement by Jews on the land, induding State lands and waste
    lands not required for public purposes.

    7. The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a
    nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed
    so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews
    who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

    ...

    11. The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to
    safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the
    development of the country, and, subject to any international
    obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide
    for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the
    country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to
    be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to
    the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the
    desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation
    of the land.

    The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in
    Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any
    public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural
    resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly
    undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide
    that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly,
    shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any
    further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country
    in a manner approved by the Administration.

    ...

    22. English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of
    Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in
    Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew, and any statement or inscription
    in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.

    ...

    23. The Administration of Palestine shall recognise the holy days of the
    respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the
    members of such communities.

    * This phrase rules out any interpretation of " Jewish National Home "
    other than as laid down in the Preamble, which speaks of
    "reconstituting their national home."

    APPENDIX III

    The following letter from Colonel J. C. Wedgwood, M.P., appeared in the
    " Times," of Friday, January 3rd, 1936.

    SIR,

    The plan of the Legislative Council for Palestine has been announced in
    Jerusalem. There is time to criticise the proposals before any enactment
    is made by Orders in Council. If this start towards home rule is not to
    be made on dangerous lines that criticism should come now. The
    objections of the Jews and their determination to boycott the council
    may delay the scheme. It is the proposals themselves on which I would
    comment, and from the British point of view.

    First, one might judge from Egypt that it is a mistake, especially just
    now, to give the impression that one yields to threats of violence. The
    results of the 1923 Constitution in Egypt are so manifest that one need
    not labour the point. The connexion between Egypt and Palestine is so
    close; the regrets for the Constitution granted to Iraq are so keen.
    Surrender to bluff is not at the moment popular.

    Then the proposed machinery gives the impression of having been devised
    without sufficient regard to practice and experience elsewhere in the
    Empire. No one who knows community representation in India approves of
    that method of election; it leaves minorities helpless and encourages
    racial and religious bitterness. Why impose it on Palestine, where all
    are agreed that the vital issue is to get Jew and Arab to be more
    friendly?

    The essence of the English system is that the M.P. represents all sorts,
    and is as anxious to please those who might, as he is to please those
    who do, vote for him. The recent crisis is proof thereof, so anxious
    were we all to get the liberal vote at the next election - so eager to
    respond to the protests of our correspondents. This, as Mr. Baldwin has
    pointed out, is democracy ; and it only works well because, with a
    common electoral roll, we have to see the other fellow's point of view.
    With these community rolls, election depends on beating the community
    drum, and the most vigorous denunciation of the other communities.

    The position of a statutory minority, which can never hope for posts,
    preferment, or power, is particularly unfair and quite un-English.
    Probably Jews object to this obvious result more than to community
    representation itself; for it is only the Jews of England and America
    who understand the virtues of the common electoral roll and the vices of
    community isolation. We have seen from India that once community
    representation is started, reversion to the unifying English system
    becomes impossible.

    In Kenya there is an official majority on the council to preserve the
    control by the Colonial Office and by Parliament. In Palestine there is
    to be no official majority. Instead we are to rely on the balancing of
    the rival communities - so many Moslems, Christians, Jews, officials,
    possibly Germans. This is "divide and rule "-a "rule" which leads to
    more inefficiency and exasperation than any other. We had just that "
    rule " in Cyprus; for 50 years we ruled on the Governor's casting vote;
    and it only ended when the Christians stormed Government House and the
    Constitution went up in the flames.

    Many other questions arise, such as control over the purse, over
    education, over police, over public works, over loans, over
    municipalities. These are not matters which solve themselves on the
    march, and we have had much experience in Colonies both less and more
    civilized than is Palestine. Malta, Guiana, Newfoundland, Ceylon provide
    precious evidence on the difficulties that will arise.Would it not be
    wise to use the time before the Palestine Constitution starts to have on
    all these matters the mature consideration of a committee, which need
    never visir Palestine? The practical experience of the British Empire is
    worth taking into account, worth a little delay, and no reflection upon
    the necessarily limited experience of those who have framed these
    proposals.

    I am, Sir, yours, &c.,

    JOSIAH C. WEDGWOOD.

    Committee on History of Parliament,
     I, Queen Anne's Gate Buildings,
    Dartmouth Street, S.W.I.