Daily Digest of Public Opinion on Jewish Matters

[The purpose of the Digest is informative: Preference is given to papers not generally accessible to our readers. Quotation does not indicate approval.-Editor.]

The three main points raised by Dr. Weizmann in his covering letter of Sept. 1, which accompanied the Zionist memorandum to the Permanent Mandates Commission, were, according to the “New Judaea” of London (Jan. 1 issue), organ of the World Zionist Organization, not answered satisfactorily by the British Foreign office in its covering letter accompanying the Zionist memorandum.

The three points referred to are: the question of procedure in submitting Zionist memoranda to the Permanent Mandates Commissions, the share of the Hebrew schools in the funds provided by the Palestine Government for public education and the allocation of State and waste lands for settlement by Jews.

Pointing out that the question of procedure in submitting Zionist memoranda is not merely one of form, the “New Judaca” explains that “what happened this year was that the Zionist memorandum was handed in the first instance to the Palestine Government for transmission to the League via Downing Street, and the question asked by Dr. Weizmann was whether it would not be more appropriate that the Zionist Organization, as the Jewish Agency, should hand its memoranda in the first instance to the British Government in London,” and comes to the conclusion that on this question “it cannot be said that a definite and satisfactory ruling has been elicited,” from the Mandates Commission.

“Some light,” we read further, “is thrown on the subject by the text of the covering letter from the British Government which accompanied the Zionist documents, and which is now printed in full in the published minutes of the Mandates Commission. The British Government suggests that this question of procedure is one of convenience rather than of principle, and that as memoranda addressed by the Zionist Organization in the first instance to the British Government in London would in any case have to be referred to the Palestine Government for its comments before being transmitted to Geneva, it is preferable that this year’s procedure should be maintained. It follows that so far as any saving of time is concerned there is nothing to choose between the two methods. Nor can we altogether agree that no question of principle arises. It remains true, as Dr. Weizmann pointed out in his letter, that the submission of Zionist memoranda to the Palestine Government suggests that the Organization is acting merely on behalf of a section of the inhabitants of Palestine, whereas its real status is that of the Jewish Agency, representing Jews throughout the world in their relation to the Jewish National Home.

“On the other points raised by Dr. Weizmann, what the Foreign Office has to say is ingenious, but not altogether convincing. In the matter of the Hebrew schools, a plea of financial stringency pure and simple might not have been absolutely conclusive, but it would at all events have been intelligible. It might also have been pointed out with justice that if the Hebrew Schools claimed a more substantial measure of Government support, they must be prepared at the same time to submit to a larger degree of public control; as a matter of fact, this is fully recognized by the Jewish authorities in Palestine, who are understood to be quite prepared to accept closer supervision as a condition of increased grants. The Foreign Office, however, places in the forefront of its argument the principle that the Palestine Government is not under any obligation to ensure that the amount of public money devoted to any particular purpose shall be distributed among the various communities in proportion to their size. Stated in the abstract, this principle may or may not be sound, but it has little or no bearing on the question at issue. While no one suggests that every Government Department in Palestine should allocate its funds between the two sections of the population in strict proportion to their size, there must be some rough justice in these matters. It is in any case perfectly obvious that education stands by itself, since the element of language is here, as it is hardly anywhere else, of the essence of the matter. A road, a bridge, or a railway may be of more use to one set of people than to another, but it is at any rate freely open to anyone who may wish to use it, be he Arab or Jew. On the other hand, a school in which Arabic is the language of instruction is, to all intents and purposes, closed to Jewish pupils, and something like a proportionate distribution of public funds is for this reason appropriate in the case of education, even though it might not be equally appropriate in the case of other services.”

As regards the settlement of Jews on State and waste lands in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Mandate, the “New Judaea” declares that it fails to see why the Foreign Office expected the Zionists to take the initiative in a matter where the Palestine government had not made the survey which it declared to be an indispensable preliminary to the allocation of the State and waste lands.

“The Mandates Commission,” the paper asserts, “points out in its General Observations that ‘a survey of the country is considered by the Mandatory Power as a necessary preliminary to the allocation of Government lands.’ That being so, it is not quite clear why the Foreign Office should suggest that ‘this is a matter in which the Palestine Government might reasonably have expected the Zionist Organization to take the initiative.’ If the Government itself is not certain as to the precise area and location of the State lands, the Zionist Organization is in this respect clearly at a still greater disadvantage. One or two proposals have, as the Foreign Office letter points out, been actually made by the Organization, but it is no fault of the Zionist Executive that this is a matter in which they must necessarily be to a great extent in the dark as to what the possibilities actually are. If a survey is, as it is stated to be, an indispensable preliminary, the necessary implication seems to be that the Government itself is only gradually ascertaining what lands it has to dispose of, and if that be so, it seems hardly fair to shift the blame on to the Zionists if the Government has not yet been able to do more than it has for Jewish colonization. This is a matter in which it is clearly the duty of the Zionist Organization-a duty which it is only too willing to perform-to cooperate with the Government to the best of its ability, but the Government’s obligation under the Mandate is, after all, ‘to encourage the settlement by Jews of State and waste lands not required for public purposes,’ and not merely to wait until the Zionist Organization, with the necessarily imperfect information at its disposal, is fortunate enough to make a suggestion which happens to be practicable.”

The Bureau of Jewish Education in Cincinnati is engaged in a campaign to raise $30,000 for the support of four daily religious schools conducted under its auspices.

Early responses to the drive have demonstrated to officials of the Bureau that the need for more extensive religious training in Cincinnati, is keenly realized.

Robert Senior is executive head of the Bureau. Haym Peretz is director.

Morton J. Heldman is chairman of the campaign.