- - -
The conception of Zionism which I have the honour to represent here is
based on what I should call the humanitarian aspect. By that I do not
mean to say that we do not respect the other, the purely spiritual aspects
of Jewish nationalism, such as the desire for self-expression, the rebuilding
of a Hebrew culture, or creating some ”model community of which
the Jewish People could be proud”. All that, of course, is most
important; but as compared with our actual needs and our real position
in the world to-day, all that has rather the character of luxury. The
Commission have already heard a description of the situation of World
Jewry, especially in Eastern Europe, and I am not going to repeat any
details, but you will allow me to quote a recent reference in the "New
York Times" describing the position of Jewry in Eastern Europe as
"a disaster of historic magnitude”. I only wish to add that
it would be very naive, and although many Jews make this mistake I disapprove
of it – it would be very naive to ascribe that state of disaster,
permanent disaster, only to the guilt of, men, whether it be crowds and
multitudes or whether it be Governments. The thing goes much deeper than
that. I am very much afraid that what I am going to say will not be popular
with many among my co-religionists, and I regret that, but the truth is
the truth. We are facing an elemental calamity, a kind of social earthquake.
Three generations of Jewish thinkers and Zionists, among whom there were
many great minds – I am not going to fatigue you by quoting them
– three generations have given much thought to analysing the Jewish
position and have come to the conclusion that the cause of our suffering
is the very fact of the "Diaspora”, the bed-rock fact that
we are everywhere a minority. It is not the anti-Semitism of men; it is,
above all, the anti-Semitism of things, the inherent xenophobia of the
body social or the body economic under which we suffer. Of course, there
are ups and downs; but there are moments, there are whole periods in history
when this "xenophobia of Life itself" takes dimensions which
no people can stand, and that is what we are facing now.
- - -
I have the profoundest feeling for the Arab case, in so far as that Arab
case is not exaggerated. This Commission have already been able to make
up their minds as to whether there is any individual hardship to the Arabs
of Palestine as men, deriving from the Jewish colonisation. We maintain
unanimously that the economic position of the Palestinian Arabs, under
the Jewish colonisation and owing to the Jewish colonisation, has become
the object of envy in all the surrounding Arab countries, so that the
Arabs from those countries show a clear tendency to immigrate into Palestine.
I have also shown to you already that, in our submission, there is no
question of ousting the Arabs. On the contrary, the idea is that Palestine
on both sides of the Jordan should hold the Arabs, their progeny, and
many millions of Jews. What I do not deny is that in that process the
Arabs of Palestine will necessarily become a minority in the country of
Palestine. What I do deny is that that is a hardship. That is not a hardship
on any race, any nation, possessing so many National States now and so
many more National States in the future. One fraction, one branch of that
race, and not a big one, will have to live in someone else's State: well,
that is the case with all the mightiest nations of the world. I could
hardly mention one of the big nations having their States, mightly and
powerful, who had not one branch living in someone else's State. That
is only normal and there is no “hardship" attached to that.
So when we hear the Arab claim confronted with the Jewish claim –
I fully understand that any minority would prefer to be a majority: it
is quite understandable that the Arabs of Palestine would also prefer
Palestine to be the Arab State No.4, No.5, or No. 6 -that I quite understand
but when the Arab claim is confronted with our Jewish demand to be saved,
it is like the claims of appetite versus the claims of starvation. No
tribunal has ever had the luck of trying a case where all the justice
was on the side of one party and the other party had no case whatsoever.
Usually in human affairs any tribunal, including this tribunal, in trying
two cases, has to concede that both sides have a case on their side and,
in order to do justice, they must take into consideration what should
constitute the basic justification of all human demands, individual or
mass demands – the decisive terrible balance of need. I think it
is clear.
- - -
The question was asked whether the Mandate is a "Bible”. The
Bible is unique and I would not call the Mandate a Bible, but I think
between those two appreciations of the value of a document, a "Bible"
and a scrap of paper, there is a large range of varying degrees of respect,
and I think the meaning put by the authors of the Balfour Declaration
and of the Mandate into those documents is worthy of a high degree of
respect. Mr. Churchill lent his name to a document called the 1922 White
Paper. If necessary, I will go into an analysis of it, but here permit
me to state that the White Paper of 1922 does not contain one single sentence,
or one single word, which can be construed as precluding the transformation
of Palestine into a country with a Jewish majority, a "Jewish State”.
- - -
You have of course heard of compromises and half-way houses which are
being suggested, including cantonisation, or the parity scheme, or the
cultural rapprochement, or the Jews "giving in" and so on. Believe
my sincerity, and it is the sincerity of the whole movement, the sincerity
of every Jew I now am trying to voice: we wish a half-way house could
be possible, but it is perfectly impossible. We cannot accept cantonisation,
because it will be suggested by many, even among you, that even the whole
of Palestine may prove too small for that humanitarian purpose we need.
A corner of Palestine, a "canton" – how can we promise
to be satisfied with it? We cannot. We never can. Should we swear to you
we would be satisfied, it would be a lie. On what other point can we "give
in"? What can the “concession" be on the part of Oliver
Twist? He is in such a position that he cannot concede anything: it is
the workhouse people who have to concede the plateful of soup, and there
is no way out of it. We do not believe in any compromise on those lines.
Cantonisation is a dream and parity is a lie. It will never be enforced
or believed by anybody; and trying it again and again means prolonging
the state of things which, in my submission, has led to the riots of 1920,
1921, 1929 and 1936 and it will lead again to the same result.
There is only one way of compromise. Tell the Arabs the truth, and then
you will see the Arab is reasonable, the Arab is clever, the Arab is just;
the Arab can realise that since there are three or four or five wholly
Arab States, then it is a thing of justice which Great Britain is doing
if Palestine is transformed into a Jewish State. Then there will be a
change of mind among the Arabs, then there will be room for compromise,
and there will be peace.
London, Thursday, 11th February 1937
Source: Palestine Royal Commission – Minutes of Evidence Heard
at Public Sessions, printed and published by His Majesty’s Stationery
Office.