Newspaper Page Text
Page 6
The Southern Israelite
A Parliament For Palestine
An Eminent Zionist Oilers a Solution to the
Arab-Jewish Problem
By JUDGE BERNARD A. ROSENBLATT
This article, which pro
pones a specific form of Par
liament for Palestine, in re
ply to the demand recently
uttered by Dr. J. L. Magnes,
Chancellor of the Hebrew
University, is bound to cre
ate wide interest in the
Jewish world. Judge Rosen-
blatt is one of the most emi
nent of American Zionists.
He is at the present time a
member of the Council of the
Jewish Agency. He is par
ticularly qualified to write
on the subject of a Parlia
ment for Palestine because
he was a member of the Pal
estine Zionist Executive in
11)22 and was one of that
small group of men who dis
cussed with Sir Herbert Sam
uel, then High Commission
er, the possibilities of a pop
ular assembly for the Holy
Land.—The Editor.
When the tragic news of the He
bron massacres, followed by the mur
derous attacks on the Jews of Safed,
awakened the conscience of the world
Jewry, the first natural impulse ex
pressed itself in a sense of horror and
resentment not only against the au
thors of the outrages but also against
the local government for its failure to
prevent the savage outbreaks. Hut as
months pass on it becomes clear that
a merely negative policy, however
righteous, is fruitless and may even
prove harmful. What advantage is
there in harboring a grudge against
the poor Arabs who were duped by a
few faithless leaders into outrages
against their Jewish neighbors? It is
the part of wisdom not to look to the
past but to the future. How shall we
build so as to make impossible such
tragic events in the days to come?
The Jews are a forgiving race, even
though they seldom forget the mourn
ful history of their past. And so it
was altogether fitting that the Chan
cellor of the Hebrew University
should sound the phrases of peace
even while the inquiry commission
was yet in session at Jerusalem, en
gaged in the task of assessing respon
sibility for the crimes committed last
August. We may quarrel with the
logic employed by Dr. Magnes; w r e
may question the timeliness of his ut
terances; but none can gainsay that
they were in consonance with Jewish
history and Jewish ideals.
Dr. Magnes objects to the building
of a Jewish National Home that must
rest upon British bayonets. But, fol
lowing a good American precedent,
Dr. Magnes has made “reservations”
with respect to the parliament that he
would set up in Palestine as his alter
native to “British bayonets.” He ac
cepts the plan of a Palestine parlia
ment as an inevitable—even desirable
—project, subject, however, to certain
reservations.
With the idea of a Palestine parlia
ment there is no quarrel. Indeed, Dr.
Magnes will not claim authorship of
the plan, for the Jews of Palestine fa
vored the scheme of a parliament,
while the Arabs opposed it, as early
as the spring of 1922. 1 know where
of I speak, for 1 was in Palestine, as
a member of the Palestine Zionist Ex
ecutive, at the time when this problem
was discussed.
The British Colonial Office advocat
ed a legislative body in which the
Arabs would have a plurality and the
Jews a small minority, while the bal
ance of power would be held by per
sons nominated by the high commis
sioner, so that these government offi
cials, whenever supported by the Jew
ish members, would constitute a ma
jority. It was clear that Great Brit
ain, mindful of her pledge under the
Balfour Declaration and the Mandate
of the League of Nations, desired to
protect it by means more substantial
than mere paper reservations. She
rightly wanted to hold the balance of
power to protect the mandate from
hostile votes in a “popular” legisla
ture even above and beyond the veto
power of the high commissioner.
In the absence of a better plan, the
Zionists were ready, in 1922, to ac
quiesce in this proposal which came
from a high commissioner who was
the first Jewish governor of Palestine
in two thousand years. But the Arabs
objected, and the British were forced
to abandon the plan, even after pro
vision had been made for the holding
of elections to this legislative assem
bly.
\\ hy did the Arabs oppose this plan
for a parliament? As an American
observer 1 may conclude that the
Arabs wanted a majority in that par
liament so as to “resolve” away the
Balfour Declaration and to legislate
against Jew’ish immigration, the He
brew- language and Jewish coloniza
tion in Palestine. If Dr. Magnes w’ould
only “listen in” on some of the de
bates fostered by the American For
eign Policy Association he would un
derstand the plain and simple point
of view of the Arab spokesmen as
follows: Palestine is an Arabic terri
tory, where Jews may be admitted not
as of right, but on sufferance, on a
basis similar to the American immi
gration quota system, provided that
these “undesirable” immigrant Jews
shall not remain “aliens” (which
means Hebrews) but become Arabs in
everything but their Judaism, which
would be tolerated.
And suppose the Jews of Palestine
refuse to accept this Arabic interpre
tation of a Jewish spiritual and cul
tural home? What is Dr. Magnes’ re
cipe for curing this evil? British bay
onets, of course, and not at the behest
of the Zionist organization, of those
who cry: “Peace! Peace!” where there
is no peace. The Zionists have never
asked for the support of bayonets.
They have demanded — and still cry
out for—the elementary human right
of self-defense.
We must have peace with the Arabs
of Palestine, but not merely because
that is the only way in which the
Jewish National Home can be rebuilt.
We must have peace with the Arabs
because the Jewish sense of justice
demands that we build upon the cor
nerstone of justice and peace. It will
be the first attempt in history to car
ry out the prophetic injunction that
"not by might but by right” shall
Zion be restored.
But while from the the historic,
moral and legal point of view no one
can question the rights which the
Jews have inherited and acquired to
Palestine, yet the population of Pal
estine itself—Moslem, Christian and
Jew—may raise the question of self-
determination, the right, based upon
equity, to govern itself. It is that
right which the Arabs, as well as the
Jews, should urge upon the mandatory
power—not the legal rights of Arabs
based upon a flimsy letter and after
wards modified by the Arabs them
selves in the letter of Prince Feisal to
Prof. Frankfurter. The right to self-
determination in Palestine is a ques
tion of democracy and self-govern
ment.
What are the equities in the Pales
tine situation? There are two major
national groups in Palestine: Arabs
and Jews. According to the Palestine
government census of June, 1929, be
sides a Christian population of 80,225,
there were in Palestine 572,443 Mos
lems and 154,330 Jews, or nearly four
Arabic-speaking Moslems for every
Hebrew-speaking Jew. Now a parlia
ment in which mere numbers would be
represented, and where no recognition
would be given to the fact that two
distinct nationalities are living side by
side in Palestine would of course be
unacceptable to the Jew's. Even in
such advanced democratic countries as
England and America mere numbers
do not determine the whole course of
governmental power and control. The
House of Lords, representing wealth
and titles, is generally regarded in
Great Britain as a salutary check
upon pure democracy, while the Sen
ate of the United States, representing
geographic divisions rather than pop.
ulation, has more real power than the
House of Representatives, which is
chosen on the basis of population.
The whole question depends upon
the kind of parliament which shall be
devised to rule the bi-national state
of Palestine. The only equitable ar
rangement for a Palestine parliament
must be based upon the recognition of
three factors in the situation: Arabs.
Jews and Great Britain, the manda
tory power. Palestine must be a bi
national state which cannot be placed
under the exclusive control of a legis
lature chosen by the counting of
noses.
The principle behind a Palestine
parliament must be such as to pro
tect the Arab population, safeguard
the rights of the Jews and enable
Great Britain to perform the obliga
tions imposed upon her by the Pales
tine mandate. Let a Palestine legis
lature be established on the basis <>f
population: there the vast Arab ma
jority would reflect the wishes of the
people in the government of the coun
try. But since there are historic Jew
ish rights which have been confirmed
by the League of Nations, and guar
anteed by Great Britain as the man
datory power, it is necessary that this
factor too be recognized in the formu
lation of a Palestine parliament. Let
the Jewish agency, which is recogniz
ed in Article 4 of the Palestine man
date as the official representative of
the Jews of Palestine, therefore be
given the right to select a small bodv
—a senate, or a council—sitting in
Palestine, with the privilege of con
ferring w'ith the high commissioner
as to w'hat measures passed by the
Palestine legislature may be approve*
or disapproved.
Needless to say, no proposal of *-hi
Jewish council will be effective unle>-'
and until it shall have been passed by
the Palestine legislature, and. there
after, approved by the high commit
sioner. But, on the other hand, the
high commissioner shall not approve
any legislative bill that may aSt
been disapproved by the Jewish coun
cil. Thus the Jewish council will ae
as a check and balance to sa ^^ ar
the letter and spirit of the Ba o
Declaration and the rights o
Jew's, w'hile the Palestine l e £9 s *
will be the effective voice of t e 0
inant Arab public opinion.
Only under such a system ^
and balance, with the assem > c
trolled by Moslems, the senate
council of Jews, and an independent
high commissioner represen in ^
great Christian power, can
permanent peace in Palestine.
—Copyright 1930 by v
Feature Syndicate.