Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.