Paris, January (undated)

On Tuesday the Zionist delegates appeared before the Council of Ten. They had their day in court and each spoke his piece. The Paris press, certainly not unfavorable to the Jewish claims, is not enthusiastic over the showing that was made and Débats, the great journal which is reputed to be owned by international Jewish bankers, is particularly severe in its criticism of the delegates and of the tentative plans they presented. It is pointed out by the critical editors that the spokesmen held divergent views—as if that did not happen whenever a delegation comes to the court of the Great Assizes.

Three delegates appeared and I could not see that they were far apart, although in matters of detail they were certainly not of one mind. Mr. Weizmann appeared for the Anglo-Saxon Jewish communities, M. Sokolof for those of Eastern Europe, and M. Sylvain Levi represented the Jews of Western Europe. Each and every one of them demanded a Jewish national home in Palestine, but they differed as to ways and means to secure it and as to the form the new state, if it is to be a state, should take. The real problem is one that no one faces squarely, it seems to me. How can a national home for the eleven million Jews who are scattered throughout the world be launched in Palestine, a poor country, supporting with difficulty its present population of less than a million, the great majority of whom are not Jews?

M. Levi of the French Zionists, speaking for himself and for many French Zionists, said he was not asking for an independent Zionist state. He called attention to the undoubted fact, so generally ignored, that even Mr. Balfour in his declaration says that the present non-Jewish inhabitants are not to be removed or even in a political sense “crowded.” What he and his organization want, he asserted, was the right to settle Jewish communities in Palestine with the same privileges and the same responsibilities as the neighboring communities of Moslems and Christians. Sokolof and Weizmann listened to this moderate statement with evident displeasure. They too were not in complete agreement, but they both envisaged an independent state to occupy not only Palestine but all of southern Syria from Haifa to Akaba. At first, they admit, they would not object to leading strings for the new-born state. They would accept a provisional and short-termed mandate to be exercised by a nation selected by the Council of the League of Nations as soon as it is constituted.

If the views of the advanced Zionists prevail there is trouble ahead. Many, very many, intelligent and informed Jews admit this. It is conceded that the present inhabitants of Palestine have occupied their lands for centuries; indeed, some of the Syrian communities claim descent from the Hittites who were in possession at the dawn of history. Be this as it may, all who know the situation from actual contact and not merely from propaganda leaflets admit that these people have dwelt in their present homes for two thousand years, that the occupancy of the Jews does not go back to immemorial times, and that their sojourn before the Dispersion was brief. Why should these “old settlers” be expelled, they ask, to make room for newcomers who are ill informed as to the way of life that would be imposed upon them in the promised land of dreams, which in actual experience would prove a great disappointment?

Auguste Gauvin of Débats has constituted himself the spokesman for this group of moderate Zionists and has expressed his views to the Colonel at least twice; and he hopes to see the President before he is committed to what Gauvin calls “an impossible project.” He insists that no one, least of all Mr. Balfour, had in mind a national state such as seems to be contemplated in the new demands, or rather interpretations of it, now being made. He quotes the original declaration of Balfour under date of November 2, 1917, which reads:

“The British government would regard favorably the establishment in Palestine of the Jewish people and will do what it can to facilitate it, under the reserve, however, that none of the civil or religious rights of the non-Jewish communities already settled in the country should be impaired.”

“Not a word in that justifies the demand for a national home in a political sense,” adds Gauvin.

The French attitude was expressed by M. Pichon in these words: “There is complete understanding between the French and the British governments in regard to a Jewish establishment in Palestine.” That certainly would not seem to contemplate the erection of a national political state. Indeed, he adds, there are only the indiscreet words of Sir Robert Cecil which justify the demand, and they were spoken informally at a Zionist meeting and are not contained in any official document. Sir Robert, then Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs, did say at a meeting in London’s Exeter Hall: “We want the Arabs to have the Arab lands; we want the Armenians to have Armenia and the Jews, Judea.”

“But they are all scrambled together,” maintains Gauvin. “Can the Conference unscramble them? I doubt it.”

Naturally I have talked to Emir Faisal and to Lawrence on the subject. They admit that the Arabs are involved in the situation, but for the present they wish to keep out of the discussions. They hope that the Big Four will not further complicate a situation that is already most difficult.

“Room could be made for perhaps a million Jews in Palestine,” said Faisal, “if the same number of Christians and of Moslems were deported. That is what the Turks did in Armenia and elsewhere under the stress of war. Will Christendom follow their example in time of peace? I trust not.”

Gauvin sees at least one silver lining in the dark clouds overhanging Palestine. “Very few Jews want to go to their Holy Land and ours, and also unfortunately the sanctuary of the Arabs, except as tourists or to make a religious pilgrimage. Perhaps the whole question could be solved if it was placed in the hands of a competent tourist agency.”

I fear Gauvin is mistaken; the situation is more serious than he thinks. Many Jews, seeing the complete overthrow of the predatory and Jew-baiting powers, are inclined to believe that the moment is opportune for the Conference to settle their age-old problem along with all the others that are coming before it.

In addition to the racial and religious antagonism between the contestants for this long-coveted territory there is also an economic conflict which should not be overlooked. Speaking in terms familiar to Americans, the Arabs are sheepmen and the Jews for the most part are small fruit-growers. Most of us know what happened in many of our western states when these economies clashed at a time when some of our territories were as undeveloped as is Palestine today.

A few hours after the formal hearing Dr. Weizmann called on the Colonel and asked for an opportunity to restate his views. I was called in and I drew up the following memo, which the Doctor read and pronounced correct. It seems, at least to me, to differ quite radically from his formal statement. It reads:

I and many others think it would be unjust, indeed most unjust, for us to ask of the Conference the founding at this moment of an immediate Jewish state (in Palestine). It is for us, we think, to ask in the*first place for recognition by the Great Powers of the fact that Palestine was the land of the Jews in the past and should in the future become the home of the Jews. Our first pressing need, and this we ask insistently, is for opportunities and favoring conditions to enable us to bring the Jews back to Palestine. If these requests are granted obstacles now in our path would be cleared away and it would then depend on the Jews themselves to build up the Jewish commonwealth. To begin our new status, we would need a trustee and we are united in the belief that Great Britain should be nominated for this post. We admit that the land problem should not be ignored at the same time the vision of the delegates should not be obscured by the misleading information which here abounds. There is we claim ample elbow room for all; there are only seventy inhabitants today to the square mile of territory which could comfortably carry from three hundred and fifty to four hundred and without in the least encroaching on the rights of the Arab peasants.

How the Colonel and all the other delegates wish that this were true! Faisal and all the Arabs deny it in toto. In fact, they are in agreement that the present meager Jewish population (small indeed in proportion to the colonists the Zionists wish to bring in) would starve to death, certainly could not become self-supporting, but for the subsidies that come for them from various philanthropic committees in Paris, London, and above all New York. Mr. Balfour with the best intentions has launched an ugly problem.

* * * * *

Two days later Lawrence came in with a rough tentative sketch of the memorandum which the Emir is determined to file with the delegates. I urged him not to be precipitate, above all not to let the Emir assume a position which might be regarded as final and irrevocable. Lawrence agreed with me but asked me to submit the views, which he says the Arabs without exception hold, to Colonel House with a request for advice and above all guidance. This I have done, but down to the present the only reaction from the Colonel was a low whistle and the remark that “Balfour with the best intentions in the world has certainly rocked the boat that was already sailing on anything but an even keel.”

Briefly, the sketch of the memorandum which Faisal is soon to file with us, unless happily he should be dissuaded, is about as follows:

If the views of the radical Zionists, as presented to the Ten, should prevail, the result will be ferment, chronic unrest, and sooner or later civil war in Palestine. But I hope I will not be misunderstood. I assert that we Arabs have none of the racial or religious animosity against the Jews which unfortunately prevail in many other regions of the world. I assert that with the Jews who have been seated for some generations in Palestine our relations are excellent. But the new arrivals exhibit very different qualities from those “old settlers,” as we call them, with whom we have been able to live and even co-operate on friendly terms. For want of a better word I must say that the new colonists almost without exception have come in an imperialistic spirit. They say that too long we have been in control of their homeland taken from them by brute force in the dark ages, but that now under the new world order we must clear out; and if we are wise, we should do so peaceably without making any resistance to what is the fiat of the civilized world.

This was bad but by no means unexpected news. I was not prepared, though, for the new factor which Lawrence now injected into the problem of what is to be done with the “much-promised land.” He went on to say: “The Zionists, and also Mr. Balfour, have overlooked the fact that in Syria and in Palestine there are about one hundred and twenty thousand Christian Arabs who, unlike the Moslem Arabs, have anything but friendly feelings for the Jews, whether they be new or old settlers. They claim to descend from the hard-hitting Hittites of whom we read in the Old Testament, and they claim to be the original inhabitants or at least the earliest settlers in the disputed land. Certainly, these people have claims based on the undoubted fact that they were “occupants” before the Arabs came or even the Jews put in their appearance. What is the Conference going to do about this new angle of the thorny situation?

I told Lawrence I had not the remotest idea, but I hoped it would be something intelligent. Hopefully I suggested, “It will be turned over to the League like so many of these problems that cannot be adjusted while the war psychosis prevails. Only then will solutions be found for these innumerable racial and religious conflicts.”

Time and again Lawrence repeated, “These new Jews are coming in a very militant spirit. Of course, I admit that in view of the way in which they have been treated in many regions of the Western World this is natural enough; but still most regrettable.” I agreed. The outlook for peace in Palestine is anything but bright.