Historic Dialogue: Exchange of Views Between
Frankfurter and Jabotinsky, Recorded by Akzin

Prof. Benjamin Akzin, of the law faculty of the Hebrew
University in Jerusalem, who, while residing in this country,
was a leading member of the Revisionist Party led by Vladimir
Jabotinsky, arranged for a meeting with Prof. Felix Frank-
furter, then a law professor at Harvard, and Jabotinsky in
1935. In the introductory note to the recorded conversation,
Prof. Akzin explains the background of that conversation. The
dialogue as given here was reconstructed by Prof. Akzin. The
data recorded here emerges as one of the most interesting
chapters in Zionist history.
Prof. Frankfurter was deeply impressed with the then
youthful Dr. Akzin, as indicated in the following letter he
wrote to him after the dialogue with Jabotinsky, on March 19,
1935, from his office in the law school of Harvard University:

My dear Akzin:
1. Let me thank you for what was an altogether delightful lunch.
It could not have escaped you how much there was agreement in
essentials between Mr. Jabotinsky and myself.
I wonder if you do not agree that it will be just as well to make
a minute of that conversation, and I wonder if you will be good
enough to undertake to do so, as the host and largely observer, of
the meeting? Particularly, I hope you will deal with the large area
of agreement between J. and myself regarding (a) the English;
(b) Wauchope; (c) the need for factual as against dialectic exposi-
tion of the work done.
2. May I trouble you at your leisure to translate the enclosed
article on Holmes.
Thank you for everything,
FELIX FRANKFURTER

A Meeting at Lunch: Dr. Akzin's
Introduction to Historic Meeting

guests speak to each other. When I spoke up, it was mainly to stimu-
late discussion between them. At one point in the minutes, the gaps
in my knowledge of Zionist politics, as they then existed, clearly
show: this is the point at which I equated the political methods of
Dr. Weizmann with those of Dr. Arlosoroff (the gifted young Zionist
leader murdered in 1933) and the methods of Mr. Ben-Gurion with
those of Mr. Tchertok (later: Sharett); it was only much later that I
learned that it was Arlosoroff and Ben-Gurion who shared many
basic conceptions concerning Zionist foreign policy, while S'harett's
views had more in common with those of Dr. Weizmann.
The record, as reproduced here, is an exact copy of my notes
as written down in March 1935. To avoid any suspicion of "hind-
sight editing," I have refrained from correcting errors of style and
syntax, and have asked the editors of The Jewish News to exercise
similar restraint. At one point only, when relating an anecdote told to
me by the late Professor Laski, have I omitted a name; I did so
because I have reason to doubt the authenticity of the anecdote.
Some -of the names that came up in the conversation may no
longer be familiar to present-day readers. Here, therefore, is a brief
glossary of them:
Dr. Hocking was an influential professor of philosophy at Harvard
in the twenties and thirties. He was regarded as the main protagonist
of the Arab case and the principal antagonist of Zionism on the
Harvard campus.
Lt.-General Sir Arthur Wauchope was the British High Commis-
sioner of Palestine from 1931 till 1938.
The second Lord Melchett, succeeding to the title in 1930, was an
active supporter of Zionism and headed for a number of years the
world-wide Jewish sport organization Makkabi.
Herbert Asquith (Earl Oxford and Asquith) was Prime Minister
of Great Britain from 1908 till 1916.

% 1
M9 r--r lr7"jr7:17r7

:

BY BENJAMIN AKZIN

Law Department, Hebrew University, Jerusaleth
In the spring of 1935 I was working at the Law School of Harvard
University as a research assistant to the late Manley 0. Hudson, then
professor of international law at the university and later American
judge at the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague.
At that time I was not particularly active in the Zionist movement.
My only steady responsibility was to lead a weekly study-group of the
Harvard-Radcliffe Avukah (a Zionist campus organization). Occa-
sionally, I would participate in meetings of various ZOA bodies of
the Greater Boston area and of the New England region, or would
publish an article in The Jewish Advocate, a widely circulated Jewish
weekly appearing in Boston. My contacts with the Revisionist move-
ment, in which I had occupied positions of responsibility before -coming
to the United States in 1932 and in which I was to become active
again later, dwindled to infrequent visits with Revisionist friends in
New York and to some desultory correspondence with other friends
at Revisionist headquarters—then in Paris. My deep affection for
Vladimir Jabotinsky, the brilliant founder and leader of the Revi-
sionist wing in Zionism, remained undiminished, and so did my con-
tinuing belief in many of the tenets of Revisionism. I fear that many
of my Zionist acquaintances in Boston regarded my work among
them as a kind of barely-disguised Revisionist propaganda.
It was at that time that the Revisionist group in New York
persuaded Jabotinsky to visit the United States. Most influential
leaders of American Zionism were opposed to giving Jabotinsky a
public hearing, but in the face of this , opposition local committees
were formed in various cities with a view to sponsoring meetings at
which he could speak to the community. The Boston committee was
headed by Rabbi Joseph S. Shubow and by a respected local attor-
ney, Albert Hurwitz. Asked to join, I did so with alacrity.
The news that Jabotinsky was coming to Boston made me think
that this would be a good opportunity to have him meet another
outstanding personality with whom I became acquainted since coming
to Harvard—Professor Felix Frankfurter, later Justice of the U. S.
Supreme Court. Introduced to Frankfurter by Harold Laski, the
famous British political scientist, I kept in touch with him from time.
to time, occasionally attending his stimulating seminars in American
administrative law, at other times discussing with him developments
in Palestine. While still a young but already brilliant lawyer, Frank-
furter had been brought into Zionism by Justice Brandeis. He did
outstanding service to the movement at the time of the Paris Peace
Conference, and it was to him that Emir Faisal of Hedjaz, then the
leader of the Arab delegation in Paris and later the King of Iraq,
addressed in 1919 the well-known letter which contained a conditional
agreement to co-operate with Zionism. Later on, Frankfurter ceased
to be an active Zionist, but he did retain a measure of interest in the
movement. As far as Zionist politics were concerned, he sided with
Dr. Weizmann in advocating as close a co-operation with Britain as
possible, opposed any radical demands, and gave all his sympathy
to the labor wing in Palestine. I thought it would be both useful and
interesting to have him meet the leader of the "militant Right" in
Zionism, and decided to try to bring about such a meeting.
Accordingly, I wrote to Jabotinsky asking him whether he would
accept to be my guest at a private luncheon together with Frank-
furter, and asked the same question of Frankfurter. Both readily
agreed. I then had a small private room reserved at the Commander
Hotel in Cambridge for Friday, March 15th. Both my distinguished
guests appeared on time, and the three of us remained in conversa-
tion for well over two hours.
As soon as the lunch was over, I sat down and wrote up the
conversation, with the exception of some irrelevant table-talk, with
as much precision as I could. A few days later I received a note
from Professor Frankfurter (reproduced here in facsimile), asking
me to write up the minutes. By then, I had already started typing
my notes, and a day or two later I was able to hand over a copy to
him. Another copy I sent to Mr. Jabotinsky. The original I kept
among my papers. Now that thirty years and more have elapsed
since the meeting, and both the principals have passed away, I be-
lieve the time has come to have the minutes published.
In the actual course of the conversation I kept relatively passive,
since my purpose in conveying the meeting was to have my two

16 Friday, February 17, 1967

—

VLADIMIR JABOTINSKY
* * *

Minutes of the conversa-
tion at the.luncheon at Com-
mander Hotel, Cambridge,
Mass., Friday, March 15,
1935, as remembered by
Benjamin Akzin.

F: Very glad to meet you, Mr.
J. Or should I say Colonel?
J: Not at all. I went only as far
as becoming a Lieutenant.
A: As a matter of fact, as far as
military ranks go, Mr. F. seems to
have the higher one. If I am not
mistaken he was a Major in the
United States Army.
F: That is right. Besides I am
one of the real soldiers, those who
never wear a uniform. Don't you
think that these are the real sol-
diers?
J: Certainly.
For the next quarter of an hour
the conversation is purely literary.
While discussing English litera-
ture, J. confesses that though he
does not like England, he admires
their literature.
F: I must confess that Eng•
land and the English are my
weakness. Not that they are so
excellent but considering all hu-
man feelings inherent in our
nature, the English come as near
to being a civilized people as
there exist in this world.
J: That is true.
F: You will talk tomorrow at a
luncheon together with Prof. Hock-
ing. I do not envy you. He knows
how to create an impression of
being eminently reasonable which,
as you, being a great public
speaker, know, is extremely con-
vincing. At the same time he has
no sense of realities. The audience
will be largely Gentile. They do
not know anything of the facts.
I spoke about this to A. and he
said that I might mention it to
you. I think that a plain exposi-
tion of the facts might be most
useful. The injection of intra-Jew-
ish arguments would completely
bewilder the audience.
J: Of course, intra-Jewish argu-
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS

FELIX FRANKFURTER

ments have no place in it. I agree
that in order to sound reasonable
one must show them the realities
of the situation. But this is very
difficult because Zionism is a
most extraordinary movement. It
cuts across so many established
favorite ideas. Inevitably one finds
that Zionism conflicts with certain
thoughts which one is used to con-
sider as right, such as self-govern-
ment.
F: True.
J: Who will speak first?
F: I do not know. But why don't
you look up Hocking's article in
the Atlantic Monthly before you
go to the luncheon. This will give
you an idea of what he is like. I
will give the reference of the ar-
ticle to A. this afternoon. The
trouble is that Hocking sounds as
if he were not opposed to Zionism,
and, he is really sincere in what
he says. This is why he convinces.
When in Palestine, he saw only
the intelligenzia of the Christian
Arabs, and now he romanticises
Arab life. It is so hard to induce
a Gentile audience to think on
Zionism along the true starting
points.
A: A propos starting points.
I think this problem concerns
the Jews more than the Gen-
tiles. It is because of the way
Jews presented their case to
Gentile opinion that the very
little which they know about
Zionism is not what they should
have been told, and does not run
along what you call true starting
points.
F: The best way to talk to
Gentiles is not to give them ide-
ological arguments, but to tell
them the story of our actual
achievements.
J: This and also to explain
the reasons for our need of
Palestine and what it is that we
need. After all, depression or no
depression, at least five million
Jews in Europe will never again
find economic normalcy in Eur-
ope. For them Palestine is the

only outlet. Zionism should be
explained so as to make it clear
that we want Palestine to ab-
sorb these millions.
F: (Agrees).
A: The same problem of pre-
sentation exists in the relations of
Zionist leaders with England.
recall the phrase in Mr. F.'s mem-
orandum to the Zionist Executive,
about the necessity of having such
people deal with England who can
do it by combining tact with firm-
ness. Do you think, gentlemen,
that this combination has been at-
tained now, and if not, which of
the two is more lacking?
F: This is a misunderstanding.
The memorandum I have shown A.
was not for the Zionist Executive.
I wrote it after I had several con-
tacts with people in Palestine and
England, and sent it merely to a
few friends in this country. I had
to use some harsh words about
some people in Palestine and Eng-
land, and this is why I did not
think it useful to send it to the
Zionist Executive.
A: Sorry-to have misunderstood.
The problem of combining firm-
ness and tact reminds me of a
story which Professor Harold
Laski told me as coming from As-
quith. Asquith told him: "when I
see an English Jew, I usually have
the impression that he will either
put his foot on my neck, or put
his neck under my foot. Why, for
God's sake, can't these fellows
keep a balance." Laski said that
Asquith told him this a propos of—
F: and J: Excellent!
A: Coming back to the method
of presenting the Jewish case,
don't you think, Mr. J., that it
has improved in firmness since
Ben-Gurion and Tchertok re-
placed Weizmann and the late
Arlosoroff?
J: I do not think so. And I
do not say so in a sense deroga-
tory to Ben-Gurion and Tcher-
tok; I mean rather to compli-
ment Weizmann. I have no doubt
that when alone with British of-
ficials, Weizmann was as firm
and dignified about our case as
Ben-Gurion and Tchertok are
or as any one else would be.
The trouble was only with Weiz-
mann's silly public statements.
In reality the whole disagree-
ment relates to the function of
diplomacy. I believe that a mass
movement must gain sympathy
and understanding for its true
aims by public propaganda.
Once this groundwork is laid
then cabinet diplomacy can as-
sure the details. Both Weizmann
before and Tchertok now rely on
diplomacy as the only means of
gaining the Zionist battles. This,
I think, will not advance us.
F: I understand your view, but
I think that in dealing with the
British, whether openly or by dip-
lomatic methods, we should not act
on the assumption that their policy
is consciously and definitely anti-
Zionist, and that every measure
which they • take in Palestine is
subtly designed to be part of an
anti-Zionist policy. Most of my
life I have been associated with
Government, and I came to the
conclusion that the public exag-
gerates the sinister aims and pur-
poses behind every official act.
Frequently, official acts are as
accidental and meaningless as
many private acts. Politicians are
seldom such Macchiavellis as peo-
ple believe them to be. This is
especially true of the English who
do not usually make policies for a
long time ahead.
J: That has been my experience
also.
F: I am very glad you agree
with me on that.
A: This is very encouraging- If
the English policies in Palestine
are not deliberately anti-Zionist,
our chances to turn them in our
favor are much - better, and de-
(Continued on Page 17)

