Purely Commentary
Mrs. Weizmann's Memoirs: Revelations of British
Obstructions, of Anti-Semitism in Foreign Office
Dr. Chaim Weizmann's role as the unchallenged leader of world
Jewry, as one of the architects of the Jewish State, as the man who
inspired the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, is presented inter-
estingly in the recollections of Mrs. Weizmann.
Published posthumously but having been fully approved by her,
' . The Impossible Takes Longer — The Memoirs of Vera Weizmann,"
as told to David Tutaev, has just been issued by Harper & Row.
As the collaborator of these memoirs with the wife of the first
president of Israel, Tutaev states in a foreward that Mrs. Weizmann,
who died on Sept. 24, 1966, had seen the
entire text and had approved it.
Mrs. Weizmann's personal role in
many of her husband's activities, her
early association with him when both
were students in Switzerland—he as a
chemical enrollee and she as a student
of medicine — and the joint efforts of
both which led them to the highest
social circles in England, in the United
States on their visits here, in Palestine
and later in Israel — offer interesting
observations in the era of struggle for
Jewry's hopes and just rights. The peo-
ple Mrs. Weizmann met in the course
of her husband's leadership, the atti-
tudes, friendly and unfriendly, spell out
historical incidents that will be included
in the accumulating history of Zionism
which was molded so effectively by Dr.
Weizmann. Mrs. Weizmann
In view of the emergence of a new antagonism to Israel among
British politicians, on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the Balfour
Declaration, the frequent meetings between Weizmann and Balfour,
as recorded in this volume, again assume vast significance. Weizmann's
contacts with many of the British leaders emerge here as an addendum
to Weizmann's biography and renew interest in the controversies that
raged, in the determined will of the Zionists to secure adherence to
British pledges and to the international incidents that marked many
of the negotiations in behalf of the Jewish National Home.
Out of the pages of the memoirs of Mrs. Weizmann emerge also
revelations of the attitudes towards Zionism and Jewry by the world's
statesmen.
Mrs. Weizmann describes a return journey on the Queen Mary
from the United States for a brief visit in England, in 1953 — after
her husband's death. The Churchills were passengers on that boat
with her.
Like her husband, Mrs. Weizmann took pride in the Churchill -
Weizmann friendship and in the fact that Churchill constantly referred
to himself as a Zionist. She gives this account of her meeting with the
Churchills on the Queen Mary:
"Mr. and Mrs. Winston Churchill were among the passengers
on the ship. On 26 January, they invited me to lunch in their
stateroom. When he heard of my husband's death, he had spoken
of his deep grief 'to lose my old and valued friend Dr. Chaim
Weizmann,' adding 'Those of us who have been Zionists since the
days before the Balfour Declaration know what a heavy loss Israel
has sustained. He was famed and respected throughout the free
world, and his son was killed fighting for us . . During the
second World War, he said to Bob Boothby — I paraphrase from
memory, 'I cannot always see Weizmann when he needs me. He
is my conscience and the last time I saw him, I spent three
sleepless nights.'
Here I should like to express my opinion of Churchill's remark
that Weizmann was his conscience. I think there was more to
this thais meets the eye. I have the idea that, after having
detached Jordan from the future s State of Israel, he began to doubt
the wisdom of this move. At the time, he imagined that the Arabs
had a role to play in the Near East favorable to Great Britain.
Later, he may have wondered about this when his poetic vision
dwelt on the revival of the ancient Jewish State. I cannot help
thinking that this mental conflict hung over him like the sword
of Damocles.
"It was my melancholy privilege to recall some of Churchill's
remarks when I was asked to broadcast my impressions of that
great statesman when he died in 1965. He and Chaim had known
each other since 1906, a half-century of unbroken friendship.
"But on 26 January 1953, we had an extremely lively con-
versation, despite Churchill's incipient deafness. I shall give this
conversation in 'dramatic' form as I wrote it in my diary. Among
those present at our luncheon party, apart from Winston and Mrs.
Churchill, were Mr. and Mrs. Soames (Mary Churchill and her
husband), another British M. P. and his wife, and Churchill's
private secretary.
`Winston Churchill (during lunch): I am glad you won the
war with Egypt.
"I: Certainly; but there is no peace, only an armistice.
"Winston: This war should have never taken place. It was
all Bevin-an anti-Semite.
"I: Why should a Socialist be an anti-Semite?
"Winston (jokingly): All the foreign office is.
"I: So is the State Department, I believe. This permanent
armistice does us a great deal of harm: there are daily frontier
incidents and shootings. The frontiers are precarious, with
infiltrators penetrating into Israel.
"Winston: I hope you welcome them.
"I: (refusing to see the joke): How can we? They would
become another Fifth Column. We can't afford a Sudetenland
in Israel. Take Mount Scopus: we hold the university and the
Hadassah Hospital, but the Arabs hamper our access to these
places. They refuse to discuss this problem or negotiate with
us . . ."
The comment on the enmity towards the People of Israel, which
finds echoes in enmities towards the State of Israel, was defined
"jokingly," but apparently in full knowledge of its truth and its effect
on a serious world situation, involving international consequences in
the Middle East.
The attitudes of several high commissioners who represented
Britain during its rule over Palestine are especially interesting, and
2 Friday, October 20, 1967
—
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
Mrs. Weizmann's Memoirs,
Bigotry in Political Quarters,
Perfidy Among the Laborites
By Philip
Slomovitz
Mrs. Weizmann's descriptions of her husband's relationship with David
Ben-Gurion and others add valuable material to an important historical
record.
Especially interesting is Mrs. Weizmann's emphasis on her hus-
band's and her own admiration for Vladimir Jabotinsky with whom Dr.
Weizmann had come in serious conflict, resulting in Jabotinsky's
bolting the movement and forming his own Revisionist party. Mrs.
Weizmann insists to the very end that she and her husband had great
respect and friendship for Jabo in spite of the rift. And the relationship
with Ben-Gurion was not always the friendliest.
Dr. Weizmann's final years were sad. He felt isolated as a
"figurehead" and as sort of a "prisoner of Rehovot ," as Mrs.
Weizmann describes it.
She refers to the Weizmann's friendship for Meyer Weisgal and
nraises Weisgal's genius as an organizer who made possible the
emergence of the Weizmann Institute of Science as a great center of
research. Those who are acquainted with Weisgal's role will be left
with a feeeling that her tribute to Weisgal, who was so dedicated to
her husband as well as to her, has been reduced to a minimum and
is entirely too limited.
These memoirs are significant — especially now, on the eve of
the Balfour anniversary. It is an autobiographical sketch, which is
mainly biographical of her husband, that serves well as an addendum
to Dr. Weizmann's own story and as a valuable chapter for the history
of Zionism.
•
*
•
No End to Prejudices Against Israel and Zionism
During his visit in Ann Arbor, former Secretary of State Dean
Acheson expressed an inerasable prejudice against Israel: it stemmed
from anti-Zionist bias he may have inherited from State Department
days. Apparently he had not learned the libertarian ideals of the
movement when he was secretary to the late Justice Luis D. Brandeis.
A short time before his death, former British Prime Minister
Clement Attlee told our London correspondent that he had no regrets
over his anti-Zionism which he shared with his anti-Semitic Foreign
Secretary Ernest Bevin.
Now a Bevin associate, Sir Harold Beeley, who had already
rendered great disservice to the Zionist movement, and a cohort,
Sir Dingle Foot, Labor MP, are operating from Cairo in an apparent
effort to undermine Israel's status and to assist those who aim at
Israel's destruction. There is no other way of interpreting their
present mission which can contribute to further warfare and can
deter peace efforts.
Anti-Israelis still are operating, and many of them have earned
the opprobrium of being anti-Semites.
Fortunately there still are on the scene men and women who
appreciate libertarian and human values. Richard Crossman, Labor
MP, is one of them, and he is given full credit for his friendship
and kindnesses in Mrs. Weizmann's collections. There are others,
but they have not been able to deter the Labor Party from antagonism.
Zionists expected more from the Labor ranks than any other but
have been gravely disappointed by the MacDonalds and Bevins and
Attlees. Now the Labor leaders have even attempted to interfere with
Crossman's apparance at a Balfour Declaration anniversary celebra-
tion. What perfidy!
•
•
•
United Foundation's Urgent Appeal
The urgency of the current United Foundation drive is apparent.
It can not be overstated.
By undertaking to provide a portion of relief necessitated by the
riotous situation from which we suffered recently the over-all community
philanthropic fund assumes a great responsibility.
By continuing to serve the many causes sponsored by all faith, the
cause of the United Foundation retains great significance in our midst.
*
*
*
'Dina d'Malkuta Dina'
—
Law of the Land
—
Card awnings
What's the true definition for courage? How far can one go in
questioning the laws that have been legislated by this government?
Have young people the moral right to rebel against the government to
which they owe allegiance as long as they reside under the flag of that
government?
We recall the sensational political battle that raged in Michigan
over the parochial school amendment which would have legislated
against the religious schools in our community. That was back in 1920.
In the Catholic Cathedral on North Woodward there was a great rally
Bishop Gallagher and Rabbi Leo M. Franklin were the speakers who
urged defeat of the amendment. Bishop Gallagher, in his impassioned
speech, quoted from the Declaration of Independence —"When in the
course of human events . . . people are oppressed, they reserve the
right to rebel. And he warned: "And we shall rebel ..." if the amend-
ment were to be enacted. He was spared rebellion: the amendment was
defeated. In appreciation for his courageous stand against the proposed
amendment, Rabbi Franklin received an honorary doctorate 1 ,rom the
University of Detroit.
Bishop Gallager's warning that he would rebel really wasn't meant
in the spirit of burning documents, resorting to riot, creating rifts
among Americans. It was as solemn declaration that he would not stop
with mere appeals against political tyranny: that he would go to the
highest court: to the people of the United States and to the supreme
authorities.
We now have a situation involving the rebellion of youth. Draft
cards are being torn up or burned by protesters, and the more rational
merely send them back to the draft boards with notice that they will not
go to Vietnam. Some rash things are being said. One protesting lad even
shouted: "I Don't Give a Damn for Uncle Sam!"
The question remains: what is courage and how far does one go in
defying his own government and in breaking the existing laws?
There is a Jewish law: "Dina d'malkuta dina"—"the law of the land
is your law." That does not rule out dissent. One would be blind to
reality and unjust to future generations if he did not demand change
when he saw injstice in legislation. But that does not justify striking at
the very root of established law?
We are in the midst of serious dangers affecting American life. The
race issue and Vietnam are dividing us. There are backlashes that are
undermining our sense of fair play. The war in the Far East endangers
our future position in the world and our current thinking. Both issues
call for rational judgments and for cooperative efforts to solve troubles.
But we won't solve them by riots, by defiance of law. We pray for good
judgment by all—young as well as the elders—and for speedy solutions
which can only come if we face issues calmly and with a determination
to eliminate injustice in one case, poor statesmanship on the other.
Sukkot Quiz
By RABBI SAMUEL .1. FOX
(Copyright 1967, JTA Inc.)
Why is it customary to use tree
branches for making the roof of
the Sukka?
Basically what is required for
the roof of the Sukka is anything
that has its origin in a growth from
the earth, provided that it had al-
ready been cut from its roots and
had not been shaped into a vessel
of some sort. Some particularly
preferred to cover the Sukka with
tree branches because the Hebrew
word for tree (Ilan) and the He-
brew word for Sukka are made
up of letters whose total have the
same numerical equivalent. Some
preferred to cover the Sukka's top
with straw because the two Hebrew
letters that make up the word
straw in Hebrew (Kash) can be
used as the abbreviation for the
expression "K'ra Satan" which
means "tear (down) Satan." The
covering of straw which is used for
the roof of the Sukka would thus
be an indication that the Satan who
tried to prosecute the individual On
the day of Judgment (Yom Kippur)
had not prevailed and thus the
Sukka serves as a symbol of the
victory achieved over Satan.
* * *
Why is ft a custom to welcome
a guest from ancient history into
the Sukka each of the seven
days during which we use the
Sukka?
These guests have come to be
called "Ushpizin" (from the Latin
ford for guests). They are partic-
ularly: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
Moses, Aaron, Joseph and David.
Mention is made of this practice in
the Zohar in the name of Talmudic
authorities. The Zohar draws this
from the change in person that is
to be noted in a verse which com-
mands us to dwell in the Sukka.
(Leviticus 23-42). In the first half
of the verse the command is given
in the second person (ye shall
dwell). In the second half of the
verse the command is given in the
third person (they shall dwell).
This change of person within one
verse, claims the Zohar, is an indi-
cation that before they (the people
of Israel) use the Sukka they
must first ask someone else to use
it as their guest. Some consider
this as an omen that one should
always invite a living guest into
the Sukka—i.e., some poor man
or a traveler, or an honored digni-
tary. The rabbis go as far as to say
that he who has not invited any
guest to his Sukka to make him
happy, has not fulfilled the biblical
command which bids us to be
happy on the holiday. One can
never be completely happy or Satis-
fie d unless he makes someone else
feel likewise. Some writers have
poitited to a general condition
where the Jew always feels that
some mysterious angelic presence
enters his home on the Sabbath or
on a holiday. Thus the Jew Rings
Sholom Aleichem to the two an-
gels who enter his home on Friday
night. He welcomes Elijah into his
home on the night of Passover.
Likewise does he welcome these
historic figures of the past into his
Sukka on Sukkot. Generally speak-
ing, the Jew united himself both
with his ancestors of the past as
well as with the heavenly hosts
when he observes a Sabbath or
festival.
Three Named Winners
of Wise AJC Award
NEW YORK — Leonard Bern-
stein, musical director of the New
York Philharmonic Orchestr a;
Gideon Rafael, Israel's ambassador
to the United Nations; and Harry
Waxman, New York industrialist,
have been named the 1967 laur-
eates of the Stephen S. Wise Award
of the American Jewish Congress.
The awards will be presented at
a dinner Oct. 29 in the Waldorf-
Astoria Hotel.
Rafael will be honored "for dis-
tinguished statesmanship in the
cause of Israel." Bernstein will be
cited "for enhancing human ex-
perience through artistic achieve-
ment." Waxman will receive the
award "for dynamic leadership in
strengthening Jewish life."