17•mniMill
-
memetammeneeeememnempumemp.
2 Friday, September 12, 1975
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
Purely Commentary
Quest for Alternatives Amidst
Prophecies of Gloom and Doom
A tripartite development in the Middle
East has placed the United States in the key
role as both arbitrator and adjustor of condi-
tions in the world's most troubled area.
The battlefront has shifted from Jerusa-
lem and Cairo to the District of Columbia,
and the U. S. Congress now is the arena
whence must come the dominant role for
peace.
Only troublemaking equates the Israeli-
Egyptian controversy with Vietnam. The
new situation is an involvement of a trio —
Israel and Egypt and the United States at
their invitation. The observers who are ex-
pected to be assigned in a technical capacity
in observing the armistice and the cease fire
are not to be military men. They are to be
non-combatants.
Yet, there is panic. Large sums are to be
spent in the search for peace. The realistic
know that the price is right, that if there is
to be an eventual peace the amounts to be
allocated will be the biggest bargains.
Would that Israel were self-sustaining
and did not need the money to come from
this country for military and industrial pur-
poses! Would that the Egyptian approach to
an accord were out of neighborliness, by a
nation free from economic want, both coun-
tries desiring and pursuing business rela-
tions!
What is being done is out of compulsion.
Yet there is a basis for hope. An Egyptian
statesman, Foreign Minister Ismail Fahmy,
states decisively that an accord is imminent
between Syria and Israel, and also with Jor-
dan. Regrettably, Israel Prime Minister Yit-
zhak Rabin foresees only conflict in the Syr-
ian area. He, too, can be wrong.
What about the opposition, the protes-
ters, the minority that objects to the new
agreements? ,
Let them offer alternatives before they
inject panic in diplomatic ranks!
Visions of gloom are on the horizon, pro-
phecies of doom are rampant:They are not
realistic. Are the panicking advocating end-
less wars? If they are not, what are their al-
ternatives to the tasks of acquiring good
will? True, the handshake still is missing.
(See Editorial). But aspirations for peace
must never be abandoned. And the approach
to the task must be rooted in the faith that
Eternal Israel will not be ',destroyed and the
neighbors who now shout death to the Jews
will concede that war is as destructive for
them as it is for Israel.
It is sad and unfortunate that many
look with suspicion upon the policies of
Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. He
trekked difficult roads' and this Commen-
tator refuses to judge him as one who
would either submit to a policy that would
destroy Israel or that he would ask Israel
to accept suicidal pacts.
News commentators in the main pursue
pessimistic attitudes. They give more atten-
tion to Arafat's threats to the lives of the ci-
vilian technicians who are expected to moni-
tor the United Nations lines separating
Israel from Egypt in the Sinai than to the
realities of the developing situation. Israel's
friends and defenders recall only the Arab
threat to destroy Israel. That's panic, not
realism! Just as the minority in Israeli and
Jewish ranks, who reject the new concilia-
tory proposals, are lacking in pragmatism —
will they admit that they have no alterna-
tives to propose? — so do the news analysts
on television and radio fail to submit to the
realism of a situation that calls for an ac-
cord, and a speedy one.
In the main, it is the only available cur-
rent practical solution. The anticipation is
that it may lead to a very long cease fire
which could accelerate into peace. Now it is
a hope; in the years ahead, it may be a real-
ity.
Hopes for Peace and the Unreasonableness of Panic
When There are No Available Rational Alternatives
. . . Brandeisian Recollections of Zionist Movement
By Philip
Slomovitz
The Zionist Dedications and Confrontations of Louis D. Brandeis
History gains enrichment from the
memoirs of great men. When the letters of
an outstanding personality who was an in-
fluence in world and American as well as
Jewish experiences in a crucial era in history
are available, they add to knowledge and de-
fine the issues that remain invaluable for an
understanding of the occurrences in their
lifetime.
"The Letters of Louis D. Brandeis," now
in their fourth volume (State University of
New York Press, Albany, N. Y.) covering the
years 1916-1921, gain this meritorious posi-
tion.
Equally fortunate for history and for
the generation of scholars who will be en-
lightened by these letters is the expertness
with which these letters are being gathered
and edited by the two eminent scholars and
historically-minded academicians, Prof.
Melvin I. Urofsky of the State University of
New York at Albany and Prof. David W.'
Levy of the University of Oklahoma.
As in the previous volumes, all the per-
sonalities addressed or referred to by Bran-
deis and the events alluded to are traced and
defined. The result is a history of the genera-
tion dealt with in the Brandeis letters and
the events in which he was involved.
Research vital for such a task, in view of
the voluminous messages sent by Brandeis
on many issues during his tireless efforts for
Zionism and his involvements in labor and
social services, called for accuracy, skill and
devotion to an unusual task. Profs. Urofsky
and Levy fulfilled their duties with such an
amazing devotion that their several volumes
of Brandeis letters are veritable classics.
The frankness with which Brandeis
wrote about people and events may cause
many readers to cringe with regard to people
and conditions touched upon by Brandeis.
The facts appended to the letters emphasize
the historic.
The years covered in the fourth volume
of the Brandeis letters were crucial in Jew-
ish and American history. They were the
last of the World War I years, they marked
the controversy over Brandeis' appointment
by President Woodrow Wilson to the U. S.
Supreme Court, the Balfour Declaration was
issued at that time and the split between two
important forces in the Zionist movement,
those led by Justice Brandeis and Dr. Chaim
Weizmann, created the great stir affecting
world Jewry.
Brandeis played a great role in raising
the standards of Zionism. Even while on the
High Bench he gave his time and energy to
the cause and conferred with the move-
ment's leaders. Together with the president
of the Zionist Organization of America
Judge Julian W. Mack, he 2ctually directed
the Zionist functions. During the contro-
versy that led to the split with Weizmann at
the convention in Cleveland, in June of 1921,
he, at one point, felt he might have over-
played his role and perhaps should have re-
frained from being as much in the public
eye. But he was not deterred from organiz-
ing new forces in behalf of Palestine's up-
building and of encouraging private enter-
prise in the Jewish National Home, even
after the Cleveland ZOA split.
In fact, none of the Brandeis group left
the ZOA ranks: they merely resigned en
masse from leadership.
In this respect it is important to note
JUSTICE BRANDEIS
later serve as President of France from
September 1920 until 1924.
3. This same day similar cables carry-
ing the signatures of LDB, Julian Mack,
Stephen Wise, Jacob deHaas and Felix
Frankfurter were dispatched to Miller-
and, Andre Tardieu and Baron Edmond de
Rothschild in Paris, and to Lord Curzon at
Negotiations in Paris on the Turkish the Foreign Office in London.
settlement have reached so critical a stage
On this score it is important to note that
in their effects upon the realization of the
Balfour Declaration of a Jewish Home- Brandeis `was an activist for Zionism in every
land in Palestine as to compel me to ap- sense of the word. He had met the most im-
portant people who were involved in dealing
peal to you.
My associates in the Zionist Organi- with the Middle East problems in the early
zation cable me from Paris that in the con- years preceding, during and after the issu-
ferences on the Turkish Treaty, France ance of the Balfour Declaration and he also
now insists upon the terms of the Sykes- conferred several times with Arthur James
Picot agreement — one of the secret treat- Balfour. When a serious obstafle arose,
ies made in 1915 before our entrance into threatening the status of the Jewish Na-
the War. If the contention of the French tional Home in Palestine. Brandeis cabled to
should prevail it would defeat full realiza- Balfour, Oct. 28, 1920:
Hope that information that your gov-
tion of the promise of the Jewish Home-
land; for the Sykes-Picot agreement div- ernment proposes to yield on Palestinian
ides the country in complete disregard of boundary question on Sykes Picot line is
historic boundaries and of actual necessi- without foundation, for such agreement
would break promise of Balfour Declara-
ties.
Rational northern and eastern bound- tion. Depriving Palestine of the use of Li-
aries are indispensable to a self-sustain- tany and the watershed of the Hermon
ing community and the economic develop- Yarmuk valley and the trans-Jordanian
ment of the country. On the north, plains of Hauron and Jaulan would crip-
Palestine must include the Litany River ple Jewish homeland project, rendering
and the watersheds of the Hermon. On the impossible and futile attempts at recla-
east, it must include the plains of the Jau- mation, settlement and any reasonable
lon and the Hauron. If the Balfour Decla- immigration.
As you are well aware, Palestine,
ration subscribed to by France as well as
the other Allies and Associated Powers is lacking other natural resources, its agri-
to be made effective, these boundaries cultural and industrial reclamation de-
must be conceded to Palestine. Less than pends upon the use of these waters for irri-
this would produce mutilation of the Jew- gation and power, and upon fertile plains
of Trans-Jordania for food and suste-
ish Homeland.
Neither in this country nor in Paris nance. Failing these, from American
has there been any opposition to the Zion- standpoint, economic development be-
ist Program. The Balfour Declaration, comes impossible, immigration will be-
which you made possible, was a public come menace rather than advantage, and
promise. I venture to suggest that it may attempts to finance future of Palestine im-
be given to you at this time to move the practical. I trust you will exert every in-
statesmen of Christian nations to keep this fluence to avert this danger.
Here, too, these explanatory notes by
solemn promise to Israel. Your word to
Millerand and Lloyd George at this hour Profs. Urofsky and Levy add to the historical
addenda so valuable in this volume:
may be decisive.
that during his first years on the Supreme
Court he exerted his influence to assure just
rights for Jewry and the Zionist cause. Espe-
cially noteworthy was his intercession with
President Wilson, when, after the issuance
of the Balfour Declaration, the Zionist cause
seemed in danger. He sent the following tele-
gram to the President, Feb. 3, 1920:
Here an opportunity arises to indicate
how the co-editors tackled all their problems
relating to the Brandeis letters. Appended to
the appeal to Wilson are the following ex-
planatory notes to indicate the complications
that necessitated the Brandeis message:
1. The question of Palestinian bound-
aries would vex the Zionists as well as the
Allies for over a year, with the French
pushing to expand their protectorate and
influence in Syria at the expense of the
British in Palestine. Both American and
European Zionists insisted that the bor-
ders of Palestine had to extend beyond the
Biblical lines of "Dan to Beersheba" and
include areas in the north, especially wa-
tersheds, that could make the new Jewish
homeland self-sufficient economically. In
the end, the Zionists got most of what they
wanted, although the Mount Hermon area
was assigned to Syria.
2. Alexandre Millerand (1859-1943)
had been France's Minister of War from
1912 to 1915, and upon Clemenceau's resig-
nation in 1918 had become premier as well
as minister for foreign affairs. He would
CHAIM WEIZMANN
1. During the war, England and France
had entered into, a secret agreement nego-
tiated by Sir Mark Sykes and Francois-
Georges Picot in 1916. Under the terms of
the agreement, the two countries divided up
much of the Ottoman empire, with the
French controlling Lebanon and Syria, the
British southern Palestine and the trans-
Jordanian area, as well as city of Haifa. The
rest of Palestine, consisting of the Galilee,
Samaria and Judea down to a line running
from the Dead Sea to Gaza, would be an
"international zone." The agreement had no
sooner been signed, however, when England
had begun planning how to enlarge its hold-
ings in Palestine, and the Balfour Declara-
tion had been part of that strategy. Terms of
the Sykes-Picot agreement did not become
known until 1919.
2. The Foreign Office drafted a reply for
Balfour, which he sent to LDB on 9 Novem-
ber 1920, to the effect that the new frontiers
of Palestine would in no event reflect the
Sykes-Picot line, and His Majesty's Govern-
ment would do its best to Safeguard Pales-
tine's use of Litany and Yarmuk waters.
(Continued on Page 10)
•
PRESIDENT WILSON
JUDGE JULIAN MACK