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