867N.01/753½
Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Murray)
It will be recalled that in the Report of the Palestine Royal Commission it was proposed that the British Government eventually negotiate with the Zionist Organization a treaty regarding the position of the suggested Jewish State. In a previous memorandum we expressed some surprise that such a treaty should be negotiated with the Zionist Organization, since under the Mandate the Jewish Agency is recognized as “a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine.” Since 1929 the Jewish Agency has been composed of representatives of both Zionists and non-Zionists. Under the circumstances it would have appeared to be more logical if the Commission had recommended that the proposed treaty be negotiated with the Jewish Agency rather than with the Zionist Organization. Moreover, this same point of view was held by the group of American non-Zionists which recently attended the meeting of the Jewish Agency in Zurich. At the time of that meeting Mr. Felix Warburg, leader of the American non-Zionists [Page 909] on the Agency, made it clear that no settlement of the Palestine question could be made without the cooperation of the non-Zionists.
We have just observed in a letter written to the London Times last month by a Jewish leader in England the following statement:
“There seems some misapprehension regarding the place of the Zionist Congress in the discussions around the prospective settlement of the Palestine problem. The misapprehension was started by the Royal Commission itself, which spoke of a treaty with the Zionist Organization, but the Government quickly corrected this by substituting Jewish Agency for Zionist Organization. Palestine and its future are the concern of the Jewish people, not of any party in it.”
We appear to have no confirmation of the assertion that the British Government “substituted” the Jewish Agency for the Zionist Organization in the proposal of the Royal Commission. It seems not unlikely, however, that such was the case and we are seeking confirmation on the point from the Embassy at London.41 If the report is confirmed it will be of some importance to us for it will affect the domestic Jewish situation. Thus, if the British Government acknowledges that it should negotiate with the Jewish Agency rather than with the Zionist Organization, the latter group in the United States will be unable to assert that its views are representative of American Jewry so far as the Palestine situation is concerned. The representatives of the non-Zionists in this country would therefore be in a position to insist that we give consideration to their views as well as to those of the Zionist Organization.
At the present time the great majority of the Zionists favor partition and the establishment of a Jewish State. A minority is opposed to partition at this time, not because they object to a Jewish State per se, but because they want all of Palestine to be included in such a State. They would hope eventually to achieve that end by continuing the present Mandate until the Jews were a majority of the population. The non-Zionists in this country, on the other hand, are opposed to the very idea of a Jewish State, implying as it does Jewish nationality. Louis Lipsky appears to be the leader of the first group, Rabbi Wise of the second, and Mr. Warburg of the third.
In view of this clear division of opinion among the representatives of American Jewry it seems to me that we are in a strong position to request that they come to some agreement among themselves before they approach us with a view to our taking any particular line of action. In other words we seem to be in good position to ask Rabbi Wise to produce some proof that he speaks on behalf of all of American Jewry before we comply with any specific requests that he may make.