A 1937 Letter to a Zionist Friend

Recently, I came across a 1937 pamphlet titled A Letter to a Zionist Friend by an author named Ben David. It was digitized by Google and made available through the HathiTrust Digital Library. I’m sharing it here in full because of how powerfully it reflects the debates around Zionism, Jewish identity, and the future of Palestine that were already deeply active nearly 90 years ago.

What’s striking is how many of the questions this letter raises—about nationalism, colonialism, imperialism, and solidarity—still feel urgently relevant today. This text is particularly fascinating in that it captures the ongoing debate between Jews in the diaspora and those who were Zionist or supported the Zionist project in Palestine. It shows that, much like today, many Zionists were insistent on adopting a worldview rooted in creating a fortress in Palestine at any cost, often with little regard for the political rights and wellbeing of Palestinians and the people of the region as a whole. As we see in this letter, Jews in the diaspora who were critical of Zionism and the Zionist project were able to recognize—and even predict—that such policies and aims would create nothing but perpetual crisis and instability, endangering the lives of both Arabs and Jews.

Another important theme the letter captures is the author’s criticism of how the Zionists aligned themselves with British imperialism and colonial agendas—a theme that remains relevant today. I share this text because, in the midst of the ongoing major debates on these issues, I believe it is important to revisit how these questions were discussed and contested even before 1948. I found this letter to be a key example of such debates.

Title: A Letter to a Zionist Friend

Author: Ben David

Original Source: HathiTrust Digital Library

Public Domain Status: Public Domain in the United States

Note: This version has been adapted from a digitized scan and cleaned up for clarity and formatting.

---

Full Text:

LETTER TO A ZIONIST FRIEND

By Ben David

---

A Letter To A Zionist Friend

Dear Reuben,

I have been quite pained these days by events in Palestine—the death of innocent people and the growth of friction and animosity. If I have failed to answer your letter earlier it is not because I have been disinterested or far. You have questioned some of my fundamental attitudes towards the Jew and Palestine, and I have waited with my reply until I could muster up my wits and answer you adequately.

The acuteness of the Jewish situation the world over keeps me from viewing the Zionist question in relation to the Palestinian Yishub¹ (Jewish population) alone. Any attempt at offering a plan of action to remedy the plight of the Jews today must take into consideration world Jewry in its entirety. To do this effectively we must be aware of what is happening in the world and we must have sufficient foresight to see how present world trends affect the life of the Jew. The period of isolation, of Galuth² (diaspora) consciousness must come to an end. We are bound to relate our solution to the Jewish question with the general emerging tendencies in international affairs.

The World and the Jew

The major issues confronting the world scene today can be seen in terms of two primary and opposite lines of action—democracy and reaction. On the one hand there are the forces striving for the continuation and further development of democratic ideals and government; on the other hand there are the forces striving for the rule of the few and the submission of the majority of the people. These issues go beyond national barriers and group problems, they affect the lives of the people the world over, regardless of their beliefs. The material and cultural intercourse of people and the solution of the many specific problems facing different countries and groups are conditioned by the result of the development of these forces.

The Jews, as a minority group within the greater part of the countries of the world, are immediately affected by the result of the conflict of these two forces. What reaction and fascism have in store for us we well know. The plight of the Jews in Germany and Poland, for example, is by now stamped deep in the consciousness of every alert Jew in the world. Every victory of reaction spells defeat of the workers, the middle class and minority groups. Fascism, accentuating antagonisms, must embrace the most extreme methods to realize its aims, and the Jews are among the first to feel the brunt of Fascist or reactionary pre-Fascist manifestations.

The struggle for the emancipation of the Jew is not an isolated, sectarian one. It is one phase. of the struggle for the emancipation of mankind, a struggle that must be carried on by all the oppressed, the enslaved and dispossessed against the common oppressor. True democracy cannot be realized without the emancipation of minority groups, including the Jews. The emancipation of the Jew is impossible without the fulfillment of true democracy. These are two sides of the same coin. It is only under real democracy that the Jew docs not suffer social and economic discrimination. But democracy is not a static thing, copyrighted by professional politicians for their pre-election sermons. It was gained by the blood of people, and maintained by their toil.

The Jew has paid his due toll to reaction. The time has come for us to assert our full human rights. These rights of ours are now in immediate danger. Not only our future rights, but the rights we have already gained after long struggle, are menaced by undemocratic measures. It is our duty to ward off the inroads of reaction. It is our duty to check fascism before it spreads further into new grounds. This fight against reaction is the fight for democracy, our rights as Jews, and our future development. We must join our forces to other forces working for democracy and in this way assure our future existence as human beings and Jews.

The Jews are minority groups in the countries they live in. Their life is determined by the conditions prevailing in these countries. These conditions, in turn, are determined by world conditions. The world then is my point of departure. Only by knowing what is happening in the world can I approach the problem of the Jew. For this reason I have prefaced my remarks on the Zionist question with this short summary of the major forces operating in international life today. From this let us proceed to our own problems.

The Need for Unity

Reaction must be counteracted by a solid defense composed of the united forces of all those who are sincerely working for democracy. To check the growth of anti-Semitism, which is a concomitant of reaction—a common Jewish front should be created. Despite differences of opinion in our ranks, such a common front, through a broad unity of action, would protect all Jews, regardless of their opinions, by combatting anti-Semitism in a thorough and organized fashion.

Anti-Semitism is not merely a local manifestation aimed at the Jew alone. Anti-Semitism is but one manifestation of a more widespread movement. Its motives are deeper than mere dislike of a group for its peculiarities. A study of modern anti-Semitism shows that it gains ground where fascist elements flourish. The deep economic and social motives for the anti-Semitism of today must be taken into account. Anti-Semitism is the aspect of fascism that reveals itself to the Jew and to eliminate anti-Semitism we must eliminate the Fascist elements. But we are not the only ones to feel the blows of fascism. Workers, the middle class, professional men, different minority groups—in fact all but the very rich, the capitalists and the monopolists—are victims of fascism. The growth of anti-Semitism is as much their problem as ours, and to really safeguard ourselves, we must join forces with all the enemies of fascism.

Fascism Destroys the Jews

Our primary concern today should be with the alleviation of the difficulties facing world Jewry. Insofar as fascism increases, anti-Semitism increases, and active anti-Semitism endangers the material existence of vast bodies of Jews.

The figures recently brought out by Dr. Traub of Berlin, the director of the Palestine Foundation Fund of Germany, show the concrete danger facing the Jews by the growth of fascism. In about three and a half years the Jewish population in Germany has decreased 21 per cent. The actual ground has been taken away from under the feet of one-fifth of the German Jews. The remaining Jews in Germany have suffered drastic losses and inhuman persecution.

The Jews in Poland are in a miserable plight. Over 3,000,000 Jews are the direct object of a growing semi-Fascist anti-Semitic movement. It is difficult for us to even visualize how serious the situation in Poland is today. Figures for 1936 reveal that over 1,000 Jews were beaten and injured while 565 Jews were murdered. 137 Jewish stores were bombed. 35 Jewish homes were burned down. Aside from these direct attacks thousands are faced with economic destruction.

Fascism is beginning to show its true colors in relation to the Jew in Italy. The Popolo d'Italia, Premier Mussolini's personal newspaper, has followed the Rome Tevere and Cremona Regime Fascista, with vicious anti-Semitic attacks. Jews in Tripoli have been flogged.

In England, Mosley and his fascist followers have launched a Jew-baiting campaign.

De la Rocque and his crowd, in France, are a vicious menace to the Jewish population. Only the victory of the People's Front succeeded in warding off a movement that would have brought disaster to French Jewry.

One million Jews in Rumania are "menaced by anti-Semitic agitations and disorders" of a fascist nature.

A court in Vienna, Austria, divorced a non-Jew and a Jewess on the Nazi "ethnological" basis. This indicates to what an extent anti-Semitism has spread in Austria.

In the Province of Quebec, Canada, Jewish stores were attacked by Canadian nationalists.

In America, my dear Reuben, the stronghold of world Jewry, the situation is not as pleasant as we would like it to be. The activities of the Black Legion have been exposed. The Ku Klux Klan has resumed activities in the State of New York. A superficial glance through the last year's newspapers will reveal the existence of 25 known and active anti-Semitic organizations. Many anti-Semitic publications are being distributed widely.

Does Zionism Solve the Jewish Problem?

In the face of these immediate and acute problems, Reuben, we can no longer sit back and theorize, as was our wont. All of our views and beliefs have to be revaluated in the light of their practicability. With the world scene as tense as it is today, a solution is necessary that will embrace all these problems. In the light of these facts I have questioned the Zionist world view.

This rapid mention of obvious facts serves to remind us of the critical situation world Jewry is facing today. These problems cannot be overlooked nor can we remain inactive in the face of them.

The deepest significance of Zionism was its underlying motive, the emancipation of the Jew. As a mass movement, Zionism took on momentum after the Russian pogroms in the beginning of the twentieth century. Since then, conditions have changed, and Zionist ideology has changed. Its validity today as a Jewish world view, as a major solution to the Jewish problem can be measured only in relation to its efficiency in improving the social and economic position of the Jew. Unfortunately, Palestine cannot absorb all the Jews of the world. Even were its absorptive capacities greater than they are (and let us accept the views of the optimists) we could not transplant the Jews of the world into Palestine. Aside from being unable to absorb all the Jews of the world, Palestine cannot even absorb those suffering immediate difficulties. Assuming that the basic tenets of Zionism are correct, practically, Palestine cannot be of immediate assistance to thousands of Jews suffering from reaction. In addition to our interest in the Yishub in Palestine, we must have a positive program for the Jews in the diaspora. Zionism at this point fails and leaves the Jew to the mercy of chance. Zionism offers settlement in Palestine as the only solution to the Jewish question. In doing this it attracts the attention of the Jew to Palestine and by drawing his attention away, encourages a passivity and inactivity before the conditions brewing in the country in which he lives. Far from being beneficial to the Jew, such an attitude is extremely dangerous. It leaves the Jew a prey to his opponents in the diaspora. This criticism is not entirely new in our midst. The danger of this policy in relation to the work of the Zionist movement has been articulated by our labor Zionist friend, Ira Eisenstein, in an article entitled Labor Zionism and America (Jewish Frontier, August, 1936). He says:

“The League [for Labor Palestine] thus far has been influenced, subtly, by a mild version of that philosophy espoused by the "negators of the Galut.” Somehow, the League has been made to feel that Palestine is the be-all and end-all of Jewish life, and that the primary, if not the sole function of the diaspora is to advance the cause of Palestine's rebuilding.” (Italics mine.—B.D.)

This concentration on Palestine becomes more dangerous when we consider what an attitude it develops in relation to the specific country in which we live.

“The second circumstance, Eisenstein continues, has been the failure of the leaders to formulate a positive philosophy of Jewish life for the diaspora. The neglect to formulate such a philosophy has been evidenced by the comparative indifference which the League programs and publications have betrayed to vital problems of Jewish life in America. . . . The American scene is thus touched upon, when at all, at its sore spots. No program for their cure is offered, and the League members are unwittingly given to understand that, at best, the American scene is a sorry one, and at worst, unworthy of the kind of serious consideration and planning which Palestine requires and deserves. (Italics mine.— B.D.)”

Though Ira Eisenstein falls short of offering a plan of action for the American Jew he is on the right path when he says:

“The dilemma can be resolved only if the League ceases to conceive of Zionism—even Labor Zionism—as an isolated phenomenon in Jewish life. Palestine must henceforth be understood in terms of its organic relationship to the rest of Jewish life.“

This passive attitude to the Galuth instilled by the Zionists must be fought at every moment. It is one of the most serious blunders of the Zionist weltanschauung. Worse than this is the privately expressed attitude of high Zionist leaders. When these leaders gloat over the misfortunes of the Jew in countries outside of Palestine, they are no longer worthy of being called Jewish leaders. They go against the Jews in taking joy in the destruction of German Jewry, for example, thinking of the accelerated immigration that conditions in Germany will bring about. They violate the major Zionist principle, the emancipation of the Jew—by subtly wishing misfortune upon the Jews of the world, prophesying that they will never live in peace in the diaspora, that Palestine is their only hope and salvation. This is one of the signs of the corruption and decay infecting certain Zionist leaders. Allowed to follow their policies unchecked, such leaders mislead the Jewish masses whom they are supposed to represent.

Attempts at unifying the Jews better to withstand the growth of reaction have been made, but their importance is dwarfed by their deliberate discrimination and rejection of unity. The World Jewish Congress could have developed into a significant movement that would have been of importance to the Jews of the world. Its actions, however, from the very first meeting, belied its intentions. Instead of being an all-inclusive institution that would unify the different streams in Jewish life to face immediate problems, it chose from the beginning to exclude certain organized bodies of Jews. It is not a theoretical unity that we need today. The conditions of our life demand a unity of action. When this unity loomed up as an actual possibility, however, the instigators of the plan for Jewish unity turned away Jews who chose to cooperate and do their share in the struggle for the liberation of the Jew from his oppression.

The fact that the World Congress has chosen to narrow its effectiveness should not dishearten us. It can still be made into an important instrument in our struggle for basic human rights.

Zionism in Palestine

Zionism as a world view, as a school of Jewish thought that expresses attitudes about life in the diaspora embodies many weaknesses that must be eliminated. My greatest doubts are awakened about Zionism as a major solution to the Jewish question when I see the actual unfolding of Zionism in Palestine.

Before I can speak of Zionism at all I must distinguish between Zionists with their sincere motives, and political Zionism, with the results to which its policies lead. Zionism as a movement has tapped some of the noblest desires of the Jewish people. Its expansion is due primarily to the deep desire for emancipation and equality that the oppressed Jew began to express in the nineteenth century. Some of the most noteworthy Jews have upheld Zionism precisely because of their beliefs in the promises of emancipation offered by Zionism. The social, economic and political conditions that have given birth to Zionism as a mass movement have changed. The Zionist program, too, has changed. It is no longer a vague program aiming at the establishment of an abstract Jewish homeland. Zionism has achieved definite things, and its plan of action on the political and economic spheres is very definite. The time has come to revalue Zionism in the light of present-day conditions. The time has come to estimate what Zionism has already established in Palestine and what its aims will drive it to establish in the future.

The dawn of the twentieth century marks the beginning of serious Jewish immigration to Palestine. Since then Jewish attitudes to Palestine and Zionist political tactics have undergone many changes. The most significant change in Zionist tactics is the result of the conquest of Palestine by England. From this stage on, Zionist statesmanship has conducted itself on one major premise—the reliance on England for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It is well at this time to reconsider the wisdom of this policy.

In your letters you constantly remind me of your awareness of British imperial policy, yet you maintain that the only hope of the Palestine Yishub is to depend on England for the furtherance of its interests. The actual tactics of British rule in Palestine are in themselves a most damning indictment of such dependence, but if deeds are not enough for you, let us study the explicit statement of British policy that has come to light within recent years.

The strategic significance of Palestine to the British Empire has long been known to you. Yet you have not taken this strategic significance into account as a motivating force in the determination of British policy. You have looked at it as a cause for England's attachment to Palestine, not as a reality that colors the complete administration of the mandate. Benefits to the Jew or Arab are determined by the immediate interests of England and her politics, not by the interests of the Palestinian population. A favorable attitude to the Jews is the result of strategic necessity.

Augur, the well informed British correspondent, says in the New York Times of January 19, 1936:

“Britain governs the country and the Jewish population represents an element which can supply -a guarantee of safety for the establishment of the air force. In the sea of the native population of Arabia the Palestinian Jews stand isolated, an outpost of Europe, and, if rightly handled, an element of strength for the empire. . . . Already the possibility is seen that the Jewish population will provide the physical force sufficient not only for its own protection but also for the defense of the Palestinian citadel against any foreseeable attack from outside. Military experts say a Jewish militia of 50,000 men may be a reality tomorrow.”

The more explicit statement of these immediate interests that England has to defend comes from Lord Melchett in a letter to the Daily Telegraph, of London, June 14, 1936:

“The advantages of the [Jewish National Home] to the British Empire are obvious. The points at issue are no less than the defense of the Suez Canal, of air stations essential to Imperial communications, and the outlet of the oil pipe line in Haifa; and the harbour at Haifa (and later the harbour which is necessary at Tel-Aviv) have become vital to our naval strategy in the Mediterranean. The security of this complex of Imperial interests can be better assured by a large European population than by the few battalions that can be spared.”

The relationship between Imperial interests, needs and policy in Palestine are very evident. England will support that group in Palestine that can best assure the protection of her interests. As such, it is a most insecure and uncertain source of protection.

Further, the strategic significance of Palestine does not diminish but increases with time, and its major significance will be realized only in the future. This is clearly brought out by Amery, the imperialist politician, in his recent book, The Forward View. Speaking of Palestine he says:

“This whole region forms a single political and strategic problem, perhaps the most important of any to which our policy can direct itself in the near future. The key position of the whole of the region is Palestine, which covers the Suez Canal from the north and from which start the air route and future railway route from the Mediterranean to India . . it is within this zone that an ever-increasing proportion of our first line Air Force should be stationed. Palestine is the strategical air centre of our Empire defense.”

As the strategic center of the Empire defense, Palestine assumes an ever growing importance, and England will ensure her imperial policy more openly and with greater ruthlessness. And both the Jew and the Arab in Palestine will bear the brunt of this policy.

The tendency of our Zionist leaders to overlook the implications of important statements and the developments in world politics since the Mandate, endangers the lives and security of the Jewish masses in Palestine. The time has come to be aware of the basic issues. England has vast interests in Palestine. She will protect these interests at any cost. To rely on England is folly that can bring only evil to the masses of Jews in Palestine.

We still refer to the Balfour Declaration as proof of the humaneness of England and as proof of the fact that England, recognized the "Jewish cause" and legalized it in the eyes of the world. England's deeds and statements have belied this constantly. Lloyd George's statement in Parliament during the Palestine debate completely shatters these illusions. The Declaration was another one of those English maneuvers to safeguard her own immediate interests, and if the Mandate stands in opposition to her future interests the Mandate will not be. Greater violations of agreements in international relations have been realized within the past few years. Lloyd George openly said:

“The obligations of the Mandate are specific and definite. They are to encourage the establishment of a national home for the Jews without detriment to any of the rights of the Arab population. I agree that it is a dual undertaking, and we must see that both parts of the Mandate are thoroughly enforced. But look at the conditions under which we entered into it. It was one of the darkest periods of the War when Mr. Balfour prepared his Declaration. Let me recall the circumstances to the House. At the time the French army had mutinied, the Italian army was on the eve of collapse and America had hardly started preparing in earnest. There was nothing left but Britain confronting the most powerful military combination the world has ever seen. It was important for us to seek every legitimate help we could get. We came to the conclusion, from information we received from every part of the world, that it was vital we should have the sympathies of the Jewish community. I can assure the committee that we did not come to that conclusion from any predilections or prejudices against the Arabs because at that moment we had hundreds of thousands of troops fighting for Arab emancipation from the Turk. In these circumstances and on the advice which we received we decided that it was desirable to secure the sympathy and co-operation of that most remarkable community, the Jews throughout the world. They were helpful in America and in Russia, which at that moment was just walking out and leaving us alone. In these conditions we pro-posed this to our Allies. France accepted it, Italy accepted it, and the United States accepted it and all the other allies accepted it, and all the nations which constitute the League of Nations accepted it. And the Jews—I am here to bear testimony to the fact—with all the influence they possess responded nobly to the appeal which was made.”

The true causes that gave birth to the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate are revealed in no uncertain terms: a military tactic, in a time of need, that was of great help to Britain and the Allies. To build on this as a safeguard for future activity is fool's play.

Further on in his speech, however, Lloyd George asserts that Britain must carry out the Mandate. "It is an obligation of honour which we undertook, to which the Jews responded. We cannot get out of it without dishonour."

The assurance with which he can demand the fulfillment of the "obligation of honour" comes out of an awareness that the Mandate now has no actual meaning as a tool in the hands of Britain. The policy Britain has followed and intends to follow with regard to the Mandate was clearly enunciated by former Premier MacDonald in his letter to Dr. Chaim Weizmann of February 13, 1931. In speaking of the policy of the mandate, he said:

“In carrying out the policy of the mandate the mandatory cannot ignore the existence of the differing interests and viewpoints. These, indeed, are not in themselves irreconcilable, but they can only be reconciled if there is a proper realization that the full solution of the problem depends upon an understanding between the Jews and the Arabs. Until that is reached, considerations of balance must inevitably enter into the definition of policy.”(Italics mine.—B.D.)

Translated into simple language this means that British policy in Palestine is to be based on the presumption that there are two hostile groups in Palestine, the Jews and the Arabs, each with separate and conflicting interests. The determination of policy is to be based not on the needs of the people of Palestine, needs shared in common by both Jews and Arabs, for the benefit of the country as a whole, but policy is to be determined so as to maintain a balance of concessions to Jews and Arabs, thus arousing a greater animosity between the groups and prolonging their state of conflict. To our misfortune, Zionist leaders have fallen into the error of evaluating the Palestinian scene in this light and have depended upon British sup-port to help them wage a "battle" against the Arabs. Such a policy can only lead to greater and greater racial conflict as is evidenced by the repeated outbursts of 1921, 1929 and finally 1936. To depend upon Britain, the cause of these conditions, to eliminate them is an error of the gravest sort. The question of the Jews' attitude to Britain must be carefully determined. The tendency of certain Zionist leaders to embrace openly the support of British imperialism is a betrayal of the interests of the Jewish masses in Palestine. That such a state of mind has overtaken certain of our leaders and journalists is clearly seen in the following statement from the "Digest of the Palestinian Press" in the Palestine Review of August 21, 1936.

“Despite our disappointment, there is no question but that we are pro-British. Of any form of Imperialism—European or Arab—we unhesitatingly choose the British. Therefore we are profoundly concerned for the prestige of British Imperialism, and therefore we offer ourselves in its service. “ (Italics mine.-B.D. Quoting M. Carmon writing in Hadashoth Ahronoth.)

In relying upon Britain for Jewish achievement in Palestine we have only one guarantee, that Britain will follow a sure course of benefit to Britain. and detriment to Jew and Arab alike.

Arab-Jewish Relations

As a consequence of this alignment with the British attitude to Jew and Arab, the attitude of our Zionist leaders to the Arab in Palestine is wrong. The whole question is falsely stated, and as you may see from the following quotations, can only lead to antagonism and further outbursts of hatred.

Davar places the entire responsibility of Arab-Jewish relations on the Arab, and maintains that the Arab must make peace with the Jew.

When will this anti-Jewish siege cease? Davar (the labor daily) sardonically gauges the temper of the Yishub (Jewish settlement) by answering. "Not until the strength of the enemy is broken. Not until Jewish numbers become so large that enemies will realize all attacks are vain. Not until the most brazen extremist in the Arab camp comprehends that none of his efforts can really destroy Jewry in its homeland and that the Arab therefore must make peace with the jew." (Jewish Frontier, August, 1936.)

And this presumably is the attitude of a labor daily which speaks of its friendship to the Arab.

Even more illuminating aspects of this attitude are revealed in some of the answers to the questionnaire of the Palestine Review in its issue of July 3, 1936.

Menahem Ussishkin in answering questions 2, 3 and 4: Do you think that it is possible for Jews and Arabs to arrive at an agreement? If not, why? If so, what are the indispensable conditions for a Jewish-Arab peace? replies:

“Certainly, but only when the Arabs are faced by a fait accompli—that is to say, when the Jews are no longer a minority in the country; and full and complete rights for all inhabitants in the country without distinction of race, religion or language.”

In other words, peace is impossible until the Jews are a majority in the country. His answer to question 6 shows how definitely Ussishkin is playing for British support and friendship.

“How will Britain's Mediterranean policy be affected by:

a) An exclusively Arab Palestine?

b) A Jewish-Arab Palestine?

A Palestine which is wholly Arabic, means that sooner or later, in the course of time, England will be forced to leave Palestine, just as it is gradually leaving Egypt. A Palestine which is largely Jewish, means a political alliance cordiale for very many generations between the Jewish people throughout the world and in Palestine, and the English.”

Labor Zionists and General Zionists are in agreement on two major points of Zionist political policy in Palestine. (1) A community of interest between Zionism and British imperialism. (2) Arab-Jewish cooperation is possible if the Arabs understand that Zionism will have a "Jewish Homeland" in Palestine regardless of the Arabs, and consequently it is best for the Arabs to forget any specific interests they may have and work with the Jews for a Jewish majority. Such a conception of Arab-Jewish relations, with all the peace talk that may accompany it, can only bring further conflict. Such conditions naturally undermine the work and hopes of the Jewish masses in Palestine.

With the recent publication of Jews and Arabs in Palestine by our Labor Zionist friends, a 315 page volume dealing with Arab-Jewish relations in Palestine, edited by Enzo Sereni and R. E. Asheri, I naively expected a clearer and more understanding statement, knowing that even such a statement wouldn't change the political tactics of our leaders. Yet, to my great surprise, even here they can present no more than a blunt statement of their own interests, without any real program for possible peace and cooperation. The last few pages of the volume embody a "Summary—The Problem and its Solution" by Alexander S. Kohanski, and it is most revealing to see in what terms Zionism sees a possible reconciliation with the Arabs. Kohanski says:

“It is the concurrent opinion of all the writers in the present volume that it is incumbent upon the Jews to take the initiative in a rapprochement with the Arabs. We must realize that the Arabs, especially the Arab masses, are not aware of the real intent of our reconstruction work in Palestine; they are not even fully aware of the benefits, economic as well as political, that have accrued to them as a result of our colonization. We must, therefore, find a way of coming to an understanding with them and of convincing them of our common interests. The question, however, is what should be the initial step and through what avenues can this rapprochement be most effectively accomplished. In the correct answer to this question lies the solution to the entire problem. There are two views on this question. The one stresses our common interests with the Arabs, and the other, our common interests with the British. The pivot around which both these views turn is Jewish mass immigration. Bringing large numbers of our people into Palestine is first of all a necessity for our masses in the Diaspora who are seeking a haven of refuge, and in that sense is a pre-requisite for the establishment of our national homeland. But increasing our numbers in Palestine is also a condition of coming to an agreement with our Arab neighbors. A larger and stronger Jewish Yishub would convince the Arabs that it may not be safe to attack us again and that it would be much wiser to come to terms with us. We would, then, be able to start negotiations with them and by showing our strength, we would at the same time be able to show them wherein our common interests lie. The Arabs would realize that an alliance with a strong Jewish Yishub would be politically, as well as economically, advantageous to them.” (pp. 309-310; italics mine. —B.D.)

In other words, the initial step for the Jews to take towards an Arab-Jewish rapprochement is for the Jews to increase in strength, threaten with a mighty fist, ultimately become a majority and tell the Arabs to follow the Jews or shut up. I need not tell you, Reuben, that this is no ground for unity or rapprochement, and in taking such a stand Zionist leadership is actually betraying our Yishub in Palestine.

It becomes increasingly clearer that Jewish settlement in Palestine is impossible without a reorientation of Zionist political views. First and foremost we must cease to offer ourselves as the guardians of British imperialism in the Near East. Secondly, we must restate the whole question of Arab—Jewish relations, and as a result we must make an active move to reach a degree of understanding and cooperation with the Arabs.

One of the greatest blows to unity was the reference to the recent outbursts in Palestine as "anti-Jewish riots." The statement of no less a Zionist than M. Y. Ben-Gavriel points out the falsity of this statement. He says:

“First, let us avoid any collective reference to "the Arabs." The early days of the troubles clearly proved that one cannot say that "the Arabs are anti-Jewish" or that "the Arabs killed Jews in Jaffa." In many places this generalization proved false; cases occurred in which Arabs rescued hard-pressed Jews at the risk of their own safety. Further evidence is to be found in the friendliness of many fellahin who visited Jewish villages to denounce the barbarities in Jaffa. The Beduins at Migdal, led astray by the rumour that their two children had been kidnapped, apologized later for their attack upon Jewish workmen. Similar apologies were rendered elsewhere.” ("Peace instead of Truce." Palestine Review, July 3, 1936.)

We must be aware of the fact that the violence manifested in Palestine during the recent strike was primarily anti-British, a fact which was defin-itely recognized in the Parliamentary Debate. The list of casualities given by the British Government in London on October 29, 1936, clarifies this situation.

Arabs, 955, including 187 dead.

Jews, 388, including 80 dead.

We must certainly condemn anarchic attacks upon people and property, but the motive of the struggle of the Arabs was anti-British. By heaping tirades against the Arabs and by accusing them of anti-Jewish attacks we are falsifying the scene.

I have written at such great length only to clarify my present attitudes and to express my criticism of Zionist tactics and leadership today. As one who is deeply attached to the Jewish Yishub in Palestine I must express my extreme disfavor with the turn of events in Palestine. Only when Zionist leadership will abandon its pro-British policies and will realize that the solution of the Jew in Palestine lies in cooperation and unity with the Arab on equal grounds, will the safety of the Jewish Yishub be ensured.

Write soon. I am anxiously awaiting your reaction. Regards to the "gang."

In hope of a unified Palestine in a unified world,

Your friend,

BEN DAVID

Public Domain Notice

This pamphlet, A Letter to a Zionist Friend (1937), is in the public domain in the United States. It was digitized by Google from the collections of The Ohio State University and made available through the HathiTrust Digital Library. This version has been adapted and lightly edited for clarity, spelling, and formatting.

Digitized by Google. Google requests that the images and OCR not be re-hosted, redistributed or used commercially. The images are provided for educational, scholarly, non-commercial purposes. See more: http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd-us-google

Note: In presenting this transcript, I have made every effort to remain faithful to the original author’s formatting choices, including the use of italics, spelling, and punctuation. Any inconsistencies or peculiarities reflect the original text and have been preserved intentionally.

1. Yishub is a variant or misspelling of Yishuv, a Hebrew term referring to the Jewish community living in Palestine before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The term is often used to distinguish between the Old Yishuv—the pre-Zionist religious communities in cities like Jerusalem, Safed, and Hebron—and the New Yishuv, composed of later Zionist settlers focused on agricultural and national revival.

2. Galuth (also spelled Galut) is a Hebrew term meaning “exile” or “diaspora.” It refers to the dispersion of the Jewish people, particularly after the Babylonian exile and later the Roman destruction of the Second Temple. The concept carries both physical and spiritual dimensions, often symbolizing a state of national dislocation and longing for return.