The Maccabaean

THE dominating episode The London Conference of the Greater Actions of the last month has Committee: Its Six Main Problems.—The Debate undoubtedly been the on Palestine.—Work of the Committee of Jewish Conference at the Zionist Delegations in Paris.—The Anglo-Jewish Associa- Central Office of the memtion and its Irregular Union with the Board of bers of the “Greater Actions Committee,” or, as it Deputies. is now styled, of the Execu- By ISRAEL COHEN tive Council of the Zionist Organization. It was a Special Correspondent of THE MACCABAEAN in London miniature Congress, for, with the notable exception of the United States, almost all the important countries were represented by delegates. There was many a moving scene as friends who had not seen one another since 1913, the year of the last Congress, met and at once began to inquire after one another’s welfare. Time and the tribulations of the last few years had left traces upon the features of many of the delegates, especially those from Central and Eastern Europe, but they all began to show the benefit of the invigorating influences of the Conference that had brought them together. The deliberations were of exceptional interest, for this was the first opportunity that the most prominent representatives of the Zionist world had of exchanging views upon the fundamental change that has taken place in our prospects since the beginning of the war. Many of the speeches were long, and some were heated, but this was only natural since it was so long since any such meeting had taken place. The proceedings lasted a fortnight, which was just twice as long as any Congress; but this Conference had to deal with far more important practical problems than all Congresses.

There were six main questions that engaged the attention of the Conference: the political situation, finance, education, Palestinian immigration and colonization, organization, and the work of the Paris Committee of Jewish Delegations. By a curious and perhaps favorable coincidence the London session of the Peace Conference was being held at the same time, so that both Dr. Weizmann and Mr. Sokolow were not only able to be in London but also to inform the Zionist Executive Council of the progress that was being made in the discussion of Palestine's destiny. As I predicted when I wrote at the beginning of January the issuing of the Mandate is hardly likely to take place as soon as so many of our optimistic friends announced; but as far as the councils of the Peace Conference are concerned the situation is most satisfactory and encouraging. Most of the Continental delegates were able for the first time to hear a full and detailed exposition of the political situation from the lips of Dr. Weizmann and Mr. Sokolow, and many of their apprehensions and some of their delusions were dispelled. "Fancy now discussing about a little bit of frontier, and being so particular about a few kilometres!" exclaimed one of them. Criticism there was, of course. Would a Zionist Conference ever be complete without it? But it was not criticism of a hostile kind, and those who were perhaps most emphatic, Dr. Marmorek and Messrs. Jakobus Kann and Jean Fischer, energetically denied that they constituted an opposition or that there was any oppositin. Indeed,

The London Conference of the Greater Actions Committee: Its Six Main Problems.—The Debate on Palestine.—Work of the Committee of Jewish Delegations in Paris.—The Anglo-Jewish Association and its Irregular Union with the Board of Deputies.

Special Correspondent of THE MACCABAEAN in London

the fervor with which Dr. Marmorek and Mr. Fischer shook Dr. Weizmann by the hand at the end of one of his effective speeches in reply to the criticism left no doubt of the sincerity of their protestation.

The debate on Palestine revealed the existence of two contrary tendencies:

one emphasizing the necessity of regulating the immigration, and the other pointing out the difficulty—if not impossibility—of damming the stream of immigration. The delegates from Central and Eastern Europe spoke with most feeling on this question, for they had witnessed with their own eyes the goading sufferings to which our brethren are exposed, and the impatience with which so many would-be settlers were awaiting on various frontiers the signal for advance. “You dare not restrict the immigration into Palestine,” said one, “even if you could.” “Your restrictions will be useless,” said a second, “for every Jew who wishes to get to Palestine will get there.” “The decisive factor will be the economic one,” said a third, and therein lies a great deal of unsuspected truth. The present low rate of exchange in Central and Eastern Europe is bound to have a determining influence upon the rate and volume of Jewish emigration from those regions for at least some years. The Galician Jew who wishes at present to go to Palestine must pay a fare of about £30, and this amount now represents 30,000 kronen—quite a little fortune. However powerful the ideal inducement may be to reach the Holy Land at the earliest moment, the Jew in Central Europe who liquidates his fortune would find it yields a comparatively little amount in English currency, and he will naturally hesitate to arrive in the new country under an economic handicap. This consideration does not apply, of course, to the younger generation who have no fortune at all to liquidate, and whose capital consists entirely in their energy, industry, and enthusiasm. Such is the class of the Chaluzim, who are now undergoing agricultural training in Austria, Poland, and elsewhere, and who should be given a preference in the matter of settlement. But the whole question could not yet be grappled with in all its details, and much remains to be done by way of collaboration between the Palestine Department of the Central Office, the various Palestine bureaus attached to the Zionist Federations on the Continent, and the Immigration Department created—or to be created—by the Zionist Commission in Palestine. On the question of the communal ownership of land, the Conference passed a resolution that the money devoted by the Zionist Organization to agricultural colonization “should be laid out only on behalf of those settlers who comply with the prineiples of the land policy of the Jewish National Fund.” The soundness of this principle is obvious, though it clearly only deals with a fringe of the subject. Over, 95 per cent. of the land is in private, non-Jewish hands: what is to prevent any Jewish capitalist from acquiring slices of ter- . ritorv by the ordinary commercial process? Much propa-