The Maccabaean

JERUSALEM AND LONDON

JERUSALEM and London!" Since the days of Moses Hess we had been accustomed to the juxtaposition of "Rome and Jerusalem." After the liberation of Rome was to come the liberation of Jerusalem. From humane France, however, was to come this liberation from France, "the hero and redeemer, who would again set our people on the road of history." Such was the belief of Moses Hess.

This same notion occupied the minds of Zionists for a long time, even though in an indefinite form, until the appearance of anti-Semitism in the Land of Revolution.

The belief in the readiness of France to espouse the Zionist cause gradually disappeared. Zionist political leaders, in the era of "Chibath Zion," thought that by direct negotiations with the Sultan they would obtain extensive rights which would in time come to mean the right of the Jewish people to their land.

When Herzl came to leadership he conducted the political work in this direction Tor a while. But he soon realized that he would not accomplish anything by dealing with Turkey, and that the Zionist policy, in order to be successful, must turn its eyes toward England. He took important steps in this direction. He established relationships with many British political leaders. However, until the war, very few saw the relationship between London and Jerusalem.

It is totally different now. London and Jerusalem are now closely allied. England is the mandatory power over Palestine, and London sends the ruler to Jerusalem, but with the object of restoring the capital to its one-time importance, that. it should again become the capital of a Jewish land.

In the first days after my arrival in Jerusalem, they spoke there of Jerusalem against London. A pogrom had occurred in Jerusalem, the responsibility for which, no matter how mildly disposed we might be, rested upon the military administration which was in power at the time of the outbreak.

The question, then, was asked by all the Jews of Palestine. Was London in conspiracy with Jerusalem? Was the London Home Office in accord with the policy of the military administration in Jerusalem, or did the latter act on its own initiative, without London knowing what was being done in its name?

Opinions varied. Some maintained that Jerusalem would not have dared to make so bold an attack upon Jewish rights had she not the support of London. Others, however, were of the opinion that Jerusalem was doing it of its own accord; that the military administration was prompted by motives of its own in countenancing the tragedy, so that London might change its attitude and forego the Balfour Declaration.

Whichever version may be true, the disturbance was great. London against Jerusalem or London with Jerusalem—these words assumed a tragic meaning.

Before I left Jerusalem for London, it was already clear to the Jews of Palestine that London would make good its promise. It was after San Remo and the official announcement of the selection of Herbert Samuel as High Commissioner had been made.

Palestine Jewry received this news with rapture and now, in the time of joy, as before in the time of grief, displayed their political maturity. No parades, no celebrations were held. The joy was quiet, profound, solemn. It found expression in that every Palestinian Jew gave more than he could afford for the Palestine Restoration Fund.

The Jews of Palestine have, however, not made a secret of their severe doubts concerning the Jews of the Diaspora. - Will they come here and share the responsibility with us? Not only to send money but also to come and build the land for themselves and for the whole people?

Will they come? was the question I heard on all sides. The question was directed toward the Jews of America, of France, of England, to the Jews living in more fortunate countries. Will they come, will they build? asked Jerusalem.

I went to London to attend an International Zionist Conference. Before I reached London Samuel had become High Commissioner and Zionist political efforts had been crowned with success. The London Conference was called upon to give an answer to the question put by Jerusalem: Will they come, will they build?

The New Era

From the very first it was evident that neither the organizers of the Conference nor the delegates were conscious of the fact that they stood on the threshold of a new era. They did not realize that, this Conference must be different from all previous Conferences. The force of habit is strong. One generally follows the old beaten path which is the line of least resistance. The organizers of the Conference took the old path from the very first minute, with the result that the stimmung was dull and uninspiring.

Many could not explain this apathy. At the first session our best orators spoke. All languages were used, Hebrew, English, Yiddish, and German. Why, then, this coolness and indifference? But the explanation was simple. They came to the Conference with the old slogans, and there was the feeling that something was lacking. The old “open sesame” had lost its charm.

The organizers had evidently forgotten that the order of the day was concrete work; that this was a time for the expert who could, with facts and figures, maps and charts, present the picture of a land which would emerge from the present wilderness.

The expert did not come to the Conference, and if he did he was not heard. But the day was his, and every speaker unwittingly conceded it. A new era had begun in Zionism. The old had ended and the new begun. One group of people had started the work, another will complete it. The old, however, did not make room for the new. The latter will come, although they were not present at the Conference. Perhaps they will not come to Conferences at all. Perhaps they will go direct to Palestine.

The old group had become accustomed to a certain order, had in the course of years practised and perfected it, and could not strike the right note for the new.

But every one felt the approach of a new era. The Con-