The Future of Palestine - Part 2 (1935)

From the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

The Union of Zionist Revisionists make clear their capitalist aims for Palestine. They have planned an economic policy which, they say, is the best way of building a Jewish State in Palestine. In their pamphlet, entitled "Basic Principles of Revisionism," we read the following

The constructive period in the life of a State knows only one social commandment—the interests of the constructive work itself to which all other interests—whether of persons, groups or classes—must be subordinated—every class in society must be regarded as a cog in the constructional machine: their class interests must be satisfied when they benefit the State, but repudiated when they hinder the work of upbuilding the State . . .

Shades of Hitler and Mussolini! Are the revisionists ignorant of the State, its history and its functions ? Is the State a mystical entity, above classes, and to which all classes are subordinated? Later on the Revisionists let the cat out of the bag when they tell us what the State is to do in the upbuilding of the new Jewish Society.

Similarly Jewish private capital, and State upbuilding are synonymous; but the payment of interest on private capital is the sine qua non of a supply of capital, hence any resistance to the payment of a legitimate interest on private capital is clearly in opposition to the State . . . 

So here we see that the State is not absolutely divorced from classes and class interest. Obviously, if Jewish capital is synonymous with State upbuilding then it naturally follows that working-class interests are not going to be served by the State. The organised industrial activities of the working class must conflict with capitalist interests, and it will therefore be the function of the State machine, under the control of the Revisionists, to suppress the workers.

Other Revisionist writers make plain their intention to enforce subjection on the Palestine workers in the interest of Jewish capitalists.

Mr. A. Abrahams, in his pamphlet, “What Revisionism Stands For," remarks thus: —

It should be realised that only by assuring investors of the possibilities of profit can capital be attracted. Profitable industry can in no circumstances be associated with philanthropy, but must be in a position to make its way against ordinary competition in the world’s markets. . . .

Further, in their “Blue-White Papers," 1935, the Revisionists emphasise their attitude towards the class struggle.

Conflicts of interests between employers and labour should be settled by “obligatory national arbitration.” By “national” arbitration we mean a permanent board of arbitrators (their italics) nationally and formally elected, and composed of persons known to have no partisan idiosyncrasies (our italics) . . . its verdicts should be final; and both strikes and lock-outs (as well as the boycott of Jewish labour) should be declared treasonable to the interests of Zionism, and repressed by every legal and moral means at the disposal of the nation. . . .

In regard to the “boycott” of Jewish labour, we can be sure that the Jewish capitalists in Palestine will employ the cheapest labour suitable for their requirements, and will give preference to Arab labour if it is cheapest and as efficient.

The Jewish Daily Post (14/5/35) published the following report from Jerusalem: —

According to the Hebrew daily Haaretz, Mr. Smilansky has issued a circular to the Farmers’ Federation, urging them not to purchase shekolim as a protest against the resolution passed at the recent session of the Actions Committee that employment of Arab labour disqualifies a land owner from membership of the Zionist Organisation.

It is clear enough that for the workers Palestine—as far as the intentions of the Revisionists are concerned—is not to differ from other capitalist countries.

Poverty is not a Racial Question

The problem of Jewish poverty in Poland, Germany, England and elsewhere will not be solved by transferring them to Palestine, nor will it be solved by the charity of the Rothschilds and the Melchetts. Poverty is not a racial problem. It is a disability suffered by members of the working class in all parts of the world where capitalism exists, and it will only be removed by the establishment of Socialism.

It has been argued by the exponents of Zionism that the Jewish worker carries two burdens—the burden of exploitation and the burden of persecution. Zionism, it is claimed, will at least remove the burden of persecution. The whole argument is a fallacy. The greatest persecutions experienced by Jewish workers are the persecutions of capitalism. Many Jewish workers in Germany knew the terrors of unemployment long before the coming of Hitler. There are thousands of unemployed Jewish workers in this democratic country and many more thousands almost destitute in America and Poland. In Germany the Jews suffering from the Nazi regime are mainly doctors, lawyers, barristers, teachers, journalists, and those Jews who held prominent positions in the Civil Service. If there are any Jewish workers who dread losing their jobs under a Fascist Government they may be interested to read the following which appeared in a letter from a Manchester correspondent, and was published in a recent issue of the Jewish Chronicle. It refers to Poland.

During the last few years more and more clothing and weatherproof factories have been opened by Jews. Competition has become keener; prices have been cut to the very bone; and naturally the Jewish working man has suffered most. His wages have been reduced to the lowest level. He cannot exist on the meagre wage (often less than he would receive at the Labour Exchange) that he receives at these shops. Not only this, the Jewish-owned workshops have been flooded by Gentile labour from the closed cotton mills. The latter now receive preference in that the workshops are open on Saturdays and Jewish holy days, instead of, as previously, on Sundays. The key positions, too, the managerships and the majority of clerical posts are entirely in the hands of non-Jews (Jews in the office might learn too much of the business!) and an orthodox Jew who refuses to work on Saturday often finds a notice of dismissal in his pay envelope at the end of the week. Many of the owners of these workshops hold treasurer ships and other high offices in our communal institutions. . . . 

Comment would be superfluous. We can only point out to the Jewish workers that nothing better awaits them in Palestine. Capitalism in England has given the workers of this country poverty, and the development of the system in Palestine will bring the same problems for the Jewish workers to solve. As in every other capitalist country, the production of goods will be limited by market requirements, and unemployment is inevitable. The Revisionists can give no guarantee of working class security and well-being.

The advantages of the Jewish workers in Palestine boil down to this. Instead of lining up outside a Labour Exchange in England, they will ask for a “dole” in a Palestinian Labour Exchange. Instead of being exploited in England, they will be exploited in Palestine. No longer will they run the risk of being beaten up by a Nazi hooligan, but they will have the proud privilege of knowing that they are being beaten by Jews in Brownshirts, members of the Union of Zionist Revisionists. (The Jewish Daily Post, 10/5/35, reports an occurrence in Vienna, when Revisionists smashed the furniture and destroyed the papers in the offices of a Jewish youth organisation with general Zionist sympathies, leaving behind them photographs of Dr. Weitzmann and Mr. Ben Gurion—Jewish Labour Leader—with the inscription “Weitzmann and Ben Gurion must hang.”) 

What, then, is to be the solution of the problems of the Jewish workers? We have already said that, in the main, these problems are the normal features of working-class life, poverty, insecurity, and premature death. While capitalism remains these vicious effects cannot be eliminated. Only the establishment of Socialism will remove them, and it will also remove anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitic agitation is used whenever it serves the interest of certain sections of the ruling class, just as anti-negro agitation is used in U.S.A.

Anti-Semitism is particularly severe in countries where there is still an ignorant and superstitious peasantry, but in the more developed capitalist countries conditions are not so favourable for the growth of anti-Semitic propaganda. The joint control of huge undertakings by Jewish and non-Jewish capitalists, the more experienced minds of the working class, all tend to weaken racial prejudice. There is also a larger proportion of Jewish workers in countries like England and America than there are in Germany. Even the final card of the Zionists, that a Jewish State in Palestine would afford the Jews security from pogroms can be answered. There is little danger from pogroms in advanced capitalist countries. Capitalism frowns upon civil violence. Anything in the nature of riot and bloodshed upsets the delicate mechanism of capitalist trade and finance. It also disturbs confidence in the ability of the Government to keep order. For example, in a city like London, with its immense population, an anti- Jew riot might easily lead to the destruction of valuable property in which many non-Jewish capitalists are interested, and it would also be extremely difficult for the police to keep such a mob in hand. Even in Germany, at the height of the Nazi triumph, there were no pogroms of a Czarist Russian character.

In conclusion we must emphasise that the problem of the Jewish workers is not the illusory one of preserving their identity as a race, but to protect their interests as members of the working class, in whatever part of the world they find themselves.

Our message to the Jewish workers is no different to our message to any other national or racial section of the working class. We say to them that they should unite with us in the overthrowing of the capitalist system and the building of a new society, wherein they will be allowed to live freely, and in equality.

Kaye and Scrutator.

[Concluded.]

The Future of Palestine - Part 1 (1935)

From the July 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

The rise of the Nazi Party to power in Germany, with the subsequent persecution of Jews, has resulted in renewed interest in the Zionist movement.

Zionism first came into existence as a political theory at the end of last century at the time of the Dreyfus case. Before then it had taken, more or less, the form of a religious longing to return to the “Holy” Land. It happened that an Austrian journalist, Dr. Theodor Herzl, had been sent to Paris to report on the Dreyfus affair, for a Vienna newspaper. Dr. Herzl was a Jew who had assimilated the culture and manners of Austrian society, and was greatly removed from Judaism. But the story goes that the Dreyfus case, with its attendant anti-Semitism, stirred him so deeply that he set himself the momentous task of discovering a solution to the Jewish problem. He “discovered” that the Jews are persecuted because they have no country of “their own,” and that the problem would be solved if they could be confined to a certain geographical area. He expounded these views in his book, “The Jewish State,” and declared that the Jews must establish a state of their own, preferably in Palestine. He obtained the support of well-known men like Max Nordau, Israel Zangwill and the French Baron, Edmond de Rothschild, who contributed a large fortune for the cause.

In 1901 the Jewish National Fund was inaugurated, in order to facilitate the collection of money for the purchase of land in Palestine and to assist the settlement of Jews in that country.

The movement grew slowly, but in 1917 Lord Balfour addressed his famous letter to Lord Rothschild, informing him that “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine . . .” This aroused the enthusiasm of Jews all over the world, who now imagined that here at last was something worth striving for. It was not, however, till 1921, when the Palestine mandate was finally granted to England by the Allied Powers, that the Zionist movement began to assume a more practical form. Different parties had arisen in Zionism representing a variety of opinions and interests. There were the General Zionists, the Poale Zionists (“Socialists”) and the Mizrachists (religious party).

At about this time Dr. Chaim Weitzmann, the chemist who helped to supply England with explosives during the Great War, was the leader of the World Zionist movement, and he sought to interest prominent British Jews in the development of Palestine. Amongst those whom he visited was the late Lord Melchett, head of the Imperial Chemical Industries. We are told by his biographer, Hector Bolitho (“Alfred Mond, first Lord Melchett”) that Dr. Weitzmann touched some hidden chord in Lord Melchett’s heart, with the result that Melchett visited the “Holy Land.” He was so impressed that, according to his biographer, ". . . he had made a vow that he would amass a fortune of fifteen millions, that he would work ruthlessly, until he had enough money to bring the Jews back to their country . . .” (page 366). He was elected to important positions in the Zionist movement, but we are told that ”. ..  the business man in him caused him to curb his zeal and work cautiously . .. ” (page 369).

There now arose a great deal of dissatisfaction with the administration of the Zionist movement, and the Union of Zionist Revisionists was formed by Vladimir Jabotinsky, assisted by Meyer Grossmann, who claimed that their policy alone was in line with the original Herzlian ideal. Meyer Grossman, however, has since left the Revisionists and formed another party of his own called the "Jewish State Party.”

In 1929 there was a serious Arab uprising, stated to have been caused by a demonstration at the Wailing Wall of Jerusalem. Lord Melchett, greatly incensed at the slaughter of his "fellow Jews” in Palestine, poured an avalanche of letters on the Press, and spoke passionately at a huge protest meeting in the Albert Hall. He wrote a letter to Lord Beaverbrook beseeching him to give the support of his Press to the Zionist movement. Hector Bolitho (page 370) quotes this letter to Beaverbrook: ”. . . It ought to be under the India Office, which is used to dealing with Eastern people . . . We might as well say that we must evacuate India because of the Moslem rows there . . . as that we must evacuate Palestine because once in six years there is a week’s trouble . . . We simply cannot evacuate Palestine, for the reason that if we did the Italians would be only too glad to walk in . . . and the French would support them. It would give them command of our flying route to India . . . and one bank of the Suez Canal . . . They would then command a magnificent naval harbour in Haifa, the outlet of what is probably the most important oilfield outside the United States of America—the Mosul oilfield.”

Lord Beaverbrook, however, did not agree with Melchett. He looked on Palestine as a barren, rocky country with little avenue for profit-making But Melchett did not see Palestine as barren and rocky. His biographer tells us (page 371). that Melchett ”. . . had bought hundreds of acres of land; he had seen the Dead Sea concessions and the Rutenberg Electric Power Concession growing from strength to strength . . .”

In view of this we are at a loss to understand whether Melchett wanted 15 million pounds to bring the Jews back to Palestine or whether he hoped to make this sum by bringing them to Palestine!

Revisionist Fury.

The Revisionists and the other sections were furious at this Arab uprising, the blame for which they laid at the door of the General Zionists because of their maladministration. A congress was called and Nahum Sokolow was elected president in succession to Weitzmann. But this did not stem the opposition of the Revisionists, who claimed that Sokolow or Weitzmann represented the same policy. Stormy scenes occurred. The Revisionists hurled unkind epithets like ”Red gangsters” at the ”Socialist” Zionists, who retorted by calling the Revisionists ”Dirty Fascists.” Mr. Jabotinsky tore up his congress card, and together with a large body of Revisionists marched out of the Congress Hall. (Quite recently the Revisionists left the Zionist Organisation completely.) When Lord Melchett died, his son continued to support the Zionist movement. He also holds an honoured place on the Board of Directors of Palestine Potash, Ltd.

Among other prominent Jewish capitalists who support Zionism are Lord Reading, Sir Robert Waley-Cohen, Sir Montague Burton and Sir Herbert Samuel. These capitalists feel themselves ”touched” at the plight of their ”fellow” Jews all over the world, and they have contributed large sums of money towards the Zionist movement. Hardly an appeal is made without some of these names, and others equally prominent appearing in the list of donors.

The quest of a country of one’s own would lead some people to believe that the Jews are different from any other race or nation. But Jews, like other races, are divided into two classes, capitalists and workers, and the fact that a Jew is employed.by another Jew does not alter his standing. He is a wage-slave and will be treated as such. No special privileges are conferred on him on account of his religious beliefs, or because of the shape and size of his nose. He is exploited with no less vigour than, for instance, is a Jewish worker employed by a non-Jew, or a non-Jew worker employed by a Jewish capitalist. All capitalists, be they black, white, Mohammedan, Christian, Buddhist, Jew or atheist, exist by exploitation, and it is the workers whom they exploit.

As has already been mentioned, the Zionists represent all types of opinions, and there is even a so-called Socialist Party amongst them. This party is out to build a ”Socialist” country in Palestine for Jews only, but their ”Socialism” is only Labourism—"State ownership,” and the usual stock-in-trade of reform parties. We need not pay much attention to this party and its chimeras. It spends its time in compromising with the General Zionists, and declaring coalitions. It speaks airily about "Marxism” and claims to have set up "Communistic" colonies in Palestine.

Jewish Imperialists.

The party that most concerns us is the Union of Zionist Revisionists, who are the only party which demand a Jewish state in the fullest sense of the word. Palestine to them is not a place where a few thousand Polish and German Jews may find refuge, it is not a spiritual home where Jews may study the Talmud, or attend universities. Palestine must be a Jewish state, inhabited by a Jewish majority, governed by Jews, administered by Jewish civil servants, and “protected" by a Jewish navy, army, air force and police.

In their pamphlet "Blue-White Papers, 1935," they say ". . . we happen to be thoroughly convinced that a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan is not only the best way, but the only way to give the Empire a permanent stronghold on the Mediterranean . . . Many British statesmen fully realise that the whole value of Palestine to the Empire depends on its transformation into a Jewish state . . . Palestine as a Jewish state, surrounded on all sides by Arab countries, will in the interests of its own preservation always tend to lean upon some powerful Empire, non-Arab and non-Mohammedan. This is an almost providential basis for a permanent alliance between Britain and a Jewish Palestine . . ."

But why is it the British Government does not see eye to eye with the Revisionists? The reason is that they have many conflicting aspects to take into account. A movement by the British Government towards the establishment of a purely Jewish state in Palestine would, for example, arouse antagonism from the Arabs. It favours British imperial interests to remain on good terms with the Arabs as well as with the Jews. They are not going to bum their fingers for Mr. Jabotinsky and Co. Again, it is hard to see how a Jewish state in Palestine will make England’s position more secure in the Mediterranean.

Kaye and Scrutator.

[To be continued.]

Henderson the Peacemaker (1935)

From the December 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the death of Arthur Henderson, the entire daily Press mourned the loss of one, who, they claimed, was a fighter for humanity. His death, they said, was a great loss to suffering mankind. In Henderson was embodied the greatest virtues. He was an arch-apostle of peace, and the champion of the oppressed working class. Even the Daily Worker, mouthpiece of the Communist Party, dropped a a reverent sigh, and gently remarked “that sometimes (our italics) Arthur Henderson had found himself in a contradictory position ”—this, incidentally, after years of the bitterest abuse, in which he was called a “lickspittle of the bourgeousie” and “social Fascist." None of them mentioned his war record except in terms of the highest praise. We, however, consider his stand for “National honour" and his opposition to a “premature peace" to have been a gross betrayal of the working-class interests.

On the outbreak of war, in 1914, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, because of his opposition to the war, was forced to stand aside, and allow Arthur Henderson to assume the chairmanship of the Labour Party. Henderson was made a Privy Councillor in 1915. After this he became President of the Board of Education, 1915-16, Paymaster-General and Labour Adviser to the Government in 1916, and a member of the War Committee of the Cabinet, 1916-17. In 1916 peace moves were being made in very powerful and influential circles, and Lord Lansdowne and Mr. A. J. Balfour circulated memoranda to the Cabinet. Mr. Henderson would have none of this, for, to quote Lloyd George, he threw in the “whole weight of his great influence with organised Labour, against a premature peace.” (War Memoirs, Vol. 2.) Lloyd George says that Henderson’s words are worth quoting. We agree.

   The war has gone on too long for some of the people of this country. It is possible . . . that we may become war-weary, and I want to warn everyone of the danger (our italics) of a premature peace. I am as strong for peace as any man or woman can be, but I must be satisfied that the peace we expect places us, above any doubt, beyond the recurrence of such a catastrophe. . . . We want not a dishonourable peace, but a lasting peace, peace based upon national right and national honour, and I say these two words in spite of the fact that one of my own colleagues has described them as platitudes. (Vol. 2, page 888, War Memoirs, Lloyd George.)

Thus, Uncle Arthur.

But let us see what this “danger of a premature peace” really was. A few months before this “Peace with Honour” effort, a Major Carter had been asked to report on the conditions of the soldiers in Mesopotamia. The following is an extract from the report which was delivered to the Government of which Mr. Henderson was a member. Even Lloyd George cannot quote this report without “apologising for its repulsive horror.”

    “I was standing on the bridge,” reports Major Carter, “ in the evening when the Medjidieh arrived. She had two steel barges without any protection against the rain as far as I can remember. As this ship . . . came up to us I saw that she was absolutely packed, and the barges, too, with men.  . . . When she was about 300 to 400 yards off, it looked as if it were festooned with ropes. The stench when she was close was quite definite, and I found what I mistook for ropes were dried stalactites of human faeces . . . This is what I then saw. A certain number of men were standing and kneeling on the immediate perimeter of the ship. Then we found a mass of men huddled up anyhow—some with blankets, and some without. . . They were covered with dysentery and dejecta from head to foot. With regard to the first man I examined . . .” (Lloyd George omits “ this still more terrible passage ” of Major Carter’s report. Page 820.)

Since the peace which finally came did not place us “beyond the recurrence of such a catastrophe,” it is only fair to assume that the only danger attending a premature peace was the danger that horrors such as these might cease. Or perhaps there was a danger of Henderson losing his job in the War Cabinet on the arrival of a “premature peace.” Mr. Henderson admitted that his words had been described by one of his colleagues as platitudes. They were worse. They were deliberate deceit, used in order to hoodwink those workers who may have been growing tired of being cannon fodder for the ruling-class.

Peace Work or Piece Work ?

Lest it be thought that Mr. Henderson, by his chairmanship of the useless Disarmament Conference was atoning for his past, and was now opposed to war, it is necessary to bring evidence proving quite the contrary.

While Henderson was a member of the Labour Government British war-planes bombed and killed 700 natives of Iraq in defence of the interests of British oil magnates. Again, at the Labour Party Conference of 1925, Mr. Henderson opposed a resolution pressing for disarmament. He said: — 

   If France continued in the frame of mind she was now in, had they to overlook the possibilities of defence? Could they afford to ignore this question of defence. (Report of Conference proceedings, page 232.)

When the Labour Party came to office, with Mr. Henderson one of the leading members of the Cabinet (first as Home Secretary, and then as Secretary for Foreign Affairs) it maintained, and in certain cases, increased the defence forces of the country. It also began the construction of five new cruisers, in spite of the opposition of the Liberals.

In spite of his war record, and in the face of his peace record, Henderson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, valued normally at £5,000. His friends and relatives feared to tell him, during his last illness, of the commencement of hostilities in Abyssinia, lest the shock should prove too great. But what could have shocked him so greatly? He had once before helped in the prosecution of hostilities, and the fact that people were being blown to pieces to satisfy the ruling-class could hardly, therefore, have frightened him very much. For had he not taken part in leading the workers to the shambles of 1914? Had he not, by his stand for “national honour” and against a “premature peace,” signified his willingness to make the world safe for capitalism? What, then, could have shocked him?

The career of Mr. Henderson is yet one more illustration of the dangers of leadership. It is not merely the failure or costly mistakes of an individual leader, but the uselessness of leadership itself to the Socialist movement and the working class.

Kaye and Scrutator

An Invitation to Lord Beaverbrook (1935)

From the December 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

On October 28th Lord Beaverbrook, the proprietor of the Daily Express and other newspapers, delivered a lecture on various topics to the members of the Mile End Old Boys’ Club. In the course of his remarks he stated that the only war in which the British should fight in was in defence of the British Empire, which he ambiguously styled as “ours.”

A party member who happened to be present pointed out that the wealth of the British Empire was owned by a small section of the population and that, therefore, there is no reason why the dispossessed majority should defend it. Lord Beaverbrook advised our member to become one of the minority, but on being challenged that that was frivolous, he was forced to admit that he was “only chaffing,” and that the proper answer would take too long for discussion at that meeting.

We would be pleased to give Lord Beaverbrook ample space to reply to our member’s challenge in the columns of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD. Alternatively, perhaps he would prefer to debate with us in the columns of the Daily Express, where he would, no doubt, feel more at home. How about it, my Lord ? A copy of this is being forwarded to his Lordship.

Scrutator