On The Anti-Semitism Of The Present Government
***************************************************************

--A Dissenting Note On The Balfour Declaration Of November 2, 1917--

By Lord MONTAGUE

I have chosen the above title for this memorandum, not in any hostile sense, not by any means as quarrelling with an anti-Semitic view which may be held by my colleagues, not with a desire to deny that anti-Semitism can be held by rational men, not even with a view to suggesting that the Government is deliberately anti-Semitic; but I wish to place on record my view that the policy of His Majesty's Government is anti-Semitic in result will prove a rallying ground for Anti-Semites in every country in the world.

This view is prompted by the receipt yesterday of a correspondence between Lord Rothschild and Mr. Balfour.Lord Rothschild's letter is dated the 18th July and Mr. Balfour's answer is to be dated August 1917.

I fear that my protest comes too late, and it may well be that the Government were practically committed when Lord Rothschild wrote and before I became a member of the Government, for there has obviously been some correspondence or conversation before this letter.

But I do feel that as the one Jewish Minister in the Government I may be allowed by my colleagues an opportunity of expressing views which may be peculiar to myself, but which I hold very strongly and which I must ask permission to express when opportunity affords.

I believe most firmly that this war has been a death-blow to Internationalism, and that it has proved an opportunity for a renewal of the slackening sense of Nationality, for it is has not only been tacitly agreed by most statesmen in most countries that the redistribution of territory resulting from the war should be more or less on national grounds, but we have learned to realise that our country stands for principles, for aims, for civilisation which no other country stands for in the same degree, and that in the future, whatever may have been the case in the past, we must live and fight in peace and in war for those aims and aspirations, and so equip and regulate our lives and industries as to be ready whenever and if ever we are challenged.

To take one instance, the science of Political Economy, which in its purity knows no Nationalism, will hereafter be tempered and viewed in the light of this national need of defence and security.The war has indeed justified patriotism as the prime motive of political thought.It is in this atmosphere that the Government proposes to endorse the formation of a new nation with a new home in Palestine.

This nation will presumably be formed of Jewish Russians, Jewish Englishmen, Jewish Roumanians, Jewish Bulgarians, and Jewish citizens of all nations - survivors or relations of those who have fought or laid down their lives for the different countries which I have mentioned, at a time when the three years that they have lived through have united their outlook and thought more closely than ever with the countries of which they are citizens.

Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom. If a Jewish Englishman sets his eyes on the Mount of Olives and longs for the day when he will shake British soil from his shoes and go back to agricultural pursuits in Palestine, he has always seemed to me to have acknowledged aims inconsistent with British citizenship and to have admitted that he is unfit for a share in public life in Great Britain, or to be treated as an Englishman.

I have always understood that those who indulged in this creed were largely animated by the restrictions upon and refusal of liberty to Jews in Russia. But at the very time when these Jews have been acknowledged as Jewish Russians and given all liberties, it seems to be inconceivable that Zionism should be officially recognised by the British Government, and that Mr. Balfour should be authorized to say that Palestine was to be reconstituted as the "national home of the Jewish people".

I do not know what this involves, but I assume that it means that Mahommedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test.

I lay down with emphasis four principles:

1. I assert that there is not a Jewish nation. The members of myfamily, for instance, who have been in this country forgenerations, have no sort or kind of community of view or ofdesire with any Jewish family in any other country beyond the fact that they profess to a greater or less degree the same religion.It is no more true to say that a Jewish Englishman and a JewishMoor are of the same nation than it is to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation:

Of the same race, perhaps, traced back through the centuries -through centuries of the history of a peculiarly adaptable race.The Prime Minister and M. Briand are, I suppose, related throughthe ages, one as a Welshman and the other as a Breton, but they certainly do not belong to the same nation.

2. When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home,every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish citizens, and you will find a population in Palestine driving outits present inhabitants, taking all the best in the country, drawnfrom all quarters of the globe, speaking every language on theface of the earth, and incapable of communicating with one anotherexcept by means of an interpreter.

I have always understood thatthis was the consequence of the building of the Tower of Babel, ifever it was built, and I certainly do not dissent from the view,commonly held, as I have always understood, by the Jews before Zionism was invented, that to bring the Jews back to form a nationin the country from which they were dispersed would require Divine leadership. I have never heard it suggested, even by their most fervent admirers, that either Mr. Balfour or Lord Rothschild wouldprove to be the Messiah.

I claim that the lives that British Jews have led, that the aimsthat they have had before them, that the part that they haveplayed in our public life and our public institutions, haveentitled them to be regarded, not as British Jews, but as JewishBritons. I would willingly disfranchise every Zionist.

I would be almost tempted to proscribe the Zionist organisation as illegaland against the national interest. But I would ask of a British Government sufficient tolerance to refuse a conclusion which makesaliens and foreigners by implication, if not at once by law, ofall their Jewish fellow-citizens.

3. I deny that Palestine is to-day associated with the Jews orproperly to be regarded as a fit place for them to live in. TheTen Commandments were delivered to the Jews on Sinai. It is quitetrue that Palestine plays a large part in Jewish history, but soit does in modern Mahommendan history, and, after the time of theJews, surely it plays a larger part than any other country in Christian history.

The Temple may have been in Palestine, but sowas the Sermon on the Mount and the Crucifixion. I would not denyt o Jews in Palestine equal rights to colonisation with those whoprofess other religions, but a religious test of citizenship seemsto me to be the only admitted by those who take a bigoted andnarrow view of one particular epoch of the history of Palestine, and claim for the Jews a position to which they are not entitled.

If my memory serves me right, there are three times as many Jewsin the world as could possible get into Palestine if you drove outall the population that remains there now. So that only one-thirdwill get back at the most, and what will happen to the remainder?

4. I can easily understand the editors of the Morning Post and of theNew Witness being Zionists, and I am not in the least surprisedthat the non-Jews of England may welcome this policy. I have always recognised the unpopularity, much greater than some peoplethink, of my community.

We have obtained a far greater share of this country's goods and opportunities than we are numerically entitled to. We reach on the whole maturity earlier, and therefore with people of our own age we compete unfairly.

Many of us have been exclusive in our friendships and intolerant in our attitude,and I can easily understand that many a non-Jew in England wants to get rid of us. But just as there is no community of thought and mode of life among Christian Englishmen, so there is not among Jewish Englishmen. More and more we are educated in public schools and at the Universities, and take our part in the politics, in theArmy, in the Civil Service, of our country. And I am glad to think that the prejudices against inter-marriage are breaking down.

But when the Jew has a national home, surely it follows that the impetus to deprive us of the rights of British citizenship must beenormously increased. Palestine will become the world's Ghetto.Why should the Russian give the Jew equal rights? His national home is Palestine. Why does Lord Rothschild attach so muchimportance to the difference between British and foreign Jews?

All Jews will be foreign Jews, inhabitants of the great country of Palestine.I do not know how the fortunate third will be chosen, but the Jewwill have the choice, whatever country he belongs to, whatevercountry he loves, whatever country he regards himself as anintegral part of, between going to live with people who areforeigners to him, but to whom his Christian fellow-countrymen have told him he shall belong, and of remaining as an unwelcome guest in the country that he thought he belonged to.

I am not surprised that the Government should take this step after the formation of a Jewish Regiment, and I am waiting to learn that my brother, who has been wounded in the Naval Division, or my nephew, who is in the Grenadier Guards, will be forced by public opinion or by Army regulations to become an officer in a regiment which will mainly be composed of people who will not understand the only language which he speaks - English.

I can well understand that when it was decided, and quite rightly, to force foreign Jews in this country to serve in the Army, it was difficult to put them in British regiments because of the language difficulty, but that was because they were foreigners, and not because they were Jews, and a Foreign Legion would seem to me to have been the right thing to establish.

A Jewish Legion makes the position of Jews in other regiments more difficult and forces a nationality upon people who have nothing in common. I feel that the Government are asked to be the instrument for carrying out the wishes of a Zionist organisation largely run, as my information goes, at any rate in the past, by men of enemy descent or birth, and by this means have dealt a severe blow to the liberties, position and opportunities of service of their Jewish fellow-countrymen.

I would say to Lord Rothschild that the Government will be prepared to do everything in their power to obtain for Jews in Palestine complete liberty of settlement and life on an equality with the inhabitants of that country who profess other religious beliefs. I would ask that the Government should go no further.

E.S.M.1917

Information Clearing House