Letters, May 18, 1936

Chaluzim

Sirs:

"In 13 years moneyed Jews have turned Palestine from a dead land of herders to a well-irrigated industrial nation . . . " [TIME, May 4].

You are wrong. I hate to say it because most of the time you are right. It was not "moneyed Jews" who did it. It was mostly the financial sacrifices of poor Jews who did it. The swamps were drained not by "moneyed Jews" but by "chaluzim" (pioneers) Jewish boys and girls who willingly gave themselves to the job while "moneyed Jews" called Zionists all sorts of names or ridiculed them at best. The gangsters of Germany may have changed the attitude of some "moneyed Jews" toward Palestine, but the fact remains that "moneyed Jews" stood aloof and many of them still do.

As for the Legislative Council. Why not use the literacy test as a standard for representation? Can illiterates vote in this country? If that is done the Jews will have proper representation.

The "$3,100,000 Government surplus" of Palestine was created not by the Arabs, under whom Palestine became what you rightly call "a dead land." It was created by Jewish brains and Jewish brawn and Jewish sacrifice.

Nor has the British Government been partial to the Jews in Palestine. With taxes paid by Jews, Arabs were furnished schools and hospitals and other advantages, while the Jews had to finance their own schools and hospitals—in other words were doubly taxed.

OSCAR LEONARD

Harmon-on-Hudson, N. Y.

By "moneyed Jews," TIME meant to distinguish Palestine Jews as a class from Palestine Arabs, who are definitely not moneyed. Nevertheless, many a wealthy Jew, who made his money and home elsewhere, has given generously to the Zionist movement, among them: Felix Warburg ($50,000—$100,000 a year); the late Nathan Strauss ($2,000,000); Maurice Levin ($50,000); Israel Sieff ($250,000); Simon Marks ($250,000); also the late Baron de Rothschild ($20,000,000).—ED.

Sirs:

At the very outset, I should like to state that I expect neither a retraction from TIME, nor the shouldering of any responsibility for the inference created by TIME in its article on Palestine in the May 4 issue.

Even as a Zionist, I can see that neither the Arab nor the Jew will receive complete control of Palestine. However, I believe even the editors of TIME can understand that a legislative council composed of 13 Arabs, eight Jews and five Britons, while mathematically speaking, gives the Jew more representation than his present population warrants, certainly does not adequately protect the interests and investment of Jews in Palestine. Before the Jews began rehabilitating Palestine, the country was one uncivilized and barbarous; reeking with poverty, malaria, cholera and similar plagues. Through the activity of various Zionist organizations such as Hadassah, ZOA, Young Judaea etc.., hospitalization, afforestation, and the establishment of an economically stabilized government have been introduced into Palestine. Is it unfair and far-fetched for 'the Jew, who has spread his benefits equally, not only for himself, but for the Arab in Palestine, to request a substantial control in the governing agency of the country?