Agree to Disagree

To "agree to disagree" is to resolve a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) by having all parties tolerating but not accepting the opposing positions. It generally occurs when all sides recognize that further conflict would be unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable.

A debate before the ‘United States Senate House Committee on Foreign Relations’ in February 1944, known as the “Wright-Compton Resolution for the Reconstitution of Palestine as a Free and Democratic Jewish Commonwealth” took place.

The debaters for the proposal were “Albert Einstein” (1879–1955), a German-born theoretical physicist, and “Eric Kahler” (1885–1970), an Austro-Hungarian-American literary scholar, arguing against was “Philip Hitti” (1886–1978), professor of Semitic Literature, at Princeton University.

Hitti summarized the Arab perception, which saw, “political Zionism as artificial, internationally stimulated, exotic and with no hope of ultimate or permanent success.”

Hitti added his concurrence to the viewpoint that such a proposed State is an anachronism, because, “the Arabs are the descendants of the Canaanites, who were in the land long before the Hebrews entered Palestine.”

Hitti’s discourse, referred to lifting the bars of American immigration to admit Jewish refugees, “millions of whom could've been settled on the unoccupied plains of Arizona or Texas.”

Hitti emphasized that “The Arabs realize they have no spokesmen in America, no high-pressure groups, no machinery for influencing American public opinion or legislation…”

Hitti asserted that if the Resolution passed, Hitler would propagandize that, “Zionist control of Palestine is but the prelude to the Jewish control of Trans-Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.”

Hitti citing the closeness? of the three monotheistic religions and Arabic sympathy for Jewish suffering, stated, “In addition to Arabs being in essence Canaanites; Jerusalem as being the third holiest city in Islam, (given by God); and the presence of 275 million Arabs in the Middle East; the potential effect of the Resolution on the war effort, the Zionist control of Palestine would alienate allies”, and could be, “the camel’s head intruding into the tent…” questioning, “Will the people of the United States be willing to send their navy to protect such a commonwealth if established?”

Einstein and Kahler rose to Hitti’s testimony in no uncertain terms. As to the inevitable “holy” argument: “If, finally the Arab conquest of Palestine is considered holy, it would be only fair to admit the corresponding holiness of the peaceful claim and the peaceful reclamation of the country by the Jews.” Going further they assert: “To refer to the legitimacy of a ‘holy’ war sounds rather queer for a people which denounces peaceful immigration as a violation of their rights.”

Einstein and Kahler described Hitti’s stance as “exactly that which all peoples of the World are taking,” particularly apt in 1944. Pointing to the vast territories of the Arab Nation, they respond, “This tiny Palestinian country…is the only place in the world legitimately and most deeply connected with the Jewish people, its religious foundation and its historic tradition as an independent people..., a people who in fact, are the most powerless people on Earth.”

Einstein and Kahler soberly noted, “If they had any power they should have been able to prevent the annihilation of millions of their people and the closing of the last door to the helpless victims of the Nazis.” Sadly, at a moment when the fury of Nazi genocide was peaking (the reference to “millions” of victims was not news), they appeal to “an elementary sense of justice and humanity. We know how weak such a position is, but we also know if the arguments of threats of power, of sacred egoisms and holy wars continue to prevail in the future world order, not only the Jews but the whole of humanity will be doomed.”

Hitti shunt aside Einstein and Kahler in his reply, “The Hebrews came and went. The natives remained.” citing the historical exiles.

Hitti in a sarcastic aside remark held, “Dr. Einstein’s acquaintance with the antecedents and setting of the Arab-Zionist problem does not far surpass my acquaintance with his Theory of Relativity.”

Hitti affirmed that, “the Resolution being considered should not exclude persons other than Jews…” and accused American politicians, “John Dewey” included of hypocrisy for not inviting the Jews to America. Oblivious to what was then widely known of the fate of European Jewry, Hitti avers the desire of these non-existing Jews “to return to their old homelands, of which, they were citizens first and Jews second.”

Hitti’s last argument is that, “approval of the Resolution is such stuff … that anti-Semitism feeds.”

Summing-up, Einstein and Kahler filled in the gap left by Hitti regarding the actual history of Jews in Palestine, asserting first that, “racial genealogies are of little use while the living presence of Jews in the land include 10th-century AD.”

What’s most striking about Einstein, Kahler and Hitti’s agreement to disagree, is how little the basic arguments have changed in 80 years…

?

Food for thought!

For more read: Philip K. Hitti