Hubbry Logo
Biltmore ConferenceBiltmore ConferenceMain
Open search
Biltmore Conference
Community hub
Biltmore Conference
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Biltmore Conference
Biltmore Conference
Biltmore Conference
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Biltmore Conference, also known by its resolution as the Biltmore Program, was a fundamental departure from traditional Zionist policy[1] by its demand "that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth."[2] The meeting was held in New York City, at the prestigious Biltmore Hotel, from May 6 to May 11, 1942, with 600 delegates and Zionist leaders from 18 countries attending.[3]

The program has been described by a number of historians as "a virtual coup d’état" within Zionism since the movement's more moderate leaders were replaced by leaders with more aggressive goals.[4]

History

[edit]
Biltmore Street, Petah Tikva, commemorating the Biltmore Conference

Prior to this Extraordinary Zionist Conference at the Biltmore, official Zionism had steadfastly refused to formulate the ultimate aim of the movement but preferred to concentrate on the practical task of building the Jewish National Home. The Biltmore Program became the official Zionist stand on the ultimate aim of the movement.[1] According to Ben-Gurion, the "first and essential" stage of the program was the immigration of two million additional Jews to Palestine. In 1944, a One Million Plan would become the official policy of the Zionist leadership.[5] There was no reference to the Arab population prevailing in Mandatory Palestine, which, according to Anita Shapira, marked a transition to the view that conflict was inevitable between the Arabs and Jews and could only be resolved by the sword.[6]

The major shift at Biltmore was prompted by intense common opposition to the British White Paper of 1939, which interpreted the terms of the Mandate in a way that would freeze "the Jewish community to a permanent minority status", and the negative situation during the war. The shift was prompted also by the realization that America would play a larger part in fulfillment of Zionist designs after the war.[7]

Official Zionism’s firm unequivocal stand did not please everyone, however. The pro-British Chaim Weizmann had bristled at it. Also, binationalists such as Henrietta Szold and Judah L. Magnes rejected the stand and broke off to establish their own party, Ichud ("Unification"), which advocated an Arab–Jewish federation. Opposition to the Biltmore Program also led to the founding of the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism.[8]

Various Zionist organizations were represented in the American Emergency Committee of Zionist Affairs, which called an "Extraordinary Zionist Conference" as a substitute for the full (22nd) Zionist Congress, which had been cancelled because of World War II. Attendees included Chaim Weizmann, as President of the Zionist Organization; David Ben-Gurion, as Chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive; and Nahum Goldmann, as a member of the Executive of the Zionist Organization of America.[9] The four main organisations of American Jewry represented were the Zionist Organization of America, Hadassah, Mizrahi, and Poale Zion.[citation needed] Among the American organizers was Reform Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver.[citation needed]

Declaration

[edit]

The joint statement issued at the end of the session was known as the Biltmore Program. It asked for unrestricted Jewish immigration to Palestine. Here is the full text of the program:

  1. American Zionists assembled in this Extraordinary Conference reaffirm their unequivocal devotion to the cause of democratic freedom and international justice to which the people of the United States, allied with the other United Nations, have dedicated themselves, and give expression to their faith in the ultimate victory of humanity and justice over lawlessness and brute force.
  2. This Conference offers a message of hope and encouragement to their fellow Jews in the Ghettos and concentration camps of Hitler-dominated Europe and prays that their hour of liberation may not be far distant.
  3. The Conference sends its warmest greetings to the Jewish Agency Executive in Jerusalem, to the Va`ad Leumi, and to the whole Yishuv in Palestine, and expresses its profound admiration for their steadfastness and achievements in the face of peril and great difficulties ...
  4. In our generation, and in particular in the course of the past twenty years, the Jewish people have awakened and transformed their ancient homeland; from 50,000 at the end of the last war their numbers have increased to more than 500,000. They have made the waste places to bear fruit and the desert to blossom. Their pioneering achievements in agriculture and in industry, embodying new patterns of cooperative endeavour, have written a notable page in the history of colonization.
  5. In the new values thus created, their Arab neighbours in Palestine have shared. The Jewish people in its own work of national redemption welcomes the economic, agricultural and national development of the Arab peoples and states. The Conference reaffirms the stand previously adopted at Congresses of the World Zionist Organization, expressing the readiness and the desire of the Jewish people for full cooperation with their Arab neighbours.
  6. The Conference calls for the fulfillment of the original purpose of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate which recognizing the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine' was to afford them the opportunity, as stated by President Wilson, to found there a Jewish Commonwealth. The Conference affirms its unalterable rejection of the White Paper of May 1939 and denies its moral or legal validity. The White Paper seeks to limit, and in fact to nullify Jewish rights to immigration and settlement in Palestine, and, as stated by Mr. Winston Churchill in the House of Commons in May 1939, constitutes `a breach and repudiation of the Balfour Declaration'. The policy of the White Paper is cruel and indefensible in its denial of sanctuary to Jews fleeing from Nazi persecution; and at a time when Palestine has become a focal point in the war front of the United Nations, and Palestine Jewry must provide all available manpower for farm and factory and camp, it is in direct conflict with the interests of the allied war effort.
  7. In the struggle against the forces of aggression and tyranny, of which Jews were the earliest victims, and which now menace the Jewish National Home, recognition must be given to the right of the Jews of Palestine to play their full part in the war effort and in the defence of their country, through a Jewish military force fighting under its own flag and under the high command of the United Nations.
  8. The Conference declares that the new world order that will follow victory cannot be established on foundations of peace, justice and equality, unless the problem of Jewish homelessness is finally solved. The Conference urges that the gates of Palestine be opened; that the Jewish Agency be vested with control of immigration into Palestine and with the necessary authority for upbuilding the country, including the development of its unoccupied and uncultivated lands; and that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the new democratic world.
Then and only then will the age old wrong to the Jewish people be righted.[10][11][12]

After approval by the Zionist General Council in Palestine, the Biltmore Program was adopted as the platform of the World Zionist Organization.

Jewish commonwealth

[edit]

The significance of the program to a Jewish commonwealth was in stepping beyond the terms of the Balfour Declaration, which had been reaffirmed as British policy by Winston Churchill's White Paper of 1922, that there should be a "Jewish National Home" in Palestine. According to Ami Isseroff, the program was "a crucial step in the development of the Zionist movement, which increasingly saw itself as opposed to Britain rather than a collaborator of Britain, and it determined that henceforth Ben-Gurion and the Zionist Executive in Palestine, rather than Weizmann would lead the Zionist movement and determine policy toward the British."[9]

The program spoke of the Jewish people for "the economic, agricultural and national development of the Arab peoples and states" but was implicitly a rejection of the proposal for a binational solution to the question of Arab-Jewish co-existence in Palestine.[citation needed] Hashomer Hatzair, a socialist-Zionist group, accordingly voted against the program.

The estimates for the destruction of European Jewry grew throughout 1942 and 1943. Chaim Weizmann urged a re-evaluation of the Biltmore program in June 1943.[13] Weizmann’s earlier estimate of 25% destruction, which had been declared at the Biltmore Conference, now seemed wildly optimistic.[14] Rabbi Meyer Berlin, the leader of the Mizrahi, a Zionist party, disagreed and argued that no one could know how many Jews would survive and how many would die.[13]

American Jewish Conference

[edit]

At the American Jewish Conference of 29 August 1943, the program's adoption was challenged by Joseph Proskauer and Robert Goldman. They argued that the immediate problem was the rescue effort, not the establishment of a Jewish commonwealth.[13] Goldman felt that the program was unduly weighted in favour of the establishment of a Jewish commonwealth and that focusing on that as a priority would hamper the efforts to rescue the European Jewry.

However, Abba Silver and Emanuel Neumann put forward that the establishment of a Jewish commonwealth should be the movement's primary aim.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Biltmore Conference

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Biltmore Conference was an extraordinary assembly of Zionist leaders convened from May 9 to 11, 1942, at the Biltmore Hotel in , serving as a wartime substitute for the disrupted by . Attended by approximately 600 delegates from the and representatives from 17 other countries including , the conference marked a pivotal shift in Zionist strategy by adopting the Biltmore Program, which explicitly demanded the establishment of a Jewish commonwealth throughout under international trusteeship until achieving full independence. The program rejected the 1939 British White Paper's restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchases, instead calling for unrestricted Jewish entry into Palestine to address the escalating crisis of European Jewry amid , with authority over immigration and transferred to the Jewish Agency. It further advocated the creation of a Jewish fighting force under Allied command to combat , positioning Zionists as active partners in the war effort rather than passive beneficiaries of prior declarations like the . opened the proceedings with an address emphasizing urgency, while played a central role in drafting and promoting the resolutions, overcoming initial reservations from moderates wary of alienating Britain. This represented a departure from the Zionist movement's longstanding ambiguity on statehood to avoid British antagonism, galvanizing American Jewish support and laying ideological groundwork for postwar advocacy that influenced the push for Israel's independence in 1948, though it drew opposition from non-Zionist Jews and Arab leaders who viewed it as infringing on . The conference's outcomes underscored a pragmatic realism in response to existential threats, prioritizing Jewish and rescue over diplomatic restraint.

Historical Context

Zionist Objectives Prior to 1942

The Zionist movement, formalized at the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, on August 29–31, 1897, under Theodor Herzl's leadership, established as its foundational objective the creation of a publicly recognized Jewish national home in Palestine, secured by international law to enable organized settlement and cultural revival. This Basel Program emphasized practical steps like promoting Jewish settlement, organizing global Jewish support, and fostering a national consciousness, without initially demanding immediate sovereignty but prioritizing demographic growth through immigration (aliyah) and land acquisition to build self-sustaining communities. During the British Mandate period following World War I, Zionist objectives aligned with the 1917 Balfour Declaration's endorsement of a "national home for the Jewish people" in , focusing on cooperation with British authorities to facilitate legal , economic development, and institutional autonomy via the Jewish Agency. Mainstream Zionists, led by figures like and , pursued a gradualist strategy: expanding Jewish land holdings (from about 2% of Palestine in 1920 to over 6% by 1936), establishing kibbutzim and urban centers like (founded 1909), and increasing the Jewish population from roughly 85,000 in 1922 to over 400,000 by 1939 through waves of driven by European . This approach tolerated binational arrangements under British oversight, rejecting full assimilation elsewhere while rejecting Arab demands for exclusive control, as evidenced by Zionist advocacy for in proposed legislative councils during the 1922–1923 Mandate negotiations. The 1930s marked a shift toward more assertive goals amid rising Nazi persecution and the (1936–1939), which killed over 500 Jews and prompted Zionist paramilitary organization. The 1937 report, proposing partition into a small (about 20% of Mandate Palestine) and an Arab state, elicited pragmatic acceptance from the 20th Zionist Congress in August 1937; Ben-Gurion argued it provided a viable starting point for , stating partition offered "a country" over "no country," while privately viewing it as expandable through future Jewish growth and potential Arab transfer. However, Arab rejection and Britain's subsequent abandonment of partition in the 1938 report preserved Zionist claims to the entire territory west of the , with Revisionist Zionists under Vladimir Jabotinsky maintaining maximalist demands for a encompassing Transjordan since their 1925 founding. The 1939 British White Paper, capping Jewish immigration at 75,000 over five years and restricting land sales to preserve an Arab majority, was denounced by Zionists as a betrayal, prompting intensified (, smuggling over 20,000 Jews by 1940) and underground resistance, though mainstream leaders like Ben-Gurion advocated fighting Nazis "as Jews" while opposing British restrictions "as Zionists." Pre-1942 objectives thus centered on unrestricted immigration to achieve a Jewish majority, transfer of administrative powers to the Jewish Agency, and rejection of binationalism in favor of eventual Jewish self-rule, without the explicit, unified demand for an immediate over undivided that emerged at Biltmore. This evolution reflected causal pressures from European Jewish crises and British policy reversals, prioritizing demographic and institutional foundations over premature maximalism.

Escalation of the Holocaust and Jewish Refugee Crisis

The Jewish refugee crisis intensified following the Nazi annexation of Austria in March 1938 and in November 1938, as hundreds of thousands sought to flee persecution, yet international responses remained restrictive. The , convened by U.S. President from July 6 to 15, 1938, gathered representatives from 32 countries, but only the offered to accept substantial numbers of refugees, while most nations, including the and Britain, cited domestic economic pressures and refused to expand quotas. Between March 1938 and October 1941, over 110,000 Jewish refugees reached U.S. ports on more than 1,200 ships, but stringent visa requirements and diplomatic delays blocked many others. A stark example occurred in May-June 1939, when the , carrying 937 mostly Jewish passengers from , was denied entry by , the , and , forcing its return to Europe where passengers dispersed to temporary havens, though over a quarter later perished in . The outbreak of in severed most escape routes, trapping approximately 9 million in Nazi-occupied or allied territories by , with plummeting due to closed borders and asset confiscations. Nazi policies shifted from expulsion to as conquests expanded, exacerbating the crisis amid reports of ghettoization and initial massacres reaching Allied governments. From 1933 to , roughly 350,000 had emigrated from and , but the remainder faced escalating violence, rendering traditional destinations inaccessible. The Holocaust's escalation began with on June 22, 1941, when Nazi mobile killing units followed invading forces into the , initiating systematic mass shootings of , communists, and others, murdering over 1 million by the end of 1941 through actions like the massacre near , where 33,771 were killed in two days in September. This "" marked a transition from sporadic pogroms to organized , with killing sites across , , and the Baltics claiming entire communities. By early 1942, the on January 20 formalized the "," coordinating the deportation and extermination of Europe's 11 million via death camps, shifting to industrialized killing to accelerate the process. Gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau commenced operations in March 1942, while Chełmno had begun using gas vans in December 1941; by May 1942, when the Biltmore Conference convened, an estimated 1 to 1.5 million had already been murdered, primarily through shootings and early gassings, heightening the desperation for any viable refuge. This phase, characterized by hyperintense kill rates exceeding 15,000 per day in mid-1942, underscored the failure of prior emigration efforts and the urgent need for territorial solutions amid global inaction.

British Mandate Policies and the White Paper of 1939

The British Mandate for Palestine, formally approved by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, tasked Britain with facilitating Jewish and settlement to establish a national home for the Jewish people, as per the 1917 , while safeguarding the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities. Initial policies permitted substantial Jewish influxes, including approximately 35,000 immigrants during the Third (1919–1923) and over 80,000 in the (1924–1929), driven by economic opportunities and Zionist settlement efforts. However, Arab opposition manifested in riots—such as those in in 1921 (47 Jews killed) and widespread violence in 1929 (133 Jews killed)—leading to commissions like the Shaw (1929) and Hope Simpson (1930) reports, which tied to "economic " and prompted temporary halts. The 1930 Passfield White Paper further curtailed immigration by emphasizing protection of Arab labor markets and rejecting unrestricted Jewish land purchases, though its strictures were partially reversed in 1931 under Zionist pressure. Jewish immigration rebounded in the (1933–1939), with over 250,000 arrivals fleeing Nazi persecution in Europe, but the 1936–1939 —resulting in over 5,000 Arab, 400 Jewish, and 200 British deaths—intensified British efforts to appease Arab demands for independence and immigration curbs. The (1937) recommended partition into Jewish and Arab states, allocating 20% of land to Jews despite their comprising 30% of the population, but this was rejected by Arabs and abandoned by Britain amid escalating violence. On May 17, 1939, Neville Chamberlain's government issued the MacDonald White Paper, rejecting partition and proposing a single independent Palestinian state with a binational constitution within 10 years, contingent on representative government balancing Jewish and Arab populations. It capped Jewish at 75,000 over five years (10,000 annually plus 25,000 for capital-transferred refugees), after which further entry required Arab majority consent—a threshold unattainable given ' demographic majority. Land sales to were prohibited in 1,200 square kilometers (over 5% of Mandate territory) deemed Arab-majority and restricted elsewhere without approval, aiming to preserve Arab economic viability. Approved by on May 23, 1939, the policy sought Arab allegiance against but repudiated Mandate obligations by prioritizing Arab acquiescence over Jewish settlement. The White Paper's immigration quota filled by August 1940 amid surging European Jewish refugees, after which Britain enforced a naval blockade, interning or deporting arrivals; notable cases included the sinking of the Patria (267 deaths) in 1940 and the Struma disaster (769 deaths) in 1942. This barred legal refuge for most of the 6 million Jews later murdered in the Holocaust, as Palestine's ports—capable of absorbing far more—remained closed despite Zionist pleas and global awareness of Nazi extermination policies post-1941. Zionist leaders, including Chaim Weizmann, condemned it as a "death sentence" for European Jewry, eroding trust in British trusteeship and galvanizing demands for immediate Jewish statehood free from external veto. Arab rejection persisted, viewing even the concessions insufficient, underscoring the policy's failure to reconcile conflicting commitments.

Convening and Participants

Formation of the Organizing Committee

The American Emergency Committee for Zionist Affairs (AECZA), also known later as the American Zionist Emergency Council, was formed in the wake of in to serve as the primary representative body for Zionist leadership in the United States, compensating for potential disruptions to operations in and . Comprising representatives from major American Zionist organizations, including the and Hadassah, the committee aimed to unify advocacy efforts amid escalating global threats to Jewish communities. Under the chairmanship of Stephen S. Wise, a prominent rabbi and Zionist leader, the AECZA assumed responsibility for convening what became the Biltmore Conference, initially planned as an Extraordinary Zionist Conference to substitute for a postponed . In early 1942, amid reports of intensifying Nazi persecution and British restrictions on Jewish immigration to , AECZA members—including figures like and Emanuel —resolved to organize the gathering at New York's Biltmore Hotel from May 9 to 11, 1942, inviting approximately 600 delegates from Zionist groups across the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Palestine. This formation reflected a strategic shift toward American-centered Zionist initiative, as European channels were severed by the , enabling the AECZA to centralize planning, funding, and logistics without direct oversight from the Jewish Agency in . The committee's structure emphasized consensus among factions, though underlying tensions between maximalists like Abba Hillel Silver and moderates like Wise foreshadowed debates at the conference itself.

Delegate Composition and Representation

The Biltmore Conference, formally known as the Extraordinary Zionist Conference, convened from May 9 to 11, 1942, at the Biltmore Hotel in and drew approximately 600 delegates primarily from Zionist organizations across the , supplemented by representatives from 17 other countries, , and . This assembly was not a formal —delayed by —but an ad hoc gathering initiated by American Zionist leaders to address pressing policy matters amid the ongoing and British restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine. Delegates were selected through invitations extended by the organizing committee, dominated by U.S.-based groups such as the , ensuring broad but not strictly from mainstream Zionist factions. Geographically, the conference reflected heavy American dominance, with the majority of attendees hailing from various U.S. regions and representing local Zionist chapters, though international participation included key figures from the in and exile communities in and elsewhere. Canadian Zionist organizations were also included, underscoring North American centrality due to the wartime inability of European Zionists to convene en masse. Notable Palestinian representatives, such as of the Jewish Agency Executive, brought direct perspectives from the Mandate territory, while European leaders like , president of the , provided global oversight despite travel constraints imposed by the war. This composition emphasized practical activism over exhaustive global inclusivity, prioritizing voices able to advocate effectively in the Allied context. Organizationally, delegates encompassed a spectrum of Zionist entities, including , Labor Zionists (such as ), Revisionists, and women's groups like Hadassah, though Revisionist influence was tempered by internal divisions and limited formal participation. American bodies formed the core, with figures like Rabbi Stephen S. Wise (chair of the American Zionist Emergency Council) and playing pivotal roles in orchestration and proceedings. The absence of a formalized delegate quota system—unlike regular congresses—meant representation favored established U.S. networks, yet the inclusion of diverse factions facilitated consensus on the Biltmore Program's demand for a Jewish . Prominent attendees also included Israel Goldstein and Meyer Weisgal, underscoring the conference's orientation toward unifying Zionist efforts under U.S. leadership during crisis.

Conference Proceedings

Opening Sessions and Key Addresses

The Extraordinary Zionist Conference, convened under the auspices of the American Emergency Committee for Zionist Affairs, opened on May 9, 1942, at the Biltmore Hotel in , with approximately 600 delegates from 17 countries and in attendance. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, as chairman, delivered the opening remarks, stressing the imperative for unity among American Zionist factions to mobilize broader Jewish support amid the escalating crisis in Europe and British restrictions on . His address framed the gathering as a response to the "nationwide emergency," urging delegates to transcend internal divisions and prioritize collective action for Jewish survival and national aspirations. Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish Agency, followed with a pivotal opening address that underscored the vulnerability of European Jewry, estimating that up to a quarter might perish under Nazi domination. He appealed to the great powers—particularly the , Britain, and the —to endorse as the postwar solution to Jewish homelessness, calling on global Jewry to drive mass settlement and reconstruction efforts rather than relying solely on diplomatic maneuvers. Weizmann's speech emphasized proactive "creative" initiatives, including unrestricted and development, while critiquing the inertia of prior Zionist strategies in the face of wartime exigencies. On the final day, May 11, David Ben-Gurion, chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive, delivered a commanding address that crystallized the conference's policy pivot, advocating for the immediate establishment of a Jewish encompassing all of . He detailed Palestine's —citing 3.5 million irrigable dunams in the coastal plains and untapped potential for millions of settlers through agricultural and industrial expansion—and asserted Jewish immigration as an inherent right under the and Mandate, independent of Arab consent. Ben-Gurion rejected partition or concessions, arguing for Jewish administrative control over immigration and land to enable , while proposing economic with to mitigate conflicts, positioning the commonwealth as essential for post-victory Jewish agency amid anticipated European devastation.

Deliberations on Policy Shifts

The deliberations at the Biltmore Conference, held from May 9 to 11, 1942, centered on a radical reconfiguration of Zionist strategy amid escalating and British restrictions under the 1939 , which capped Jewish immigration at 75,000 over five years despite reports of mass killings in . Delegates, numbering over 600 American Zionists, debated abandoning the gradualist reliance on British goodwill—inherited from the 1917 Balfour Declaration's vague "national home"—in favor of demanding immediate sovereignty in the entirety of . This marked a departure from prior acceptance of potential partition schemes, such as those discussed in the 1937 , toward a maximalist claim for undivided territory to enable unrestricted Jewish immigration and self-governance. David Ben-Gurion, chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive, dominated the policy discussions, arguing that British hostility—exemplified by the February 1942 sinking of the S.S. Struma, which killed 781 Jewish refugees denied entry to —rendered continued cooperation futile and necessitated pivoting to American political support. He advocated framing the Zionist goal as a "Jewish commonwealth" encompassing all of , rejecting any minority status for Jews, who then comprised about one-third of the population, and insisting the Jewish Agency assume control over and post-Mandate. Ben-Gurion's position aligned with Revisionist Zionists' long-standing but gained traction through preparatory meetings of the Emergency Committee for Zionist Affairs in late 1941 and April 1942, where he emphasized wartime exigencies: "Must help the [British] army as if there were no , and we must fight the as if there were no war." This approach sought to unify factions by prioritizing statehood over interim accommodations with Arabs, dismissing as unnecessary. Opposition arose from moderates wary of wartime overreach and Jewish demographic realities. , Zionist president, favored negotiated gradualism, potential partition, and British engagement, initially dismissing the conference's output as inconsequential: "Just a resolution like the hundred and one resolutions usually passed at great meetings." Rabbi Stephen S. Wise and cautioned against premature statehood demands, citing the minority Jewish presence and risks of alienating Allied powers during . Abba Hillel Silver, however, bolstered Ben-Gurion's case after observing British intransigence toward Arabs in earlier in 1942, urging a focus on U.S. public and congressional advocacy. Debates over terminology—settling on "commonwealth" to evoke dominion-like autonomy while Ben-Gurion pushed for explicit "" language—reflected efforts to bridge maximalists and , culminating in the Inner Zionist Council's approval of the resolutions by a 21-9 margin on May 11. The resulting Biltmore Program formalized these shifts, calling for the Mandate's termination, a trusteeship under Allied , and Jewish political control to address the , with no concessions to political equality in . This consensus, while unifying American temporarily, exposed underlying tensions between immediate sovereignty advocates and those preferring post-war diplomacy, setting the stage for intensified lobbying in Washington.

The Biltmore Program

Core Resolutions and Demands

The Biltmore Program, formally adopted on May 11, 1942, by the Extraordinary Zionist Conference, articulated a series of interconnected demands centered on the urgent establishment of a sovereign Jewish polity in amid the escalating . Central to these was the call for to be reconstituted as a Jewish Commonwealth, integrated into a democratic world order, marking a decisive shift from prior Zionist ambiguity on statehood to explicit advocacy for Jewish political sovereignty over the entire Mandate territory, rejecting partition schemes as incompatible with the scale of Jewish refuge needed. A foundational demand emphasized immediate, unrestricted Jewish to as the primary mechanism for rescuing European Jews from extermination, urging the Mandate's gates be opened to all refugees, with measures to expand the territory's through development projects under the exclusive trusteeship of the Jewish Agency for Palestine. This rejected the restrictive quotas of the British , which capped Jewish entry at 75,000 over five years, insisting instead that the Agency assume full administrative control over , land acquisition, and economic settlement to facilitate mass . Further resolutions demanded the prompt formation of a Jewish under Allied command to combat Nazi forces, with recruitment open to all Jews worldwide, and recognition of Jewish rights to full participation in Palestine's war efforts and defense, including arming the Yishuv's existing institutions like the . The program also stipulated a transitional international trusteeship for Palestine—potentially under auspices—pending its evolution into an independent Jewish Commonwealth, while affirming economic cooperation with Arab populations and states but prioritizing Jewish national ascendancy to redress historical dispossession. These demands were framed not merely as wartime exigencies but as imperatives of "elemental humanity" and historical justice, linking Jewish restoration to their "ancient homeland" with broader Allied commitments to freedom, though critics later noted the program's relative silence on alternative rescue channels outside Palestine.

Linguistic and Conceptual Innovations

The Biltmore Program introduced the term Jewish Commonwealth to denote the envisioned sovereign Jewish polity in Palestine, marking a linguistic escalation from the ambiguous "Jewish national home" articulated in the 1917 and the 1922 . This phrasing deliberately evoked the status of British dominions such as or , implying full and international recognition rather than a subordinate or cultural entity. The resolution stated: "Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth," with the preposition "as" signifying the entirety of the Mandate territory as the Jewish homeland, in contrast to prior formulations like "in Palestine" that allowed for partition or limited scope. Conceptually, this innovation represented a rejection of binationalism or parity arrangements with , asserting instead Jewish primacy in , , and through vesting "necessary authority" in the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The program framed Jewish statehood as an inherent right to "ascend once again to the rightful place among the family of nations," integrating it into a post-war order of "peace, justice and equality" while decoupling it from British oversight or restrictions. This shifted Zionist discourse from incremental settlement under Mandate trusteeship to immediate sovereign entitlement, prioritizing Jewish amid the Holocaust's urgency over negotiated coexistence. The program's language also emphasized empirical achievements, citing the Jewish population's growth from approximately 50,000 to over 500,000 in two decades through "pioneering" in and industry, to justify territorial and administrative claims grounded in demonstrated capacity rather than abstract aspiration. By linking statehood demands to wartime contributions, including calls for a Jewish fighting force "under their own flag," it reconceptualized as a strategic ally in global democracy's defense, not merely a humanitarian refuge.

Adoption and Divisions

Ratification Process

The Biltmore Program resolution was formally adopted on May 11, 1942, at the conclusion of the Extraordinary Zionist Conference, following three days of deliberations among approximately 600 delegates representing American and international Zionist organizations. The adoption occurred without recorded opposition at the conference level, reflecting broad consensus among attendees after addresses and policy discussions led by figures such as , who presented the core demands for unrestricted Jewish immigration and establishment of Palestine as a Jewish . For the program to integrate into the World Zionist Organization's framework, subsequent ratification by central Zionist authorities in was required, as the conference lacked plenary powers equivalent to a full Zionist . The Zionist Actions Committee, a key executive body, approved the program on November 19, 1942, by a vote of 21 to 3, with 3 abstentions, overcoming reservations from Revisionist and General Zionist factions concerned about its implications for British relations and partition possibilities. This endorsement was followed by formal validation from the Zionist General Council later in , elevating the Biltmore Program to official policy and binding on the movement until the next . The process underscored the shift toward American Zionist influence, with Ben-Gurion's advocacy pivotal in securing the narrow but decisive margin against holdouts favoring negotiation over confrontation with Britain.

Internal Factional Tensions

The adoption of the Biltmore Program on May 11, 1942, underscored deep divisions between radical and moderate factions within the Zionist movement, with radicals led by advocating an immediate, unequivocal demand for a Jewish commonwealth in all of to counter British restrictions under the 1939 . This stance represented a departure from prior Zionist ambiguity on statehood, prioritizing confrontation over diplomacy amid the escalating and British immigration quotas that limited Jewish entry to 75,000 over five years. Moderates, including president , favored gradualism, ongoing negotiations with Britain, and potential compromises like partition to maintain Allied support during , viewing the program's militancy as risking further alienation of a key power. The conference itself, convened by the American Emergency Committee for Zionist Affairs without direct endorsement from the Jewish Agency's executive, was perceived by some as a radical takeover that sidelined moderate influences, galvanizing American Zionists but failing to unify the broader movement's personal and ideological rivalries. Ben-Gurion's Labor Zionist faction () dominated proceedings, eclipsing Weizmann's pro-British orientation and highlighting tensions over strategy: radicals argued that had proven futile given Britain's wartime policies, while moderates contended that explicit statehood demands could undermine rescue initiatives for European Jews and provoke intensified suppression in . These factional strains persisted post-conference, as Revisionist Zionists, though supportive of statehood, critiqued the program's territorial vagueness for not explicitly rejecting partition or claiming both banks of the , reflecting ongoing debates over maximalist versus pragmatic borders. In American Zionism, figures like Abba Hillel Silver aligned with radicals for mass action, contrasting with Stephen S. Wise's initial hesitancy, though the program's unanimous passage at Biltmore masked underlying fractures that would resurface in later Zionist congresses.

Immediate Aftermath and Reactions

American Jewish Community Responses

The Biltmore Conference, held May 9–11, 1942, at New York's Biltmore Hotel, unified American Zionist leaders and delegates representing over 300 organizations in adopting the Biltmore Program, which demanded Palestine's establishment as a Jewish commonwealth without partition. This resolution, passed unanimously on May 11, reflected a consensus among attendees, including figures like Stephen S. Wise and David Ben-Gurion, who argued it addressed the urgent need for a Jewish refuge amid escalating reports of European Jewish annihilation. Zionist bodies such as the Zionist Organization of America and Hadassah actively promoted the program post-conference, framing it as essential for postwar Jewish survival and rejecting British restrictions like the 1939 White Paper. Broader American Jewish responses revealed fissures, with non-Zionist and assimilationist groups expressing reservations over the program's maximalist tone, which they feared could inflame U.S. antisemitism by linking Jewish identity to political separatism. The American Jewish Committee, focused primarily on domestic antisemitism and refugee aid during the war, critiqued the emphasis on immediate statehood as risking alienation of Arab and British stakeholders without advancing urgent rescue efforts. Similarly, the nascent American Council for Judaism, representing reformist and universalist perspectives, opposed the conference's nationalist thrust, prioritizing Jewish integration into American society over Palestinian state-building. Despite initial hesitations, the program's advocacy gained momentum within the community by late 1942, as awareness intensified; virtually all major Jewish organizations in America shifted toward endorsement, influencing subsequent platforms like the 1943 American Jewish Conference. This evolution underscored a pragmatic realignment, though pockets of dissent persisted among those wary of its implications for binational coexistence or U.S. neutrality.

International and Governmental Backlash

The British Mandatory administration in viewed the Biltmore Program, adopted on May 11, 1942, as a provocative escalation in Zionist objectives, marking a shift toward maximalist demands that repudiated the 1939 White Paper's restrictions on Jewish and purchases. Sir assessed the program as potentially destabilizing, warning it could provoke unrest by challenging the policy of limiting Jewish entry to 75,000 over five years while prioritizing Arab safeguards for eventual . British enforcement of these measures, including against , underscored the administration's commitment to countering the program's calls for unrestricted Jewish influx and Agency control. Arab governmental and leadership responses were marked by immediate protests and heightened anxiety. Emir Abdullah of Transjordan formally objected to the , reflecting broader regional opposition to the program's advocacy for a Jewish encompassing all of . Local Arab press and public sentiment decried the resolutions' publication in Jewish outlets as signaling an intent to override Arab rights, with criticisms framing pro-Zionist positions as antithetical to emerging principles. The government, while hosting the conference, refrained from endorsement; the Roosevelt administration's State Department documented the tensions without aligning with the program's statehood demands, maintaining a cautious stance amid wartime priorities and domestic political considerations. No formal international condemnation emerged from Allied powers during the ongoing , though the program's rejection of partition and emphasis on Jewish sovereignty strained relations with the Mandatory power and fueled subsequent Anglo-American inquiries into Palestine's future.

Controversies and Criticisms

Prioritization of Statehood over Rescue Efforts

The Biltmore Program, adopted on May 11, 1942, explicitly demanded the establishment of as a under Jewish majority control, with the Jewish Agency granted authority over and to facilitate unrestricted Jewish settlement. This resolution positioned the creation of a as the paramount Zionist objective, even as reports of Nazi of European Jews intensified from late 1941 onward, framing statehood as the foundational means to secure Jewish survival amid existential threats. While the conference affirmed efforts to aid Jewish victims of Nazi persecution, such measures were subordinated to the political campaign for statehood, reflecting a strategic calculus that long-term national sovereignty would enable future rescue and refuge more effectively than wartime interventions. David Ben-Gurion, a key architect of the program, expressed skepticism regarding the feasibility of large-scale rescue operations, citing failures like the Bermuda Conference in April 1943 and the Joel Brand negotiations in summer 1944, and emphasized the Biltmore framework's focus on mass immigration and commonwealth-building as the realistic path forward. He prioritized bolstering the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine) and advancing Zionist political goals over diverting limited resources to uncertain European rescue schemes, viewing the latter as constrained by Allied war priorities and Nazi intransigence. This approach aligned with broader Zionist leadership views that immediate advocacy for statehood would pressure Britain and the Allies to open Palestine's doors post-war, potentially accommodating millions, rather than expending organizational capital on diplomatically marginal rescue proposals. Critics within Jewish circles, including figures like Abba Hillel Silver and dissenting voices at the 1943 American Jewish Conference, contended that the Biltmore emphasis unduly sidelined rescue, with major Zionist bodies refusing to redirect funds or lobbying efforts from statehood promotion to urgent humanitarian campaigns. The Bergson Group (led by ), which organized independent rallies and advertisements to pressure the U.S. government for rescue actions like bombing Auschwitz rail lines or easing quotas, accused mainstream Zionists of subordinating the lives of endangered European Jews—estimated at over five million by mid-1943—to diplomatic maneuvering for postwar territorial gains. At the 1943 conference, a majority upheld the Biltmore line that rescue initiatives must not undermine statehood advocacy, overruling dissenters who argued for prioritizing immediate salvation over political timelines, though such internal debates highlighted tensions between pragmatic and moral imperatives amid confirmed . Historians have noted that while Zionist agencies did support some rescue activities, such as limited financial aid and intelligence gathering, the program's state-centric demands absorbed significant organizational focus and , potentially diluting pressure on Allied governments for bolder wartime interventions like relaxing restrictions or allocating ships for evacuation. Ben-Gurion's postwar engagement with displaced persons, framing them as active Zionist participants rather than passive victims, further underscored a continuity in prioritizing national revival over retrospective accountability. This prioritization, rooted in the belief that Jewish statehood offered causal protection against recurrent annihilation, drew postwar scrutiny for underemphasizing feasible short-term actions, though defenders argue logistical barriers and Allied indifference rendered marginal regardless of Zionist strategy.

Implications for Arab Populations and Partition Debates

The Biltmore Program's call for unrestricted Jewish and the establishment of a Jewish over the entirety of —where Arabs constituted roughly two-thirds of the 1.85 million residents in 1942—signaled Zionist intentions to achieve demographic dominance, thereby threatening the political and territorial primacy long held by the Arab majority. This stance dismissed partition as a viable , implicitly prioritizing Jewish national over accommodations for Arab self-rule, which exacerbated intercommunal suspicions amid ongoing land disputes and the 1936–1939 Arab Revolt's aftermath. Arab leaders interpreted the program as an aggressive expansionist agenda, with figures like Haj Amin al-Husseini, the of , leveraging it to rally pan- resistance against perceived Jewish encroachment, further aligning Palestinian opposition with broader sentiments that viewed unrestricted immigration as a precursor to displacement. Economically, Zionist framers contended there existed "no conflict of interests between and ," positing mutual benefits from development, yet this overlooked Arab political demands for , framing their resistance primarily as rather than legitimate national claims. The absence of explicit provisions for Arab minorities in the program fueled accusations of supremacist intent, intensifying cycles of violence and British administrative challenges under the Mandate. In partition debates, the program's unyielding rejection of schemes like the 1937 proposal—coupled with its critique of the 1939 White Paper's gradualist, non-partition path toward Arab-majority independence—entrenched a maximalist Zionist position, diverging from moderates like who had previously entertained territorial division as a pragmatic concession. This shift complicated multilateral negotiations, as it portrayed compromise as a dilution of core Zionist aims during , setting the stage for later tactical acceptance of the 1947 UN partition plan only as a minimal viable outcome amid military realities, while maintained their wholesale rejection of any . The program's influence thus polarized discourse, underscoring irreconcilable visions of Palestine's future and contributing to the Mandate's collapse into civil strife by 1947.

Accusations of Militancy and Realpolitik Challenges

The Biltmore Program elicited accusations of excessive radicalism from within Zionist circles, particularly from moderates who viewed its demand for a Jewish commonwealth encompassing the entirety of as a provocative escalation beyond diplomatic gradualism. , president of the , downplayed the resolution on May 11, 1942, as "just a resolution like the hundred and one resolutions usually passed at great meetings," signaling his preference for negotiated progress with Britain over confrontational maximalism. Similarly, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, a prominent American Zionist leader, counseled restraint amid , urging Zionists to "shout in low tones" to avoid alienating Allied powers, while warned that proclaiming statehood while Jews remained a minority in would be "suicidal." These critiques framed the program as a victory for activist radicals like , who prioritized immediate, assertive action including control over immigration and land, over traditional alliance-building with Britain. Such militancy allegations were compounded by the program's implicit endorsement of forceful measures if necessary, aligning with Revisionist influences that had long advocated territorial and resistance to British restrictions, though mainstream Zionists at the sought to temper this with pledges of cooperation in development. External critics, including British figures like General Sir , decried it as untenable and urged its renunciation in favor of concessions to claims, portraying Zionist insistence on undivided as inflammatory amid ongoing opposition. Realpolitik constraints further underscored the program's impracticality during wartime. Britain's 1939 , which capped Jewish immigration at 75,000 over five years and prioritized Arab consent for future settlement, directly contravened the Biltmore demands and was lambasted by Zionists as a "cruel and indefensible" betrayal of the 1917 , yet remained entrenched policy amid London's need to secure Arab alliances against . In the United States, where the conference sought to pivot Zionist advocacy, isolationist anti-war sentiments and deference to Britain's imperial interests muted support, limiting the program's ability to translate into policy pressure on the Roosevelt administration. Demographically, constituted roughly two-thirds of Palestine's 1.8 million residents in 1942, with leaders like Haj Amin al-Husseini, the of , rejecting Jewish absorption beyond minimal levels, as evidenced by his 1937 assertion that Palestine could not "assimilate and digest" 400,000 Jews, posing insurmountable barriers to unrestricted immigration and without partition or transfer schemes that the program sidestepped. These factors delayed ratification and forced tactical compromises, highlighting the chasm between ideological ambition and geopolitical exigencies.

Long-Term Impact and Legacy

Influence on World Zionist Congress and UN Partition

The Biltmore Program, adopted on May 11, 1942, articulated a demand for unrestricted Jewish immigration to and the establishment of as a Jewish commonwealth, rejecting prior partition proposals and marking a shift toward explicit statehood advocacy within . This platform gained formal endorsement from the Zionist Action Committee on November 19, 1942, by a vote of 21 to 3 with 3 abstentions, solidifying it as authoritative policy for the despite initial resistance from some factions favoring negotiation with Britain. By late 1946, at the 22nd in (December 2–15), the program had become the dominant framework, with (Labor) shifting to endorse it after internal debates, enabling Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver's leadership in prioritizing statehood over compromise. The congress reaffirmed the call for a in the whole of , though underlying tensions foreshadowed pragmatic adjustments amid post-Holocaust refugee pressures and British withdrawal. This maximalist stance influenced Zionist strategy leading into the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) deliberations in 1947, where delegates lobbied aggressively for Jewish sovereignty based on the Biltmore demands, emphasizing demographic realities and Holocaust survivor needs over territorial concessions. Although the program opposed partition, it established statehood as non-negotiable, pressuring UNSCOP's majority report (September 3, 1947) to recommend dividing Palestine into Jewish (55% of land) and Arab states with international administration of Jerusalem, as a compromise amid Arab rejectionism and Zionist military preparedness. Zionist leadership, including , viewed acceptance of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (November 29, 1947, passed 33–13 with 10 abstentions) as a tactical foothold toward eventual expansion, crediting Biltmore's clarity in galvanizing international support for any viable Jewish entity rather than perpetuating British mandate stasis. Critics within Zionism, such as Revisionists, argued the partition diluted Biltmore's holistic vision, yet its emphasis on commonwealth-building facilitated rapid state declaration on May 14, 1948, post-resolution.

Contributions to Israel's Founding

The Biltmore Program, adopted on May 11, 1942, represented a decisive policy pivot by explicitly demanding the establishment of as a —a sovereign —superseding prior Zionist formulations of a mere "national home" under British trusteeship. This resolution repudiated the 1939 White Paper's caps on Jewish and acquisition, insisting instead that the Jewish Agency assume control over these domains to facilitate mass settlement and development. By framing Jewish statehood as an urgent wartime imperative amid the Holocaust's unfolding horrors, the program galvanized Zionist activism, transforming the Jewish Agency into a proto-government that coordinated political, economic, and settlement efforts essential to . In the United States, the program's adoption unified fractious Zionist factions under David Ben-Gurion's strategic direction, redirecting advocacy from reliance on Britain toward leveraging American political and public influence. The American Zionist Emergency Council, invigorated by Biltmore, orchestrated campaigns that amassed endorsements from over 3,000 organizations, 411 members of , and both major political parties' 1944 platforms, which affirmed support for a Jewish . This domestic amplified Zionist internationally, sustaining pressure on Britain during and after , as evidenced by the Jewish population in growing from approximately 500,000 in 1942 to over 600,000 by 1947 through clandestine immigration drives aligned with Biltmore's imperatives. These foundations directly propelled Israel's founding: the program's statehood mandate informed the Jewish Agency's governance role, enabling it to administer institutions that transitioned seamlessly into the new state's framework upon the British Mandate's termination on May 14, 1948. Although Biltmore envisioned an undivided under Jewish sovereignty, its uncompromising demand for self-determination facilitated pragmatic acceptance of the 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) as a viable pathway to independence, amid Britain's referral of the issue to the UN. U.S. President Harry Truman's immediate recognition of —bolstered by the prior decade of Biltmore-fueled lobbying—provided critical diplomatic legitimacy, allowing Ben-Gurion, the program's chief architect, to proclaim the state's establishment and assume its premiership.

Historiographical Evaluations and Modern Reassessments

Historians have traditionally viewed the Biltmore Conference of May 1942 as a watershed moment in strategy, marking the first explicit demand by mainstream for a Jewish commonwealth encompassing the whole of , thereby departing from prior ambiguities on statehood and territorial scope. This assessment emphasizes its role in rejecting the 1939 British White Paper's restrictions, which had severely hampered Jewish refuge amid rising Nazi , and in vesting control of and development with the Jewish Agency. Early scholarly analyses, such as those in post-war histories, credited the program with unifying fragmented American factions and shifting focus from British patronage to American political leverage, thereby laying groundwork for intensified lobbying efforts. Reassessments in the late , notably by Evyatar Friesel, have qualified the conference's linkage to , arguing that its adoption predated widespread Allied confirmation of systematic extermination in and stemmed more from long-standing frustrations with British policy than from full awareness of genocide's scale. Friesel contends this overemphasis on as a causal factor in Israel's founding overlooks pre-war Zionist momentum toward sovereignty, though the program's urgency reflected partial intelligence of Nazi "liquidations" cited by leaders like , who estimated up to 25% of European Jewry at risk. Concurrently, studies like Rafael Medoff's highlight its galvanizing effect on American Jewish , transforming a previously apathetic community into a more assertive force despite internal divisions, as evidenced by the conference's attendance of over 600 delegates from 18 countries. Modern evaluations, informed by declassified documents and comparative analyses, underscore the program's foresight in prioritizing statehood as a prerequisite for mass rescue, countering critiques that it subordinated immediate humanitarian efforts to territorial maximalism. Scholars such as Kenneth Stein have noted its consolidation of David Ben-Gurion's leadership over moderates like Weizmann, who dismissed the resolution as inconsequential, facilitating a confrontational posture that pressured subsequent diplomatic outcomes like the 1946 Anglo-American Committee. While some binationalist thinkers, including , later decried it as accelerating partition and ethnic separation—contrasting with her advocacy for Arab-Jewish federation—the empirical success in mobilizing U.S. support amid Britain's wartime constraints has led recent to affirm its causal role in elevating Zionist demands to international agendas, albeit through negotiated compromises rather than literal fulfillment. These perspectives, drawn from archival sources, resist narratives minimizing Zionist agency in favor of exogenous factors like guilt over , emphasizing instead the program's basis in self-reliant defense against empirically verifiable British obstructionism.

References

  1. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-biltmore-conference-1942
  2. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1942v04/d662
  3. https://israeled.org/biltmore-program/
  4. https://azm.org/wp-content/uploads/Medoff-BILTMORE-AND-THE-AMERICAN-STRUGGLE-FOR-A-JEWISH-STATE.pdf
  5. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp
  6. https://israeled.org/white-paper/
  7. https://engelsbergideas.com/notebook/creating-a-quagmire-in-palestine/
  8. https://www.shapell.org/manuscript/ben-gurion-laments-rejection-of-1937-peel-commission/
  9. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-evian-conference
  10. https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/main/refugee-ships-quanza-st-louis
  11. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/may-27/ss-st-louis-jewish-refugees-turned-away-holocaust
  12. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/refugees
  13. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/ukraine-holocaust
  14. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/wannsee-conference-and-the-final-solution
  15. https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/before-the-extermination/the-final-solution
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6314819/
  17. https://www.un.org/unispal/history/
  18. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/british-restrictions-on-jewish-immigration-to-palestine
  19. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-british-white-papers
  20. https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/1939-british-white-paper-on-palestine/
  21. https://www.palquest.org/en/historictext/30148/reply-arab-higher-committee-macdonald-white-paper
  22. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/zionist-organization-of-america
  23. https://archives.cjh.org/repositories/3/archival_objects/1071068
  24. https://israeled.org/extraordinary-zionist-conference-begins-biltmore-hotel-new-york/
  25. https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/biltmore-program
  26. https://www.historycentral.com/Israel/1942Biltmore.html
  27. https://zionism-israel.com/dic/Biltmore_Conference.htm
  28. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Biltmore_speech
  29. https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/biltmore-program
  30. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-206268/
  31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23602868
  32. https://warhistory.org/%40msw/article/palestine-in-world-war-ii-part-ii
  33. https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/biltmore-program-1942
  34. https://ecf.org.il/issues/issue/1426
  35. https://rgshistory.com/2017/04/05/the-biltmore-program-a-key-moment-in-the-origins-of-the-state-of-israel/
  36. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/revisionist-zionism
  37. https://www.yadvashem.org/articles/academic/american-jewish-committee-and-admission-of-nazi-collaborators.html
  38. https://jewishcurrents.org/the-return-of-the-american-council-for-judaism
  39. https://www.israelforever.org/interact/blog/an_extraordinary_zionist_conference_new_york_1942/
  40. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/angap04.asp
  41. https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1059078
  42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23881817
  43. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/angch05.asp
  44. https://www.jta.org/archive/zionists-urged-by-pro-arab-british-general-to-renounce-biltmore-program
  45. https://newspapers.library.in.gov/?a=d&d=JPOST19461220-01.1.3&
  46. https://www.commentary.org/articles/robert-weltsch/the-end-of-the-biltmore-road/
  47. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-partition-plan
  48. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.7560/305607-008/html
  49. https://www.yadvashem.org/articles/academic/holocaust-factor-birth.html
  50. https://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2000/04/rise-of-israel.pdf
  51. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14797585.2013.768472
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.