Dr. Weizmann suggested, if I understood him rightly, that he did not think Palestine could be a single and simple national territory quite in the sense of France; but he did not see why it should not be a commonwealth of cantons after the manner of Switzerland.  Some of these could be Jewish cantons, others Arab cantons, and so on according to the type of population.  This is in itself more reasonable than much that is suggested on the same side; but the point of it for my own purpose is more particular.  This idea, whether it correctly represents Dr. Weizmann’s meaning or no, clearly involves the abandonment of the solidarity of Palestine, and tolerates the idea of groups of Jews being separated from each other by populations of a different type.  Now if once this notion be considered admissible, it seems to me capable of considerable extension.  It seems possible that there might be not only Jewish cantons in Palestine but Jewish cantons outside Palestine, Jewish colonies in suitable and selected places in adjacent parts or in many other parts of the world.  They might be affiliated to some official centre in Palestine, or even in Jerusalem, where there would naturally be at least some great religious headquarters of the scattered race and religion.  The nature of that religious centre it must be for Jews to decide; but I think if I were a Jew I would build the Temple without bothering about the site of the Temple.  That they should have the old site, of course, is not to be thought of; it would raise a Holy War from Morocco to the marches of China.  But seeing that some of the greatest of the deeds of Israel were done, and some of the most glorious of the songs of Israel sung, when their only temple was a box carried about in the desert, I cannot think that the mere moving of the situation of the place of sacrifice need even mean so much to that historic tradition as it would to many others.  That the Jews should have some high place of dignity and ritual in Palestine, such as a great building like the Mosque of Omar, is certainly right and reasonable; for upon no theory can their historic connection be dismissed.  I think it is sophistry to say, as do some Anti-Semites, that the Jews have no more right there than the Jebusites.  If there are Jebusites they are Jebusites without knowing it.  I think it sufficiently answered in the fine phrase of an English priest, in many ways more Anti-Semitic than I:  “The people that remembers has a right.”  The very worst of the Jews, as well as the very best, do in some sense remember.  They are hated and persecuted and frightened into false names and double lives; but they remember.  They lie, they swindle, they betray, they oppress; but they remember.  The more we happen to hate such elements among the Hebrews the more we admire the manly and magnificent elements among the more vague and vagrant tribes of Palestine, the more we must admit that paradox.  The unheroic have the heroic memory; and the heroic people have no memory.