Biltmore Conference
Jewish commonwealth
Jewish commonwealth
-------------------

The significance of the program to a Jewish commonwealth was in stepping beyond the terms of the [Balfour Declaration](/wiki/Balfour_Declaration "Balfour Declaration"), which had been reaffirmed as British policy by [Winston Churchill](/wiki/Winston_Churchill "Winston Churchill")'s [White Paper](/wiki/White_Paper "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."

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](/wiki/One-state_solution "One-state solution") to the question of Arab\-Jewish co\-existence in Palestine. [Hashomer Hatzair](/wiki/Hashomer_Hatzair "Hashomer Hatzair"), a [socialist\-Zionist](/wiki/Socialist-Zionist "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\. Weizmann’s earlier estimate of 25% destruction, which had been declared at the Biltmore Conference, now seemed wildly optimistic.Aaron Berman (1990\) *Nazism, the Jews, and American Zionism, 1933\-1948* Wayne State University Press,  p 96 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.Jeffrey S. Gurock (1998\) *American Zionism: Mission and Politics* Taylor \& Francis,  pp 356\-357


In what ways might the Zionist movement and British policy intersect or diverge?