BRITISH DECISION ON PALESTINE

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25301, 29 September 1947, Page 7

BRITISH DECISION ON PALESTINE

Mandate To Be Relinquished And Forces Withdrawn MR CREECH JONES’S SPEECH TO U.N. COMMITTEE (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) NEW YORK, September 26. Britain has decided to relinquish its mandate over Palestine, and will withdraw ajl troops and administrative forces from Palestine soon. The British Colonial Secretary (Mr A. Creech Jones) made this statement to-day when addressing the Palestine Committee set up earlier this week by the United Nations General Assembly. He said that Britain had decided to withdraw from Palestine regardless of the outcome of the present Assembly deliberations. Palestine was now in the United Nations’ hands. The main problem was the enforcement of the Assembly’s recommendations, and the United Nations itself must handle that problem. v “His Majesty’s Government is not prepared to undertake the task of imposing policy in Palestine by force of arms,” he said. Mr Creech Jones said that he could not easily imagine the circumstances in which Britain would wish to prevent the application of the settlement recommended by the Assembly, but, “in considering any proposal that His Majesty’s Government should participate with others in the enforcement of the settlement, they must take into account both the inherent justice of the settlement and the extent to which force would be required to give it effect,”

Mr Creech Jones said that the British Government was in substantial agreement with the 12 general recommendations of the United Nations Commission on Palestine. The Government particularly endorsed the first recommendation that the mandate should terminate at the earliest practicable date, and the second, that independence be granted in Palestine as soon as possible. Those recommendations were the exact expression of the guiding principle of British policy in Palestine. The third recommendation to which his Government directed attention was that the Assembly should, as a matter of extreme urgency, immediately undertake the initiation and execution of an international agreement to deal with the problem of distressed European Jews. He recalled that Sir Alexander Cadogan. earlier this year, had made it clear that the British Government * would, in the highest degree, be reluctant to oppose the Assembly’s wishes about the future of Palestine. At the same time Sir Alexander Cadogan had drawn a distinction between accepting recommendations in the sense of not impeding their execution by others and accepting responsibility for the execution of them by the British Administration and forces. The British Government’s attitude, said Mr Creech Jones, remained as stated by Sir Alexander Cadogan. Britain was ready to assume responsibility for giving effect to any plan on which agreement could lie reached between the Arabs and the Jews, but if the Assembly recommended a polipy which was not acceptable to the Jews and the the British Government would not feel able to implement it, and it would be necessary to provide for some alternative authority to implement it. “Must Lay Down the Mandate” “I repeat again that His Majesty’s Government has determined to base its policy on the assumption that it must lay down the.mandate under which it has sought for 25 years to discharge its obligations to facilitate the growth of a Jewish national home and protect the interests of the Arab population,” he said. Mr Creech Jones, commenting on the task confronting the Assembly’s Palestine Committee, said that the common aim was to bring about a settlement in

Palestine which would be likely to endure because it was founded on the consent of the peoples concerned. “I earnestly hope that the United Nations may have more success than the United Kingdom in persuading the two peoples to co-operate in attaining their independence,” he said. The United Kingdom delegation would place at the committee’s disposal any experience or knowledge it had which might help in the task. ‘‘lf, however, no basis of consent for a settlement can be found, any recommendations made by the Assembly should be accompanied by a clear definition of the means by which they are to be carried out.”

British Spokesman’s Comment After Mr Creech Jones’s speech to the Palestine Committee, a British spokesman emphasised that Britain regarded the question of terminating the mandate and that of withdrawing entirely from Palestine as separate matters.

He explained that Britain was determined to end the mandate regardless of what decision the Assembly might make, but if the Assembly found a plan acceptable to both Arabs and Jaws Britain would be willing to help implement it. It was obvious that such a solution would not involve the use of force. It was even possible that such a plan might take the form of a United Nations trusteeship administered by Britain. An official familiar t with Britain’s policy interpreted Mr Creech Jones’s statement as meaning that Britain was prepared to use the same method of withdrawal from Palestine as she used in India. If the Assembly evolved no acceptable plan, Britain, in this official’s opinion would tell both the Arabs and Jews that they ipust prepare for the end of the mandate and the British administration. Then, whatever the consequences, Britain would fix a date and leave Palestine. She would, however, offer her good offices in trying to settle communal strife. The United States Secretary of State (General G. C. Marshall) to-day conferred with Rabbi Abba Silver, a Zionist leader. Rabbi Silver, when informed of the British proposals, said: “What’s the catch?”

Fadhil Jamali, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, accused Britain of “trying to transfer the responsibilities for her misdeeds to the United Nations.”