DATE FOR BRITISH WITHDRAWAL

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

DATE FOR BRITISH WITHDRAWAL

End of U.N. Debate Awaited FOREIGN OFFICE STATEMENT (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 10 p.m.) LONDON, September 27. “Britain will begin the withdrawal from Palestine immediately the present United Nations debate ends, unless an agreed solution is found,” said a Foreign Office spokesman. He added that Britain would relinquish the mandate even if the Assembly transferred its decision to another session. Britain’s decision was “decisive and considered.”

The withdrawal, however, would not mean that Britain was pulling out of the whole of the Middle East. The evacuation would be part of the general rearrangement of the British Middle East forces, which would automatically be strengthened. The political correspondent of Reuters says: ‘‘According to reliable sources, the rearrangement of the forces would involve the development of bases in East Africa and lend critical interest to the coming Big Four discussions on the future of the Italian Empire. “it is considered that Britain, on withdrawing from Palestine, would not concern herself with the handing over of authority to any racial group, and it is recognised that a period of anarchy may follow. “Whitehall considers that the United Nations cannot produce a satisfactory solution where Britain has failed for oyer a quarter of a century, and that Britain’s willingness to assist the other United Nations’ members in enforcing an agreed solution, though insisting herself on relinquishing the mandate, would depend on the Cabinet’s estimate of the plan’s inherent justice and the amount of force likely to be entailed.”

“It seems clear that one of the principal factors which shaped Mr Creech Jones’s statement of British policy on the future of Palestine is the recognition tbat the British people are not disposed indefinitely to shoulder unaided the burden of responsibility which r iShtly belongs to the community of civilised nations and can be sustained effectively only with the material and moral support of all those on whose behalf it was originally undertaken,” says “The Times” in a leading article. Enforcejnent of U.N. Decision It was no part of Mr Creech Jones’s task to prejudge on behalf of the British Government the decision which the General Assembly must shortly take upon the recommendations of its commission of inquiry. He contented himself with pledging Britain’s willingness to co-operate with the Assembly to the full extent possible; but his unreserved endorsement of the commission s view that the mandate should be terminated forthwith, his announcement that Britain will willingly jay d °wn the obligations imposed upon her so that independence may be brought to attainment, and his announcement of his Government’s decision that in the absence of a settlement they must plan for the early withdrawal of British troops will have the intended salutary result of bringing the United Nations h’ce to face with the crucial question of the means available for the enforcement of any decision it may take. ‘lf the General Assembly should recommend a policy which is not acceptable both to the Jews and Arabs, Britain will not feel able to enforce it, and it is open to the United Nations to employ some other agency to do so if it desires. “Whether Britain will join with the °V\ e u r . p °wers m enforcing a settlement ° f t ‘h s .B a l ur ? must depend, first, upon t.-.e British view of its inherent justice, and second, upon the British estimate °- the extent to which force would require to be employed. This estimate would not necessarily be based upon th? divisi °ns, guns, and t ipight need to be mustered, but rather upon the strength and character of the opposition likely to

. ? s^ p P?rt can be secured from men °?, go ? d will, and moderation on either side, the resistance of the more fanatical and intransigent elements, however cutter and even dangerous, might not s w a y Britain’s decision.” Washington correspondent of The Times says that the British decision over Palestine leaves the United hSJo 5- ut a P pli cy and with little hope of finding one. A headline in the Washington “Dailv / est £ rda y’. “United* States g d^ he £- over Palestine,” is an exact dethe Position, he adds. / ca i rt policy has beep abje t°.get along for so long without comcom^ g >‘ tself on , this question that it n, 8 an unpleasant shock to find needed moment has come when one is