OFFICIAL COMMENT

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 42, 18 August 1939, Page 10

OFFICIAL COMMENT

BRITISH GOVERNMENT

REGARD FOR POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS

(British Official Wireless.) (Received August 18, 11.10 a.m.) RUGBY, August 17. The observations of the League's Permanent Mandates Commission on *the statement by the British Government in May relating to the future policy in Palestine was made public today, together with the British Government's comments. Both of these will come before the League Council at the next meeting in September. In submitting its observations to the Council, the Commission says it desires to pay a sincere tribute to the Government of the Mandatory Power for the consideration it has once more shown to the League of Nations and for the further proof of its attachment to'the League, and it records its appreciation of the explanations which the Colonial Secretary made personally at its sessions in June and. expresses gratitude "for the inexhaustible patience with which he lent himself to the long and arduous exchanges of views which the Commission was privileged to have with him." Since the announcement of the British Government's policy in May the principal interest, and much speculation, have attached to the view that the Mandates Commission would take on the question whether the proposals in the White Paper conform with the terms of the mandate. Observations on this crucial point state: "From the first, one fact forced itself to the notice of the Commission — that the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine mandate. But the mandate might be open to more than one interpretation, and the Commission went on to consider whether there was an interpretation different from the one postulated in the preceding comment, and whether the British policy might be in accordance with this different interpretation. There was divergence on this point, and the Commission says it can only refer the Council to the minutes of its meetings, which show that four members "did not feel able ■to state that the policy of the White ; Paper was in conformity with the mandate." Three other members considered that the "existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the League Council did not oppose it." The four members referred to were the Belgian, Swiss, Norwegian, and i Dutch delegates, and the other three were the Portuguese, French, and British. I FOUR COMMISSION ABSENTEES. ; Commenting on the Commission's observations, the British Government calls attention to this marked, division of opinion among seven members at I the June sessions of the Commission, . pointing out at the same time that four i places on the Commission were not occupied. Britain refers to the fact : that most of the members of the Commission apparently felt obliged to disregard what they regarded as politi--1 cal considerations in approaching the ' question of the conformity of the new policy proposals with the mandate, and remarks that the mandatory Power, responsible, as it is, for the government of Palestine, cannot disregard > political considerations, even if it were • not explicitly directed by the terms ;of the mandate itself to keep such con- - siderations in mind. Britain holds the ; view that political developments in ' Palestine since it assumed its responsi--1 bilities for the mandate are relevant :to the due discharge of those respon- ! sibilities, and, while expressing under- " standing of the reasons which prompt--1 ed some members of the Commission Ito maintain that political considerations were properly the concern of the Council only and that the Commission must disregard them, it dissents from this way of approaching the problem and makes clear its intention of invit- ; ing the Council when the White Paper ' policy and the Commission's observations come before it "to give due ' weight to the general situation in | Palestine which the new policy is de- . signed to meet." IRRECONCILABLE ASPIRATIONS. • The British Government incidentally takes up the curious statement in the L Commission's observations, offered in ' proof of the declaration already cited, ; that the fact that the policy of the ; White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation of the mandate • accepted in the past forced itself upon ; the notice of the Commission. According to this statement, the British Gov- : ernment had declared +he mandate unworkable in 1937. The British Government points out that it made no such declaration in 1937. What it said was that the mutually irreconcilable aspirations of the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine could not be satisfied under the terms of the mandate as it stood. It was these aspirations of the Arabs and the Jews alike for their own national Government that could not ba reconciled without revision of the mandate and which led to the proposal for revision, but the setting up of two sovereign States since has been found impracticable and his Majesty's Government has been unable to envisage any other solution which would satisfy the separate aspirations of the two communities for sovereign independence. The declarations of his Majesty's Government in the command papers of November, 1938, and May, 1939, in i fact mean that complete realisation .p£

these aspirations must be abandoned by both Arabs and Jews. Therefore the policy set out in the command paper of May, 1939, does not provide for the conception of a sovereign Arab or of a Jewish State coterminous with the whole or any part of Palestine. "This suggestion having been abandoned, Britain is unable to agree that the alternative which it has now adopted conflicts in principle with any declaration in its statement of July, 1937." COMMENT ON OTHER POINTS. In its comments, the British Government deals in detail with three ques* tions—immigration, land, and the future constitution—which it believes the four members of the Commission think afford the main grounds for holding that Britain's most recent proposals conflict with the mandate. On immigration, Britain points out that no reference was made by critics of the decision to make Jewish immigration after five years dependent on Arab acquiescence to the mandate's requirement that the mandatory, in facilitating Jewish immigration, shall ensure "that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced." This requirement established that the obligation to the Jews should be balanced by the obligation to the Arabs, and the Government recalls the Commission's own concurrence in 1930 with the view that "the obligations laid down by the mandate in regard to the two sections of the population are of equal weight." It adds: "In the light of this, Britain cannot agree that the obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration was one to do this indefinitely, regardless of any consideration except the economic absorptive capacity of the country." Regarding the restriction on transfers of land, the Government also argues that the members of the Commission failed to give due weight to the qualifying conditions set by the mandate itself to the main obligations it lays down. * CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. On the constitutional question, it is brought out that "the members of .the Commission do not contend that the arrangements contemplated in the transition period before the establi^iment of an independent State are cm.trary to the mandate, but that the independent State contemplated in the White Paper last May would have a composition and form which could not be reconciled with the mandate. It is emphasised that Britain fully intends that the constitution of the independent State should not lead, as some members of the Commission felt it would, to subordination of the rights or position of the Jews nor to subordination of the rights or position of the Arabs. In any case, the Council of the League, whose approval would be required for the termination of the existing mandate, would bear the final responsibility for ensuring that the ultimate form of the constitution should be such as to safeguard the rights of both communities. ! Elsewhere in its comments the Government recalls that one of the possibilities which it has in view is the establishment of a federal constitution for the future of the Palestine State,. , -