CRITICS ANSWERED

Evening Star, Issue 23273, 23 May 1939, Page 9

CRITICS ANSWERED

THE PALESTINE PROPOSALS MINISTER EXPLAINS GOVERNMENT'S POLICY ABSOLUTE IMPARTIALITY BETWEEN ARABS AND JEWS (British Official Wireless.) Press Association —By Telegraph —Copyright RUGBY, May 22. (Received May 23, at noon.) The essence of Mr Malcolm MacDonald’s defence of the White Paper in to-day’s House of Commons debate on Palestine was in the declaration that the proposals were conceived in a spirit of absolute impartiality between Jews and Arabs and were consistent with Britain’s obligations to both peoples. Mr MacDonald traced the origin of these obligations and subjected them to a careful examination to prove that there had been no going back upon them by Britain. Britain’s good name was involved, and he maintained that these obligations, contracted towafds Jews and Arabs during the last war, and as the result of which each had played a certain part in the Great War and took certain risks, were debts of honour which could not be repaid in counterfeit coinage. He warmly repudiated the charges which had cqme iu the last few days from partisans of both sides and had been prominent in unfriendly comment abroad that Britain had broken her promises, and, reviewing the obligations to each party in turn, he began with the promise to Jews enshrined in the Balfour Declara-

tion. While not denying the wording of the 1917 declaration—carefully adhered to after the war in terms of the mandate—he did not exclude the possibility of an eventual Jewish State in Palestine.

Mr MacDonald made a challenging query why the strange, unprecedented, and indefinite expression “ a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine ” was deliberately chosen and used, unless because it was recognised at the time and implicit in the promise then given that Jewish settlement in Palestine on the grand scale proposed was an experiment, the eventual extent of which must depend on certain rather than on incalculable factors.

Mr MacDonald suggested that the expression “ national home for Jewish people ” was employed precisely because it could mean either a future Jewish State in Palestine or something very much less. The dimensions to which a Jewish national home would grow depended on the help and encouragement which might be forthcoming from Britain and other nations, or to the extent to which the Jewish people themselves seized the opportunity and on the reactions in Palestine itself. GENERATIONS OF ARABS. Ho recalled the dictum at the time of the Balfour Declaration that it gave to the people that had no country a country that had no people. Unfortunately the phrase was not true. “ I wish with all my heart,” he said, ‘‘ that Palestine had been' an empty laud so that the boundaries of the Jewish settlement would have been only levied by the remarkable creative work of that devoted people in rebuilding a national home, but Palestine was not empty. Already in 1918 there was a population of some 600,000 Arabs, whose ancestors had been in undisturbed occupation of the country for countless generations. There are some people, it is true, who urge in effect that w’e should ignore the feelings of the Arabs in Palestine. They say that over a vast part of Arabia the Arab peoples are free, largely as the result of help given to them by Britain in war and peace, and that their peninsula is filled with kingdoms and principalities which to-day acknowledge no foreign master. Surely, these critics say, when they got all that we can override the wishes of the Arab population in that tiny fragment of land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.” To this contention Mr MacDonald, while conceding that no doubt Britain was strong enough to force upon the Arabs of Palestine any kind or size of Jewish national home, retorted that he could see no moral justification for such a policy BREACH OF FAITH CHARGES. Mr MacDonald next turned to the problem of Jewish immigration and the charges of breach of faith made against Britain in that connection. He said Britain was being accused of ignoring the obligation to encourage Jewish immigration up to the limit of the economic absorptive capacity of the country, but there was in fact no such provision in the League mandate.

THE ARAB CASE. Mr MacDonald added that no such words appeared either in the Balfour declaration or in the mandate. According to the latter the mandatory was to aid in the establishment of a Jewish national home by facilitating immigration under suitable conditions and without prejudice to the rights and conditions of other sections of the population. Economic absorptive capacity had been laid down as the criterion in the matter of immigration by the British Government itself. It was true that in 1931 the Government had gone so far as to declare that that should be the sole criterion, and the League Council took note of that declaration, but it was clearly made in the light of the conditions then existing and was not intended as binding in all times and circumstances. Mr MacDonald mentioned that the Jewish population had grown from 80,000 in 1922 to 450,000 to-day. (Britain felt fully justified in making that criterion because there was no denying that Jewish immigration and Jewish development were bringing to Palestine great material benefits in which the Arabs shared, but he recalled other considerations of increasing seriousness which had compelled its reconsideration. The Arabs were not free to recognise or appreciate material benefits while they were haunted by fear that as the result of indefinitely continued Jewish immigration they would be dominated numerically, economically, and politically in the land of their birth. That fear had gripped the Arabs and resulted in a three years’ grimly sustained revolt which had caused a severe setback to the economic progress of Palestine. It had produced hatred between Arabs and Jews, which if it were to become permanent, would be disastrous. It also spread distrust and unrest into neighbouring countries and threatened to become a permanent source of friction and strife in the Middle East. It could he contended, the Minister said, that such conditions were “ suitable conditions ” as envisaged ju the mandate. To impose a policy of indefinite Jewish immigration into Palestine would be to create a situation pregnant with tragic possibilites, not only in Palestine, but throughout the Middle East. And what of the rights of the Arabs? They had lived in Palestine for centuries. Did not that give them title to say that beyond a certain point they should not have imposed upon them a population which might dominate them, even if it were recognised that the people coming in had an historic connection with and a ■right “in Palestine ? “ Supposing,” he said, 11 instead of 1.000. Arabs -there were in Palestine 1.000. Americans or Englishmen or Frenchmen whose ancestors had lived in the country for generations, would we say they had no rights in this respect? Of course we should say that the point must come when we could not force immigrants upon them against their will. If that principle applies to Americans and others, then it also applies to Arabs.” Mr MacDonald explained that, while recognising in the White Paper... proposals the propriety of institutions, he insisted that they were directed to ensuring each of the two peoples in Palestine against domination of the other, and in disposing by detailed criticism of the contention in a statement issued by the Jewish Agency that the proposals mean the transfer of authority over Palestine to the present Arab majority and the putting of the Jewish population at the mercy of the majority, he asked, if this were true, how it came about that the proposals had been rejected by the Palestine Arabs precisely because they did not give control to the Arab majority.

OPPOSITION AMENDMENT LONDON, May 22. (Received May 23, at 12.20 p.m.) Mr Tom Williams moved an Opposition amendment declaring that as the proposals were inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the mandate Parliament should not be committed to it before examination by the League Mandates Commission. Mr Williams said Mr MacDonald had destroyed what took allied statesmanship years to build up. The Jews would become dependent on the benevolence of the Grand Mufti’s supporters. Mr James de Rothschild (Liberal) suggested that Mr MacDonald should ask the League to make Palestine a British colony. He added that permanent British rule, under which neither Jew nor Arab need fear domination from the other, was the only satisfactory safeguard.

JEWISH OPPOSITION TO WHITE PAPER A FIVE-POINT PROGRAMME JERUSALEM, May 22. The Jewish National Council recommended a five-point programme of non-co-operation if Britain enforces the White Paper proposals—namely:— 1. Training young Jews for emergency. 2. Encouragement of home products, thus replacing imports and reducing Customs duties. 3. Non-payment of taxes. 4. Non-co-operation with administrative departments. 5. Restriction of the use of public services. DEMONSTRATION IN JERUSALEM PARADE BY JEWISH WOMEN JERUSALEM, May 22. Led by Mrs Herzog, 10,000 Jewish women, singing national songs, crying “ No surrender,” and bearing banners, held a procession to the Government offices and handed the chief secretary a memorandum condemning the White Paper. A military lorry crossed the line of march, and the women attacked and disarmed a soldier and broke his rifle.

REFUGEES FROM EUROPE SEVEN HUNDRED ON GREEK STEAMER (Independent Cable Service.) BUCHAREST, May 22. The steamer Liesel, -with 700 Jewish refugees from Germany and Hungary, is en route to Palestine from Constanza. The majority of the refugees do not possess immigration certificates. The Liesel hoisted the Panama flag instead of the Greek flag, thus evading the Greek ban on the transportation of migrants without certificates. WELLINGTON JEWS CABLEGRAM OF PROTEST [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, May 22. The Wellington Hebrew congregation has despatched a cablegram to Mr Chamberlain stating that the Jewish citizens join the world-wide protest against the contemplated abrogation of the Palestine mandate, and urging reconsideration and fulfilment of the Balfour Declaration and Britain's solemn pledges.