THE H.B. TRIBUNE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1929 THE PALESTINE MANDATE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 220, 3 September 1929, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1929 THE PALESTINE MANDATE

Without accepting the more alarmist suggestions that are being put forward with regard to the situation in Palestine, it is quite evident that it will require the most delicate but resolute handling if it is not to develop into something more serious. It would seem as if the British Government in virtually taking the world’s Jewish community under its wing had adopted a very troublesome and rather insatiable ward. There were not a few who foretold that this would prove to be the case when what is known as the “Balfour Declaration” was issued nearly twelve years ago. Under it the British Government stated that they “viewed with favour the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, and would use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of that object.” This was recognised as a broad and vague commitment that was capable of various interpretations, and could scarcely but involve Great Britain in trouble with the Moslem population that had been in almost exclusive occupation for centuries. These doubts were not by any means completely resolved when, the Turks having been thoroughly beaten, the Declaration was endorsed by all the Allied Powers and by the President of the U.S. (Mr. Woodrow Wilson) and then incorporated in the treaty of peace. They were,, of course, only strengthened when in 1920 Britain accepted the mandate for Palestine under the League of Nations, and so made herself solely responsible for the carrying out of the promise that had been made. It was not long before thesis misgivings found justification. On the one hand were the eager Zionists who soon began to complain that little if anything practical was being done to carry out the Balfour Declaration as they interpreted it. On the other hand were the Mohamedan Arabs, constituting an overwhelming majority of the population, who protested against what they considered Jewish aggression. They also complained that great Britain was showing poor thanks for the assistance they had lent in beating the Turks, assistance which, though not always very reliable, most certainly played a part in gaining ultimate victory. Arab resentment, though held in check for a time, has only grown the deeper and the more widespread as the influx of Jewish immigration has grown in volume. The liberal financial help which was made to the Jewish immigrants in establishing themselves came, of course, not from Great Britain alone, but from all over the world. This, however, did not sink into the Arab mind, which camo to regal'd Great Britain as- an almoner whoso favours were all for those who were bent on dispossessing them. All assurances to the contrary have been in vain, and it is from this standpoint that most of them have come to regard Britain’s mandatory rule in Palestine. Many of the Jews have helped to aggravate the difficulties of government by speaking of Palestine as being the “promised land” of their national inheritance. Here, with the addition of age-old racial and religious antipathies, we have all the factors of a first-class problem for solution by British statesmanship. is iiub jnadg jLLe

easier when men like Lord Melchett (Sir Alfred Mond) join in an indignant chorus of condemnation of British administration, while further fuel is added to the flame by the suggestion of raising a Jewish army to deal with the Arabs. It is certainly proving something of an ugly duckling that Great Britain has taken into her capacious nest.