The Problem of Palestine

Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 114, 17 May 1939, Page 12

The Problem of Palestine

LUCID EXPLANATION OF THE I POSITION PROMISE TO ARABS AND JEWS “The problem of Palestine is without doubt one of tho most difficult and dangerous that has ever confronted the government of Great Britain,” said Prof. F. F. Miles, of Victoria University College, in an address before members of the Palmerston North Rotary Club yesterday. “It behoves all of us to whom the honour and safety of our country is dear to form a judgment as to the issues. Promises were made to the Arabs and the Jews—what exactly were those promises,” he asked. “If the promises were incompatible, what moral right has Great Britain on the ground of conquest and on what principles should a solution be imposed!” History of Palestine Professor Miles first gave a brief summary of the history of Palestine up to the present situation. In ancient times the country was a bridge between the great civilisations of Egypt aud Mesopotamia. Of recent years it had again become of first class strategic importance as guarding the approach to the Buez Canal and Egypt, as a stopping place on the air route to India and as possessing iu Haifa the end of the life line from Iraq to Fersia. In tho year 1010 B.C. David was chosen as king of Isaael. In 721 B.C. the Northern Kingdom, which became separated from the -south, fell and Samaria, its capital, was razed to the ground by Saigon, tho king of Arsyria. The tiny kingdom of Judah by adroit diplomacy survived till 58G B.C. when it was overthrown by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. The Jews passed upder the domination of the Persians and later the monarchies that rose after the death of Alexander the Great iu 333 B.C. Tho Persians treated the Jews with considerable toleration. In the year 63 B.C. Jerusalem was captured by the Romans and from 57 B.C. Palestine became in fact if not always in name a Roman province. After the failure of a great revolt in 132 A.D. Jerusalem was utterly destroyed and a Roman town erected in its place and no Jews allowed to live there. Galilee became the centre of Jowish life. There under the control of a patriarch advised by a Sanhedrin of scholars, the Jewish community enjoyed a fair amount of autonomy until the office of patriarch was finally abolished by tho omperor in 425. Thus the last vestago of Jewish independence was swept away.

Iu 1919 Jews formed only about six per cent, of the population of Palestine. Bagdad, Spain aud Poland became in turn the foci of Jewish thought and culture. The treatment of the important Jewish communities by the Caliphs of Bagdad, the Mohammedan kings in Spain and the Sultans of Turkey compared very favourably with that given by the contemporary Christian rulers. Professor Miles spent two and a half years in Macedonia during the War and found that Salouica was almost wholly a Jewish town, the inhabitants still speaking Spanish, being descendants of Jews expelled from Spain in the sixteenth century and given asylum by the Sultan of Turkey. When the Great War ended the population of Syria and Palestine, which until 1918 had been under the rule of Mohammedans, was 94 per cent. Arab speaking. Of the Arabs the majority were Mohammedans, but a not unimportant minority Christian. The inhabitants were for the most part peasant cultivators with an educated class in towns like Jerusalem, Haifa and Jaffa. Idea of Nationality The nineteenth century was remarkable for tho development of the idea of nationality. Among the Jews this showod itself in Zionism, and in all the Arabic countries there was an impatience with Turkish rule. There was a curious parallelism with the fateful difference that the Jews were scattered through the world in Poland, Russia. Roumania, U.S.A., Germany and m smaller sections elsewhere, while tho Arabs were occupying the scenes of past glories. Genesis of Present Situation With the entry of Turkey into the World War it became an object of interest to Britain to support any projects of independence in Arabia proper and to weaken the allegiance of the Arab inhabitants of Syria and Mesopotamia. With this object protracted negotiations took place between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif Husain of Mecca. The Sharif had asked that Britain should as far as it was iu her power work for the independence of all the Arab lands. The point in dispute was whether Palestine was or was not included in tho promise. Just exactly was promised by Sir Henry McMahon had been a matter of controversy for the last 20 years. In a note (24/10/1915; he said that portions of Syria could not be said to be purely Arab, and must on that account be exempted from the proposed delimitation. As for the regions lying within the proposed frontier in which Britain was free to ask without detriment to the interests of her ally France, the following pledges were given:— That subject to the modifications

stated, Britain was prepared to recognise and uphold the independence of the Arabs in all the regions lying with frontiers proposed by the Sharif of Mecca. That Britain would guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression and would recognise the obligation of preserving them from aggression. The promise to protect the Holy Places (Jerusalem was only less sacred than Mecca and Medina to Orthodox Mohammedans) against external aggression would seem to imply an Arab government. The Sharif was justified in thinking that Palestine was included in the promise. On the basis of the agreement the Sharif threw off his allegiance find gave very great assistance to the Palestine campaign. Other Agreements Sykes Picot agreement (April-May, 1916) was an Anglo-Frauco-Rußsian secret treaty dealing with the disposal of the Turkish Empire. The provision for Palestine was that in a certain area should be established an international administration of which the form would be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and after subsequent agreement with the other allies and the representatives of the Sharif of Mecca.

This agreement was not given to the Sharif aud he became aware of it only when it was published by the Bolsheviks. It naturally created a very painful impression. Finally in 1918 an Anglo-French Declaration was issued in Palestine, Syria and Iraq which said categorically that the policy of the two powers was “the setting up of national governments and administrations that Bhall derive their authority from the free exercise of initiative and choice of the indigenous populations.” How these promises were carried out was a long story and a far from creditable one. In Arabia proper, Transjor dania, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon the promises had been on would be honoured. In 1917 the British cabinet published a declaration favouring an establishment of a national home for Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The reasons for this remarkable step were no doubt political and humanitarian, to obtain the moral and financial support of world Jewry, and in particular the Jew's of the U.S.A., Russia and of the Central Powers, to plant in Palestine a community with strong ties to Great Britain, and also the disinterested wish to alleviate the lot of an extraordinarily gifted and badly treated people. In judging the wisdom of Lord Balfour and his colleagues it was hardly fair to estimate the plan in the light of the past 20 years. It was difficult in 1917 to foresee the violent antisemitism of the post war years and the consequent mass immigration iu Palestine, an increase from 70,000 to 400,000 Jews in the country, or in percentage from six to 30; now to foresee the awakening of Arab nationalism in Egypt, Bagdad, Damascus and Jerusalem. There could be no doubt at all that the immense majority of the population in Syria and Palestine were bitterly opposed to the creation ot anything like a Jewish state in Palestine. At a general Syrian Congress assembled in Damascus in 1919 resolutions opposed to Jewish immigration into any part of the country were drawn up to be presented to the American Section of the Inter-Allied Commission sent by President Wilson to ascertain the wishes of the people. The commission recommended that Syria including Palestine should form a single state with the Emir Faisal as king and under the mandate of U.S.A. or Great Britain. Without auy doubt this would have been t’le wish of the inhabitants. However, Syria was partitioned and the Balfour Declaration was incorporated in the mandate of Palestine. Jews had poured into the country, untii to day there were 400,000. The relations between Arabs and Jews had continued to be strained and a series of comrnis•ions had been sent to report.