THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, January 26, 1939. THE PALESTINE CONFERENCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23717, 26 January 1939, Page 10

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, January 26, 1939. THE PALESTINE CONFERENCE

There need be no expectation that the case of the Palestinian Arabs will not have a fair hearing at the conference, soon to be opened in London, between representatives of the Arab and Jewish peoples and the British Government. What is disturbing, however, is the prospect that the Arabs themselves may be but inadequately represented at the conference table. The announcement from Cairo concerning the departure of the Arab delegation for London, it will have been noticed, was followed by a statement from the leader of the moderate National Defence Party—one of the several Arab political organisations in Palestine—declining, on behalf of the party, representation at the London gathering because of an objection to the choice of delegates made by the Grand Mufti. The National Defence Party, the Istaklal party, and the group organisation of the Christian minority in Palestine have all ranged themselves in opposition to the terrorist tactics of the Grand Mufti’s followers. It is not to be supposed that they have any desire to promote the formation of a Jewish State in Palestine, or that they are in favour of the Balfour Declaration or anything more than what has been described as a “ token immigration ” of Jews. They are, in fact, more or less at one with the Mufti on the major issues that await settlement in Palestine; but they are strongly opposed to methods of armed rebellion, terrorism, and sabotage which the Mufti is known to countenance as a means of gaining the end sought by the Arab people, believing those methods to be more harmful than beneficial to the Arab cause. In November last the National Defence Party leader, Fakhri Nashashibi, urged on the British Government the importance of not relenting in its decision to exclude the Grand Mufti from the London discussions, and asserted at the same time that leaders opposed to the Mufti and his subversive ideas represented at least 75 per cent, of the Arab financial interests in the country and more than Sfi per cent, of the Arab population. If the decision of Fakhri Nashashibi’s group means that these important interests will not have a voice in the London discussions the outlook for the conclusion of an effective understanding cannot be regarded as hopeful. It is true that the original decision to exclude the Mufti himself has been adhered to. But, in order to assist the representation of the Arabs of Palestine at the conference the British Government, in December, ordered the release of those Arabs who were detained in the Seychelles Islands, and intimated that if any of these were selected to make the visit to London they would be allowed complete freedom of movement. The inference is that, although the Mufti may not participate in the discussions in person, his voice will nevertheless be heard through his chosen agents, whose presence is now threatening to cause the withdrawal of the more moderate Arab elements. The danger of this development is that the Mufti, by preventing, even indirectly, the representation of other important Arab groups, may actually widen the divisions caused by the excesses of those who operate under his authority. In the meantime, it is anticipated that, apart from the Palestinian Arabs and the Jewish Agency, there will also be in London delegations from the neighbouring Arab States of Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom of Iraq, and the Amirate of Transjordan. The progress of the discussions will be watched with considerable interest, although, in view of the decisions taken at the Arab National Congress held in Cairo last October, It would indeed be optimistic to anticipate the emergence of a basis for a new and practical accord in Palestine. Some 2000 delegates attended the congress, the only Arab State which refrained from sending a delegation being Saudi Arabia, and, in the course of speeches which emphasised a strong pan-Islamic feeling, the British Government and the Zionist Organisation were severely criticised. It was declared that the Balfour Declaration had denied justice to the Palestinian Arabs and that the British Government had the moral obligation to give them the same rights as the Sudeten Germans had obtained in Europe. Similar emphasis on “ rights ” will not produce a very conciliatory atmosphere in London. Indeed, as the Jewish attitude is unchanged, it may well be anticipated that the British Government will be forced back on its earlier resolve to “ take its own decision ” with respect to future Palestine policy.