PALESTINE ISSUE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26982, 18 January 1949, Page 5

PALESTINE ISSUE

Criticism of Foreign Secretary

DEMANDS FOR RESIGNATION REPORTED

Rec. 10 p.m. LONDON, Jan. 17. Critics within the British Labour Party itself are starting to demand that Mr Ernest Bevin should resign as Foreign Secretary over the Palestine issue. The political correspondent of the Daily Express said that, although there is no split in Cabinet, it is believed that some Ministers are not at all enthusiastic about Mr Bevin’s Palestine policy.

The political correspondent of the Daily Telegraph said there was a well-founded belief that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, has insisted on an all-out effort to concert the British policy with that of the United States to restore peace to the Middle East. The correspondent added: “Mr Bevin’s most probable line of defence appears to be that the Israeli Government is allowing itself to be used as an agent of Soviet policy. He will be required to substantiate this and also show that his own policy is not playing into the hands of those elements in Israel most sympathetic to Russia.”

Anxiety about the Palestine situation will overshadow the British Parliament when it reassembles on Tuesday for its last full year before the 1950 general election, says Reuter’s political correspondent. An immediate Government statement is expected and an early debate possible. Mr Bevin. it is generally expected will be under fire from all sides of the House and a demand will be made for either the Prime Minister, Mr Attlee, or the Foreign Secretary to State in the plainest language what are the primary objectives of the .British policy in the Middle East. Criticism is expected to come from within the Labour Party, notably perhaps from Mr R. H. S. Crossman, who has recently been visiting Palestine. He has stated that he is appalled by the gulf which divides even the best informed opinion in Tel-Aviv and in Whitehall. . A good deal of criticisfp of Mr Bevin and “Mr Bevin’s policy” was being aired in the British press last week, says A. W. Mitchell, NZPA special correspondent in London. It came from all quarters, including the Communist Daily Worker, which has an implacable hatred for the Foreign Secretary, and reported that a “ Bevin must go” demand was growing. One thing should not be overlooked in observing events in Palestine and the discussion in the; House of Commons, says Mr Mitchell. It is that there is in reality no such thing as “ a Bevin policy ”, it is emphasised in official circles that it is Government policy which Mr Bevin has been pursuing and therefore a Government responsibility. For this reason, if for no other, it is most unlikely that the Foreign Secretary’s critics will have the satisfaction of seeing him “go ” over the question of Palestine. For one thing he has been carrying out Government or Cabinet instructions and for another he is much too close to Mr Attlee personally for the Prime Minister to allow him to be thrown over.