PALESTINE PLAN CRITICIZED

Southland Times, Issue 23826, 25 May 1939, Page 5

PALESTINE PLAN CRITICIZED

LORD SAMUEL AND ARCHBISHOP

CONSERVATIVE OPPOSITION IN COMMONS

(British Official Wireless) RUGBY, May 23. The British Government’s proposals for/ Palestine were debated today in both Houses of Parliament. The House of Commons in the evening passed the Government motion approving the proposals in the White Paper by 268 votes to 179.

The proposals were subjected to strong criticism in both debates and by Government supporters as well as by Opposition speakers. For the most part those who approved of the policy left its defence to the Government spokesmen but several back-benchers spoke against the contention that the proposals were inconsistent with the mandate or involved breaches of faith.

The speeches of chief interest from critics in the House of Lords came from Viscount Samuel, a former High Commissioner in Palestine, and the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Cosmo Lang). Viscount Samuel, who advanced many of the arguments used in yesterday’s debate in the House of Commons, added his personal view that it was a mistake to try to lay down a policy now for five or 10 years ahead. He touched upon the possibilities of federation—a federation linked with a great confederation of Arab States—ensuring full rights for an autonomous Jewish State while guaranteeing the Arabs in Palestine agaiiut domination. The Archbishop of Canterbury, though not associating himself with the charges that the Government’s policy constituted a breach of its pledges, expressed the view that the proposals failed to do justice to the Jewish people but added a strong plea to the Jewish leaders to use their influence to prevent more confusion and embroilment and the grave possibilities inherent in the threat by Jewish extremists of resistance to tiie proposals. The Marquess of Zetland said that there was nothing in the White Paper to rule out a federal solution. Even if the unitary system eventually proved abortive there were means by which parity as far as legislatures and executives were concerned could be achieved. In the House of Commons Opposition criticism was renewed by Mr Herbert Morrison (Labour) and continued by Sir Archibald Sinclair, the Liberal leader. They repeated the charges made yesterday that the proposals were inconsistent with the mandate, were a repudiation of the pledges given to the Jews and were a surrender to terrorism. They urged that the proposals should not be proceeded with pending their submission to the Court of International Justice, to the Mandates Commission, or to both. Mr Morrison denied that the Labour Party was hostile to the Arabs but said that they were not concerned with feudal chiefs but with the poor Arab peasantry which had benefited from Jewish settlement and who now, along with the Jews, were being sacrificed to Arab terrorists and foreign Powers which by propaganda and bribery had incited the Arab population to revolt. Mr Winston Churchill (Conservative) opposed the proposals as a breach of faith with the Jews. His criticism fastened particularly on the provision for making the continuance of Jewish immigration after five years conditional upon the acquiescence of the Arabs in Palestine. In the division on the Palestine motion about 20 Government supporters voted against the proposals. Among those who, it is understood, went into the Opposition lobby were Mr Churchill, Mr L. S. Amery, Captain C. V. Cazalet, Commander Brendan-Bracken, Mr Harold Nicolson and Mr Harold MacMillan.

MR CHURCHILL GIVES REASON FOR VOTE

SHELVING OF “SOLEMN ENGAGEMENTS”

(Received May 24, 7.10 p.m.) LONDON, May 24

In the House of Commons Mr Winston Churchill, explaining why he voted against the Government, said he was unable to stand by and see solemn

engagements shelved for reasons of administrative convenience or a quiet life. Mr Chamberlain himself had endorsed the Balfour Declaration on October 13, 1938, he said. “When the five years have passed there will be a Britain which knows how to keep its word or we will find ourselves relieved of many other overseas responsibilities,” said Mr Churchill. JEWS IN DOMINION PROTEST STATEMENT EXPRESSES CONSTERNATION (United Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 24. “The latest Palestine proposals have struck consternation into the hearts of the Jewish citizens of New Zealand. It was their pride to see the land of their immemorial prayers and hopes under British protection,” says a statement issued tonight by the Jewish people of New Zealand on the recent Palestine proposals.

“Thousands of Jews, trusting in solemn promises given to them by the whole world, have returned to Palestine and through unending effort have made the desert to bloom again. Now there is to be no national home, and Israel again, of all the peoples of the world, will have nowhere to lay his weary head. No wonder the flag is at half-mast in Jerusalem.

“The loyal Jewish subjects of his Majesty in New Zealand feel it is inconceivable that the present proposals of the British Government should be put into effect because:— (1) They violate the spirit and the letter of solemn legal obligations reinforced by humanity and approved by the civilized world. (2) They surrender the Jewish people in Palestine to the mercy of the Arab majority. (3) They ignore the tragic plight of the Jews in Europe, persecuted through no fault of their own, in trust for whom the mandate was conferred. “The Jewish people of New Zealand feel, though recognizing the great difficulties with which Great Britain has been faced in discharging this sacred trust, that the solution lies not in weakening her ties with Palestine but rather in retaining the mandate and bringing the Holy Land within the framework of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”