PALESTINE DECISION.

Waikato Times, Volume 108, Issue 18157, 23 October 1930, Page 7

PALESTINE DECISION.

STRONG DENOUNCEMENT. LORD MELCHETT INOENBED. INGRATITUDE TO THE JEWS. United Press Assn. —Elec. Tel. Copyright. LONDON, Oct. 21. It is almost unparalleled ingratitude and treachery towards a credulous and harassed people who believed they had found a haven under the British flag on the guaranteed word of British statesmen,” says Lord Melchett, in denouncing the Palestine decisions in a letter of Dr. Weizmann, in which he also resigns the joint chairmanship of the Jewish agency’s council. Lord Melchett declares that the Government’s action is a grotesque travesty of the purpose of the mandate and an insult to Jewry’s intelligence. The recklessness with which the Government has wrecked the loyal support of the Jews throughout the Empire and the world is incredible, in view of the fact that' thousands of Jews joined the British forces at a critical moment in the Palestine campaign, many giving up their lives for what they believed a genuine offer for the establishment of a Jewish national home.

CABINET'S DECISION.

COMMENT IN ENGLAND. BOUND BY THE MANDATE. (Official Wireless.) RUGBY, October 21. It is recognised that the statement of the British Government’s policy in Palestine, published yestex-day, will disappoint the more extreme elements among both Jews and Arabs. Dr. Weizmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Zionist World Organisation, who has resigned as a result of the statement, contends that the statement shows that a profound change has been effected in the policy of 1922 and that it differs on matei’ial points from Sir John Simpson’s report, and goes a long way toward delaying the rights and sterilising the hopes of the Jewish people with regard to a national home in Palestine.

Regret is expressed in Palestine at Dr. Weizmann’s decision, and hopes are entertained that calm thought will modify his passionate judgment. The Daily Herald says: “ The Government is bound by the mandate, and by its own pledges, both to secure the establishment of a Jewish national home and to safeguard the rights of all the Inhabitants of Palestine. That is a double undertaking and one part of., it must not bring with it a violation of the other. The establishment of the Jews in Palestine cannot imply the expulsion of the Arabs or the subordination of the Arabs.” The Times says with regard to the Jewish protest that the Government’s statement, when studied impartially, does not do more than affirm the necessity for limiting Jewish immigration to the absorptive capacity of a country where unemployment is increasing and wdiere there is not enough land, after the habitation of the area already in Jewish hands, for the original inhabitants.

The Manchester Guardian criticises the Government’s policy in so far as it involves the arrested development of the establishment of a Jewish national home and deplores the resignation of Dr. Weizmann, to whom it pays a warm tribute.

The bold experiments which are promised in the constitutional field are, however, welcomed and the newspaper points out that the methods of election to the proposed Legislative Council will safeguard the two minority groups, Jews and Christians. Meanwhile the scheme seems to give the Arabs all they can reasonably ask, particularly as on the matters of land and immigration the British Government, whose servants are to be nominated members, will hold views extremely favourable to the Arabs.