DO NOT AGREE

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20886, 18 August 1939, Page 7

DO NOT AGREE

FUTURE OF PALESTINE THE BRITISH PROPOSALS REPORT OF COMMISSION (Official Wireless) (Received August 18, 11.30 a.m.) RUGBY. August 17 The observations of the League of Nations' Permanent Mandates ‘Commission on the statement by the British Government in May relating to its future policy in Palestine was made tublic today, together with the British Government's comments. Both of these will come before the League Council at the next meeting in September. In submitting its observations to the Council the Commission says it desires to pay sincere tribute to the Government of the mandatory Power for the consideration it has once more shown to the League of Nations and the further proof of its attachment to the League, and it records appreciation of the explanations which the Colonial Secretary made personally at its sessions in June and expresses gratitude "for the inexhaustible patience with which he had lent himself to the long and arduous exchanges of views which the Commission was privileged to have with him.” Since the announcement of the British Government's policy in May the principal interest and much speculation have attached as to the view that the Mandates Commission would take on the question whether the proposals in tiie While Paper conform with the terms of the mandate.

Decision on Crucial Point The observations on this crucial point state: “From the first one fact has forced itself to the notice of the Commission—that the White Paper was not In accordance with the interpretation which, In the agreement with the mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine mandate.” Rut the mandate might be open to more than one interpretation, and the Commission went on to consider whether there was an interpretation different from the one postulated in the preceding comment and whether the British policy might be in accordance with this different interpretion. There was a divergence on this point and the Commission says it can only refer tiie Council to the minutes o: its meetings, which show that four members "did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the mandate,” and three other members considered that "the existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the League Council did not oppose it.” Marked Division of Opinion The four members referred to were the Belgian, Swiss, Norwegian and Dutch members, and the other three the Portuguese, French and British members. Commenting on the Commission's observations the British Government calls attention to this marked division of opinion among seven members at the June sessions of the Commission, pointing out at the same time that four places on the Commission were not occupied. Britain refers to the fact that most members of the Commission apparently felt obliged to disregard wtiat they regarded as political considerations in approaching the question of the conformity of .the new politcy proposals with the mandate, and remarks that the mandatory Power, responsible as it is for tiie government of Palestine, cannot disregard political considerations, even if it were not explicitly directed by the terms of the mandate itself to keep such considerations in mind. Britain holds the view that political developments in Palestine since it assumed its responsibilities for the mandate are relevant to the due discharge of those responsibilities, and while expressing understanding of the reasons which prompted some members of the Commission to maintain that political considerations were properly the concern of the Council only and that the Commission must disregard them it dissents from this way of approaching the problem and makes clear its intention of inviting the Council, when the White Paper policy and the Commission's observations come before it, “to give due weight to >the general situation in Palestine, which the new policy is designed to meet.’” A Curious Statement The British Government incidentally takes up the curious statement in the Commission's observations, ottered in proof of the declaration already cited, !hat the fact that the policy’of the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation of the mandate accepted in the past had forced itself upon the notice of the Commission. According to this statement the British Government had declared the mandate unworkable in 1937. The British Government points out that it made no such declaration in 1937. What it said was that the mutually irreconcilable aspirations of the Arabs and Jews in Palestine could not be satislied under the terms of the mandate as it stood. It was these aspirations of the Arabs and Jews alike for their own national governments that could not be reconciled without a revision of the mandate and which led 'o the proposal for a revision, but the "setting up of two sovereign States had since been found impracticable and His Majesty's Government had been unable to envisage any other olution which would satisfy the •epurate aspirations of the two communities for sovereign independence.” Aspirations Must Be Abandoned The declarations of His Majesty's Government in command of the papers of November, 193-8, and May, 1939. i:i fact mean the complete realisation ihat these aspirations must be abandoned by both Arabs and Jews. Therefore the policy set out in the command paper of May, 1939, does not provide for the conception of a sovereign Arab or of a Jewish State, coterminous with the whole or any

part of Palestine. Britain Unable To Agree "This suggestion having been abandoned, Britain is unable to agree that the alternative which it has now adopted conflicts in principle with any declaration in its statement of July. 193 7. ' In its comments Britain deals in detail with three questions—immigration. land, and future constitution—which it believes the four members of the CommfculMl 1 tiink afford the main grounds for holding that Britain h most recent proposals conflict with the mandate. On immigration it points out that no reference was made by critics of the decision to make Jewish immigration after five years dependent on Arab acquiescence to the mandate's requirement that the mandatory, in facilitating Jewish immigration, shall ensure “that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced. - ' This requirement established that obligation to the Jews should be balanced by the obligation to the Arabs, and the Government recalls the Commission's own concurrence in 1930 with the view that “the obligations laid down by the mandate jn rri/ard to the two sections of population are of equal weight.” It adds: “In the light of this Britain cannot agree that the obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration was one to do this indefinitely, regardless of any consideration except the economic absorptive capacity of the country.” Question of Constitution Regarding the restriction on transfers of land the Government argues that members of the Commission failed to give due weight to the qualifying conditions set by the mandate itself to the main obligations it lays down. On the constitutional question it is brought out that “members of the Commission do not contend that the arrangements contemplated in the transition period before the establishment of an independent state are contrary to tiie mandate, but that the independent State contemplated in the White Paper last May would have a composition and form which could not be reconciled with the mandate. It is emphasised that Britain fully intends that the constitution of an in dependent state should not lead, as some members of the Commission felt it would do. to the subordination of the rights or the position of the Jews nor to the subordination of the rights or the position of the Arabs. In any case the Council of 4he League, whose approval would be required for the termination of the existing mandate, would bear Ihe final responsibility for ensuring that tfie ultimate form of the constitution should be sucp as to safeguard the rights of both communities. Elsewhere in its comments the Goveminent recalls that one of the possibilities which it has in view is the establishment of a federal ounstitution for the future of the Palestine State.