PALESTINE DEBATE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 24 May 1939, Page 5

PALESTINE DEBATE

JEWISH & ARAB RIGHTS Mr MALCOLM MACDONALD'S CONTENTIONS. SPIRIT OF THE BRITISH PROPOSALS. (British Official .Wireless.) RUGBY, May 22. In the course of his speech in the Palestine debate in the House of Commons, the Colonial Secretary (Mr Malcolm MacDonald) said economic absorptive capacity had been laid down as a criterion in the matter of immigration by the British Government itself. It was true that in 1931 the Government had gone so far as to declare that that should be the sole criterion, and the League Council took note of that declaration, but it was clearly made in the ; light of the conditions then existing, and was not intended as binding in all times and circumstances. Up to a point—and Mr MacDonald mentioned that the Jewish population had grown from 80,000 in 1922 to 450,000 today—Britain felt fully justified in taking that criterion because there was no denying that Jewish immigration and Jewish development were bringing to Palestine great material benefits in which the Arabs shared, but he recalled other considerations of increasing seriousness which had compelled its reconsideration. The Arabs were not free to recognise or appreciate material benefits while they were haunted by the fear that as a result of indefinitely continued Jewish immigration they would be dominated numerically, economically, and politically in the land of their birth. That fear had gripped the Arabs and had resulted in three years of grimly sustained revolt which had caused a severe setback to the economic progress of Palestine.

THREAT OF LASTING FRICTION. It had produced hatred between the Arabs and the Jews, which, if it were to become permanent, would be disastrous. It had also spread distrust and unrest into neighbouring countries, and threatened to become a permanent source of friction and strife in the Middle East.

It could not be contended, the Minister said, that such conditions were “suitable conditions” as envisaged in the mandate. To impose a policy o£ indefinite Jewish immigration into Palestine would be to create a situation pregnant with tragic possibilities not only in Palestine but throughout the Middle East.

And what of the rights of the Arabs? They had lived in Palestine for centuries. Did not that give them a title to say that beyond a certain point they should not have imposed upon them a population which might dominate them, even if ft were recognised that the people coming in had a historic connection with and right in Palestine? SUGGESTIVE PARALLEL. “Supposing, instead of a million Arabs, there were in Palestine a million Americans or Englishmen or Frenchmen whose ancestors had lived in the country for generations,” said Mr MacDonald. “Would we say they had no rights in this respect? Of course, we should say that a point must come when we could not force immigrants upon them against their will. If 'that principle applies to Americans and others, then it also applies to the Arabs.” Mr MacDonald explained that, while recognising in the White Paper proposals the propriety of institutions, he insisted that they were directed to ensuring each of the two peoples in Palestine against the Domination of the other, and disposed by detailed criti-, cism of the contention in a statement issued by the Jewish Agency that the proposals meant the transfer of authority over Palestine to the present Arab majority and the putting of the Jewish population at the mercy of the majority. He asked, if this was true, how it came about that the proposals had been rejected by the Palestine Arabs precisely because they did not give control to the Arab majority. EXPOSITION OF SAFEGUARDS. The latter half of Mr MacDonald’s speech was devoted to an exposition of the safeguards provided in the White Paper proposals, both for the period of transition toward responsible Government, and at the time of the establishment of an independent State after 10 years. At each stage the Jewish national home was carefully safeguarded.

The future State was to be one in which two peoples would share in the Government in such a way that the essential interests of each were secure. It might be a unitary State. It might be a Slate in which there was a predominantly Arab or a predominantly Jewish province enjoying considerable local autonomy. The eventual form of the constitute was not prejudiced in the White Paper.

The whole spirit of the arrangement contemplated was that the interests of the majority and the minority alike should be adequately secured and that the mandatory Power should be satisfied that they were adequately secured before it surrendered control of the country.

In a notable reference to the enthusiasm with which the Jewish national home had been built up. Mr MacDonald said: “If there.is one thing certain,. I believe it is that the work of the Jewish pioneers in our time has not been in vain, but that they have created something in Palestine which will continue to prosper.” Mr A. C. Crossley (Conservative) deplored the fact that the Arabs, for whom he alleged Jewish immigration had meant penury and dispossession of land, had no spokesman among the leaders on either side of the House. He urged that the Arabs should be given self-government sooner than after 10 years. Mr L. S. Amery (Conservative) was also strongly critical of the White Paper, which considered a repudiation of the pledges in the mandate. The debate will be continued tomorrow. “NO SURRENDER” PROTEST PARADE BY JEWISH WOMEN. JERUSALEM, May 22. Led by Mrs Herzog, wife of the Chief Rabbi, 10,000 Jewish women, singing national songs and crying “No surrender” and bearing banners, marched in procession to the Government offices and handed the Chief Secretary a memorandum condemning the White Paper.

A military lorry crossed the line of march, and the women attacked and disarmed a soldier and broke his rifle. CABLEGRAMS TO BRITAIN. JERUSALEM, May 23. Ten thousand Jewish women, after the protest parade, cabled Mr Chamberlain, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Miss Ellen Wilkinson. M.P.. as follows: “Jewish women will continue undaunted their opposition to the restriction on their national home.”