PALESTINE POLICY

Wairarapa Times-Age, 19 August 1939, Page 5

PALESTINE POLICY

REPORT OF THE MANDATES COMMISSION BRITISH WHITE PAPER QUESTION OF CONFORMITY WITH MANDATE. MEMBERS UNABLE TO AGREE. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY. August 17. The observations of the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission on the statement by the British Government iii May relating to future policy in Palestine were made public today, together with the British Government’s comments. Both of these statements will come before the League Council at its next meeting in .September. In submitting its observations to the Council, the Mandate's Commission says it desires to pay a 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 (Mr Malcolm MacDonald) made personally* at its sessions in June and expresses gratitude “for the inexhaustible patience with which he lent himself to the long and arduous exchanges of views which the Commission was privileged to have with him.”

Since the announcement of the BriL ish Government’s policy in May, principal interest and much speculation have attached to the view that the Mandates Commission would take on the question whether the proposals in the White Paper conform with the terms of the mandate. Observations on this crucial point state that:—

“From the first one fact forced itself to the notice of the Commission—that the White Paper Was not in accordance with the interpretation which, ih agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine mandate.

But, it was added, the mandate ' might be open to more than ode 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 im terpretation. There was divergence on this point and the Commission says it can only refer the council to the mihutes of 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.” Three other members considered that “existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the League Council did not oppose it.” The four members referred to were the Belgian, Swiss, Norwegian, and Dutch delegates, and the other three were the Portuguese, French, and Bi-itish. ANOTHER REPORT COMMISSION SAID TO BE UNANIMOUS. POLICY NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH MANDATE. GENEVA, August 17. The Mandate’s Commission unanimously reported that the British White Paper policy in Palestine does not accord with the Commission’s tion of the mandate, chiefly in relation to Jewish immigration, the trans* fer of land to Jewish settlers, and the subordination of the Jewish national home to an Arab majority. BRITISH COMMENTS SOME PAST DISCUSSIONS RECALLED. MANDATE UNWORKABLE. LONDON, August 17. Commenting on the observations of the Mandates Commission, 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 of the members of the commission ap-

parently felt obliged to disregard what they regarded as political Considerations in approaching the question of the conformity of the new policy proposals with the mandate, and remarks that the mandatory Power, responsible, as it is, for the 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 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.” The British Government incidentally takes up the Curious statement in the commission's observations, offered in proof of the declaration already cited, that the fact that the policy of the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation of the mandate accepted in the past 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 the Jews in Palestine could not be satisfied under the terms of the mandate as it stood. It was these aspirations of the Arabs and the Jews alike for their own national Government that could not be reconciled without revision of the mandate and which led to the proposal for revision, but the setting up of two sovereign States since has been found impracticable and his Majesty’s Government has been unable to envisage any other solution which would satisfy the separate aspirations of the two communities for sovereign independence. “Britain is unable to agree that the alternative which it has now adopted conflicts in principle with any declaration in its statement of July, 1937," the Government comments. In its comments the British Government deals in detail with three questions—immigration, land, and the future constitution, which it believes the four members of the commission think afford the main ground for holding that Britain’s most recent proposals conflict with the mandate. It is emphasised that Britain fully intends that the constitution of the independent State should not lead, as some members of the commission felt it would, to subordination of the rights or position of the Jews nor to subordination of the rights or position of the Arabs. In any case, the Council of the League, whose approval would be required for the termination of the existing mandate, woud bear the final responsibility lor ensuring that the ultimate form of the constitution should be such as to safeguard the rights of both communities. The Government recalls that one of the possibilities which it has in view is the establishment of a federal constitution for the future of the Palestine State.