'Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.' Groucho Marx

'The British,....within the flexible limits of the mandate, veered and tacked with the wind' J C Hurewitz, 'The Struggle for Palestine,' New York 1950, p21.

'The White Paper of 1939 was an even greater act of expediency than the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Both were motivated by strategic concerns related to war efforts, either existing, as in 1917, or imminent, as in 1939.' Charles D Smith, 'Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict – A History with Documents,' New York 2007, p150.

Britain excelled in making lofty statements and pledges with regard to Palestine and the Middle East; to the Hashemite family, to the Zionists, and to the people who lived there. British politicians and diplomats were adept at keeping their promises vague and ill-defined, so that, as circumstances changed, these stated intentions could be 'clarified' and newly defined to maintain the best interests of the British government.

Britain was good at proclaiming noble sentiments, but the grubby reality was that their policies only responded to power, or the illusion of power. In 1917 British politicians thought that the Zionists represented a global power with international connections that could shape the outcome of the First World War, the Hashemites were useful in 1915, but their charm was waning by 1919, in 1930 the minority government couldn't even be sure of their control of parliament, and by 1939 Britain had to reckon with newly assertive Arab states in considering their Palestine policy. There were no principles involved in Britain's attaempts to govern Palestine; British actions were governed by expediency, which ultimately resulted in an ignominious end to their rule in Palestine and their place in the Middle East.

Anglo French Declaration

November 7, 1918

The Anglo-French Declaration was signed between France and Great Britain on November 7, 1918, four days before the armistice agreement that ended World War I, and issued in Syria, Palestine and Iraq. Copies were posted on the public notice boards in all towns and villages in the Arab territories then occupied by the Allied forces.

'The goal envisaged by France and Great Britain in prosecuting in the East the War let loose by German ambition is the complete and final liberation of the peoples who have for so long been oppressed by the Turks, and the setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations.

In pursuit of those intentions, France and Great Britain agree to further and assist in the establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations in Syria (1) and Mesopotamia (2) which have already been liberated by the Allies, as well as in those territories which they are endeavouring to liberate, and to recognise them as soon as they are actually set up..

Far from wishing to impose any particular institutions on the populations of those regions, their [ie France and Great Britain’s] only concern is to offer such support and efficacious help as will ensure the smooth working of the governments and administrations which those populations will have elected of their own free will to have; to facilitate the economic development of the country by promoting and encouraging local initiative; to foster the spread of education; and to put an end to the dissensions which Turkish policy has for so long exploited. Such is the task which the two Allied Powers wish to undertake in the liberated territories.'

(1) This name was officially used to denote the whole of geographic Syria from the Taurus mountains to the Egyptian frontier.

(2) Denoted the region made up of the former Ottoman vilayets of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, which is today’s Iraq.

From The Arab Awakening, George Antonius, Capricorn Books Edition,1965.

https://balfourproject.org/anglo-french-declaration

Debate in parliament on the Hussein McMahon correspondence, 1923

Hansard 1923: Pledges to the Arab Peoples

LORD SYDENHAM

Pledges to the Arab peoples debated 1st March 1923 House of Lords

To draw attention to the pledges given to the Arab peoples, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will lay on the Table the correspondence in 1915 between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sherif of Mecca, now King Hussein, on which their predecessors based the claim that Palestine is geographically excluded from those pledges.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, His Majesty's late Government always refused to publish this important correspondence, because on it depends the whole of our pledges to the Arab peoples which were made in the year 1915. Ever since then the Arabs have consistently maintained that we have not fulfilled our solemn pledges made to them at, that time. Surely it is only right and just that we should know exactly how our national obligations stand in this respect. As so often happens in cases of this kind, a version of this correspondence, containing the crucial parts relating to the pledges, has been made public. ...I will quote only such portions as are relevant to the case which I wish to lay before the House.

On July 14, 1915, the Sherif of Mecca wrote to Sir Henry McMahon defining the boundaries within which, as he said, "Great Britain will acknowledge the independence of the Arab countries." On August 30 Sir Henry McMahon demurred, quite naturally, to any discussion of the boundaries until the war came to an end. But the Sherif stuck to his guns, and His Majesty's Government, which was at the time in very great need of his assistance, gave way.

On October 25 Sir Henry McMahon accepted the Sherif's boundaries, but with the following reservations:—

"The district of Mersina and Alexandretta, and portions of Syria, lying to the west of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should therefore be excluded from the desired boundaries, With these modifications. … we accept these boundaries, and, as regards those portions of the territories in which Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interests of her Ally France, I am empowered, in the name of the Government of Great Britain, to enter into the following covenant."

Then follow the words which I consider constitute the pledges:—

"Subject to the above modifications. Great Britain is prepared to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories included in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca."....

If the extracts which I have quoted can be relied upon as authentic then it is perfectly clear that Palestine is included among those countries which are to be independent and subject to the advice and guidance of this country.

Your Lordships will, I think, see that the pledge to Palestine to be an independent country, subject only to British advice, is really as clear as daylight. This same pledge was almost textually repeated by General Allenby in a formal Proclamation to the people of Palestine, which he made on November 14, 1918. That pledge was further implicitly confirmed by the late Prime Minister himself in September, 1919. He then said—

"The Arab forces have redeemed the pledges given to Great Britain, and we should redeem our pledges."...

By violating our solemn pledges .... It must be, and I know that it is the case, that the distrust engendered in Palestine extends itself to Mesopotamia, and that our prestige in the Near East and far beyond it has undergone a very dark eclipse....

Are we not hound in honour to fulfil the pledges which I hope I have succeeded in proving do actually exist? ....And the Arabs, under the inspiration of the Sherif, now King Hussein, rendered us very great services during the war at a very critical time, and they certainly believed that the pledge to which I have referred was a real pledge that we should honour. ....

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES(THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE)

In the White Paper issued last June a clear statement was made which, with your Lordships' permission, I will read. It is this:

"It is not the case, as has been represented by the Arab Delegation, that during, the war His Majesty's Government gave an undertaking that an independent national Government should be at once established in Palestine. This representation mainly rests upon a letter dated the 24th October, 1915, from Sir Henry McMahon, then His Majesty's High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sherif of Mecca, now King Hussein of the kingdom of the Hejaz. That letter is quoted as convoying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty's Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H.McMahon's pledge."....

Undoubtedly there never was any intention, when the pledge was given, to recognise the independence of the Arabs so as to include Palestine. I think that is perfectly clear, and in my own mind I am certain of it. Although the terms may not have been expressed in the clearest possible language, I think it was the intention of both Sir H.McMahon and the Government, at the time, when those pledges were given, that Palestine should not be included.

LORD SYDENHAM

General Allenby's Proclamation was made in every village in Palestine, and I ask the noble Duke whether he does not consider that that promise, made in the most formal way just after the conquest of Palestine, does not include the independence of Palestine?

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1923-03-01/debates/9813265a-9dc0-4e68-a678-89d39492851a/PledgesToTheArabPeoples?highlight=hussein%20palestine#contribution-70589fbe-945a-4bfc-9eee-4a54a18a8eab

Permanent Mandates Commission on the pledges made by the UK

LEAGUE OF NATIONS PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION

MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930.

'GENERAL STATEMENT BY M. VAN REES (member of the Commission).

In January 1919, the fate of the Arab provinces taken from the Turkish Empire was decided. These provinces were recognised in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant as provisionally independent on the understanding that the advice and assistance of a Mandatory would be at the disposal of the administration until the provinces were able to stand alone.

That was the first surprise and the first disappointment suffered by the Arabs, who had imagined that their political future had been finally settled by the negotiations which had taken place between the High Commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry MacMahon, and the Sherif Hussein.

Shortly afterwards, the Allies concluded the first Treaty of Peace with Turkey. Article 95 of that Treaty drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory. The article referred only to the administration of the country by a Mandatory chosen by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, without making any reservation in regard to the character of the administration.

That had been the second surprise and disappointment suffered by the Arabs, who thus saw their national and political hopes vanishing. This disappointment had been all the more keen as Article 1 of the Mandate for Palestine provided for the institution in this territory, in contrast with the other Asiatic territories under mandate, of a direct system of administration, the British Government being furnished with full legislative and administrative powers.

The Arabs, from the outset, had not ceased to protest against this treatment. They had felt that their confidence in Great Britain had been misplaced and they had reproached Great Britain with a dual violation -- with violating promises formally given during the war and with a subsequent violation of the terms and spirit of Article 22 of the Covenant.'...

https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5F21F8A1CA578A57052566120067F658

Extracts from the White Paper of October 1930 – the Government's Statement of Policy on Palestine

'In a country such as Palestine, where the interests and aims of two sections of the community are at present diverse and in some respects conflicting, it is too much to expect that any declaration of policy will fully satisfy the aspirations of either party. His Majesty's Government have, however, permitted them-selves to hope that the removal of existing misunderstandings and the more precise definition of their intentions may go far to allay uneasiness and to restore confidence on both sides. ....

His Majesty's Government feel it necessary to emphasise, in the strongest manner possible, is that in the words of the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons on the 3rd April last, "a double undertaking is involved, to the Jewish people on the one hand and to the non-Jewish population of Palestine on the other." ....

In the first place, it will be observed that Article 2 makes the Mandatory responsible for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race or religion; and secondly, that the obligation contained in Article 6 to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, is qualified by the requirement to ensure that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced. Moreover, by Article 11 "the Administration of Palestine is required to take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country." It is clear from the wording of this Article that the population of Palestine as a whole, and not any sectional interest, is to be the object of the Government's care, and it may be noted that the provision for arranging with the Jewish Agency for the construction or operation of public works, services and utilities, is only permissive and not obligatory, and could not be allowed to conflict with the general interests of the community. These points are emphasised because claims have been made on behalf of the Jewish Agency to a position in regard to the general administration of the country, which His Majesty's Government cannot but regard as going far beyond the clear intention of the Mandate. Moreover, attempts have been made to argue, in support of Zionist claims, that the principal feature of the Mandate is the regarding the Jewish National Home, and that the passages designed to safeguard the rights of the non-Jewish community are merely secondary considerations qualifying, to some extent, what is claimed to be the primary object for which the Mandate has been framed.

This is a conception which His Majesty's Government have always regarded as totally erroneous. However difficult the task may be it would, in their view, be impossible, consistently with the plain intention of the Mandate, to attempt to solve the problem by subordinating one of these obligations to the other. ...

The economic capacity of the country to absorb new immigrants must therefore be judged with reference to the position of Palestine as a whole in regard to unemployment, ....

The situation revealed by exhaustive examination of the various economic, political and social factors involved, makes it clear that Palestine has reached a critical moment in its development. In the past it may be said that the Government has left economic and social forces to operate with the minimum of interference or control, but it has become increasingly clear that such a policy can no longer continue. It is only the closest co-operation between the Government and the leaders of the Arab and Jewish communities that can prevent Palestine from drifting into a situation which would imperil, on the one hand, the devoted work of those who have sought to build up the Jewish National Home, and, on the other, the interests of the majority of the population who at present possess few resources of their own with which to sustain the struggle for existence. What is required is that both races should consent to live together and to respect each other's needs and claims. To the Arabs His Majesty's Government would appeal for a recognition of the facts of the situation, and for a sustained effort at co-operation in obtaining that prosperity for the country as a whole by which all will benefit. From the Jewish leaders, His Majesty's Government ask a recognition of the necessity for making some concessions on their side in regard to the independent and separatist ideals which have been developed in some quarters in connection with the Jewish National Home, and for accepting it as an active factor in the orientation of their policy that the general development of the country shall be carried out in such a way that the interests of the Arabs and Jews may each receive adequate consideration, with the object of developing prosperity throughout the country under conditions which will give no grounds for charges of partiality upon the one side or upon the other, but will permit of the Arab and Jewish communities developing in harmony and contentment.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-passfield-white-paper

The Passfield White Paper, issued by the colonel secretary Lord Passfield (Sidney Webb), was a formal statement of British policy in Palestine issued in October 1930. It was produced in response to The Hope-Simpson Report, which had followed from the 1929 outbreaks of violence in Palestine, as the report had recommended that the British Government provide clarification of ill-defined terms and issues within the Mandate. Supporters of Zionism considered the White Paper to be too harshly critical of their efforts in Palestine.

Extracts from the debate in the House of Commons 17 November 1930 on the Palestine White Paper issued by the government

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE (Liberal)

The White Paper is almost universally regarded as a revocation of that Mandate—a practical revocation....

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels)

.... However excellent the intention of the promoters of the Mandate its draughtsman-ship leaves something to be desired. The vagueness and qualifications of its terms have been a source of difficulty from the beginning. ....The vagueness and qualifications of the instructions in the Mandate have tempted each side to overstate and over-press its case, have created an atmosphere of suspicion, and have laid the Government open to imputations of bad faith whenever it made any important decision. ... We have repeatedly affirmed our intention of carrying out the full Mandate, and we stand by that. We have also stated that we regard the two sides of the Mandate as of equal weight and importance, and that is still our position. .. ....

Mr. Leopold AMERY (Conservative)

.... the impression created in the mind of the ordinary reader, Arab or Jew, or Englishman at home, was that the whole operation of the Mandate for an indefinite period of years was to be crystallised at its present standard, that Jewish development should only take place on the land they have already bought and that Jewish immigration should he severely cut down as long as a single Arab was out of work. No wonder that there has been an outcry all over the world...

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald)

.... So far as the Mandate is concerned I have said again and again and I say now that the Mandate is to be carried out. But when we come to the condition of Palestine we must admit that the Mandate has to be carried out in such a way that civil disorder is not going to result from its operation. ... on the question of immigration, there is nothing in the White Paper which justifies the conclusion and the propaganda which has been carried on to the effect that the Government wish to stop immigration or that they wish to curtail immigration merely upon the figures of unemployed Arabs.

Sir H. SAMUEL (Liberal)

....The representatives of the Government have said that they propose to maintain the Mandate, and they declare to the Jewish people that they may continue their work of colonising the people on the land. The White Paper, however, says in effect, that that will be subject to two conditions: first, that you shall have no more land, and, second, that you shall have no more people. ...

The other result would be that, if the White Paper were acted on according to its actual terms, it must involve a real cessation of Jewish immigration. I am glad, indeed, that the Under-Secretary has disavowed that interpretation; but what other interpretation could be placed on these words: " It may be regarded as clearly established that the preparation of the labour schedule must depend on the ascertainment of the total of unemployed in Palestine "— that is Jews and Arabs? That means that if there is Arab unemployment there must not be Jewish immigration....

Mr. Percy MORRIS (labour)

The White Paper of this year does two things. First of all, it defines what it supposes to be the meaning of the Balfour Declaration. That is an interpretation of the document itself and an interpretation of the Mandate. In the second part the White Paper does a totally different thing. It there sets out the facts relating to land and immigration. ...What the White Paper does, as I understand it, is that it says that from now on we are going to attach the same equal weight to the two parts of the Balfour Declaration. .... All that the White Paper says is that at the present time, under the present methods of cultivation and with the industrial system in vogue at the moment, you had reached saturation point.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1930-11-17/debates/964060ab-5228-4f3c-bb09-6add2dd57027/Palestine?highlight=palestine#contribution-5d386acf-79af-485b-b1c6-05cb34864f0e

Ramsay MacDonald became Labour Prime Minister in June 1929, but he did not have a majority in parliament, so in order to get any legislation passed he needed the support of Lloyd George's Liberal Party Mps.

Extracts from a letter from Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald to Chaim Weizmann of the Jewish Agency, February 1931

'Dear Dr. Weizmann:

In order to remove certain misconceptions and misunderstandings which have arisen as to the policy of his Majesty’s Government with regard to Palestine, as set forth in the White Paper of October, 1930, and which were the subject of a debate in the House of Commons on Nov. 17, and also to meet certain criticisms put forward by the Jewish Agency, I have pleasure in forwarding you the following statement of our position, which will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper on the matters with which this letter deals.

It has been said that the policy of his Majesty’s Government involves a serious departure from the obligations of the mandate as hitherto understood; that it misconceives the mandatory obligations, and that it foreshadows a policy which is inconsistent with the obligations of the mandatory to the Jewish people......

It has been said that the policy of the White Paper would place an embargo on immigration and would suspend, if not indeed terminate, the close settlement of the Jews on the land, which is a primary purpose of the mandate....

The statement of policy of his Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional lands by Jews. It contains no such prohibition, nor is any such intended. ....

His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories. The practice of sanctioning a labor schedule of wage-earning immigrants will continue. ...

His Majesty’s Government desire to say, finally, as they have repeatedly and unequivocally affirmed, that the obligations imposed upon the mandatory by its acceptance of the mandate are solemn international obligations from which there is not now, nor has there been at any time, an intention to depart. To the tasks imposed by the mandate, his Majesty’s Government have set their hand, and they will not withdraw it. ....

Ramsay MacDonald'

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-macdonald-letter-february-1931

Extracts from the 1939 White Paper

'The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. ...

His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will. ...

His Majesty's Government are charged as the Mandatory authority "to secure the development of self governing institutions" in Palestine. Apart from this specific obligation, they would regard it as contrary to the whole spirit of the Mandate system that the population of Palestine should remain forever under Mandatory tutelage. It is proper that the people of the country should as early as possible enjoy the rights of self-government which are exercised by the people of neighbouring countries. His Majesty's Government are unable at present to foresee the exact constitutional forms which government in Palestine will eventually take, but their objective is self government, and they desire to see established ultimately an independent Palestine State. It should be a State in which the two peoples in Palestine, Arabs and Jews, share authority in government in such a way that the essential interests of each are shared.

The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State... The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.

In the view of the Royal Commission the association of the policy of the Balfour Declaration with the Mandate system implied the belief that Arab hostility to the former would sooner or later be overcome. It has been the hope of British Governments ever since the Balfour Declaration was issued that in time the Arab population, recognizing the advantages to be derived from Jewish settlement and development in Palestine, would become reconciled to the further growth of the Jewish National Home. This hope has not been fulfilled. The alternatives before His Majesty's Government are either (i) to seek to expand the Jewish National Home indefinitely by immigration, against the strongly expressed will of the Arab people of the country; or (ii) to permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it. The former policy means rule by force. Apart from other considerations, such a policy seems to His Majesty's Government to be contrary to the whole spirit of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, as well as to their specific obligations to the Arabs in the Palestine Mandate. Moreover, the relations between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine must be based sooner or later on mutual tolerance and goodwill; the peace, security and progress of the Jewish National Home itself requires this. Therefore His Majesty's Government,...have decided that the time has come to adopt in principle the second of the alternatives referred to above.

Jewish immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if economic absorptive capacity permits, will bring the Jewish population up to approximately one third of the total population of the country. Taking into account the expected natural increase of the Arab and Jewish populations, and the number of illegal Jewish immigrants now in the country, this would allow of the admission, as from the beginning of April this year, of some 75,000 immigrants over the next five years. ...

In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special consideration being given to refugee children anddependents.

After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.

His Majesty's Government cannot hope to satisfy the partisans of one party or the other in such controversy as the Mandate has aroused. Their purpose is to be just as between the two people in Palestine whose destinies in that country have been affected by the great events of recent years, and who, since they live side by side, must learn to practice mutual tolerance, goodwill and cooperation. In looking to the future, His Majesty's Government are not blind to the fact that some events of the past make the task of creating these relations difficult; but they are encouraged by the knowledge that as many times and in many places in Palestine during recent years the Arab and Jewish inhabitants have lived in friendship together. ... The responsibility which falls on them, no less than upon His Majesty's Government, to cooperate together to ensure peace is all the more solemn because their country is revered by many millions of Moslems, Jews and Christians throughout the world who pray for peace in Palestine and for the happiness of her people.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/british-white-paper-of-1939

The following response was issued by the Jewish Agency for Palestine after the publication of the British White Paper

1. The new policy for Palestine laid down by the Mandatory in the White Paper now issued denies to the Jewish people the right to rebuild their national home in their ancestral country. It transfers the authority over Palestine to the present Arab majority and puts the Jewish population at the mercy of that majority. It decrees the stoppage of Jewish immigration as soon as the Jews form a third of the total population. It puts up a territorial ghetto for Jews in their own homeland.

2. The Jewish people regard this policy as a breach of faith and a surrender to Arab terrorism. It delivers Britain's friends into the hands of those who are biting her and must lead to a complete breach between Jews and Arabs which will banish every prospect of peace in Palestine. It is a policy in which the Jewish people will not acquiesce. The new regime now announced will be devoid of any moral basis and contrary to international law. Such a regime can only he established and maintained by force.

3. The Royal Commission invoked by the White Paper indicated the perils of such a policy, saying it was convinced that an Arab Government would mean the frustration of all their (Jews') efforts and ideals and would convert the national home into one more cramped and dangerous ghetto. It seems only too probable that the Jews would fight rather than submit to Arab rule. And repressing a Jewish rebellion against British policy would he as unpleasant a task as the repression of the Arab rebellion has been. The Government has disregarded this warning.

4. The Jewish people have no quarrel with the Arab people. Jewish work in Palestine has not had an adverse effect upon the life and progress of the Arab people. The Arabs are not landless or homeless as are the Jews. They are not in need of emigration. Jewish colonization has benefited Palestine and all its inhabitants. Insofar as the Balfour Declaration contributed to British victory in the Great War, it contributed also, as was pointed out by the Royal Commission. to the liberation of the Arab peoples. The Jewish people has shown its will to peace even during the years of disturbances. It has not given way to temptation and has not retaliated to Arab violence. But neither have the Jews submitted to terror nor will they submit to it even after the Mandatory has decided to reward the terrorists by surrendering the Jewish National Home.

5. It is in the darkest hour of Jewish history that the British Government proposes to deprive the Jews of their last hope and to close the road hack to their Homeland. It is a cruel blow, doubly cruel because it comes from the government of a great nation which has extended a helping hand to the Jews, and whose position must rest on foundations of moral authority and international good faith. This blow will not subdue the Jewish people. The historic bond between the people and the land of Israel cannot he broken. The Jews will never accept the closing to them of the gates of Palestine nor let their national home be converted into a ghetto. The Jewish pioneers who, during the past three generations, have shown their strength in the unbuilding of a derelict country, will from now on display the same strength in defending Jewish immigration, the Jewish home and Jewish freedom.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/zionist-reaction-to-the-white-paper-of-1939

Extracts from speech on the White Paper by Right Honorable Winston Churchill, House of Commons, May 23, 1939

'I regret very much that the pledge of the Balfour Declaration, endorsed as it has been by successive Governments, and the conditions under which we obtained the Mandate, have both been violated by the Government’s proposals. There is much in this White Paper which is alien to the spirit of the Balfour Declaration, but I will not trouble about that. I select the one point upon which there is plainly a breach and repudiation of the Balfour Declaration – the provision that Jewish immigration can be stopped in five years’ time by the decision of an Arab majority. That is a plain breach of a solemn obligation....

What sort of National Home is offered to the Jews of the world when we are asked to declare that in five years’ time the door of that home is to be shut and barred in their faces? .... On page II of the White Paper, in Sub-section (3) of paragraph 14 there is this provision:

“After the period of five years no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.”

Now, there is the breach; there is the violation of the pledge; there is the abandonment of the Balfour Declaration; there is the end of the vision, of the hope, of the dream....

It is said specifically on page 10 of the White Paper that Jewish immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if the economic absorptive capacity allows, will bring the population up to approximately one-third of the total population of the country. After that, the Arab majority, twice as numerous as the Jews, will have control, and all further Jewish immigration will be subject to their acquiescence, which is only another way of saying that it will be on sufferance. What is that but the destruction of the Balfour Declaration? What is that but a breach of faith? ....

I cannot believe that the task to which we set our hand 20 years ago in Palestine is beyond our strength, or that faithful perseverance will not, in the end, bring that task through to a glorious success. I am sure of this, that to cast the plan aside and show ourselves infirm of will and unable to pursue a long, clear and considered purpose, bending and twisting under the crush and pressure of events – I am sure that that is going to do us a most serious and grave injury at a time like this...

The triumphant Arabs have rejected it. They are not going to put up with it. The despairing Jews will resist it. What will the world think about it? What will our friends say? What will be the opinion of the United States of America? Shall we not lose more – and this is a question to be considered maturely – in the growing support, and sympathy of the United States than we shall gain in local administrative convenience, if gain at all indeed we do?'

https://israeled.org/resources/documents/remarks-by-the-right-honorable-winston-churchill/

Labour Party Resolution

In December, 1944 the Labour Party at its 43rd annual conference adopted the following resolution with respect to Palestine:

“Here we have halted half way, irresolute between conflicting policies. But there is surely neither hope nor meaning in a ‘Jewish National Home’, unless we are prepared to let Jews, if they wish, enter this tiny land in such numbers as to become a majority. There was a strong case for this before the War. There is an irresistible case now, after the unspeakable atrocities of the cold and calculated German Nazi plan to kill all Jews in Europe. Here, too, in Palestine surely is a case, on human grounds and to promote a stable settlement, for transfer of population. Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out, as the Jews move in. Let them be compensated handsomely for their land and let their settlement elsewhere be carefully organised and generously financed. The Arabs have many wide territories of their own; they must not claim to exclude the Jews from this small area of Palestine, less than the size of Wales. Indeed, we should reexamine also the possibility of extending the present Palestinian boundaries, by agreement with Egypt, Syria, or Trans-Jordan. Moreover, we should seek to win the full sympathy and support both of the American and Russian Governments for the execution of this Palestinian policy.”

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945Berlinv02/d1345

Notes:

In 1944 the Labour Party was in opposition; in the general election of July 1945 the Party defeated the ruling Conservatives in a landslide, and went on to form a government with Clement Attlee as Prime Minister, and Ernest Bevin as Foreign Secretary.

"Clem, about Palestine. According to the lads in the Office, we’ve got it wrong. We’ve got to think again.”

Ernest Bevin, Foreign Secretary, to Clement Attlee, Labour Prime Minister, 1945. From 'Lords of the Desert. Britain's Struggle with America to Dominate the Middle East' by James Barr, London 2018, p66.

Page updated

Report abuse