That the Jews must rule, protect and police the Jewish National Home in Palestine or persuade Germany or America to take over the Mandate, is the opinion expressed by the “New Statesman,” influential English weekly.
“The Balfour Mandate cannot be regarded as eternal,” the paper writes, “as it was not submitted either to Parliament or to the English electorate. Accepting the obligation Lord Balfour forced upon Britain was a generous impulse but a time limit or a modification of policy is necessary as Britain cannot eternally support a minority, merely because one of our Ministers, once, without consulting us, pledged us to a particular policy.
“We cannot suddenly repudiate our responsibilities,” it continues, “but the time has come to issue a warning that ten or twenty years hence the Jews must prepare to manage their own affairs. No imperial or British economic interests are involved in Palestine. The historical Jewish claims are flimsy. On similar grounds, England could claim Gascony or Denmark or Calais, because the English are Danes and Normans.
“It is unjust to use British soldiers and machine guns against an indigenous race. It is impossible permanently to support with rifles the role required of us by Zionist propagandists.”
The paper urges the establishment of an advisory legislative body to which, after some years, the government could be transferred. Continuing, the “New Statesman” declares: “The notion that we can maintain a British army for the permanent preservation of peace between the Jews and the Arabs is absurd. The Jews are perfectly capable of looking after themselves. If the Jews really want a National Home in Palestine, they must buy it with their own money, not British money, still less with British blood. The Jews are one of the great races in the world and must work out their own salvation.”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
