Discussion of Palestine Situation Continues in British Press

Unabated interest in the Palestine situation continues to be displayed by the British press.

The Sunday “Times” in addition to giving wide space to the article by Winston Churchill, released by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, publishes an editorial of comment. Referring to the article it declares: “The important article of Winston Churchill dealing with the Palestine disturbances and setting out conditions for the future, makes clear that one of the main causes of the Arab outbreak is traceable to the Government policy in Egypt which the Arabs mistook for weakness. If so, the government is under emphatic obligation now to maintain and continue a firm policy in Palestine, to protect impartially Jew and Arab. Any weakening or hint of withdrawal will be fatal. Given adequate measures of security, including an effective British gendarmerie, Palestine, under the British Mandate is assured of increasing stability and prosperity.”

SAYS NEITHER JEWS NOR ARABS WANT EARLY END OF MANDATE

Neither the Jews nor the Arabs desire or contemplate the early termination of the British Mandate in Palestine, writes the Jerusalem correspondent of the “Daily Chronicle.” Recent discussions of the Palestine and Iraq mandates in Great Britain have attracted much attention, as well as some uneasiness in Palestine, he states. The correspondent quotes an eminent Arab authority whose views are said to express the opinion of responsible quarters to the effect that: “We desire to preserve close connection with the British Empire which is a great Moslem as well as Christian power. Therefore we emphatically do not wish to see another power take its place which certainly would happen if England left Palestine. In Iraq, matters move more quickly in the direction of self-government because Iraq has not the problem of Arab Jewish relationship which runs through religious, social, economic and political life. We believe firmly England is the only country which can satisfactorily solve the difficulties of the problems created.'”

COL. KISCH TELLS OF BRITAIN’S UNFULFILLED PROMISES

In an interview with the correspondent, Colonel Frederick H. Kisch, member of the Jerusalem Zionist executive, told the “Daily Chronicle” correspondent: “Not only has Palestine an unique problem, but it should not be forgotten that the Palestine Mandate is a unique mandate because it embodies the Balfour declaration. Article 2 of the mandate declares that the Mandatory is responsible for placing the country under political, administrative and economic conditions assuring the establishment of the Jewish National Home and the development of a self-governing institution, safeguarding the civil and religious rights of the Palestine inhabitants. The Mandate therefore can surely only be surrendered when these conditions have been achieved and secured. Palestine cost the British tax payer precisely nothing. Palestine paid the cost of its own administration from the salary of the High Commissioner to the difference in the cost of maintaining troops here than if they were home. It is the only country that was once part of the British Empire which paid its share of the Ottoman debt, amounting to 800,000 pounds. Alone of these countries it paid one million pounds value for the railways left by the military forces which conquered Palestine. It also paid the value of the military stores left behind by the army and over 200,000 pounds deficit of the military administration in the occupied enemy territory.”

Colonel Kisch further stated that it would not have been unfair for the Jews to expect the British Government to accept some of these sums as part of the cost for the break up of the British Empire, which was one of its aims, or to postpone the payments by Palestine, for some time, in order that the money might be used for development purposes. Continuing he said: “Not only has Palestine paid all these things, but the country has been handicapped by the Mandatory having done so little to carry out the Mandate pledge to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home. Nothing has been done by way of helping us to settle on the state waste lands, especially mentioned in Article 6 of the Mandate. A great area in these lands, especially in the Beisan district, has already been alienated. That has caused a loss to the British Exchequer. There are other such lands which can be surveyed and placed at the disposal of the Jews, but the government has no policy in the matter. Indeed an indefinite set purpose is visible in the policy of the administration as regards cooperation with the Zionist Organization for the setting up of the Jewish National Home. Nothing has been done by way of establishing industry by means of industrial credits, nothing has been done to increase irrigation facilities though water is a great need in the country. Nothing has been done to relieve the settlers in the new agricultural land from taxation or to help Jewish ex-soldiers settle on the land. That is the government’s record.

“There are other reasons why Great Britain cannot surrender the Palestine Mandate, because leaving the country after the recent disturbances would have a very ill effect on British prestige. Being the custodian of the Holy (Continued on Page 4)

Places and a friend of world Jewry is not unimportant to a country like Great Britain. Our position in Palestine is vital for the protection of the great empire route through the Suez Canal. Napoleon crossed the Sinai desert without a railway or water pipe line. The Turks, during the Great War, crossed the same railess, waterless waste to the canal, despite our watchfulness, some of them actually digging themselves in on the Western bank. Air communications with the East were facilitated by our presence in Palestine. Soon the control of Haifa will be of great importance as a port, as the railhead for Bagdad, and as the likely end of the pipeline from the Mosul oil fields. Such are some of the benefits to be obtained by our being here. They are worth paying for by an enlightened, active, friendly policy to all in the Land of Promise.”

The “Daily Chronicle” correspondent, mentioning the terror of the Arabs at the voices said to be emanating from the tomb of Abraham declares that the French authorities in Syria are taking extraordinary precautions to keep nationals of Palestine out of Syria. The frontier is strongly guarded. Requests for visas by Palestinians are invariably refused by the French Consul, no exception being made for eminent personages such as the Grand Mufti of Palestine, and the Mayor of Jerusalem who, the other day, asked for permission to visit Damascus.

The “Observer,” welcoming the declaration of Great Britain’s readiness to end its Mandate in Iraq adds: “It cannot be said too clearly that Palestine is quite a different matter. We have entered there a task which we are in honor bound to complete, unless in the unconceivable event of its being sabotaged by those in whose behalf it is undertaken. We are pledged to establish a national settlement for the Jewish people in Palestine, and the corollary is the whole-hearted cooperation of our representatives in Palestine in executing our declared policy. Conversely we have the right to require that the administration, bound, in any circumstances to be difficult, should not be embarrassed by intemperate action among its beneficiaries.

On the other hand, the “Express,” welcoming the evacuation of Iraq urges the desirability of relinquishing the Palestine responsibility as well. Secutional and religious feuds of conflicting interests, it writes, render it impossible to transfer Palestine to the Palestinians, suggesting that perhaps America would assume responsibility for Palestine. If America is prepared to take it, the proper course would be to transfer the Palestine Mandate to America.

In the same tenor the “Sunday Despatch” rejoicing at the abandonment of the Iraq Mandate, declares the situation is no less threatening in Palestine. Unlike Iraq, Palestine is still unable to stand alone, but other nations are willing to try their skill. They should be given a chance the paper urges, particularly the one having a long purse, suggesting America assume the responsibility.