Says Britain Would Have to Protect Palestine Even Though No Zionism

A critical and historical view of the present situation, entitled “British Policy and the Palestine Mandate,” has just been completed by Herbert Sidebotham, spokesman for Lloyd George when the Balfour Declaration was issued, and long an outstanding champion of the Jewish cause in Palestine. Addressed primarily to members of Pariament, Mr. Sidebotham’s memorandum tries not to apportion the blame for the recent events in Palestine, but rather to define the rights and privileges of British trusteeship in that country and the conditions of its successful discharge.

After briefly tracing the historical steps that brought Great Britain into Palestine, Mr. Sidebotham examines the provisions of the Palestine Mandate. He concludes that the trust is one not only for resident Jews, but for all Jewry, and therefore there can be no question of merely balancing the claims of the resident Jews and resident Arabs against each other.

In a chapter called, aptly enough, “Seed Time,” Mr. Sidebotham remarks that “reaction in men’s minds after the War inclined them to compromise with opposition, and the delays in the Palestine settlement confirmed that tendency. Sir Herbert Samuel, the first High Commissioner, was under its influence, and perhaps misread the Arab character, which may be one reason why successive attempts at compromise had the opposite effect from what was intended.”

He briefly discusses the incidents at the Wailing Wall which he claims were the prelude rather than the real cause of the Arab rising against the Jews. Nevertheless, it is his belief that England need not be disturbed about the exaggerated difficulties of maintaining order in Palestine. The problem, says Mr. Sidebotham, is not military, but purely one of police. “Not only was the police force too few in numbers, but its composition was too Moslem. This is a mistake that can be easily remedied, for there is no lack of loyal supporters of law and order, nor are there even isolated cities of Jews incapable of self-defense. The administration took undue risks, which it need not have taken, and must not take again. Rightly handled, the problem of internal order is manageable without assistance from outside.”

Mr. Sidebotham lays quite effectively the bogey of Palestine as a burden to the British tax-payer. He proves that the only achievement of the administration there has been in finance, and that even this has been done at the cost of leaving to the Zionists all the initiative in the progressive development of the country. It is not true that the British tax-payer pays for Zionism, says Mr. Sidebotham. On the contrary, the balance of the ac-

(Continued on Page 4)

(Continued from Page 3) count is heavily on the other side, since Jewry all over the world is subscribing heavily for work which, but for Zionism, would have to be paid for by Great Britain.

In conclusion, Mr S.idebotham makes the interesting statement that even if there were no Zionism, Great Britain would have to protect Palestine, for it is necessary to the safety of the Suez Canal. He points out that Great Britain is exceedingly lucky to have concluded an alliance with Zionism that is so advantageous to British interests. “It is impossible to put any limit on the success that the Jew may perform as mediator between East and West, and we, if we are wise, may be the beneficiaries,” he declares.