Five Articles by As Many Different Writers Discuss Palestine Situation from Several Angles in Curren

Five articles by as many writers, expressing different viewpoints on the Palestine situation, appear in recent issues of "Current History," "The New Palestine" and "New York Sunday World." In the January issue of "Current History" there apear two articles, one on "A Jewish Political State in Palestine," by Pierre Crabites, American judge on the Egyptian Mixed Tribunal, and another on "British Policy in Palestine," by H. N. Brailsford, noted British Labor editor and author. In the "New Palestine" of January 10, James Marshall, son of the late Louis Marshall, and Maurice Samuel, debate on the liberal attitude towards Palestine. An article by Vincent Sheean in the "New York Sunday World" of January 12 is headed "Palestine Inquiry Has Failed to Satisfy Jews or Arabs."

Judge Crabites in his article reveals himself as an uncompromising opponent of Zionism. "Zionism is a failure," he says. "The attempted conversion of Palestine into a national home for the Jewish people is being made possible by what may be called an unholy alliance between American non-Zionist Jewish gold and British shot and shell. If America arrests this gold stream, the Jews of Palestine will see the necessity of having England recall the Balfour Declaration. If English troops be removed or their number materially weakened, the toll of Jewish lives will be intolerable."

Mr. Brailsford, although sympathetic towards Zionism, sees danger for it in the fact that the interests of Great Britain in the Orient may lead it to take the step of giving up the Palestine Mandate and creating an Arab state in Palestine on the model of Iraq. He also says that "labor idealism has scruples over the continuous use of force for an indefinitely prolonged period." He sees peace between Jews and Arabs as essential for the future of Zionism, and believes that for the attainment of that Zionists will have to abandon their ambition of attaining a majority.

Lamenting the loss of support by liberals for Zionism and suggesting a program for regaining that support, James Marshall writes in the "New Palestine":

"Our problem is twofold: first, to retain the letter and spirit of the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate, and secondly, to give assurance to the Arabs that their fears are baseless, to remove their, grievances where they have just cause and to defeat medievalism.

"Now if the effective strength of the Balfour Declaration and of the Mandate is to be measured by the support of disinterested opinion, then this support will be won only by convincing the friendly peoples of the world: first, that we intend to be fair to the non-Jews in Palestine; and secondly, that our venture is not into the realm of political imperialism but into that of spirit, culture and humanity. There are enough small political bodies in the world known as Nation without now adding a Jewish Nation in that sense; we neither need nor want a ‘Judenstaat’."

"Mr. Marshall supports solely a Jewish group in Palestine with minority rights," says Mr. Samuel in another article in the same issue of the "New Palestine." "As a program this is just as inadmissible as the programmatic Jewish state. The actual solution lies in ignoring academic definitions and returning to palpable programs and rights.

"The first fundamental right of the Jews is: to return to Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. The first fundamental right of the Arabs is that they shall not be displaced or oppressed. The guarantee for both sides must remain, for a long time to come, some agent or mandatory appointed by the League of Nations. ‘The Jews shall not be admitted in larger numbers than the country can assimilate’; but we, the Jews, are to be the judges of the absorptive powers of the country. In 1925 we learned the lesson of programmatic absorption of Jews into Palestine. We paid the price, not the Arabs, when we brought in more Jews than the country could absorb. To deprive us of the control of our immigration into Palestine is to nullify the principle on which the Mandate rests."

Mr. Sheean in his article in the "World" expresses the opinion that the forthcoming report of the Palestine Inquiry Commission will fail to satisfy either Jews or Arabs and fears a new outbreak in the spring, citing as a reason for his fear the fact that it has been discovered that both Jews and Arabs are smuggling arms into Palestine.

Mr. Sheean criticizes the membership of the Inquiry Commission, stating that the more serious issues involved in the investigation were "somewhat beyond its depths." He also says that the Jewish case was prepared and presented at the hearing much more effectively than was the Arab side, but that nevertheless the Arabs succeeded in proving that the Grand Mufti had, instead of inciting, tried to suppress the riots, that strong Jewish provocation existed in some places, especially Jerusalem, while in others, particularly Haifa, it was the Jews who first attacked the Arabs when no sign of warfare had been given.

"A modification of the present regime in Palestine is foreseen by most observers," Mr. Sheean says in conclusion, "and before 1930 is out the Holy Land may have ceased to be what it is now, the one civilized country in the world which is governed by edict."

NEXT STORY