A great land development scheme to provide for the settlement of approximately 10,000 families in Palestine involving the expenditure of not more than $12,500,000 for works of a productive nature such as irrigation and drainage was announced by Dr. Drummond Shiels, under-secretary for the Colonies, in the course of the parliamentary debate on Palestine. Premier MacDonald, who spoke after leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties had criticized the government’s Palestine policy, announced that while circumstances made necessary a “pulling up” in the rapidity of the development of the Jewish National Home the puling up in no way meant an abanddonment of the Palestine Mandate.
The debate was opened by Lloyd George, Liberal leader, who in his attack on the government’s policy, termed the White Paper an injustice to the Jews and the Arabs. If Britain is unable to carry out the Mandate, Lloyd George suggested it be returned to the League of Nations.
Replying to Lloyd George, Dr. Shiels criticized the draftsmanship of the Mandate but assured that it would be carried out. The land development plan that he announced was intended to provide for the landless Arabs “who have been dispossessed as the result of land passing to the Jews” while the balance of the fund to be provided will be made available for the settlement of both Jews and Arabs.
Col. Leopold Amery, former Conservative Colonial Secretary, criticized the White Paper as containing only the negative passages of the Simpson report and ignoring the positive ones. He also pointed out that with more tact and foresight the world-wide attacks on the White Paper could have been avoided.
taking had been given that if Palestine were conquered by the Allies a national home for the Jewish people would be established there.
Quoting the text of the Balfour Declaration, Lloyd George declared that the idea was not only to give an opportunity to the Jews for colonization and settlement but the dominant idea was the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.
It was an opportunity for the creating of Hebrew culture, Lloyd George continued. “It was the idea of a Jewish national home which this country accepted at a critical moment in our fate. It was a pledge of honor by some of the greatest nations on earth, including the British Empire, which we are called upon to honor,” he said.
SEES MACDONALD NOT CONSULTED
Pointing out that the White Paper was unanimously regarded as a practical revocation of the Mandate and hence it was vital that the present opportunity be given to the House of Commons to clear up any misunderstanding, Lloyd George asserted that the White Paper was issued “without anyone being consulted so far as I can see. I wonder whether the Premier himself was fully consulted before the document was issued. I can hardly believe that some of this document would have ever been sanctioned by the Premier if at the moment he had not been so hard pressed with other matters that he could not give that close scrutiny to the terms of the White Paper which otherwise he would have given.”
“Before the White Paper was issued.” Lloyd George continued, “the Mandates Commission severely criticized the Palestine administration.” It was the first time that the Mandates Commission rebuked a power to whom a mandate had been issued, he said, and “the British government’s answer was the publication of the White Paper.”
RETURN MANDATE IF TOO DIFFICULT
“It was a truly amazing performance but the government could not tear up the Mandate which is an international document signed in treaties. If the Mandate is too difficult for us to carry out we should return it to the League of Nations and ask that another Mandatory be appointed. But the White Paper as it stands is a one-sided document, biased and hostile to the spirit of the Mandate and breathing distrust, and even antagonism to the Jewish activities,” Lloyd George stated.
The Liberal leader said that “had it been written by an anti-Semitic official I could understand it. The Labor government in a state document censors the Jewish Labor Federation. Could anti-Semitism go further than that? You dare not kill Zionism directly so you put it in a refrigerator. Unemployment in other countries is explained but in Palestine the Jews are blamed. It was not true that the Jews are using their power to drive off the poor Arabs,” Lloyd George said, mentioning instances of the Jews’ benefiting the Arabs with capital brought into the country and reciting also the work of Jewish hospitals and training colleges and ending with the remark that “the Jews are doing more than the government is doing.
“It is not true that no more land is available because twice as many Arabs could be settled on land as yet unoccupied but the government has not irrigated the land, its policy being utterly stupid. The government could do its work much better by collaborating with the Jews, who are supported by capital from the outside, and by developing the land and so help the Arabs.”
SAYS TRANSJORDANIA OVERLOOKED
The government’s policy seemed to be “if we can’t help the Arabs we will stop the Jews,” Lloyd George charged. Transjordania, he said, has never been taken into consideration as regards the provision of land for the Arabs. He recalled that it was in the Mandate but excluded from the Jewish National Home for the Jews.
There are great tracts of land open for settling the Arabs, he pointed out but “the land must be properly developed. If the government of this country could not take the responsibility for the Mandate let it be passed on to some other country.” Here he was interrupted by a shout of “to Italy.”
The Jewish National Home is a great experiment which could leave its mark on history, Lloyd George asserted, adding that the Jews “are capable of rendering great service to humanity. To fulfil our task we require judgment, courage and perserverance. The government is too apt to regard difficulties as an excuse for the postponement of the task. If we fail in Palestine our failure will be visible to other nations. If we succeed it would restore the confidence in Britain to govern an empire,” Lloyd George concluded amid loud cheers.
SHIELS SPEAKS FOR GOVERNMENT
Dr. Drummond Shiels, under-seccretary for the Colonies, who has just returned to the House of Commons, took the floor to reply to Lloyd George on behalf of the government. Saying that the government would be pleased to have the help and collective wisdom of the House of Commons in solving a problem which has caused the government great anxiety,” he observed that Lloyd George’s speech contained “a number of serious misrepresentations which are a disappointment in view of the high position he occupies.”
Pointing to the need for taking a broad view on the subject, Dr. Shiels traced the history of the Palestine Mandate and explained that since 1922 every government has striven to carry out the Mandate but the period “contained dark chapters which have left their aftermath of bitterness and contention.” The report of the Shaw Commission that probed the Palestine riots was not liked by the Jewish authorities, the govern-
ment spokesman said, adding that they had voiced their exception to the Mandates Commission and by strongly criticizing both the Palestine and London governments.
The White Paper too, the stated, was not liked by the Jewish leaders but here “there has been an obvious misunderstanding of its provisions and meaning and voices in high quarters have been raised in protest, of which the main criticism was that the White Paper marked a departure from the Mandate. But however excellent the intentions of the promoters of the Mandate is, its draftsmanship left something to be desired.
DEFINES MANDATE’S CHIEF AIM
“The Mandate’s vagueness has been a source of irritation since the beginning. The Jews held the view that its main purpose was the establishment of the Jewish National Home, everything else being secondary or supplementary, while a small but vigorous section of the Mandates Commission as well as the Arabs held that the development of self-governing institutions should be the leading consideration of the Mandate.”
LAND DEVELOPMENT TO COST $12,500,000
Referring to the land development proposed in the report of Sir John Simpson and furthered in the White Paper, Dr. Shiels said that the government came to the conclusion that in order to achieve the object in view, “an expenditure not exceeding $12,500,000 would be required for works of a productive character such as irrigation, drainage and other schemes designed to increase general productivity and which it is estimated will provide for the land settlement of 10,000 families.
“In view of the present financial situation in Palestine the only way to raise that sum would be under a guarantee of the British government and a bill authorizing the treasury to give such a guarantee will be proposed to Parliament after Christmas when the House of Commons will have an opportunity to discuss the project before putting it into execution.”
Going into the details of the project, Dr. Shiels explained that it intends in the first place to provide for the landless Arabs who “have been dispossessed as the result of land passing to the Jews,” while the balance will be available for the settlement of both Arabs and Jews.
The development plan is “surely proof that the government not only attends to the needs of the landless Arabs but the scheme also makes possible further opportunities for Jewish land settlement,” Dr. Shiels declared. Hence, he claimed, the suggestion that the government seeks to crystallize the Jewish National Home at its present stage of development is “without a shadow of foundation.”
DENIES IMMIGRATION BAN
Regarding immigration, the government spokesman denied that the White Paper meant to say that so long as Arabs are unemployed Jews should not be admitted. These regulations, Dr. Shiels contended, will be carried out with common sense “as the government fully recognized that a good deal of Jewish capital is brought to Palestine with a view to providing employment for Jews and otherwise would not have been invested at all.”
Touching on the White Paper’s strictures against the Jewish Federation of Labor, Dr. Shiels, who recently returned from a brief visit to Palestine, said that he was impressed with its zeal, energy and the clearness of its aims as well as its remarkable achievements but he pointed out that he had himself told the Federation of the “danger of its policy in restricting employment on Jewish enterprises to Jewish workers.”
Dr. Shiels stated that “undoubtedly their primary idea of every man working for himself was good, but whether it was possible to continue such a system remains doubtful and it was a consideration of some seriousness if it came about that an Arab worker would never find employment in any piece of Palestine territory which had passed under Jewish control.”
M. P’S HECKLE HIM
While speaking about the attempt to call a round-table conference of Arabs and Jews, Dr. Shiels was interrupted with a question “why wasn’t the conference called?” Dr. Shiels replied that the parties could not be brought together. This was followed by another question of “which parties,” Ormsby Gore following this up with a second call as to “whether the Jews ever refused to participate in a round table.”
Lloyd George also raised the question, saying that “it is very important to know who was responsible for failing to respond to the government’s invitation and whether the Jews or the Arabs are responsible.” Dr. Shiels, however, avoided a direct answer, limiting himself to saying that as yet he did not know whether the Jews had failed but “at any rate the Arabs had been unwilling,” thus admitting that the Arabs had been approached but had refused to take part in a round table discussion.
As proof that the Mandatory Power could not have been so passive or inactive as it was suggested, Dr. Shiels pointed out that 80,000 Jews had settled in Palestine since Great Britain had undertaken the responsibility and he added that the government “will afford all facilities for the establishment of the Jewish National Home consistent with its obligations because it is necessary to remember that four-fifths of the Palestine population are Arabs who are apprehensive about their failure and about their country.”
Dr. Shiels mentioned two reasons why the obligations to the non-Jewish sections of the population must not be forgotten; first, national honor and in-
de Rothschild pointed out, that in the case to which Bury referred the Arabs had received $150,000 in compensation.
Bury sought to emerge from the difficulty by saying that the landlords received the money “which had not helped the Arabs actually on the land”, but Rothschild insisted that the tenants actually obtained the money. Bury was then compelled to change his course and declared that no good had been done in giving money to the fellaheen in view of their thriftlessness when in a few months they spend the money and remain a burden for the state.
Sir Herbert Samuel, former High Commissioner of Palestine, who followed Premier MacDonald, expressed doubt whether Dr. Shiels’ and Premier MacDonald’s replies would be satisfactory for those criticizing the White Paper. He also doubted whether what had been said would leave the situation very different from what it had been before the debate began.
SAMUEL SEES PALESTINE WITH 2,000,000
Denying that the ousting of the Arabs from their homes was ever contemplated or that such a scheme was intended, Sir Herbert declared that the presence of the Arab population should not prevent the establishment of the Jewish National Home as he was quite convinced that with proper agricultural and industrial development it could in the very near future support a population of 2,000,000 people. He said he saw no reason why within a generation the population should not increase even to 3,000,000.
Sir Herbert pointed out that the Zionist extrimists who ignore the Arab population are few and do not dominate the policy of the Zionist movement. Sir John Simpson was in Palestine only two months and he had never been there before, the former High Commissioner noted, adding that while he agreed with Sir John that there were little state lands available for Jewish settlement he believed that there was a possibility of closer colonization and industrial possibilities which Sir John had ignored.
Sir Herbert opined that it was impossible to govern Palestine without the formal representation of the people and the government was therefore right in trying to appoint a legislative assembly. Palestine is only a small country, he concluded, but none is more illustrious and therefore it is glory for Great Britain that it is caring for the Holy Land.
SNELL JOINS IN ATTACK
The first Labor speaker joining the general disapproval of the White Paper was Harry Snell, Labor member of the Shaw Commission who dissented from the majority findings of that body. In the course of a lengthy address he pointed out the possibilities for the Jews in Palestine and praised highly Jewish energy and achievements.
Quoting from the Simpson report on the achievements of the Jews in Motza and Tulkarem which were previously stony ground, Snell pleaded that while the government is trying to be fair towards the Arabs it was necessary to be fair also to the West, that is Palestine proper, and not permit the infiltration of Arabs to swell the population of Palestine from the Eastern and Northern frontiers.
Snell lauded the Jewish Federation of Labor and praised its statesmanlike views not only for what is required of it but also for its responsibility to Arab labor, adding that if a similar view prevailed throughout Palestine the situation would have been different from what it is now.
Pointing out that changes always result in hardship for some, Snell supported the suggestion of an Arab settlement in Transjordania which, with the proper scientific help, he said “might prove an illustration to the entire Arab world”. The Labor leader stated that while Simpson gained great experience as an Indian civil servant, “this also has its limitations as he does not see the economic affect on Palestine if his policy is fully adopted because he has not considered the effect of a stoppage of Jewish money pouring into Palestine when the country will be limited, according to Simpson, to a primitive Arab state, on the scale which he has adopted.
MUST LOOK TO JEWS FOR IMPROVEMENT
“But if we desire economic improvement in Palestine we have to look to the procreative energy of a people who are putting in love, enthusiasm and wealth into the land from which they sprang”. Snell concluded with an appeal for cooperation between Jews and Arabs, mentioning the agreement recently concluded between Arab and Jewish neighbors at Mekor Haim as the real basis for an understanding between the two sections of the population. He felt certain that in the same spirit the country would make progress despite all obstacles.
R. Hopkin Morris, another member of the Shaw Commission, made the central point of his speech what the Jewish National Home meant and of what Britain’s obligations to the Jews actually consisted, pointing out that none of the previous Colonial secretaries, not even Sir Herbert Samuel, had given a clear reply to what the government actually intended to create in Palestine nor even what the Jews themselves wanted, except to reverse the policy. This, Morris said, “shows how hopeless it is to govern a mandated territory without hope as to the precise policy we intend to pursue.”
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.
