Britain Will Recommend No Solution on Palestine to United Nations, Bevin Tells Commons

The British Government does not intend to recommend any particular solution of the Palestine problem to the United Nations, Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin today told the House of Commons.

The government, Bevin said, has no power under the mandate of the League of Nations to award Palestine either to the Arabs or the Jews, or even to partition the country between them. Therefore, he asserted, the Cabinet decided to submit the problem to the United Nations, and will limit itself to giving an historical account of the mandatory regime during the last twenty-five years as well as the Arab plan, Zionist aspirations and the latest British proposal.

Asserting that he regretted that this procedure would involve a further delay in the solution of the problem, Bevin expressed the hope that all concerned will exercise restraint until the United Nations comes to a decision.

Reviewing the reasons given by Jewish and Arab leaders for the rejection of his plan, Bevin told Commons that he regrets the failure of both the London Conference and the informal talks with the Zionist representatives. It is now clear, he said, that there is no prospect of reaching a settlement along even the most general lines which would be acceptable to the Jews and the Arabs.

Announcing that a White Paper on the Palestine issue will be issued this week, Bevin said that the document will describe in detail all the British proposals for a solution of the Palestine problem, including the latest plan for the establishment of a unitary state with autonomous Jewish and Arab areas.

WILL NOT BRING PALESTINE ISSUE TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Britain will not bring the Palestine issue before the U.N. Security Council, Bevin disclosed, adding that the government does not think that world peace is endangered by the developments in Palestine. The mandatory power, he said, is obliged to carry on the mandate and to deal with the United Nations which is the successor to the League of Nations.

Answering a query, Bevin stated that the White Paper will not be abolished. “Whether right or wrong, the House is committed to the White Paper, but restricted Jewish immigration will be continued,” he declared. To criticism voiced by Winston Churchill, he replied that 1,500 Jews would be admitted monthly to Palestine, adding that the government had not done badly in admitting 29,000 Jews to Palestine since the end of the war.

Bevin appealed to the world, especially to the United States, to help Britain in solving the problem of displaced Jews. A statement similar to Bevin’s was made simultaneously in the House of Lords by Viscount Hall, First Lord of the Admiralty and former Colonial Minister, who said that questions of interim immigration and land restrictions in Palestine are being considered by the government.

AGENCY SAYS BRITAIN SHOULD RETURN TO TERMS OF MANDATE UNTIL U.N. ACTS

Charging that the government apparently envisages another period of delay, a Jewish Agency spokesman said tonight that since Britain intends to go before the U.N. without any constructive proposal, the least it can do is “to appear before the tribunal with its mandatory trust intact and inviolable.”

He asserted that the mandate was binding upon Britain until the U.N. authorizes a new policy, and, therefore, the restrictions on immigration and land sales, which are incompatible with the mandate, should be removed. Only in this manner can the government allay the feelings of tension and despair which have been manifesting themselves in the past two years, the spokesman added.

Minister of the Exchequer Hugh Dalton, replying to a questioner in Commons today, said that the Palestine Government contributes $172,000 annually towards the up keep of the Transjordan Frontier Force and also the expenses of the Palestine police. It also defrays the cost of preventing illegal immigration and provides compensation for damages resulting from extremist attacks. He added that he was conferring with Colonial Minister Arthur Creech-Jones on whether the government should make a further contribution to the cost of maintaining order.