Jews Must Get More Than “mere Assurances,” Says Lipsky, Who Declares Macdonald’s Palestine Statement

That the Jews of the world are no longer satisfied by “mere assurances” from Great Britain that it will keep its pledge, made in the Balfour Declaration, to aid in the building up of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, was the statement made by Louis Lipsky, president of the Zionist Organization of America upon his arrival yesterday on the S. S. Bremen from a three weeks’ stay in London, where he attended the meeting of the Jewish Agency Administrative Committee.

Mr. Lipsky’s statement was in comment upon the remarks made by Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald in the House of Commons last week, when the report of the Palestine Commission of Inquiry was presented. At that time MacDonald had reiterated the intention of the British Government to fulfill the purposes of the Balfour Declaration in both its clauses. Although expressing approval of the attitude of the Prime Minister, Mr. Lipsky stated that too often in the past Jews have received good intentions rather than effective cooperation in the reconstruction of the Holy Land.

MERE STATEMENT DOES NOT SUFFICE

Commenting on MacDonald’s statement, Mr. Lipsky said:

“It is gratifying to know that the Prime Minister had indicated the determination of his Government to adhere to the Mandate, which he regards as an international obligation. This is not a party policy, for the Government will have the whole-hearted support of the majority of both the Conservative and Liberal parties, as well as of the Labor party. But merely stating that the British Government will adhere to the Mandate will no longer suffice, nor will it satisfy the Jewish demand for justice in the fulfillment of pledges solemnly made to them. The principal object of the Mandate is to facilitate the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine. That obligation must become the guiding policy of the Palestine Administration.

POLICY REDEFINITION NEEDED

“A redefinition of that guiding policy is of the utmost importance at once in order that Jewish enterprise for building up Palestine may no longer periodically be disturbed by murderous attacks on the part of Arabs, or by a Palestine Administration wholly out of sympathy with the declared purposes of the Mandate. Until such a policy is formed and clearly enunciated, it is idle to speak of merely adhering to the purposes of the Mandate.”

In his statement, Mr. Lipsky said:

“It is to be regretted that the Commission appointed ‘to inquire into the immediate causes which led to the recent outbreak in Palestine and to make recommendations as to the steps necessary to avoid a recurrence’ should have so departed from its instructions as to devote the larger part of its report to a discussion of economic and political problems on which it was not asked to report, or to express an opinion, and for which it was not properly equipped to draw conclusions. In fact, assurances had been given by the Prime Minister to the House of Commons that the Commission would keep within its assigned scope. Leading British Party leaders had intimated that Palestine interests would best be served if only a clear judgment were given by the Commission upon the facts presented as to the responsibility for the August disturbances, without complicating the situation by introducing matters of major policy which should be considered by the Government after the report on the riots had been submitted. In spite of these warnings and assurances, however, the Shaw Commission deemed it necessary to open the door wide and to consider under the heading of indirect causes of the disturbances, all the hearsay and assertion and declaration made by any witness who offered his testimony and then to express opinions on all the problems raised. In effect, having agreed to take into consideration indirect causes of the disorders, the Commission easily tied up the remote MacMahon correspondence with Sherif Husseini in the early years of the war, with the massacre of Jewish students in Hebron by Arabs in August, 1929.

REPORT UNEQUIVOCAL ON MAIN QUESTION

“On the main question, however,—Who was responsible for the savage outbreak of violence and murder?—the report of the Commission is clear and unequivocal. In its discussion of important, far-reaching problems of Palestine development, the Commission gave ample evidence of its unfamiliarity with these subjects. On the land question, the Commission arrives at the queerest conclusion, that, for all practical purposes, no substantial increase in the agricultural population is possible, although it admits that intensive cultivation may reasonably change the situation. It overlooks wholly the fact that all Jewish colonization involves intensive methods, and that through their intensive cultivation of the soil more employment has been given to Arabs than have been displaced from cultivating the land in their own way.

“In short, the extension of the scope of its inquiry and the discussion of problems of which little knowledge had been obtained by the Commission, has served to obscure rather than illuminate the fundamental issues which are today involved in the realization of the purposes of the Palestine Mandate. It is gratifying to know that the Prime Minister has already indicated the determination of his Government to adhere to the Mandate, which he regards as an international obligation. This is not a party policy, for in this connection, the Government will have the whole-hearted support of the majority of both the Conservative and Liberal Parties, as well as the Labor Party. But merely adhering to the Mandate will no longer suffice, nor will it satisfy the Jewish demand for justice in the fulfillment of pledges solemnly made to them. The obligations in the Mandate must become the guiding policy of the Palestine administration. A re-definition of that guiding policy is of the utmost and immediate importance in order that Jewish enterprise for building up Palestine may no longer periodically be disturbed by murderous attacks on the part of Arabs, or by a Palestine administration wholly out of sympathy with the declared purposes of the Mandate. Until such policy is formed and clearly enunciated, it is idle to speak of merely adhering to the purposes of the Mandate.”