“manchester Guardian” Urges Careful, Dispassionate Study of Palestine Situation Before Commission’s

The entire English press continues to devote considerable attention and space to the Palestine situation. In addition to reporting Palestinian events many of the papers are publishing informational articles in serial form. The “Times” and the “Observer” and other papers analyze the Jewish achievements in the country, British obligations there and also the Arab complaints. With the exception of the “Daily Mail,” which continuously advocates abrogation of the Palestine Mandate and which yesterday devoted an editorial to this subject, almost the entire press has refrained from taking any definite attitude on Palestine, apparently taking the hint from Under-Secretary Lunn to await the results of the Inquiry Commission.

In yesterday’s “Manchester Guardian,” however, there was a lengthy editorial on the question of Palestine. The “Guardian” feels that it will be necessary to give the Palestine problem careful and dispassionate thought during the coming months, more especially perhaps before the Commission’s report is published because a clear conception of the fundamentals of the policy will facilitate detailed decisions.

Before the winter is over the British government fill have to make a decision of vital importance, says the “Guardian.” “After the Commission’s reports are completed Premier Mac-Donald and his colleagues will have to decide along what lines the future Palestine policy shall run. Three things are axiomatic, namely, that there is no question of abandoning or altering the Mandate and therefore the committal remains established to a Jewish National Home. But equally with the Balfour Declaration the Mandate pledges respect for other races and religions and therefore there is no question of all of Palestine becoming a Jewish National Home but that a Jewish National Home be created in Palestine which is mainly peopled by Arabs.”

“Can these duties be reconciled? Is a solution possible?” asked the “Guardian.” After analyzing the Jewish and Arab rights in Palestine first as being on a purely sentimental basis and second on a purely material basis the “Guardian” finds that the rights of one are as good as the rights of the other and that both must be protected. This, claims the “Guardian,” at once introduced an element of compromise into the situation. “If the rights of both are valued, sacrifices on both sides are necessary if justice is to be done. Voluntary sacrifices, however, are remote in view of the post-war nationalism. It was just because of this difficulty that the Mandate over Palestine was created.

“With Great Britain undertaking the duty of maintaining peace it should obtain such concessions as may be necessary. Therefore without attempting to prejudice the Commission’s findings it may be safely said that we must never in the future find ourselves so weak in Palestine that a repetition of this year’s riots will be possible. But self-government is just as powerful and deserving a principle in the world today as racial feeling.

“At present self-government is impossible for Palestine but will it necessarily remain so? Why should the Arab of Jerusalem be less privileged than his brother in Bagdad and why should the Jew of Jaffa be fated to be less free than his cousin in London?”

The only solution that the “Guardian” can see is for differences of nationality and religion to be replaced by economic interests or political ideals, an other words for parties to replace ###aces. The paper sees it as Great Britain’s duty to encourage this evolution. And the development of a Palestine nelting pot. “Great Britain’s duty should be directed towards bringing all of the communities into friendly contact which may lead to a reversal of the policy of communal representation which perpetuates group particularism and which will ultimately result perhaps in representative government under a written constitution guaranteed by the Mandatory and by the League of Nations.“Only racial needs could then be satisfied through voluntary cultural bodies. In a small country where several nations live their feelings should find expression not in official organs of state but in voluntary association.” This proposition the “Guardian” puts up for debate and not as dogma.

“Near East and India” expresses great dissatisfaction with the decision of the Mandates Commission regarding the Wailing Wall issue but believes that good may come out of evil. It points out that the fact that the League of Nations is unwilling to help the Mandatory with advice may result in a more rigid determination by the Palestine government to govern. In its editorial “Near East and India” expresses the blief that “the slowness of progress in Palestine is due to Great Britain’s holding a Mandatory position that involves a multitude of interest but if the League of Nations is not willing to assume the responsibility to which apparently the Mandatory power has so long paid deference it now appears necessary to adopt a more definite and more direct line of administration.”

“Near East and India” charges that the Palestine government instead of governing indulged in an attitude of watching, waiting and hoping. “If this (Continued on Page 6)

has been the policy of the British government, which has proved unworkable, then the Palestine government cannot be blamed but if the British government’s policy in Palestine has been quite feasible, sound and just, then the blame must be attached to the Palestine government. This is one of two possible conclusions from which there is no escape. It is sheer hypocrisy to say that the British government is not responsible for the conduct of the Arabs and Jews in Palestine. Of course the Arabs ought not to show violence and of course the Zionists ought not lend themselves to charges of provocation. The fundamental point, however, is that the British government knew that the Arabs when profoundly touched were violent people and that the Zionists, on occasion, are provocative people and that it should have been led at least as much by this knowledge as it was by hope.”

After this analysis of the situation the editorial discusses the possibility of an Arab-Jewish rapprochement which it feels must be built on two facts, namely the fact that the Arabs recognize the existence of the Jewish community in Palestine and appreciate its value to the country and secondly that the Jews recognize the existence of the Arabs in Palestine and disapprove of the banishment of Arabs from Palestine, even if such a course were possible.

“Near East and India” suggests as the best solution that the Jews and Arabs meet unofficially to see whether by the inevitable process of give and take it is possible to reach the means to an understanding. “It manifestly would seem to an outside observer that the old policy and old claims are no longer tenable and that a Jewish National Home can no more be built up in the face of fairly united Arabs antagonism than the Arab hopes of self-government can be realized on the basis of opposition to the Zionists. Nevertheless it is difficult to imagine that either side should be so lacking in statesmanship as not to find some ground for reconciliation that would enable cooperation.”

This is the only solution that the “Near East and India” was able to often. It remarks that the government by banging heads together will hardly promote goodwill. “This must be done unofficially by both parties. Both cases must be equally stripped of all that is not absolutely indispensable. Then surely some basis of collaboration can be found.” In this connection the paper quotes Einstein’s interview in the “L’Oeuvre” suggesting that to allow such wise words to drop unfructified would be folly on the part of the Arabs.