Text of Agency Statement

Following is the text of the statement issued today by the Jewish Agency for Palestine rejecting the Woodhead Commission’s report on the Holy Land situation as a basis for negotiations:

We note that His Majesty’s Government, in a statement of policy published today, reverses the policy announced by them last year on publication of the Royal commission’s report of establishing in Palestine two independent states — one Jewish, one arab.

This reversal of policy is based on a report of the Palestine Partition Commission, which was appointed to draw up a more precise and detailed scheme of partition on the lines of the Royal Commission’s proposals.

The new Commission’s rejection of the Royal Commission’s scheme is the result not of new facts discovered by them, but of an interpretation of the terms of reference given them by His Majesty’s Government as being prior to and at variance with the Royal Commission recommendations.

A cursory reading of the partition commission report makes it impossible for the present to make any attempt at complete or detailed analysis. The following observations only are offered:

A majority of the Partition commission seem to have disregarded the main consideration relevant to the whole issue — IE. The international obligation of the mandatory power to the Jewish people as a whole to facilitate reestablishment of their national home in Palestine

The Commission, instead of working out a more precise and detailed scheme on the basis accepted last year by his majesty’s government, propose to dismember the existing Jewish settlement by excluding from what the majority of the Commission calls “the Jewish State” the greater part of the Jewish land and holdings and the most important areas of Jewish colonizations.

This ‘State’ comprises an area of less than one-twentieth of the whole of western Palestine, 300,000 acres in all, and less than one-hundredth of the area indicated by the Royal Commission as having been intended in 1917 for a national home.

This is a travesty of the obligations undertaken on behalf of the League (of Nations) by the Mandatory Power. That the proposal does not comply with obligations to the Jews was pointed out by one of the commissioners, Sir Alison Russell.

Having broken up the existing national home, the Partition Commission proceeds to abolish, as far as nineteen-twentieths of western Palestine is concerned, the Balfour Declaration and the Jewish National Home provisions of the mandate.

There can be no question as to this report serving as the basis of any negotiations either between Jews and Arabs or between the Jewish the agency and his majesty’s government.

In paragraph three, we note that it is the unanimous view of the Partition Commission that it is only Jewish immigration which has made possible the high level of public services enjoyed by the Arab population of Palestine and that, without Jewish immigration, the country would not maintain itself.

In paragraph four, His Majesty’s Government now declares its intention of pursuing a policy which will be consistent with its obligations towards the Jews as well as the Arabs and make a determined effort to promote understanding between the two peoples.

Last year after publication of the Royal Commission report, the Jewish Agency requested His Majesty’s Government to convene a Jewish-Arab conference for the same purpose, but the request was at the time refused.

It has been the consistent policy of the Zionist movement and the Jewish Agency to seek an understanding with the Arabs. But we cannot conceal our grave apprehension with regard to the procedure proposed to be adopted by his Majesty’s government in bringing in neighboring Arab states.

Those states have no special status with regard to Palestine. Insofar as they are members of the league of nations, their rights are no greater than those of other states which are members of the league or the United States.

Discussions with these states alone are hardly to be reconciled with the welcome assurance that his Majesty’s Government will keep constantly in mind the international character of the mandate with which they are entrusted and their obligations in this respect.

The Jewish Agency can be a party to further discussions only on the basis of the Balfour Declaration and the mandate.”

TEXT OF STATEMENT OF POLICY

Following is the British Government’s statement of policy on Palestine to the House of Commons:

The Royal Commission presided over by the late Lord Peel published its report in July, 1937 and proposed a solution of the Palestinian problem by means of a scheme of partition, under which independent Arab and Jewish states would be established while other areas would be retained under mandatory administration. In their statement of policy following upon the publication of the report His Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom announced their general agreement with the arguments and conclusions of the Royal Commission and expressed the view that a scheme of partition on the general lines recommended by the Commission represented the best and most hopeful solution of the deadlock.

The proposal of the Commission was framed in the light of the information available at the time and it was generally recognised that further detailed examination would be necessary before it could be decided whether such a solution would prove practicable. This proposal was subsequently discussed in Parliament and at meetings of the permanent mandate Commission and of the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations when His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom received authority to regulate the practical application of the principle of partition. A despatch of december 23rd, 1937 from the secretary of State for the Colonies to the High Commissioner for Palestine announced the intention of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom to undertake the further investigations required for drawing up a more precise and detailed scheme. It was pointed out that the final decision could not be taken in merely general terms and that further enquiry would provide the necessary material on which to judge, when the best possible partition scheme had been formulated, its equity and practicability. The despatch also defined the functions and terms of reference of the technical commission who were appointed to visit Palestine for the purpose of submitting in due course to his majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom proposals for such a detailed scheme.

His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom have now received the report of the Palestine Partition Commission who have carried out their investigations with great thorough ness and efficiency and have collected material which will be very valuable in further consideration of policy. Their report is now published together with a summary of their conclusions. It will be noted that four members of the Commission advise unanimously some adoption of the scheme of partition outlined by the Royal Commission. In addition to the Royal Commission’s scheme two other-schemes, described as plans B and C, are examined in the report. One member prefers plan B. Two other members including the chairman consider plan C the best scheme of partition which under the terms of reference can be devised. The fourth member, while agreeing that plan C is the best that can be devised under the terms of reference, regards both plans as impracticable. The report points out that under either plan while the budget of the Jewish state is likely to show a substantial surplus, the budgets of the Arab states (including Trans-Jordan) and of the mandated territories are likely to show substantial deficits. The Commission reject as impracticable the royal commission’s recommendation for a direct subvention from the Jewish State to the Arab states. They think that on economic grounds a customs union between the states and the mandated territories is essential and they examine the possibility of finding a solution for the financial and economic problems of partition by means of a scheme based upon such a union but they consider that any such scheme would be inconsistent with the grant of fiscal independence to the Arab and Jewish states. Their conclusion is that on a strict interpretation of their terms of reference they have no alternative but to report that they are unable to recommend boundaries for the proposed areas which will afford a reasonable prospect of the eventual establishment of self-supporting arab and Jewish states.

His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom will therefore continue their responsibility for the government of the whole of Palestine. They are now faced with the problem of finding alternative means of meeting the needs of the difficult situation described by the Royal Commission which will be consistent with their obligations to the Arabs and the Jews. His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom believe it is possible to find these alternative means. They have already given much thought to the problem in the light of the reports of the Royal Commission and of the partition Commission. It is clear that the surest foundation for peace and progress in Palestine would be an understanding between Arabs and Jews and His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom are prepared in the first instance to make a determined effort to promote such an understanding. With this end in view they propose immediately to invite representatives of the Palestine Arabs and neighbouring States on the one hand and of the Jewish Agency on the other hand to confer with them as soon as possible in London regarding future policy, including the question of immigration into Palestine. As regards the representation of the Palestine Arabs His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom must reserve the right to refuse to receive those leaders whom they regard as responsible for the campaign of assassination and violence.

His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom hope that these discussions in London may help to promote agreement as to future policy regarding Palestine. They attach great importance, however, to a decision being reached at an early date. Therefore if the London discussions should not produce an agreement within a reasonable period of time they will take their own decision in the light of their examination of the problem and of the discussions in London and announce the policy which they propose to pursue. In considering and settling their policy his majesty’s government in the United Kingdom will keep constantly in mind the international character of the mandate with which they have been entrusted and their obligations in that respect.