News Brief

the 86,980 rural Arab families being landless is based not on actual enumeration, but, according to the Simpson report, on an inquiry into the position of “104 representative villages” with a population of 23,573 families.

With regard to the definition of the term “landless” the memorandum has the following to say: “The actual position in the 104 villages where conditions were examined is described in the report on page 64. It there appears that, of 23,573 families, only 5,477 lived entirely from agriculture. The rest of the population either depended on some occupation entirely distinct from agriculture, or lived partly by agriculture and partly by some other calling. The first inference from these figures is that, in estimating the number of fellah families whose average holding works out at about 90 dunams, the White Paper includes among the cultivators who ought to have a full-size holding, everyone who has any land at all; for the figure of 61,408 is arrived at by deducting 29.4 per cent from the total of 86,980 rural families, and the results obtained from the 104 villages show, as will be seen, that if only full-time farmers were included the percentage to be deducted would be very much larger than 29.4. It follows that the calculation as to the inability of the cultivable area to provide a lot viable for every cultivator implies the conclusion among cultivators of a very large number of persons who are not in reality entirely, or in some cases even mainly, dependent on the land for their living. Conversely, it also follows that it is misleading to speak of the ‘landless’ 29.4 as though they were necessarily, or at all events probably, persons who ought properly to be cultivating the soil. They turn out to be the residue of persons who remain over after the deductions of everyone who has any land at all, apparently even to the extent of an allotment by which he supplements his earnings from other sources. It is reasonable to assume that at any rate a majority of them are either agricultural laborers, or are persons who in one capacity or another play a part in the life of the village not directly connected with agriculture….”

SOME “LANDLESS” NORMAL

The memorandum also finds it difficult to understand why it should be considered a remarkably disturbing phenomenon that a considerable portion of the population of a village are not owners or cultivators of land. That this is a perfectly normal state of affairs the memorandum shows by quoting Simpson with reference to the situation in that part of the Plain of Esdraelon that has been colonized by Jews. Simpson is also cited to show that in the Jewish villages only 50 percent of the population is actually engaged on the land.

The entire discussion by the White Paper of the question of “landless” Arabs is found to be confused by the memorandum which summarizes the underlying suggestion as follows: “The rights and position of the Arabs are to be deemed to be prejudiced if, on a rough calculation in which every doubtful point is strained to the disadvantage of the Jews, it can be made to appear that the cultivable area is not large enough to provide the whole rural Arab population with a fairly comfortable livelihood. There are some Arabs in the rural areas (it is impossible to ascertain, and it is in any case of no consequence, how large a proportion they include of Arabs who have merely smuggled themselves across the frontier) who have no land and would like to have some; there are other Arabs who have some land, but would be better off with more. It is not necessary to show that the average holding is any smaller than it used to be, or that the condition of the Arab section of the population is any worse than it was before Jewish immigration began, nor is it merely a case of preventing the disturbance, as a result of Jewish purchases from non-resident Arab owners, of Arab cultivators actually in occupation of land. Jewish settlement can only be allowed to proceed on condition that it can be shown that every Arab in the rural area has as much land as he needs to make him comfortable, even though he now has as much as he ever had in the past. Every Arab in the rural areas is in principle entitled to employment, and until these claims have been attended to, the Jews must wait. In other words, in speaking of ‘close settlement by Jews on the land’ what article 6 really meant was close settlement by Arabs.”

RECALLS PICA COLONY ATTACKS

Referring to the White Paper’s endeavors to show that the position of the Arabs has been “prejudiced” by drawing a sharp distinction between the beneficial results of the PICA’s activities and on the good relations existing between the PICA colonists and their Arab neighbors “in order that this policy may be more effectively contrasted with that of the Jewish Agency.” the memorandum recalls that the oldest PICA colony, Petach Tikvah was attacked by Arabs in 1921 and that other PICA settlements were endangered by the 1929 disturbances.

The memorandum contends that in raising the question of the effect of Zionist colonization in causing former tenants of land “to join the landless class,” the White Paper makes no direct statement that any considerable number of tenants have lost their holdings but contents itself with the implications of the statement that “some of the attempts that have been made to prove that Zionist colonization has not had the effect of causing the previous tenants of land acquired to join the landless class have, on examination proved to be unconvincing, if not fallacious.” As to the general effects of Jewish colonization on the Arabs, the memorandum maintains that the White Paper “similarly limits itself to vaguely invidious suggestions.”

Finding it surprising that the White Paper should suggest, without actually confirming, that the position of the fellaheen is deteriorating and that Jewish colonization is at least among the principal causes, the memorandum cites the Simpson report and the report of the High Commissioner in 1925 to prove that just the reverse is true. The memorandum also shows that Simpson lays the present agricultural depression in Palestine to the recent fall in the prices of agricultural produce. As further evidence that the depressed condition of Palestinian agriculture has nothing at all to do with the Jews, the memorandum cites official reports of the neighboring Arab countries of Syria, Iraq and Transjordania which are also suffering from an agricultural depression.

CRISIS NOT PECULIAR TO PALESTINE

Hence the memorandum concludes that if Palestinian agriculture is suffering this is due to causes not at all peculiar to Palestine, but which are common to all Arab countries. The memorandum contends that while the White Paper conveys, intentionally or unintentionally, the impression that the Arab fellaheen has deteriorated and largely as a result of Jewish colonization the truth is that “there is no evidence whatever that the fellaheen are worse off than they were before Jewish colonization began, and there is evidence to the contrary; any special depression from which the fellaheen may at present be suffering is quite plainly due to causes wholly unconnected with Jewish colonization; there are therefore no grounds for the suggestion that the ‘rights and position’ of the rural section of the Arab population have been ‘prejudiced’ by Jewish colonization.”

The memorandum then turns to a discussion of the many things that could be done for the fellah without any interference with Jewish colonization. Quoting the Simpson report on the main disadvantages of the Arab fellah as lack of capital for his farm, heavy indebtedness, incredibly high rates of interest on his land, increased rents, heavy taxation, lack of ordinary primary education and the absence of cooperation, the memorandum points out that these constitute “a vast field of reform in which the government can operate to the manifest advantage of the Arabs without in any way prejudicing the Jews.”

PAPER AND SIMPSON REPORT VARY

Turning to the land development scheme as outlined in the White Paper the memorandum declares that “there is a marked contrast between the tone and outlook of the White Paper and of the concluding chapter of the Simpson report in which Sir John Hope Simpson sums up his recommendations.” Declaring that on a number of points even his recommendations are open to question by the Jewish Agency, the memorandum nevertheless shows that his recommendations differ widely in content and spirit from the corresponding paragraphs of the White Paper.

The memorandum savs that Simpson