Says British Officials Resigned from Palestine Administration Because They Deprecated Inauguration O

That Dr. Chaim Weizmann, in a conversation with herself and her husband, who was in the Palestine administration between 1918 and 1920 and who was for six months Acting Governor of Jerusalem, suggested “the great advantage to the British Empire of a ‘buffer state’ north of the Suez Canal, ” is the statement made by Mrs. M. B. L. Popham, now living in Natal, South Africa, in a recent letter to the “Christian Science Monitor.” In her letter, Mrs. Popham supports the Arab anti-Zionist attitude, although she disclaims any anti-Jewish bias.

“My husband resigned from the Palestinian administration on account of the Zionist policy which was being inaugurated, and which we both sincerely deprecated,” Mrs. Popham writes. “We were not alone in thinking so. Most of the members of the administration were extremely unhappy about it, but many of them felt they could not afford to resign. One who did, and gave as his reason the Zionist policy, had his resignation returned with a request for alteration, as ‘a soldier has no politics.’

“The troubles of some months back have had one good effect in that everyone can now see that the Arabs do not want a national home made for the Jews in their country. Before, the contrary was assumed. And that brings me to themain point which we would so like to see brought to light all over the world. Why, when the Arabs formed nine-tenths of the population of Palestine (official figures, 1918-1919, total population of Palestine 570,000, of which the Jews totaled 57,000), were they ever saddled with an invasion of foreign Jews to which they so strongly objected? No one that I know of has ever answered this question.

“The Arabs were very good friends with the original Palestinian Jews, who formed the remaining tenth of the population. That same tenth was strongly opposed to Zionism, and during our time in Palestine they placarded the streets with anti-Zionist proclamations. Why has such an artificial movement been inaugurated? To talk of the Jewish historical and religious connection with Palestine is hardly sufficient, especially as most of the Zionist leaders are free thinkers. To think of it as a great compassionate scheme is also misleading, for there is not room for a quarter of the Jews of the world to go there, and if there were, the fact still remains that it is now someone else’s home. This charitable aspect of the scheme is what, we believe, has won a large part of Jewry over to the Zionist plan.

“Yet one more argument is advanced by the Zionists, though not very openly, and in this lies the greatest need for investigation. Dr. Weizmann himself, in a conversation with my husband and myself (of which we afterward took notes) suggested the great advantage to the British Empire of a ‘buffer state’ north of the Suez Canal. This question of expediency should not influence any one in favor of crowding a people out of their own home, yet we have actually seen that point brought up recently, in a reputable English paper, leaving us very little doubt as to the source and inspiration of the article.

“To conclude, may I bring in a personal note sufficiently to clear ourselves of any anti-Jewish bias? We had many good Jewish friends in Jerusalem, and have always had a great admiration for them in other places also, realizing their wonderful capabilities. They bore us no grudge in Jerusalem for our political opinions, and some of the leading Zionists came to see us off on our departure. We only wish their problems could be solved happily for them all, putting an end to all that they have suffered—but not at the expense of someone else.”