LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
" PALESTINE PERIL "
Sui,—As the letters from Professor Norman Bentwich and Mr. 0. K. Kitowsky raise anew the ancient controversy concerning the McMahon Correspondence, I feel it important to remind your readers of the conclusions of the Maugham Committee (Command 5974).
" At the outset of the proceedings, the Lord Chancellor explained that he was not present in any judicial capacity, and that he made no claim to decide, as a judge, whether the views of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom upon the questions at issue, or the views of the Arabs, were right ; he was present as the repre- sentative of His Majesty's Government only, with the sole function of expounding and advocating their views upon these questions."
In other words, Lord Maugham was there not as an arbitrator but
as counsel for the defence. The Arab case has never been pronounced upon by an impartial authority. Nevertheless, the investigation by the Committee enabled the Arabs to establish their case.
" The United Kingdom representatives have informed the Arab representatives that the Arab contentions, as explained to the com- mittee, regarding the interpretation of the Correspondence, and especially their contentions relating to the meaning of the phrase ' portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Hama, Horns and Aleppo,' have greater force than has hitherto appeared."
This is going about as far as any Government could be expected tb go in admitting publicly that the Arabs had established their case. Henceforward it has never been officially maintained by any British authority that Palestine was included in the area lying to the west of the district of Damascus. There was no such area as the " district," i.e., "vilayet " of Damascus, which is the English expression used in the incorrect English translation of the authoritative Arabic text. Sir Michael McDonnell in his argument on behalf of the Arabs before the Com- mittee destroyed finally the myth that Sir Henry McMahon's phrase excluded Palestine, and in the circumstances it is surprising that Mr. Kitowsky should endeavour to revive it on the strength of a War Office map.
The Committee went on:
" The United Kingdom representatives have informed the Arab representatives that they agree that Palestine was included in the area claimed by the Sharif of Mecca in his letter of July r4th, 1915, and that unless Palestine was excluded from that area later in the Correspondence it must be regarded as having been included in the area in which Great Britain was to recognise and support the inde- pendence of the Arabs. They maintain that on a proper construc- tion of the Correspondence Palestine was in fact excluded. But they agree that the language in which its exclusion was expressed was not so specific and unmistakable as it was thought to be at the time."
In other words, having been bound to admit that there was no force in the " district of Damascus " argument, the Committee maintained that " the reservation made by Sir Henry McMahon in his letter of October 24th, 1915, in respect of French interests applied, and has ever since continued to apply, to all territory to which France laid claim on October 24th, 1915, and accordingly to Palestine which was then treated as part of Syria." Only the counsel for the defence, hard put to it to defend his client, would have invoked this argument to justify the exclu- sion of Palestine from the area of Arab independence, for at the time of the McMahon Correspondence Britain had not recognised French claims to Palestine, and these claims were subsequently abandoned. In any case this argument seems a peculiar justification for the Balfour Declaration.
The most important feature of the McMahon Committee's Report, however, is its conclusion. " It is beyond the scope of the Committee to express an opinion upon the proper interpretation of the various state- ments mentioned in Paragraph 19." The most important of these from the Arab point of view were the Hogarth Message, which assured the Arabs, on the authority of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that Jewish settlement in Palestine would only be allowed " in so far as would be compatible with the freedom of the existing population both economic and political," and the Anglo-French Declaration of June 7th, 1918, which was distributed all over Palestine, and which assured the Arabs that the object of France and Great Britain was " the emancipation of the peoples under Turkish rule and the establishment of National Governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initia- tive and free choice of the indigenous populations." This declaration specifically mentions Syria, in which at the time Palestine was included.
The report concludes: " and such an opinion could not in any case be properly expressed
unless consideration had also been given to a number of other statements made during and after the war: In the opinion of the Committee it is, however, evident from these statements that His Majesty's Government were not free to dispose of Palestine without regard for the wishes and interests of the inhabitants of Palestine, and that these statements must all be taken into account in any attempt to estimate the responsibilities which—upon any interpretation of the Correspondence—His Majesty's Government have incurred towards those inhabitants as a result of the Correspondence."
It was because this belated and partial examination of the Arab case had established that the British Government was not free to dispose of Palestine without regard for the wishes and interests of its inhabitants that the t939 White Paper was issued. It was the first and only attempt to do justice, legally and morally, to the Arabs, and to fulfil partially the pledges given to them when they entered the war on our side against the Turks. Not the least unfortunate aspect of the report of the Anglo- American Committee of Inquiry is that it has chosen to ignore the con-
clusions of the Maugham Committee.—Yours truly, E. L. SPEARS. 164, St. Stephens House, S.W.r.
Previous page
