The Future of Palestine
THE Commission which was appointed to inquire into the riots of August, 1929, in Palestine has issued its Report, and it may be said at once that though the Commission strayed beyond its terms of reference it was thereby enabled to insist upon certain facts which greatly needed emphasis. Conscientious Englishmen—almost without exception, we should think —will come to the conclusion, when they read this Report, first, that Great Britain would be disgraced if she abandoned the Mandate merely because an excep- tionally difficult trust has been imposed upon her, and, secondly, that a clear definition of the- policy which will make the Mandate effective is required.
The Commission consisted of three members of the House of Commons—one for each of the three Parties- -with Sir- Walter Shaw, who has been a notable judge in Ceylon, the Straits Settlements and elsewhere, as Chair- man. At the time of the riots we suggested that the ' Government of Palestine was being very unfairly criticized. It was blamed for having failed to demand more military forces from the British Government, although the character of the riots of 1928 had suggested the strong probability of their being repeated ; for being lethargically optimistic ; and for having allowed the Arabs to hold a counter-demonstration at the Wailing Wall against the provocative religious demonstration organized by some young Jews. We pointed out that if the Government of Palestine had contrived to increase its military strength, its action could- easily have been regarded as oppressive. As for allowing the counter- demonstration at the Wailing Wall, we pointed out that the Government was pledged to complete religious impartiality, and that, having allowed the Jewish demonstration—perhaps unwisely—it might have been considered unfair if it had refused permission to the other side. It was very easy to blame the Government after the event, but the Government was in an extremely difficult position, and on the whole there was wisdom in its policy of cultivating and relying upon a conciliatory spirit. This policy failed, of course, but it might just as well have succeeded. We- are very glad to see that the Commission, with the exception of one member, is con- vinced that the Government of Palestine did what was best in the circumstances. When violence was let loose all the British officials conducted themselves not only with energy, but with gallantry.
Obviously while intense ill-feeling remains between Arabs and Jews it would not be safe to leave Palestine again so short of troops. The Commission makes a recommendation on this point. Further, the local constabulary evidently needs reorganization, and it is satisfactory to know that in response to the recom- mendation of the Commission a Police Inspector who has done excellent work in Ceylon has already been sent to Palestine. And it is reasonable to hope that the Council of the League of Nations will soon appoint the Com- mittee who are to adjudicate on the legal rights of Jew and Arab at the- Wailing Wall, and thus put an end to the dispute which was the immediate cause of the rioting.
The Report says that the Arab attacks on the Jews were not premeditated, but were due to Arab feeling having been worked upon.by the injudicious Jewish demon- stration. Above all,, the attack was in no way directed against the Government of Palestine. The more serious charges which were made at the time against the Mufti of Jerusalem. the religious head of the Moslems, therefore fall to the ground; as do the similar charges against the Arab Executive. Neither the Mufti nor the Excel'. tive, however, can be acquitted of all blame. They knew that ugly passions were growing and, instead of trying to control them, they irresponsibly provided fuel for a- fire which they ought to have done their utmost to put out.
One of the most significant statements in the Report is that among the general causes of the rioting was the mistaken belief that the Government of Palestine would be amenable to political pressure. There was, in fact, public " uncertainty- as to policy." In these circum- stances each side thought that by irregularly bringing its grievances to the attention of the Government it might create certainty out of uncertainty—certainty that there would in future be a policy favourable to itself. There could not possibly be a stronger argument for a very close definition of the intentions of the Mandatory Power.
Behind the religious and racial jealousy of Arab and Jew there is, of course, an acute but rather one-sided economic rivalry. This must be controlled and relieved of its bitterness if Arabs and Jews are to live quietly side by side. Although the Commissioners were not strictly invited to inquire into the economic question, they did well to point out that everything depends upon it. In general, it is no doubt true that the Arabs have profited by_ the creation of a Jewish Home in Palestine, for the Jewish immigrants have been enthusi- astic and industrious and have created a new prosperity. In this the Arabs have shared, and the fact is not altered by the rather perverse Arab view that the Jews are nothing but their relentless rivals in agriculture and trade.
It must be admitted that recently the Zionist leaders have not been true to their original principle that the rate of immigration must keep step with the develop. ment of the country. The increased number of immi- grants has been provided for rather summarily; Arab farmers complain that their tenancies have been ended in order that Zionist landlords might find homes for newly arrived Jews.. The danger is that if the economic nationalism of the Jews takes the form of acquiring land whenever and wherever possible, the Arabs will at last be a dispossessed community of labourers. It may be said that this would be the Arabs' own fault, but the Government of Palestine could not let them be condemned to such a position merely because they are less clever than their Jewish neighbours. The question has unfortunately not been decided whether there would be enough land for all, both Jews and Arabs, if intensive farming were practised. The only certainty is that a large part of the soil of Palestine is unfriendly to farmers. An inquiry into the possibilities of intensive 'farming is greatly needed, and the Commission advises .that it should be undertaken.
Another matter which is behind -the immediate antagonism of the Jews and Arabs, and--which is also dealt with by the Commissioners, is the verbal conflict between the Mandate and the. Balfour Declaration, and even between different clauses of the Mandate. The Mandatory Power is pledged to encourage the idea of Palestine being a Jewish National Home without injury or prejudice to the other elements of the population. After all,- the Arabs- were in the undisputed occupation of Palestine for well over a thousand years. They think that this gives them- a sound- title to' ownership. When the Jews plead that they have a still earlier title, the Arab answer is that the title lapsed by the physical disappearance of the Jewish people, and that in any case the Jewish occupation was a very long time ago. Such arguments which continually clash without any prospect of disposing of each other depend for their vigour upon the consideration whether it is or is not worth while to use them. It would hardly be thought worth while to keep them going if it were made clear by the Government of Palestine once :for all that the Man- datory Power intends that the two races shall live in harmony, and is ready to do everything in its power to make it possible for _them to do so.
To sum up, it must be made perfectly plain that the Mandate will not be abandoned, and that the methods by which the Government of Palestine will attempt to reconcile the two races will be quickly determined and announced. It is not too much to hope that both Jews and Arabs will listen with more attentive ears than formerly, for surely if they have not learned from the experience of last August that nothing is to be gained by civil war, they are incapable of learning.
Previous page
