PALESTINE: THE JEWISH VIEW
By MRS. EDGAR DUGDALE
OPINIONS will differ as to how far the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry conta;r1 the elements of a satisfactory settlement of the problems of European Jewry and PaleStine. But there will be more unanimity in criticism of the way the British Government have chosen to handle the Report. They have begun by flinging it into the flames of controversy without first dis- covering to what extent the United States are prepared to share responsibility for carrying out the new policy. And, while making their own attitude contingent on this, they introduce another condi- tion which would destroy the structure of the Report and violate the spirit of the Committee's main positive recommendations. Mr. Attlee's proviso that disarmament of the Palestine population must precede the opening of the door to further Jewish immigration dis- plays a lack of understanding, not only of the situation, but of the scheme itself, which is very definitely divided between short-term and long-term policy, the first centring upon the immediate admis- sion into Palestine of too,000 Jewish survivors of Nazi and Fascist persecution. The certificates of entry are to be awarded as far as possible in 1946, and actual immigration " pushed forward " as rapidly as conditions permit. This note of urgency for relief of human suffering is the most striking feature of the Report. Mr. Attlee transfers it to an insistence upon immediate surrender of arms by a population which is at present deeply imbued by feelings of insecurity and mutual distrust. This is putting the cart before the horse with a vengeance, and as an exhibition of political ineptitude creates a new high level in the record of British rule in Palestine. If adhered to, it would go far to destroy any prospect of the Committee fulfilling the purpose for which it was set up.
As soon as the German war was over it became evident that the resettlement of millions of displaced persons had become urgent for every reason—humane and economic. Over a million of them were Jews, whose position was sui generis, and evidence accumulated that (as the Committee subsequently confirmed) there was " no country to which the majority can go in the immediate future, other than Palestine." It is a great thing that this fact has been put beyond further doubt, and that Palestine has been linked indissolubly with the solution of the Jewish problem in Europe. There the hard core of the problem lies among the masses of people still herded in the assembly-centres in American and British zones of Germany and Austria, and this explains why the enquiry', starting from there, was bound to be Anglo-American in composition. The far-reaching importance of the entry of the United States upon the scene can be measured, now that the focus of interest shifts to Palestine. The
problem of the Jewish future has been tackled by the Committee in two areas of the world—it cannot be decided in either without reference to the other. The Committee was appointed at a moment when in neither could the existing position be held static any longer.
In Palestine the attempt to govern the country under the regula- tions of the White Paper of 1939 has obviously been a failure. Con- ceding to the Arabs as near too per cent. of their demands as any people are ever likely to get in this world has not appeased Arab extremists and has induced in the Jews a mood of desperation and despair. They have indeed always been united in uncompromising opposition to the White Paper, and differences only exist about the methods of carrying on the political struggle. After the appoint- ment of the Committee the moderate elements (who still comprise not only the leaders of the Jewish Agency, but the great majority of the 600,000 Jews in the country) succeeded in re-asserting their influence until the Report should be completed. But a deep bitter- ness of feeling has been hardening through the war years, when Palestine Jewry, temporarily calling off its own political struggle, was rewarded by seeing Palestine turned, through British decree, into a country where Jews were forbidden to seek refuge from the Axis Powers. This was actually the way in which a British Govern- ment was interpreting its earlier pledge that Jews should enter Palestine " by right .and not on sufferance," and this was actually the state of affairs when at the end of 1945 the limit of immigration fixed by the White Paper was reached. Meanwhile, the pressure from Europe increased, and every ship-load of " illegal " immigrants might be carrying the mother, brother, sister or child of some Palestinian settler. If we picture this in terms of our own lives we have an explanation of why the iron has entered into the soul of Palestinian Jews more deeply than even the most far-seeing expected when the reversal of the policy of the Mandate was put through by the Chamberlain Government.
This year's General Election caused proportionate relief. British Labour and their leaders had opposed the White Paper so consis- tently from the start, and their latest denunciations were so recent, that doubts of theii sincerity were slow in occurring to the mind of any Jew. Thus Mr. Bevin's statement in the House of Commons last November came as a severe psychological shock, enhanced by its apparently uninformed and unsympathetic reference to the Euro- pean part of the Jewish problem. After that (to quote the Com- mittee's Report) " bitterness reached a new peak of intensity and the position of the moderates became almost impossible. The Jew- ish Agency frankly stated in public hearing that after V.E. Day it was quite futile for it to attempt to co-operate with the Mandatory in suppressing illegal activity."
It is to be hoped that these recorded facts may make more im- pression on the public mind than they seem to have produced on Mr. Attlee's, who, without any reference to them at all, quoted a passage in the Report which suited him better, by its allusion to the " failure of the Jewish Agency to co-operate in dealing with this evil " (i.e., with illegal armies). The unauthorised existence of armed formations is certainly an evil. It happens, however, to be very prevalent in our post-war world, and few present-day govern- ments would share the British Prime Minister's naive belief that it can be conjured away by a simple formula such as his " Jews and Arabs in Palestine alike must disarm immediately." One must treat the psychological causes that produce a condition which is in itself an obstacle to peace.
From the Jewish point of view the Report of the Committee sweeps away the insuperable barrier to co-operating in making a fresh start. So long as discrimination against Jews in the vital matters of immigration and land-purchase was upheld every instinct bade Palestine Jews fight against the strangle-hold that promised to choke the life out of their nationhood. The Committee abandons the policy of 1939 on both these points. This would produce a complete change of atmosphere, which was indeed already beginning to mani- fest itself tentatively in Jewish reactions before Mr. Attlee's deplorable statement on May 1st turned cautious reserve into acute suspicion that H.M.G. is casting about—not how best to act promptly, but how to find excuses not to do so. But promptitude is of the essence of this business, for the admission of the hundred thousand refugees with the least possible delay will certainly be made a test of the British Government's good will towards the Report—and that not in Jewish judgement alone.
The Anglo-American Report bears too many marks of vague and woolly thinking to be a model of its kind. Its authors seem to be aware that they have not got to finality about the Jewish problem, even in Europe, and they have very little to say on future policy for Palestine. Some may think them wise under existing circumstances. Others may think uncertainty has proved bad for all parties 'n Palestine (including the British Administration), and this school of thought will include many who believe that a Jewish National Home must by natural growth develop into a State, and would wish that recognised without unnecessary delay, even if adjustments of terri- tory should be necessary. But the Report opens some doors, sets others ajar, and refrains from banging or bolting any. A solution it is not—a step forward it can be, if those principally concerned choose to make it so.
Previous page
