PALESTINE REPERCUSSIONS
THE brief exchange of question and answer on Palestine in the House of Commons on Tuesday served to put a damper on some of the wilder nonsense which had been talked on this subject during the preceding week. The attack on British planes over Egypt by the Jews is a grave matter, as the House of Commons forcibly impressed on Ministers on Wednesday. It is right and necessary, moreover, that the whole situation should be exhaustively explored in next week's full-dress debate—which it is to be hoped the Opposition will use constructively, and not simply with a view to party capital. But while much is going on in the Middle East today which gives legitimate cause for anxiety, the shooting down of five British planes and the personality of Mr. Bevin have nothing whatever to do with the central problem. It is possible to argue that the Middle Eastern policy pursued by the Cabinet over the past three and a half years has been a failure—not because it damped Jewish enthusiasm, or because it backed a losing side in a war, or because it has at times differed from American policy, but because its ultimate aim, a peaceful and prosperous Middle East, is further from realisation today than it was in 1945. That much must be admitted, but we must also admit that, had we encouraged the Jews and supported them in their war, or had we tried to follow the perplexing inconsistencies of American policy, the state of affairs would be a great deal worse than it is today.
All the same, although Mr. Bevin's critics usually choose the wrong sticks to beat him with, it must be recognised that the Government will have to reshape its entire Middle East policy. Today there is more than one country in the Middle East which totters on the brink of bankruptcy and chaos, and disintegration of this sort is liable to prove catching. It is no use at this stage to waste time proving to ourselves, or to the Arabs, or to the Americans, that our intentions have been honourable and our methods consistent. Too often in the past few weeks we have acted the part of the importunate boy-scout, offering our help before it was asked and earning nothing for our pains except an irritated snub. Our main duty now must be to realise, and to persuade the United States to realise, that, if the peace talks now going on at Rhodes succeed, they will prove only the beginning of new Anglo-American difficulties in the Middle East. Middle East peace will make Anglo-American unity as essential as Middle East war.
In the meantime we are perfectly right to withhold recognition from Israel until we know quite certainly where its armies are going to stop. Jewish forces are still a potential menace to Egypt and Transjordan and represent a possible threat to British interests in these countries which would have to be met by force whether Mr. Bevin or one of his more hysterical critics was Foreign Minister. If the Rhodes negotiations succeed it will be some time before we can tell whether they form the basis for a permanent settlement, or whether they are destined, like previous mediating efforts of the United Nations, to be used as a springboard for further Jewish conquests. Perhaps some hope is to be found in the epilogue to Dr. Weizmann's recently published autobiography. Dr. Weizmann is President of Israel, and he writes categorically that, " The Arabs must be given the feeling that the decision of the United Nations is final and that the Jews will not trespass on any territory outside the boundaries assigned to them." Does this mean that the Jews are prepared to withdraw from Western Galilee, new Jerusalem and Jaffa ? If so there may be settlement. If Israel remains in possession of these conquests there can be no real peace.
