Dated 7 th August, 1936.
EDWARD R.I.
Edward the Eighth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas KING, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India: To our Right Trusty and Right Well-beloved Cousin and Counsellor William Robert Wellesley, Earl Peel, Knight Grand Commander of Our Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved Counsellor Sir Horace George Montagu Rumbold, Baronet, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George, Member of Our Royal Victorian Order, Our Trusty and Well-beloved Sir Egbert Laurie Lucas Hammond, Knight Commander of Our Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Commander of Our Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Our Trusty and Well-beloved Sir William Morris Carter, Knight, Commander of Our Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Our Trusty and Well-beloved Sir Harold Morris, Knight, Member of Our Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, One of Our Counsel Learned in the Law, and Our Trusty and Well-beloved Reginald Coupland, Companion of Our Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Greeting:
Whereas We have deemed it expedient that a Commission should issue forthwith to ascertain the underlying causes of the disturbances which broke out in Palestine in the middle of April; to enquire into the manner in which the Mandate for Palestine is being implemented in relation to Our obligations as Mandatory towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively; and to ascertain whether, upon a proper construction of the terms of the Mandate, either the Arabs or the Jews have any legitimate grievances upon account of the way in which the Mandate has been, or is being implemented; and if the Commission is satisfied that any such grievances are well founded, to make recommendations for their removal and for the prevention of their recurrence: Now know ye that We, reposing great trust and confidence in your knowledge and ability, have authorized and appointed and do by these presents authorize and appoint you the said William Robert Wellesley, Earl Peel (Chairman), Sir Horace George Montagu Rumbold, Baronet (Vice-Chairman), Sir Egbert Laurie Lucas Hammond, Sir William Morris Carter, Sir Harold Morris and Reginald Coupland to be Our Commissioners for the purposes of and to make such enquiry.
And We do hereby authorize and require you with all convenient despatch and by all lawful means to enter upon, and to collect evidence respecting the subject matter of, such enquiry, and to render a Report and make recommendations in accordance with the terms of this Our Commission.
And We do further require you to conform in all things to such instructions as shall be addressed to you through one of Our Principal Secretaries of State.
And We do hereby charge and command all Our Officers, Civil and Military, and all Our faithful subjects and all others inhabiting Palestine that in their several places and according to their respective powers and opportunities they be aiding to you in the execution of this Our Commission.
And We do further ordain that you have liberty to report your proceedings under this Our Commission from time to time if you shall judge it expedient so to do.
Given at Our Court at Saint James's this Seventh day of August, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty-Six, in the First Year of Our Reign.
By His Majesty's Command,
MALCOLM MacDONALD..
II.
Dated 17th December 1936.
GEORGE R.I.
George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas KING, Defender of the Faith, to all to whom these Presents shall come,
Greeting!
Whereas it pleased Our Royal Predecessors from time to time to issue Royal Commissions of Enquiry for various purposes therein specified:
And whereas in the case of certain of these Commissions, namely, those known as--
Ancient Monuments (England) Commission,
Ancient and Historical Monuments (Scotland) Commission,
Ancient Monuments (Wales and Monmouthshire) Commission,
Historical Manuscripts Commission,
Local Government on Tyneside Commission,
Palestine Commission,
Royal Fine Art Commission for England,
Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland,and the
Safety in Coal Mines Commission,
the Commissioners appointed by Our Royal Predecessors or such of them as were then acting as Commissioners, were at the late Demise of the Crown still engaged upon the business entrusted to them:
And whereas We deem it expedient that the said Commissioners should continue their labours in connection with the said enquiries notwithstanding the late Demise of the Crown:
Now know ye that We, reposing great trust and confidence in the zeal, discretion and ability of the present members of each of the said Commissions, do by these Presents authorize them to continue their labours, and do hereby in every essential particular ratify and confirm the terms of the said several Commissions.
And We do further ordain that the said Commissioners do report to Us under their hands or under the hands of such of their number as may be specified in the Commissions respectively, their opinion upon the matters presented for their consideration; and that any proceedings which they or any of them may have taken under and in pursuance of the said Commissions since the late Demise of the Crown and before the issue of these Presents shall be deemed and adjudged to have been taken under and in virtue of this Our Commission.
Given at Our Court at Saint James’s the seventeenth day of December, 1936; in the First Year of Our Reign.
By His Majesty’s Command.
John Simon.
The minutes of the Public Evidence taken by the Royal Commission and a volume of Memoranda prepared by file Government of Palestine for the use of the Royal Commission are being published separately by His Majesty’s Stationery Office in the Non-Parliamentary series of publications.
Note.—The United Kingdom share of the cost of the Royal Commission is estimated at approximately £4,050. The cost of printing and publishing this Report is estimated by the Stationery Office at £815 10s. od.
We were appointed by Warrant under the Sign Manual of Hi's Former Majesty King Edward VIII on the 7th August, 1936, as Commissioners with the following Terms of Reference:—
“ To ascertain the underlying causes of the disturbances which broke out in Palestine in the middle of April; to inquire into the manner in which the Mandate for Palestine is being implemented in relation to the obligations of the Mandatory towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively; and to ascertain whether, upon a proper construction of the terms of the Mandate, either the Arabs or the Jews have any legitimate grievances upon account of the way in which the Mandate has been, or is being implemented; and if the Commission is satisfied that any such grievances are well founded, to make recommendations for their removal and for the prevention of their recurrence.”
We now humbly beg leave to submit to Your Majesty the following Report.
Although appointed on the 7th August last, we were compelled, owing to continuance of the “ disturbances ”, to postpone for nearly three months our actual departure for Palestine. The interval was not, however, entirely without value, since we were enabled to examine some of the numerous official reports relating to the Mandatory Administration and to study an invaluable series of descriptive and statistical memoranda supplied at our request by the Palestine Government. At our first meeting, held privately in London on the 6th October, it was decided that no witnesses should be heard until we arrived in Jerusalem. We determined that, while we might in the meantime acquire some knowledge of the historical background and of essential facts and figures, we should apply to the evidence to be heard in Palestine minds so far as possible free from ; prejudice or preconceived ideas.
2. The strike in Palestine came to an end on the 12th October. We left London on the 5th November, sailing from Marseilles by the s.s. Cathay for Port Said on the following day, and arriving in Jerusalem on the morning of the nth November.
3. A ceremonial opening session was held at Government House on the 12th November, attended by a large assembly of notables and civil and military officials. The Royal Commission was read out in the three official languages and His Excellency the High Commissioner, General Sir Arthur Grenfell Wauchope, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., C.I.E., D.S.O., formally welcomed us and wished us God-speed in our labours. Our Chairman replied in a short speech, from which we quote certain passages below.
4. We describe in paragraphs 21 and 22 of Chapter IV the circumstances in which, while we were on the way to Palestine, the Arab Higher Committee decided to boycott our proceedings, and Arab representatives were conspicuous by their absence from the opening session at Government House. Our Chairman, in replying to the High Commissioner's speech of welcome, referred to the matter in the following words:—
“ Unhappily, while we were on our journey here, an incident has arisen that can hardly be said to be of assistance. One large section of this population, through its leaders, has declared that it will take no part in the work of the Royal Commission. It would be most unfortunate if without their advice and assistance we were compelled to arrive at conclusions and to make decisions.A Royal Commission is an entirely independent body with no responsibility for the policy of His Majesty's Government in the present or in the past. Is it too much to ask that all those who love Palestine and hold her future dear will join with us and share our labours? It would be deplorable indeed if strife and fear and dissension were to be the portion of this Holy Land which sent forth in the past a message of peace and goodwill to all the world.”
This appeal produced no immediate response and no Arab witnesses came forward until we had almost completed the hearing of British and Jewish evidence and had announced the date of our departure. The boycott was at length called off on the 6th January and we prolonged our stay until evidence had been heard from His Eminence the Mufti of Jerusalem and other representatives of the Arab Higher Committee.
5. All our formal sessions, while we remained in Palestine, were held in Jerusalem. As regards procedure, we decided not to admit Counsel and, so far as possible, to hear evidence in public. We recognized, however, that there were some witnesses whom it was more proper to hear in private and others who preferred to give evidence in that manner: in general the matter was left to the decision of the witness in each case. While in Palestine we heard 60 witnesses at 30 public sessions and 53 witnesses at 40 private sessions. Our proceedings were conducted in English, though interpretation was required in the case of certain Arabic-speaking and Hebrew-speaking witnesses.
6. An Ordinance was enacted by the Palestine Government entitled The Commissioners’ Powers (Conferment of) Ordinance, No. 71 of 1936, conferring on us the necessary powers to summon witnesses, require the production of evidence and so forth.
7. The interpretation of our Terms of Reference was referred to in the following words in our Chairman’s speech at the opening session: —
“ You have heard the Terms of Reference approved by His Majesty. We are * to ascertain the underlying causes of the disturbances which broke out in Palestine in the middle of April.’ You will note the words ‘ underlying causes.’ It does not appear to be necessary, therefore, to enquire into the detailed course of events in the last six or seven months. If there are claims and counterclaims arising out of these events, they are matters for the Courts or for the Administration, but we have to deal, I believe, with wider issues.’’
* * *“ Time will perhaps be saved if those who propose to give evidence will first study carefully our Terms of Reference. We have, of course, no authority to exceed them, but the Terms themselves are very wide and we intend to interpret them in a broad and comprehensive manner. In this connection I would like to quote from a speech made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister a few days ago. Mr. Baldwin said: —
“ I would like to emphasize . . . that a Royal Commission in this country is an entirely independent body, uncontrolled by His Majesty’s Government, and perfectly free to report in any sense that it thinks fit within the Terms of its Reference. ”
8. We found it impracticable to examine all those who offered themselves as witnesses; but we believe that no aspect of the situation on which it was important to receive evidence was neglected in the representative testimony of those who actually appeared before us, or in written statements. The mere acknowledgement, which was the only reply we were able to send to many who submitted memoranda for consideration, was no measure of our appreciation of the value of such contributions, and we desire to take this opportunity of expressing our gratitude to all those who thus assisted us.
9. While in Palestine we endeavoured, so far as time allowed, to make ourselves familiar with the general character of the different parts of the country and with the manner of life of its inhabitants. Thus on one occasion we visited Jaffa, Tel Aviv and Petah Tiqva, while on another we drove through Bethlehem, Hebron and Beersheba to Gaza. A short stay at Tiberias enabled us to visit Haifa, Acre and the Huleh district. We refer in various sections of our Report to visits to certain rural centres, Arab and Jewish, and to the Daniel Sieff Research Institute at Rehovot. In connection with several such expeditions arrangements were made for us to visit various Government offices at places on our route and we greatly valued the opportunity so afforded us of meeting officers of the District Administration, of all races, and listening to a frank expression of their views.
10. On the 9th January three of us visited Trans-Jordan as guests of the British Resident, Lieutenant-Colonel C. H. F. Cox. The Commissioners were most hospitably entertained by His Highness the Amir Abdullah, with whom they had a long discussion at a private audience. They spent the night at Amman and returned to Jerusalem on the following day.
11. We left Jerusalem on various dates in the week beginning the 17th January and, after a few days devoted to discussions at Helouan in Egypt, sailed from Port Said by the s.s. Cathay on the 24th January, arriving back in London on the 30th January.
12. In London, after our return, we held one public session, at which we heard evidence from two witnesses; and seven private sessions, at which we heard eight witnesses. The latter were all persons who had held official positions or high offices of State.
13. Separate volumes have been prepared to accompany our Report, containing (1) Memoranda supplied by the Palestine Government; (2) Minutes of the Public Evidence and the text of the speeches delivered at our opening session in Jerusalem.
The “ disturbances ” which broke out in Palestine on the 19th April, 1936, were the outcome of a conflict between Arab and Jewish Nationalism; and when in the following November we visited the country, we expected (to adapt Lord Durham’s famous sentence) to find “ two nations warring in the bosom of a single state ”. But we did not expect to find so wide a gulf between them or one so difficult to bridge. Such a conflict in a land consecrated to three world-religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, is tragic enough in itself; but it is the more tragic because, while in the actual “ disturbances ” one side put itself, not for the first time, in the wrong by resorting to force, whereas the other side patiently kept the law, it is fundamentally a conflict of right with right.
2. To explain how that unhappy situation has come about a brief historical introduction is required. The present problem of Palestine, indeed, is unintelligible without a knowledge of the history that lies behind it. No other problem of our time is rooted so deeply in the past.
3. In the course of the second millenium B.C. the lands that lie along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean were subject to periodical incursions of Semitic tribesmen pressing seawards across the Arabian desert from the barren steppes of the North. In Palestine these immigrants became known as Hebrews, and one tribe or group of tribes, who claimed descent from Abraham of Ur, acquired the name of Israelites from Abraham’s grandson, Jacob or Israel. From the old tradition of a migration of these Israelites to Egypt, their persecution by the Pharaohs, and their return to Palestine under the leadership of Moses emerges the historical fact that by about 1100 B.C. the Israelites had occupied most of the hill- country in Palestine and that they were already distinguished from the peoples of the coast (the Phoenicians or Philistines) and from the Semites of the desert beyond Jordan by their peculiar religion. In sharp contrast with the idolatrous polytheism of all the ancient world, the Israelites had conceived the idea of one invisible God and had incorporated what they believed to be His commandments in the Mosaic Code. The rise of this people to a great place in history is so familiar from the pages of the Old Testament that for present purposes it can be very briefly summarized. The period of the Judges was a period of tribal disunion and constant conflict with neighbouring foes. Hostile pressure, especially from the Philistines, led to the establishment of a monarchy: and under King David (c.1010-970 B.C.) of the tribe of Judah and his son and successor, King Solomon (c.970-930 B.C.), the Israelites as a whole were effectively united, the Philistines and other enemies were decisively defeated, and the power of the new kingdom was extended for a time not only over all Palestine but over most of the territory north and south that lay between the rival empires of Egypt and Assyria. On Solomon's death a decline set in. The people of the coast recovered their independence. The northern tribes broke away and established a separate Kingdom of Israel centred round Samaria, estranged from and sometimes at war with the Kingdom of Judah, in which, largely owing to the fact that the Temple which Solomon had built at Jerusalem was the oustanding visible symbol of the Hebrew faith, the tradition of Hebrew thought and culture was henceforth mainly concentrated. This schism of Palestine facilitated its inevitable subjection to whichever should prove the stronger of the neighbouring empires; but the two kingdoms and the coast towns succeeded in maintaining a precarious independence for some 200 years—a period distinguished above all else by the lives and writings of the Major Prophets. In 721—715 B.C. the first blow fell. The northern kingdom was incorporated in the Assyrian Empire, Samaria was destroyed, and the abler and wealthier section of the population were deported to distant lands. By submitting to Assyrian suzerainty the southern kingdom escaped such rigorous treatment for a few more generations; but about 585 B.C. Judah suffered from Nebuchadnezzar, king of a new Babylonian Empire which had replaced Assyria in 'Iraq, the same fate as Israel. Jerusalem was sacked and dismantled, and a large part of the people were removed to Babylon.
4. The “ captivity ” did not last long. In 539 B.C. Cyrus, the founder of the Persian Empire, occupied Babylon and in 538 B.C. he permitted the Judaean exiles to go back to Judaea. Some of them remained in ‘Iraq, but the majority—-the number has been reckoned at 40,000—returned to their historic homeland and set themselves to rebuild the Temple and reconstitute their national life in a little inland state. For the next three or four centuries the history of the “ men of Judah ” or Jews is unrecorded, except for the bare fact that they were governed as part of the fifth Satrapy of the Persian Empire and afterwards came under the Ptolemaic successors of Alexander the Great. But modern research ascribes to this dark period a flowering of Hebrew culture. It was the period, it is held, when the Mosaic Law or Torah took on its final form and became the binding code of social life as well as of religious observance, and when such varied achievements of Jewish thought and art as Job, Ruth, the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and some of the finest Psalms were composed.
5. The next phase opens with the conquest of Palestine by the Seleucid rulers of Syria and its sequel, the first persecution of the Jewish faith. Hellenism was now in the ascendant, and an attempt was made to force the Jews to abandon the rule of the Torah and adopt Greek gods and ways of life. Led by the Hasmonaean family, of whom Judas Maccabaeus and John Hyrcanus were the outstanding figures, the Jews successfully revolted; and from about 150 B.C. onwards they not only recovered the long-lost independence of Judaea but extended their rule north, south and east till it reached something like the limits of the realm of David and Solomon. But the next of the many conquests of Palestine was now imminent; and against the might of the expanding Roman Empire the Jews could not maintain their freedom. In 63 B.C. Pompey stormed Jerusalem. Never since then has Palestine been an independent State.
6. Though the form of government varied and tributary native rulers, like Herod, were allowed to bear the name of King, Palestine was now virtually a Roman Province. That it proved unruly was partly due to the oppression and extortion of some of its Roman overlords; but so strong on the one hand was the national spirit of the Jews and so bitter on the other the feuds that grew up among them that the best of governments would have found Palestine difficult to keep at peace. A century of constant strife culminated in a general revolt in 64 A.D., which was only repressed after years of bitter fighting when, in 70 A.D., Jerusalem was taken and sacked by Titus, and the Temple, the scene of the last resistance, burnt to the ground. But the Jews were not yet crushed. They rebelled again in 115 A.D. and in 132 A.D. This latter rising was so successful that Rome determined to make its repetition quite impossible. In 135 A.D. Jerusalem was destroyed and its site ploughed up. Many of the population were put to death, and many more carried off to slavery. From that time onwards Palestine steadily sank into obscurity. Its diminished population dwindled still further. While the Jews who had spread themselves over most of the rest of the world increased and multiplied, there were soon only a few thousand of them left in their old homeland.
7. The history of Jewish Palestine, thus ended, had been enacted for the most part in a country about the size of Wales: but it constitutes one of the great chapters in the story of mankind. By two primary achievements—the development of the first crude worship of Jehovah into a highly spiritual mono-theism, and the embodiment of this faith and of the social and political ideals it inspired in immortal prose and poetry—the gift of Hebraism in ancient Palestine to the modem world must rank with the gifts of ancient Greece and Rome. Christians,moreover, cannot forget that Jesus was a Jew who lived on Jewish soil and founded His gospel on a basis of Jewish life and thought.
8. For five hundred years Palestine remained under Roman and Byzantine rule, and then in the seventh century A.D. it underwent yet another conquest. Inspired by the rise of Islam, the third great monotheistic faith to be born in the stretch of Semitic country between the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean, the Arabs broke out from the Arabian desert and started on a career of conquest almost as remarkable as that of Macedon or Rome. Between A.D. 632 and 713, they invaded and occupied in quick succession Syria, 'Iraq, Persia, Egypt, the whole length of the north African coast, and finally Spain. When their further penetration of Europe was stopped in 678 and 717 by the resistance of Constantinople and in 732 by the victory of the Franks at Poitiers, the whole of the Mediterranean seaboard, with much of its interior, curving round from the Pyrenees in the west to the Taurus in the east, had fallen, and for three centuries was to remain, under Arab rule. This was the golden age of the Arabs. Their sea-power commanded the Indian Ocean and contested the command of the Mediterranean. Their trade extended from Cadiz to Cairo, Baghdad and Zanzibar and beyond to India and China. They took the lead in civilization. Their chief centres of population and wealth were also nurseries of the sciences and arts. Scholars from Central and Northern Europe, still in the Dark Ages, came to Arab universities for learning, and it was through Arabic translations of the classics that Hellenism was preserved and handed on to inspire the Renaissance and the birth of the modem age.
9. In all this activity and achievement Arab Palestine took no great part. Jerusalem had been rebuilt, and the conquering Arabs established there a university which became a local centre of Arab learning; but, secluded among its stony hills, Jerusalem could never compete in wealth or culture with the cities in the fertile plains and valleys of 'Iraq, Egypt, and Spain. Only one or two lesser figures in the great company of Arab men of learning were Palestinians; and the only great work of art which has survived from the age of Arab independence is the Dome of the Rock, a magnificent mosque erected towards the end of the seventh century in the centre of the wide stone platform which once had borne the Jewish Temple. But in one respect Jerusalem attained a higher place in the Arab world than Baghdad or Cairo or Granada. On that sacred platform, the Haram esh Sharif, besides the Dome of the Rock stands the Mosque al Aqsa, whither Mohammed is recorded to have been conveyed by God, and Moslems believe that from the Rock itself the Prophet took flight on his magic steed to heaven. The Haram esh Sharif, therefore, ranks with Mecca and Medina as one of three paramount “ Holy Places ” of Islam. Indeed it preceded Mecca as the Qibla or point to which Moslems turn in prayer.
10. In the course of three or four hundred years the Arab Empire began to decay and disintegrate, and the Arabs of Palestine, like the Jews before them, were exposed to alien conquest and subjection. In the eleventh century all the Arab states in the Near East were reduced by the Seljuk Turks. From 1095 onwards Palestine was exposed to a series of intermittent invasions from Christian Europe, known as the Crusades, which, inspired partly by the vision of recovering the Holy Sepulchre and partly by more material aims, succeeded in maintaining a precarious Kingdom of Jerusalem till the latter part of the twelfth century and a foothold on the coast for another century, after which the whole of Palestine reverted to Moslem rule. For most of the next 200 years it was subject with Syria to the Mamluk dynasty in Egypt, and during that period it was subjected to the devastating Mongol raids of Halagu and Tamer-lane. In 1517 it was conquered, with Syria and Egypt, by the Ottoman Turks: and in the hands of the Ottoman Sultans at Constantinople it remained, except for the few months of Napoleon's invasion and the few years of Mohammed Ali’s occupation, till the World War of 1914.
11. In the twelve centuries and more that had passed since the Arab conquest Palestine had virtually dropped out of history. One chapter only is remembered—the not very noble romance of die Crusades. In economics as in politics Palestine lay outside the main stream of the world's life. In the realm of thought, in science or in letters, it made no contribution to modem civilization. Its last state was worse than its first. In 1914 the condition of the country was an outstanding example of the lethargy and maladministration of the pre-war Ottoman regime. The population, still overwhelmingly Arab in character, eked out a precarious existence mainly in the hills. On the plains, where life and property were less secure, such irrigation-works as had existed in ancient times had long disappeared. Oranges were grown round Jaffa, but most of the maritime belt was only sparsely populated and only thinly cultivated. Esdraelon for the most part was marshy and malarious. Eastwards beyond Jordan nothing remained of the Greek cities of classical times save one or two groups of deserted ruins. Southwards in Beersheba, once the site of several prosperous towns, all trace of urban life had long lain buried under the encroaching sand.
12. But, poor and neglected though it was, to the Arabs who lived in it Palestine—or, more strictly speaking, Syria, of which Palestine had been a part since the days of Nebuchadnezzar—was still their country, their home, the land in which their people for centuries past had lived and left their graves.
13. Jewish history, meantime, had ceased to be the history of Palestine; but, though die problem of Palestine is the subject of this Report, that problem is so inextricably linked with the Jewish problem as a whole that it seems desirable to describe, in the briefest outline, the fate of the Jews in the outer world.
14. A number of them (as will appear later) had clung throughout the centuries of Moslem occupation to what had once been their national soil; but the vast majority of the race had spread themselves over the rest of the world. This Dispersion (Diaspora) had begun long before the disaster of 135 A.D. In ‘Iraq, for example, a large Jewish community had grown out of the group of exiles who did not return to Jerusalem in 538 B.C. A prosperous and influential body, permitted to maintain a kind of communal autonomy, equipped with two famous academies for the study and exposition of the Hebrew tradition, it shared fully in the great days of the Arab Caliphate at Baghdad; and it was not till the eleventh century that the process of decline began. In Egypt, similarly, there was a flourishing community of Jews, active in all fields of Egyptian life, rising to high posts in the army and administration, and participating in the cultural achievements which made the fame of Alexandria. It is significant that those Egyptian Jews, unlike the founders of the Hasmonaean State, did not resist “ assimilation ”. On the contrary they became completely “ Hellenized ”, abandoning their ancient tongue for Greek and adopting Greek names. The Septuagint or Greek translation of the Hebrew Testament was their work.
15. By the time of the final destruction of Jerusalem in 135 A.D. successive waves of emigration had swelled the size of the communities in ‘Iraq and Egypt and flowed also into Syria and the Yemen and across, the Mediterranean to Greece and Italy. Five or six centuries later another wave followed on the heels of the Arab conquest along the north-west of Africa and into Spain; and it was in Spain that Jewish life attained the highest point it had reached since the loss of its old homeland. All walks of life were open to them, rural as well as urban. When Arab Spain led the world, they were leaders in Arab Spain—secretaries or viziers of the Caliph, diplomatists, financiers, scientists, physicians, scholars. There ensued a great revival of Hebrew literature, especially religious poetiy, and Hebrew learning. Maimonides (1135-1204 A.D.), born in Cordova and later resident in Cairo, was perhaps the greatest scholar of his age. It appears, indeed, that in those days in Spain the relations between Arab and Jew were quite harmonious: but it is significant again that the Spanish Jews, like the Egyptian, accepted assimilation in almost everything but religion. They spoke Arabic, took Arab names, adopted Arab ways. In those circumstances such force as there was in the common Semitism of the two peoples could operate unhindered.
16. The era of persecution, which was wholly to transform the conditions of Jewish life in the Diaspora, began not in the Moslem world but in the Christian. From the time when the Roman Empire accepted Christianity, Judaism had always been less tolerantly treated by Christian than by Moslem rulers; and the Jews who had penetrated into Italy and Gaul and, after the fall of the Empire, into Germany and England were exposed to various restrictions and prohibitions which tended to mark them off as a distinct and inferior people. Social factors widened die gulf. In the feudal Europe of the Dark Ages the immigrant Jew could find no place on the land or in the industrial guilds: he inevitably became the middleman, whether merchant or pedlar. And, since usury was forbidden to Christians by the Church, the Jew inevitably also became the money-lender—an unpopular profession. Jewish life, therefore, tended to be almost exclusively urban, and Jewish energies were directed more and more as time went on into commerce and finance. The Jews took an early share in the banking-system. Some of them accumulated fortunes. Christian rulers came to look to them when they wanted money. But, despite their usefulness, they were never liked. Popular instinct draws away from what is strange, and the Jews—foreigners, foreign-looking, keeping to themselves, clinging to their peculiar faith—were strange. In the eyes of the Church, moreover, they were the worst of heretics. They did not seek, it was true, to convert others, but none refused so obstinately to be converted. And behind that was the general idea that on all Jews, in all times and places, lay the guilt of the Crucifixion.
17. This complex of ill-feeling came to a head in the period of the Crusades. The wrath of the Crusaders fell as much on Jew as on Moslem; and it soon seemed as much an act of piety to kill Jews in Europe as to kill Saracens in the Holy Land. A wave of persecution, increasingly cruel in its methods, spread all over Western Europe. First in England, then in France, Jews were expropriated, tortured, massacred, and finally expelled from the country. For a time there was less brutality in Spain, whence, except from Granada, the Arabs had been driven out at the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth centuries: but in the second half of the fifteenth century the Inquisition took up its task of scenting out and burning heretics, and in 1492 all Jews who refused to be converted were expelled. Another Jewish migration was thus set going, this time from West to East. The refugees from Southern Europe, especially from Spain, found shelter mostly in the Mediterranean provinces of the Turkish Empire, in the Balkans, in Egypt, in Asia Minor, in Constantinople itself. From this time dates the important settlement of Spanish Jews or Sephardim at Salonika. A certain number of Jews got back to Palestine. They were relatively safe in the Near East from the worst forms of persecution. Some Jews, indeed, rose to high positions, especially in the diplomatic field, at the Sultan's court. But, generally speaking, they never recovered the status they had enjoyed in Spain. If Moslems, Turk or Arab, were more tolerant than Christians, they regarded Jews as their inferiors, to be kept strictly below the rank of a Believer.
18. In Central Europe and Italy there were massacres of Jews as elsewhere, but no wholesale expulsion. Henceforth, however, they were kept rigidly apart from Christians, confined to particular quarters of the towns they lived in, known as ghettos, and often obliged to wear a yellow badge to distinguish them from other people. Many of them, especially in Germany, left their homes and with those expelled from France and England sought refuge on the then only half-developed eastern fringes of an expanding Europe, in Lithuania, Poland and Hungary—a process which continued until a good deal more than half the Jews in the world were congregated in that belt of country. The Polish kings at first protected them, but the respite was short-lived. With the middle of the seventeenth century came Cossack conquest and, later on, Russian rule. A sort of territorial ghetto, the “ Pale of Settlement ”, was established from the Baltic north of Warsaw to the Black Sea near Odessa to keep the Jews from permeating Russia, and throughout this area the urban ghetto system was imposed.
19. If the brutality of this medieval persecution is astonishing to most modem minds, still more astonishing, perhaps, is the fact that the Jews survived it. Their numbers were greatly reduced. No certain figures are available; but there were perhaps about four million Jews in the early days of the Diaspora and probably about one and a half million in 1700. But they had not been eliminated either by massacre or by conversion. Judaism, it seemed, was indestructible. And, what it lost in numbers and in wealth from persecution, it gained in intensity. The ghetto system, in particular, made the “ peculiar people ” more peculiar. It widened the gulf between them and other peoples. Herded together within the ghetto gates, they clung with a new passion to the history and tradition, the ceremonies and customs, which had made them Jews. It was a “ hot-house ” nationalism, and somewhat unhealthy, as indeed all the life of the ghetto was bound to be; but it enabled the Jews to maintain their self-respect, to console themselves for their impoverishment and subjection, and to defy the hostile world outside.
20. The next chapter swings the hope of the Diaspora back again from East to West; for it was in France and England, once leaders in persecution, that a new spirit of tolerance first developed. It was aided by the infiltration of an enlightened type of Spanish Jew, the so-called Marranos, descendants of those who, in outward form if not in secret conviction, had “ bowed the knee ” to the Inquisition. They quickly established themselves and proved their usefulness, and so paved the way for the entry of other more open and obvious Jews. In the centres of business, such as London, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Jews were soon again to the fore. The House of Rothschild, born in the Frankfort ghetto, became a growing power in international finance. Thus the ideas of the American and French Revolutions were sown on not altogether uncongenial soil. The Jews were “ emancipated ”, i.e. were freed from all restrictions not imposed on other citizens, in the United States in 1787, and in France in 1790. In Holland, Germany, Italy, the invading armies of the Republic broke down the ghetto gates. Napoleon set up a kind of communal self-government for the Jews of the Empire. In Central Europe there was a marked reaction after 1815, but the cause of toleration kept pace with the cause of constitutional government, and the process of Jewish emancipation was completed in Italy in 1870 and in Germany in 1871. In England the pace was slower, because the old restrictions were less severely felt. In 1890, when the last inequality in form was removed, there had long been little inequality in fact. Disraeli, it is true, had ceased in early life to profess the Jewish faith; but it was a great event for Jewry when he became Prime Minister in 1868. In 1858 Baron Lionel de Rothschild, a professing Jew, had become a Member of the House of Commons, and in 1885 his son, Nathaniel, took his seat in the House of Lords. How fully Jews since then have shared in British life is common knowledge. Jewish Cabinet Ministers, financiers, industrialists, scientists, philosophers, authors—during the War a divisional commander, and after it a Chief Justice of England, who became Viceroy of India, a Governor-General of a Dominion, and more than one Colonial Governor—it is evident that in the British world (and much the same could be said of France) the Jews had attained within the last half-century a pre-eminence out of all proportion to their numbers.
21. But Jewry has been fated never to attain freedom and security for all its people at one time. In reaction, perhaps, against their recovery in the West, a new enemy appeared in “ Anti-Semitism ”—new because now, in the nineteenth century, the attack was not on grounds of creed but on grounds of race. The movement began in Germany about 1880 and spread through Central Europe. The Dreyfus Case was proof enough of the hold it obtained in France. And, meanwhile, it had revived and reinforced the old intolerance of Russia. From 1881 onwards the plight of the Jews in Russia was almost as bad as it had been in Western Europe at the time of the Crusades. Their exclusion from all Russia except Poland was the least of their misfortunes. A series of pogroms—massacres deliberately incited by anti-Jewish fanatics and acquiesced in, if not connived at, by the Government—was initiated and repeated from time to time till as late as 1910. Tens of thousands of Jews were murdered. More were rendered homeless and destitute. Again, therefore, there was a mass-migration westwards. Between 1880 and 1910 at least three million Jews fled from Eastern Europe. Many found refuge on British soil, in England, Canada, Australia, and South Africa; but the great majority made for the United States. In 1870 the number of American Jews was roughly about a quarter of a million; it is now about four and a half million. Of the other twelve million Jews in the world, some ten million are in Europe and of these about nine million are in Central and Eastern Europe.
22. While the Jews had thus been dispersed over the world, they had never forgotten Palestine. If Christians have become familiar through the Bible with the physiognomy of the country and its place-names and events that happened more than two thousand years ago, the link which binds the Jews to Palestine and its past history is to them far closer and more intimate. Judaism and its ritual are rooted in those memories. Among countless illustrations it is enough to cite the fact that Jews, wherever they may be, still pray for rain at the season it is needed in Palestine. And the same devotion to the Land of Israel, Eretz Israel, the same sense of exile from it, permeates Jewish secular thought. Some of the finest Hebrew poetry written in the Diaspora has been inspired like the Psalms of the Captivity by the longing to return to Zion.
23. Nor has the link been merely spiritual or intellectual. Always or almost always since the fall of the Jewish State some Jews have been living in Palestine. Under Arab rule there were substantial Jewish communities in the chief towns. In the period of the Crusades and again in the Mongol invasions they were nearly but not entirely blotted out. Under Ottoman rule they slowly recovered. Fresh immigrants arrived from time to time, from Spain in the sixteenth century, from Eastern Europe in the seventeenth. They settled mainly in Galilee, in numerous villages spreading northwards to the Lebanon and in the towns of Safad and Tiberias. Safad, which according to Jewish tradition contained as many as 15,000 Jews in the sixteenth century, became a centre of Rabbinical learning and exercised a profound influence on Jewish thought throughout the Diaspora. There was no schism between those Jews in Galilee and the Moslem and Christian peasants amongst whom they lived. They spoke Arabic; except in their descent and their religion there was little to distinguish them from their neighbours; and they were equally exposed to the raids of marauding tribesmen from the Lebanon or from across the Jordan. These inroads multiplied as public security deteriorated. Galilee steadily declined. A hundred years ago there were only some 4,000 Jews in Safad and some 3,000 in Tiberias. In the whole of Palestine there were not more than 12,000 Jews in 1845. But, small though their numbers were, the continued existence of those Jews in Palestine meant much to all Jewry. Multitudes of poor and ignorant Jews in the ghettos of Eastern Europe felt themselves represented, as it were, by this remnant of their race who were keeping a foothold in the land against the day of the coming of the Messiah.
24. This belief in the divine promise of eventual return to Palestine largely accounts for the steadfastness with which the Jews of the Diaspora clung to their faith and endured persecution. The excitement caused throughout Jewry by the occasional appearance of a “ false Messiah ” shows how real and strong it was. But among educated Jews, at any rate, a change set in with the nineteenth century. On the one hand, under the influence of “ modernism ”, the old prophecies took on a symbolic rather than a concrete meaning. The Messianic restora- ation would be a renascence of the Jewish faith and its spread among the Gentiles. The Temple would be rebuilt, but not with hands. On the other hand, the emancipation of the Jews in the western world seemed to remove the need for anything more than a spiritual home in Palestine. Jews, it was thought, would merge themselves in the life of the countries where they lived. In all but faith and race they would become Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, Americans. And this process of enfranchisement and assimilation, it was hoped, would presently be extended over Eastern Europe.
25. In the second half of the century it became clear that the Jewish problem was not to be solved so easily. The rise and spread of Anti-Semitism culminating in the Dreyfus Case and the Russian pogroms showed that even in the West the new status of the Jews was not secure and that in the East their case was little better than it had been in the Middle Ages. For the Jews in Eastern Europe, then as now the great majority of World Jewry, the only hope of deliverance seemed again to lie in physical escape, in large-scale emigration. The vast majority of refugees, as has been seen, went westwards: but a minority followed the old call of their faith, and made their way to Palestine. The movement originated in Russia, but it was backed by Western Jewry. As early as 1860 the Alliance Israelite Universelle was founded in France for the assistance of persecuted Jews and some years later it opened an agricultural school near Jaffa. A similar Anglo-Jewish Association was created in 1871. But the most effective aid to the settlement of Jews in Palestine was rendered by the munificence of Baron Edmond de Rothschild, who between 1883 and 1900 made himself responsible for a group of seven pioneer “ colonies ” and established a fund for maintaining and extending the process of colonization.
26. The result of this new movement was a substantial increase in the number of Jews in Palestine. In 1881 there were about 25,000 of them: in 1914 there were over 80,000. The bulk of the immigrants settled in Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa and their suburbs: but nearly 12,000 of them were on the land, distributed among forty-three “ colonies ”.Whether urban or agricultural, there was a difference between the newcomers and the old Jewish residents in Palestine—a difference which was to become more marked in later years. The old residents, especially in the “ holy cities ” in the hill-country—Hebron in the south, Safad and Tiberias in the north—had long adapted themselves to life among the Arabs. But the new immigrants brought with them a new idea. They were not going to merge themselves in the life of Palestine as they found it. They were going to make a distinct life of their own, to build up a Jewish society, and to make it the vehicle of a revival of Jewish culture. This new idea was known as Zionism.
27. Zionism on its negative side is a creed of escape, but not so much escape from the physical dangers as from the psychological drawbacks of Jewish life in the Diaspora. It appealed, indeed, with special force to emancipated intellectual Jews in western countries where their life and liberty were perfectly secure. The origin of it was a growing conviction that enfranchisement and assimilation would never solve the Jewish Problem. That twofold process had already provoked an alarming reaction; and continental Anti-Semitism might conceivably spread across the Channel and over the Atlantic. But, quite apart from that, even in England or the United States, there were many Jews, though by no means all, who felt that, whatever equality were accorded them and however high they rose, they were not in the fullest sense admitted into the society in which they lived. A Jew remained somehow different and apart. However much he might be liked and respected, he was always thought of and spoken of as a Jew. And, as long as the Jews, instead of being completely absorbed in a larger community, remained a distinct group within it, they would always be a minority group. In that respect, even if all gentile nations became tolerant and friendly to the Jews, the world would still be one vast ghetto. And it was this minority-status, it seemed, which, as much as their race and faith, marked the Jews off from other men. All other civilized peoples had a homeland somewhere in which they were the overwhelming majority, a country they could call their own, a State which gave those of them who lived as a minority in other States a more equal footing beside their citizens.
28. Zionism had also its positive side. Escape from “ minority life ” would give the Jews a chance to show what they could do as Jews, as a Jewish community, as a Jewish nation. They had once made history. Given a land of their own, they might make it again. And for most Zionists that land could only be Palestine. That little country, it was true, could not hold more than a fraction of World Jewry; but there was never any question of all the Jews “ going home ”. Extent of territory was in those days a secondary consideration. The psychological need would be met, the inferiority of status redressed, if the Jews who did return to Palestine were enabled to lead a national life, however small its scale. That national life, it went without saying, was to be truly, intensely national. Hence from the very outset Zionism was associated with the revival of Hebrew as a spoken and popular language. A year or so before the War, when the Hilfsverein der Deutschen Juden, a similar society to those established in France and England, pressed the claims of German as the language of instruction in its Palestinian schools, most of the teachers “ struck ”, many of the children were withdrawn, and new schools were created of a purely Hebrew kind. From the first, therefore, the difference between the new Jewish community and the old Jewish residents in Palestine was plain.
29. Zionism entered the field of practical politics when in 1897 Theodor Herzl, a Viennese playwright and journalist, spurred to action by the Dreyfus Case, convened a congress of World Jewry at Basle and founded the Zionist Organisation. As its first President he set himself to obtain a charter for Jewish colonization in Palestine from the Sultan of Turkey; but, as the Turks had already shown a marked dislike, of the increase in Jewish immigration since the early ’eighties, he realized the necessity of obtaining the backing of a powerful European Government, and for that he turned to England. The idea of re-establishing the Jews in Palestine had attracted more attention there than elsewhere. As long ago as 1840 Lord Shaftesbury had proposed a scheme of Jewish colonization under international guarantee as a means of utilizing the “ wealth and industry of the Jewish people ” for the economic development of a backward area. George Eliot and Laurence Oliphant had clearly stated and warmly advocated the Zionist ideal. Among English Jews its inost prominent champions had been the young Disraeli and Sir Moses Montefiore. But the British Government was not in a position to force Zionism on the Sultan; and, apart from the sending of an expedition to explore the part of Sinai which lay within the Egyptian frontier, no practical advance was made till in 1903, at the instance of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, then at the Colonial Office, the Foreign Secretary, Lord Lansdowne, was authorized to offer the Zionists a tract of country in the highlands of British East Africa for the creation of a Jewish colony with full powers of local autonomy under the British Government's “ general control ”. It was a remarkable offer, and it tempted many Zionists. But the majority vehemently opposed it. To them it was inconceivable that the Jews could re-establish their national life in any other country than the old homeland; and, assisted by a not very favourable report on the conditions in East Africa, they easily carried the day.
30. Thus it was still on Palestine and only on Palestine that the hopes of Zionism were fixed when the World War broke out and when the entry into it of the Turkish Empire on the side of the Central Powers made it evident that, by the end of the fighting, the control of Palestine and its destinies might have passed from Turkish into other hands.
1. For many years before the War the Arab Provinces of the Turkish Empire had been restive under the rule of the Sultan at Constantinople, and the Turkish Army had often been engaged in repressing the outbreaks of the free-spirited tribesmen in the Arabian Peninsula. No less dangerous to Ottoman ascendancy was the growth of a nationalist movement among the young intelligenzia of Syria. Its origin may be traced to the awakening, about 1860, of a new interest in Arab history and culture. Societies were established for the study of the Arab golden age and the revival of Arabic literature. The movement gained impetus from the foundation in 1866 under American auspices of the Syrian Protestant College, soon to be famous throughout the Near East as Roberts College. It did admirable work in acquainting the youth of Syria with the ideas of the Western world; but among them were the ideas of self-government and nationality; and nationalism was as inevitably stimulated by American education in Syria as it was by British education in India. For a generation and more the cause made little headway under the despotic rule of Abdul Hamid, but the coup d'etat of the Young Turks in 1908 seemed for a moment to have opened a new age of freedom throughout the Empire. A constitution was wrested from the Sultan, based on the representation of all the provinces. In the first Parliament, however, the Syrian Arabs were greatly under- represented in the Lower House and they only had three out of forty seats in the Upper House; and it was soon plain that the hopes of autonomous Arab provinces, free to develop Arab life and culture to the full, were to be disappointed. The efficient Committee of Union and Progress stood for centraliza-tion, not local “ home-rule ”, for “ Turcification ” rather than an Arab renaissance. Arab nationalism was thus driven underground. From 1909 onwards secret societies were founded in Paris, Constantinople, Cairo, Damascus, and Beirut: an Arab Congress was held in Paris in 1913; and the idea gained currency of a general Arab rising, if a favourable opportunity should occur, and the creation of a free and united Arab State with its capital at Damascus. The Turkish Government was not without all knowledge of this seditious propaganda and did what it could to suppress it. The trial of Aziz Ali in 1914 excited considerable attention in Western Europe.
2. Such was the position when on the 31st October, 1914, the Ottoman Empire entered the War. Two dangers were at once apparent to the Allied Powers. Syria and Palestine might be made the base for a Turco-German attack on the Suez Canal; and the prestige of the Caliphate might be used in an attempt to raise all Islam against the Allies in a Jihad or Holy War. To meet the first danger troops were concentrated in Egypt. To meet the second, .negotiations were opened with Hussein, Sherif and Emir of Mecca and hereditary guardian of the Moslem Holy Places of Mecca and Medina. Hussein and his people had long cherished similar ideas of throwing off the Turkish yoke to those of the Syrian nationalists, and it was intimated to him that his participation in the War on the Allies’ side might lead to that result. When the Sultan-Caliph proclaimed the Jihad at Constantinople in November, Hussein refused to allow it to be preached in the mosques of the Holy Cities. But he took no further action, and the next move came from the British side. In June, 1915, British policy as to the future of Arabia Proper was made clear by the issue of a proclamation in Egypt, the Sudan, and Arabia, announcing that at the conclusion of peace the independence of the Arabian Peninsula would be assured.
3. But there were other Arab provinces in the Turkish Empire and other than British interests involved in its possible disruption. In March, 1915, the French Government explained that in that event France would claim control of Syria, including (as the term had long included) Palestine. This proposition was discussed by a governmental committee which reported in June, 1915, that the French claim to northern Syria should be conceded but that, owing to the world-wide importance of the Holy Land, Jerusalem and part of Palestine should be reserved for international administration.
4. Meanwhile the fortunes of the Allies in this field of the War had prospered. In February, 1915, the Turco-German attack on the Suez Canal was decisively repulsed. In April the Allied occupation of Gallipoli began; and so hopeful seemed its prospects for the first few months that by July rumours of the approaching fall of Constantinople were spreading through the East. Arab opinion reacted quickly. In the first place the secret Nationalist Committee in Syria decided to reject the promises of independence offered them by the Turkish and German Governments and to make common cause with the Sherif of Mecca. Secondly, in a letter dated the 14th July, 1915, Hussein informed Sir Henry McMahon, then High Commissioner in Egypt, as to the terms on which he was prepared to co-operate with Great Britain against the Turks. The essential passage of the letter was as follows:—
“ England to acknowledge the independence of the Arab countries, bounded on the north by Mersina and Adana up to 370 of latitude, on which degree falls Birijik, Urfa, Mardin, Midiat, Amadia Island (Jezireh), up to the border of Persia; on the east by the borders of Persia up to the Gulf of Basra; on the south, by the Indian Ocean, with the exception of the position of Aden to remain as it is; on the west, by the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea up to Mersina.”
This claim, of course, went far beyond the already promised independence of the Arabian Peninsula. It embraced almost the whole Arab world in Asia. It was clearly inspired to no slight extent by the ideas of Syrian nationalism. Sir Henry McMahon, in a friendly and encouraging reply, declared that the discussion of boundaries was premature.
5. A few weeks earlier the Allied cause had received a serious set-back. On 10th August the British attack on Sari Bair from Suvla Bay broke down. The fall of Constantinople seemed indefinitely postponed. The risks to which the Arabs would be exposed if they openly revolted were obviously increased. There was consequently a change of tone in the Sherif's second letter to Sir Henry McMahon, written on the 9th September.
“ Your Excellency will pardon me and permit me to say clearly that the coolness and hesitation displayed in the question of the limits and boundaries ……….might be taken to infer an estrangement or something of that sort.”
About the same time as Sir Henry McMahon received this letter he was also informed of conversations which had been carried on with a representative of the Syrian Nationalist Committee, who made it clear that the Arabs' choice between the Central Powers and the Allies would be determined by the nature of British assurances as to their future independence. He asserted that) while the Arabs wanted all the Arab countries to be free, they admitted the existence of British interests in ‘Iraq and French interests on the Syrian coast. They would insist, however, on the independence of the Syrian interior—the districts of Damascus, Aleppo, Hama, and Homs. Sir Henry McMahon communicated this information, together with the Sherif's letter, to Sir Edward Grey at the Foreign Office, and he was authorized to reply to the Sherif on the lines he [Sir Henry McMahon] had himself suggested. On the 24th October, accordingly, he wrote the following letter to the Sherif:—
“ I have received your letter [of 9th September] with much pleasure; and your expressions of sincerity and friendliness have given me the greatest satisfaction.
“ I regret that you should have received from my last letter the impression that I regarded the question of the boundaries with coldness and hesitation; such was not the case, but it appeared to me the moment had not arrived when they could be profitably discussed.
“ I have realized, however, from your last letter, that you regard this question as one of vital and urgent importance. I have therefore lost no time in informing the Government of Great Britain of the contents of your letter; and it is with great pleasure that I communicate to you on their behalf the following statement which, I am confident, you will receive with satisfaction: —
“ The districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and the portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the proposed limits and boundaries.
With the above modification, and without prejudice to our existing treaties with Arab chiefs we accept these limits and boundaries, and in regard to those portions of the territories therein in which Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interests of her ally, France, I am empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain to give the following assurances and make the following reply to your letter: —
“ Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories included in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca. Great Britain will guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression and will recognize their inviolability.
“ When the situation admits, Great Britain will give to the Arabs her advice and will assist them to establish what may appear to be the most suitable forms of government in those various territories.
“ On the other hand, it is understood that the Arabs have decided to seek the advice and guidance of Great Britain only, and that such European Advisers and officials as may be required for the formation of a sound form of administration will be British.
“ With regard to the vilayets of Bagdad and Basra, the Arabs will recognize that the established position and interests of Great Britain necessitate special measures of administrative control in order to secure these territories from foreign aggression, to promote the welfare of the local population and to safeguard our mutual economic interests.
“ I am convinced that this declaration will assure you beyond all possible doubts of the sympathy of Great Britain towards the aspirations of her traditional friends, the Arabs, and will result in a firm and lasting alliance, the immediate results of which will be the expulsion of the Turks from the Arab countries and the freeing of the Arab peoples from the Turkish yoke which, for so many years, has pressed heavily upon them . . ..”
Of the passages we have italicized, the second is significant in relation to the claim which had been made by the French Government in March, 1915 to the ultimate control of all Syria including Palestine. But it is the first passage on which the subsequent controversy has centred.
6. The map inserted at this page shows that under Turkish rule the territory under discussion was divided into three administrative areas, the Vilayets of Aleppo, Syria, and Beirut. The Vilayet of Syria extended southwards to include the area now called Trans-Jordan. The Vilayet of Beirut extended southwards to within a short distance of Jaffa. The rest of Palestine, including Jerusalem, was not included in any of the Vilayets: it was an “ independent Sanjak ”.
7. The Arab case, which was fully stated in the evidence submitted to us by the Arab Higher Committee, has always been that Palestine was included in the area in which Sir Henry McMahon promised that Arab independence would be recognized. The two main points are (1) that, since part of the western boundary of the independent area proposed by the Sherif was the Mediterranean, the exclusion of the whole of the Mediterranean coast from that area could not have been intended, and (2) that Damascus was the most southerly point mentioned and that Palestine could not be regarded as lying to the west of it.
8. We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows:—
“ That letter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, 1915] is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its, scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”
9. It was in the highest degree unfortunate that, in the exigencies of war, the British Government was unable to make their intention clear to the Sherif. Palestine, it will have been noticed, was not expressly mentioned in Sir Henry McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, 1915. Nor was any later reference made to it. In the further correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sherif the only areas relevant to the present discussion which were mentioned were the Vilayets of Aleppo and Beirut. The Sherif asserted that these Vilayets were purely Arab; and, when Sir Henry McMahon pointed out that French interests were involved, he replied that, while he did not recede from his full claims in the north, he did not wish to injure the alliance between Britain and France and would not ask “ for what we now leave to France in Beirut and its coasts ” till after the War. There was no more bargaining over boundaries. It only remained for the British Government to supply the Sherif with the monthly subsidy in gold and the rifles, ammunition and foodstuffs he required for launching and sustaining the revolt.
10. Meantime the French interest in Syria had been reaffirmed. In November, 1915, shortly after Sir Henry McMahon had given his “ pledge ” to the Sherif, Sir Edward Grey gave instructions that negotiations should be opened in London with M. Georges Picot, representing the French Government, with a view to reconciling British, French and Arab claims in the Syrian area. M. Picot insisted at the outset that the whole of Syria down to the Egyptian frontier must be assigned to France. After consultation with his Government he agreed to the Syrian interior being administered by Arabs under French influence. Further negotiations were carried on by M. Picot and Sir Mark Sykes, who consulted the Russian Government. Finally, in May, 1916, an agreement was concluded, commonly known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab area north of the Arabian Peninsula in the following manner:—
(1) A coastal belt from a little north of Haifa to a little West of Mersina was to be controlled by France.
(2) Southern 'Iraq, from the Persian Gulf to a little north of Baghdad, together with a small enclave round Haifa, was to be controlled by Britain.
(3) “ With a view to securing the religious interests of the Entente Powers, Palestine, with the Holy Places, is to be separated from Turkish territory and subjected to a special regime to be determined by agreement between Russia, France and Great Britain.”
(4) The rest of the territory under discussion was left to “ the Arab State or Confederation of States ”. In the Syrian interior such advice and administrative assistance as were wanted by the Arabs would be supplied by France, in northern ‘Iraq and the country east of the Jordan by Britain.
11. This agreement was kept secret till in November, 1917, the Russian Bolshevik Government published a copy of it, found in the archives of the Foreign Office at Petrograd. It was thus in ignorance of any other compact than the “ McMahon Pledge ” that in June, 1916, the Sherif declared war against the Turks. The story of the Arab Revolt is too familiar from the fame and writings of T. E. Lawrence to need re-telling. Its main features may be summarized as follows. By the end of 1916 the Arabs of the Hedjaz had easily overcome the isolated Turkish posts in the south of their country, but they were unable to dislodge the garrison at Medina, which was linked by the Hedjaz railway with the main Turkish forces in the North. During 1917 the Turkish posts along the line were continually raided and stretches of the railway repeatedly destroyed. When a British army invaded Palestine in the autumn of 1917, the Arabs, a few thousand of whom had been trained as a regular force, operated beyond the Jordan on the outer flank of the advance. Their co-operation was unquestionably a factor in the success of the campaign which culminated in the capture of Jerusalem on the 9th December, 1917, and in the final expulsion of the Turkish forces from Palestine in the following autumn. The open revolt of the Sherif, moreover, had a marked effect on the wavering sympathies of other Arab tribes than those of the Hedjaz.
12. It was the Sherif's own people, however, who bore the brunt of the actual fighting. The Arabs of Palestine did not rise against the Turks, and, while some Palestinian conscripts deserted, others continued fighting in the Turkish army. But it must be remembered that to revolt in the desert was far easier than to revolt in a country still in Turkish hands and subject as the British invasion proceeded to increasingly rigorous treatment. As it was, the Turks were seriously embarrassed by their inability to count on the loyalty of the population; and within their lines the Syrian nationalists were engaged in active sedition for which some of them paid the price on the gallows.
13. The entry of the Turkish Empire into the War excited the hopes of Jewish as well as Arab nationalism. An Allied victory, it seemed, would open the way to a Jewish return to Palestine on a far larger scale than had hitherto been regarded as practicable. The Zionist leaders, therefore, incorporated their ideas in a definite scheme to be submitted to the Allied Governments at the first favourable moment. One serious obstacle in their path, the opposition of the Czarist Russian Government, was losing its force by the end of 1916; and in February, 1917, when the British advance on Palestine was imminent, formal negotiations were opened between the Zionists and the British Government. Similar negotiations ensued with the French and Italian Governments. In Paris and Rome as in London the Zionist project was officially approved. The publication of this approval was delayed till at the end of October, 1917, the success of General Allenby's invasion of Palestine seemed certain. On the 2nd November the British Government published a statement of policy, afterwards known as the “ Balfour Declaration ”, which took the form of a letter from Mr. Balfour, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to Lord Rothschild: —
“ I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:' His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non- Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.’“ I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.”
14. The text of the Declaration had been submitted to President Wilson and had been approved by him before its publication. On the 14th February and the 9th May, 1918, the French and Italian Governments publicly endorsed it.
15. Like the, McMahon Pledge, the Balfour Declaration was not an expression of a wholly new sentiment. Just as British public opinion had sympathized before the War with the victims of the old Ottoman regime, so it had sympathized with the victims of anti-Semitic persecution. But in both cases the time and manner in which these sympathies were translated into action were determined by the exigencies of the War. In the evidence he gave before us Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, stated that, while the Zionist cause had been widely supported in Britain and America before November, 1917, the launching of the Balfour Declaration at that time was “ due to propagandist reasons ”; and he outlined the serious position in which the Allied and Associated Powers then were. The Roumanians had been crushed. The Russian Army was demoralized. The French Army was unable at the moment to take the offensive on a large scale. The Italians had sustained a great defeat at Caporetto. Millions of tons of British shipping had been sunk by German submarines. No American divisions were yet available in the trenches. In this critical situation it was believed that Jewish sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way or the other to the Allied cause. In particular Jewish sympathy would confirm the support of American Jewry, and would make it more difficult for Germany to reduce her military commitments and improve her economic position on- the eastern front.
16. Those were the circumstances in which the British Government issued the Balfour Declaration.
“ The Zionist leaders [Mr. Lloyd George informed us] gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.”
17. To inform World Jewry of the Declaration millions of leaflets were circulated throughout .the Jewish communities. They were dropped from the air on German and Austrian towns, and widely distributed through the Jewish belt from Poland to the Black Sea.
18. The Central Powers, meantime, had also recognized the war-value of Jewish sympathy. At the time of the Balfour Declaration the German Government was doing all it could to win the Zionist Movement over to its side; and after the Declaration it hastened, in conjunction with its Turkish allies, to formulate a rival proposition. A kind of chartered company was to be created for German Zionists. It would have a limited form of local self-government and a right of immigration into Palestine. By the end of 1917 it was known that the Turks were willing to accept a scheme on those lines; but, before the concessions were finally confirmed in Constantinople, Palestine was in General Allenby’s hands.
19. The fact that the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917 in order to enlist Jewish support for the Allies and the fact that this support was forthcoming are not sufficiently appreciated in Palestine. The Arabs do not appear to realize in the first place that the present position of the Arab world as a whole is mainly due to the great sacrifices made by the Allied and Associated Powers in the War and, secondly, that, in so far as the Balfour Declaration helped to bring about the Allies’ victory, it helped to bring about the emancipation of all the Arab countries from Turkish rule. If the Turks and their German allies had won the War, it is improbable that all the Arab countries, except Palestine, would now have become or be about to become independent States.
20. We must now consider what the Balfour Declaration meant. We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words “ the establishment in Palestine of a National Home ” were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty’s Government could not commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish State. It could only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, informed us in evidence that:—
“ The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews--had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth.”
21. Thus His Majesty’s Government evidently realized that a Jewish State might in course of time be established, but it was not in a position to say that this would happen, still less to bring it about of its own motion. The Zionist leaders, for their part, recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration, and so it was understood elsewhere. “ I am persuaded ”, said President Wilson on the 3rd March, 1919, “ that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth ”. General Smuts, who had been a member of the Imperial War Cabinet when the Declaration was published, speaking at Johannesburg on the 3rd November, 1919, foretold an increasing stream of Jewish immigration into Palestine and “ in generations to come a great Jewish State rising there once more ”. Lord Robert Cecil in 1917, Sir Herbert Samuel in 1919, and Mr. Winston Churchill in 1920 spoke or wrote in terms that could only mean that they contemplated the eventual establishment of a Jewish State. Leading British newspapers were equally explicit in their comments on the Declaration.
22. It remains to describe the reaction of the Balfour Declaration on Arab opinion. Most of the Arab parts of the Turkish Empire, including ‘Iraq, Syria and Palestine were in British military occupation when fighting with the Turks was ended by the Armistice of the 30th October, 1918: and the Arabs had been encouraged to hope that victory would mean the full realization of their independence. Already, in the previous January, one of the “ fourteen points ” laid down by President Wilson as the basis of peace, and one which the Allied Powers had accepted without reservation, included the following words:—
“ The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development.”
23. On the 7th November the British and French Governments issued a joint Declaration of which the essential passages were as follows: —
“ The object aimed at by France and Great Britain in prosecuting in the East the war let loose by German ambition is the complete and definite emancipation of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks, and the establishment of National Governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.
“ In order to carry out these intentions France and Great Britain are at one in encouraging and assisting the establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia, now liberated by the Allies, and in territories the liberation of which they are engaged in securing, and in recognizing these as soon as they are established. Far from wishing to impose on the populations of these regions any particular institutions, they are only concerned to secure by their support and by adequate assistance the regular working of Governments and administrations freely chosen by the populations themselves.”
Since the Arabs had always regarded Palestine as included in Syria, this announcement seemed to promise all they wanted; and their disappointment was the greater when they learned that the victorious Powers proposed not only to separate Palestine from Syria but to place it under a special form of government in order to implement the policy of the Balfour Declaration. By the Sherif Hussein and his son, the Emir Feisal, who had led the Arabs of the Hedjaz in the War, this policy was regarded as a breach of the “McMahon Pledge ”, the only compact of which they had hitherto known. And, even if they had interpreted the Pledge as meaning that Palestine would not be independent but reserved for French or British or international control, they could not have foreseen that such control might cover the establishment of a Jewish National Home.
24. Palestine, however, was a relatively small slice of territory and, as matters stood at the end of 1918, the Sherif and his family had gone far to realize their ambitions. The whole of the Arab world had been freed from Turkish despotism. The prestige of the Ottoman Caliph had been dimmed, while the Sherif of Mecca had been proclaimed King of the Hedjaz, which was recognized as a Sovereign State and was about to take part, with the Emir Feisal as its chief representative, in the Peace Conference at Paris. Northwards the future might be still uncertain, but the Arab position at the moment was de facto a strong one. The Emir Feisal had ridden into Damascus at the head of the Arab horsemen in the first week of October and, with General Allenby's permission, had hoisted the Arab flag.
25. When, therefore, the Emir Feisal came to London and Paris he was persuaded not merely to accept but to welcome the policy of the Balfour Declaration. At his camp east of the Jordan in the previous summer he had met Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who had done great service by his chemical discoveries to the Allied cause in the War and had taken a leading part in the Zionist movement and the discussion of the Balfour Declaration. He had been able to convince the Emir of the benefits which the Jewish National Home would bring to Palestine as a whole; and a memorandum which the Emir presented at the Paris Conference was highly conciliatory:—
“ In Palestine the enormous majority of the people are Arabs. The Jews are very close to the Arabs in blood, and there is no conflict of character between the two races. In principles we are absolutely at one. Nevertheless, the Arabs cannot risk assuming the responsibility of holding level the scales in the clash of races and religions that have, in this one province, so often involved the world in difficulties. They would wish for the effective super-position of a great trustee, so long as a representative local administration commended itself by actively promoting the material prosperity of the country.”
Still weightier evidence of good understanding was the agreement which was signed on the 3rd January, 1919, by the Emir Feisal, “ representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz ”, and Dr. Weizmann, “ representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organisation ”. It pledged the parties to cordial co-operation between “ the Arab State and Palestine ”, to the acceptance of the Balfour Declaration, and to the encouragement of the immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale and their rapid settlement on the land. The Emir added a note of reservation to this Agreement to the effect that its execution was dependent on the fulfilment of the claims for Arab independence which he submitted to the Peace Conference.
“ If changes are made, I cannot be answerable for failing to carry out this agreement.”
26. The Emir Feisal, in concluding this agreement in his father’s name, was not, it is true, directly representing the Arabs of Palestine; but the Arabs, as has just been pointed out, regarded Syria as one country, and in Syria the Emir’s leadership had been accepted. If his hopes, indeed, had been fulfilled, the development of the situation in Palestine might have been far more peaceful than it has been. As it was, the Agreement marks the one brief moment in the whole story at which a genuine harmony was established between Arab and Jewish statesmanship. If King Hussein and the Emir Feisal secured their big Arab State, they would concede little Palestine to the Jews.
27. Eighteen months later, on the 12th July, 1920, Lord Balfour in an often-quoted speech reiterated the idea of a compromise on that sort of basis. Referring to the difficulties in the path of Zionism, he said:—
“ Among these difficulties I am not sure that I do not rate highest, or at all events first, the inevitable difficulty of dealing with the Arab question as it presents itself within the limits of Palestine. It will require tact, it will require judgment, it will require above all sympathetic good will on the part both of Jew and Arab. So far as the Arabs are concerned—a great, an interesting and an attractive race—I hope they will remember that . . . the Great Powers, and among all the Great Powers most especially Great Britain, has freed them, the Arab race, from the tyranny of their brutal conqueror, who had kept them under his heel for these many centuries. I hope they will remember that it is we who have established the independent Arab sovereignty of the Hedjaz. I hope they will remember that it is we who desire in Mesopotamia to prepare the way for the future of a self-governing, autonomous Arab State. And I hope that, remembering all that, they will not grudge that small notch—for it is no more geographically, whatever it may be historically—that small notch in what are now Arab territories being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been separated from it.”
28. Lord Balfour did not mention Syria. At the time of his speech the chance of an agreed settlement based on the co-operation of King Hussein and the Emir Feisal was being nullified by the policy of the French Government, which had never been bound by the “ McMahon Pledge ”, and was vehemently opposed to the establishment of an Arab State under the Emir Feisal’s control at Damascus. The Emir for his part, backed by strong popular feeling in Syria, had determined to resist the claims of France. In March, 1920, he had been proclaimed King of Syria and Palestine by a congress of Syrian notables. By the end of August Damascus had been occupied by a French army, and the Emir expelled from Syria. A year later he was made King of 'Iraq, and in the meantime his brother, Abdullah, had become Emir of the part of historic Palestine east of the Jordan which was allotted under the name of Trans-Jordan to the area of Arab independence, in accordance with the “ McMahon Pledge ”. Thus, in the end, the royal family of the Hedjaz had not fared ill; but such hope as there had been of settling the problem of Palestine by consent was dead. The Feisal-Weizmann Agreement could not operate: the condition attached to it had not been fulfilled. So the old hostility of the Syrian Arabs to the division of the country and the execution of the Balfour Declaration flared up again. In 1920 and again in 1921, as will be recorded in the next chapter, violent Arab outbreaks against the Jews occurred in Palestine. The conflict between Arab and Jewish nationalism had begun.
29. Meantime the " special regime ” under which Palestine was to be governed had not yet taken precise and legal form. On the 30th January, 1919, the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference had decided that the conquered Arab provinces were not to be restored to Turkish rule. On the 3rd February the Zionist Organisation presented a draft resolution embodying its scheme for the execution of the Balfour Declaration. On the 27th February its leaders appeared before the Supreme Council and explained the scheme. A more detailed plan, dated the 28th March, was drafted by Mr. Felix Frankfurter, an eminent American Zionist. From these and other documents and records it is clear that the Zionist project had already in those early days assumed something like the shape of the Mandate as we know it. The right of the Jews on historic grounds to re-establish their National Home in Palestine was affirmed. Jewish immigration and close settlement on the land were to be promoted. A body representing the Jews of Palestine and the world at large should co-operate with the Mandatory. Jewish education should be in Jewish hands. Local self- government should be encouraged.
30. It was never doubted that the experiment would have to be controlled by one of the Great Powers; and to that end it was agreed, in accordance with the Emir Feisal’s notion of a “ great trustee ” and with Zionist wishes, that Palestine should have its place in the new Mandate System which was one of the most striking features in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The principles of it were formulated in Article 22, which reads as follows:—
“ To those colonies and territories, which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them, and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modem world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation, and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
“ The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who, by reason of their resources, their experience, or their geographical position, can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
“ The character of the Mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
“ Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
“ Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases, and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.
“ There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.
“ In every case of Mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
“ The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
“ A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the Mandates.”
31. The Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant were signed on the 28th June, 1919; but progress in settling the affairs of Palestine was checked, partly by the opposition of influential non-Zionist Jews in England and France to the policy of the Balfour Declaration, but mainly by international complications and especially the obstacle created by events in Syria to easy co-operation between the French and British Governments. One vital point, however, was settled, namely, who was to be the Mandatory. The fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant prescribed that, for “ certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire ”, “ the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory ”; and President Wilson pressed for the dispatch of an inter-Allied Commission to Syria and Palestine to discover the wishes of their peoples. This project failing, he sent an unofficial American Commission, which toured both countries in June and July, 1919, and privately reported that the Arabs wanted complete independence for a united Syria and Palestine, but, if supervision were necessary, their first choice was the United States, their second Great Britain. The Zionists had made their wishes known at an earlier stage. On the 18th December, 1918, the American Jewish Congress had adopted a resolution asking for “ the trusteeship of Great Britain ”, and the same request was made in the scheme submitted by the Zionist Organisation to the Supreme Council on the 3rd February, 1919:—
“ The selection of Great Britain as Mandatory is urged on the- ground that this is the wish of the Jews of the world, and the League- of Nations in selecting a Mandatory will follow, as far as possible, the popular wish of the people concerned.”
32. Though the acceptance of this request would greatly alter the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean as contemplated in the Sykes-Picot Arrangement, the French Government acquiesced, and on the 25th April, 1920, the Supreme Council at San Remo allotted the Mandate for Syria to France and the Mandates for Mesopotamia ('Iraq) and Palestine to Great Britain, who was to be responsible for giving effect to the Balfour Declaration.
33. The next step was the signature on the 10th August of the Treaty of Sevres. It confirmed the de facto excision of the Turkish Provinces from the Turkish Empire; but as to their future government it differentiated between Syria and 'Iraq on the one hand and Palestine on the other. In Article 94 the two former territories were to be provisionally recognized “ in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 ” of the Covenant “ as independent States subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone ”. In Article 95 it was agreed “to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine ” to a Mandatory, who would be “responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers ”, and there followed the full text of the Balfour Declaration. This Treaty was never ratified. It was superseded in July, 1923, by the Treaty of Lausanne, which omitted all reference to the Mandates.
34. Nearly two years elapsed after the signature of the Treaty of Sevres before the draft of the Palestine Mandate was submitted to the Council of the League. This time the delay was largely due to the intervention of the United States Government. In a note of the 20th November, 1920, it claimed that the participation of the United States in the War entitled it to be consulted as to the terms of the Mandates. The British Government at once agreed. The draft of the Palestine Mandate, together with those of the other British Mandates, was submitted to the United States Government, and at its request certain minor alterations were made in it. The main point under discussion was economic. Whereas with regard to all other Mandates the United States Government insisted on the application of the principle of equal economic opportunity for all States Members of the League and the United States, it waived this claim with regard to Palestine in recognition of its “ special situation ” and the interests of the Jewish National Home. In thus showing its sympathy with Zionist aspirations the Government reflected the opinion of the Legislature. On the 30th June, 1922, the following joint resolution was adopted by Congress:—
“ Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
“ Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.”
35. Agreement having been reached as to the terms of the Mandate, negotiations were opened for the conclusion of a treaty safeguarding American interests in Palestine for the future. The outcome was a “Convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America respecting the Rights of the Governments of the two Countries and their respective Nationals in Palestine ”, which was signed on the 3rd December, 1924, and ratified in due course*.
* Cmd. 2559.
36. This Convention recites the whole text of the Palestine Mandate, including the preamble. Most of the eight articles of the Convention are concerned with the rights of American nationals, property and institutions in Palestine. Only three need be quoted here: —
Article 1.“ Subject to the provisions of the present convention the United States consents to the administration of Palestine by His Britannic Majesty, pursuant to the mandate recited above.
Article 2.“ The United States and its nationals shall have and enjoy all the rights and benefits secured under the terms of the mandate to members of the League of Nations and their nationals, notwithstanding the fact that the United States is not a member of the League of Nations.
Article 7.“ Nothing contained in the present convention shall be affected by any modification which may be made in the terms of the mandate, as recited above, unless such modification shall have been assented to by the United States.”
37. Meanwhile, on the 24th July, 1922, the draft Mandate for Palestine had been confirmed by the Council of the League. Between that event and the issue of the Balfour Declaration nearly five years had passed, and in that long interval one aspect of the question, somewhat neglected at the outset, had come to the front. The Balfour Declaration had recognized that the establishment of the Jewish National Home must not prejudice the rights of the existing population of Palestine; but little seems to have been known at that time about the size and character of that population. The Declaration spoke only of “ existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ” a phrase which suggested that there were a number of groups, such as Moslem Arabs, Christian Arabs, Armenians and other lesser communities, which were more or less on the same footing. By 1922, however, it was clear that the paramount community in Palestine was the Arab community, over half a million in number and all Arab in speech and Arab in their national aspirations. It was clear also, as will be seen, that the leaders of this community were vehemently opposed to the Zionist policy and could incite the rank and file of their people to murderous attacks upon the Jews. In February, 1922, a delegation of Arab leaders informed the Colonial Office that “ the people of Palestine ” could not accept the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate and demanded their national independence.</p>
38. In those circumstances the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Winston Churchill, published in June, 1922, a statement of “ British Policy in Palestine ”*. It included the following interpretation of the Balfour Declaration: —
* Printed in Cmd. 1700 (pages 17-21), also in Cmd. 3530 (Appendix V).
“ So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned, it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty’s Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to. affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sèvres, is not susceptible of change.
“ During the. last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one-fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organisation for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact ‘ national ’ characteristics. When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine,, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the- further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may- become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.
“ This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty’s Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of Stat , is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.”
Cmd. 1700 (pages 17-21), also in Cmd. 3530 (Appendix V).
39. This definition of the National Home has sometimes been taken to preclude the establishment of a Jewish State. But, though the phraseology was clearly intended to conciliate, as far as might be, Arab antagonism to the National Home, there is nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended. This view was naturally shared by the Zionist Organisation, whose Executive, after examining the Statement of Policy, declared that “ the activities of the Zionist Organisation will be conducted in conformity with the policy therein set forth ”. One reason why no public allusion to a State was made in 1922 was the same reason why no such allusion had been made in 1917. The National Home was still no more than an experiment. Some 16,000 Jews had entered Palestine in 1920 and 1921. The Arab population was about 600,000. It would be a very long time, it seemed, before the Jews could become a majority in the country. Indeed, as late as 1926, a leading Zionist stated that there was “ still little prospect of the Arabs being overtaken in a numerical sense within a measurable period of time”.* It was not till the great rise in the volume of Jewish immigration in the last few years that the prospect of a Jewish State came within the horizon. In 1922 it lay far beyond it.
* Mr. L. Stein, in Survey of International Affairs, 1925, (Oxford, 1927), Vol. I, p. 392, note 2.
40. We need only cite here the text of the Preamble of the Mandate and of those Articles which have a direct bearing on our inquiry. The text of the remaining Articles is given in Appendix I at the end of this Report.
Preamble.
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish com-munities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;
Confirming the said mandate, defines its terms as follows:
Article 1.The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
Article 2.The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
Article 3The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
Article. 4.An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. The Zionist organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such' agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
Article 6.The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State land and waste lands not required for public purposes.
Article 7.The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting: a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
Article 9.The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights. Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.Article 11.The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to- be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land. The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not. directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.Article 13.All responsibility in connection with the Holy Places and religious buildings or sites in Palestine, including that of preserving existing rights and of securing free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, while ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum, is assumed by the Mandatory, who shall be responsible solely to the League of Nations in all matters connected herewith, provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into such arrangements as he may deem reasonable with the Administration for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into effect; and provided also that nothing in this mandate shall be construed as con-ferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed. ?Article 15.The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief. The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.
Article 16.The Mandatory shall be responsible lor exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.
Article 18.The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area. Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.
Article 22.English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew, and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.
Article 23.The Administration of Palestine shall recognise the holy days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the members of such communities.Article 25.In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.Article 27.The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.
Article 28.In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.41. On the 16th September, 1922, the Council of the League approved a memorandum submitted by the British Government which recited Article 25 of the Mandate, defined the limits of that part of Palestine which was known as Trans-Jordan, and invited the Council to agree that recitals 2 and 3 of the Preamble, Articles 4, 6, 13, 14, 22 and 23, the sentence in Article 2 referring to the Jewish National Home, the second sentence in Article 7, and all Article II except the first sentence were not applicable to Trans-Jordan. The memorandum further stated that His Majesty's Government accepted full responsibility as Mandatory for Trans-Jordan and that the provisions of the Mandate which were not inapplicable would be observed in its administration.
42. From a close study of these texts and from what we have read and heard in evidence the following main points emerge: —
(1) Recital 3 of the Preamble adds an important rider to the Balfour Declaration cited in recital 2. It declares that in adopting the policy of the Declaration the Principal Allied Powers gave recognition to “ the historical connection of the Jewish People with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country ".
(2) The Mandate is of a different type from the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and the draft Mandate for 'Iraq. These latter, which were called for convenience “ A ” Mandates, accorded with the fourth paragraph of Article 22. Thus the Syrian Mandate provided that the government should be based on an organic law which should take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the inhabitants, and that measures should be enacted “ to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States ”. The corresponding sentences of the draft Mandate for ‘Iraq were the same. In compliance with them National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis. Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate, on the other hand, vests “ full powers of legislation and of administration ”, within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory.
As to the claim, argued before us by Arab witnesses, that the Palestine Mandate violates Article 22 of the Covenant because it is not in accordance with paragraph 4 thereof, we would point out (a) that the provisional recognition of “ certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire ” as independent nations is permissive; the words are “ can be provisionally recognised ”, not “ will ” or “ shall ”: (b) that the penultimate paragraph of Article 22 prescribes that the degree of authority to be exercised by the Mandatory shall be defined, at need, by the Council of the League: (c) that the acceptance by the Allied Powers and the United States of the policy of the Balfour Declaration made it clear from the beginning that Palestine would have to be treated differently from Syria and ‘Iraq, and that this difference of treatment was confirmed by the Supreme Council in the Treaty of Sèvres and by the Council of the League in sanctioning the Mandate.
This particular question is of less practical importance than it might seem to be. For Article 2 of the Mandate requires “ the development of self-governing institutions ”; and, read in the light of the general intention of the Mandate System (of which something will be said presently), this requirement implies, in our judgment, the ultimate establishment of independence.
(3) The field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, and the Zionists were seriously disappointed when Trans-Jordan was cut away from that field under Article 25. This was done, as has been seen, in obedience to the McMahon Pledge, which was antecedent to the Balfour Declaration.
(4) Of the specific obligations imposed on the Mandatory and the Administration, we regard four as of major importance:—
(i) the obligations under Articles 2 and 6 with reference to the Jewish National Home;
(ii) the obligation in the same articles to safeguard the rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine and in particular those of non-Jews;
(iii) the. obligation in Articles 2 and 3 to develop self- governing institutions and encourage local autonomy;
(iv) the obligations undertaken with regard to the Holy Places in Article 13.The fourth of these obligations applies to Jews and Arabs alike and to many other peoples of the world. The third applies equally to Jews and Arabs. But the first is an obligation towards the Jewish People only and the second an obligation mainly towards the Arabs. It was pointed out to us by Jewish witnesses that the first is a positive, the second a negative obligation, but they admitted, of course, that positive and negative obligations are equally binding. Unquestionably, however, the primary purpose of the Mandate, as expressed in its preamble and its articles, is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
(5) Articles 4, 6 and 11 provide for the recognition of a Jewish Agency “ as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration ” on matters affecting Jewish interests. No such body is envisaged for dealing with Arab interests.
(6) While Article 7 provides for a Palestinian citizenship common to Arabs and Jews, Articles 15 and 22 recognize and tend to confirm the difference between Arab and Jewish nationality by prescribing that Arabic and Hebrew shall both be “ official languages ” and that each community shall be entitled “ to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language.”
(7) Article 28 contemplates the possible termination of the Mandate.
43. We have been dealing so far with those specific obligations which are defined in the text of the Mandate. But there are also general obligations attached to every Mandate. These are not always remembered in the present controversy, nor is the first recital of the Preamble so often quoted as those which are concerned with the Jewish National Home. The first recital declares that Palestine is entrusted to a Mandatory “ for the purpose of giving effect to Article 22 of the Covenant ”. The full text of Article 22 has been given on an earlier page and it is sufficient to repeat its opening paragraph: —
“ To those colonies and territories, which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them, and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the wellbeing and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation, and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.”44. The intention of this governing paragraph of Article 22 cannot be fully understood without a knowledge of how and for what purpose the Mandate System was invented.
45. While the British tradition of trusteeship for backward peoples had a good deal to do with it, the Mandate System was mainly the outcome of American ideas. From the moment that the United States entered the War President Wilson made it clear that in his view such territorial readjustments as might result from victory should be made on different principles from those which had been followed at the close of previous wars. There were to be “ no annexations ” against the wishes of the people concerned. The principle of “ national self- determination” should be applied as far as possible. “ Peoples and provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were mere chattels and pawns in a game.”
46. It was in order to apply these principles to the disposition of the ex-German colonies and ex-Turkish provinces that the Mandate System was established. In earlier days the simple annexation of such “ prizes of war ” had been a matter of course. Now they were to be governed not as the ” possessions ” of this or that victorious Power, but as a “ sacred trust of civilisation ” under regulations laid down by the League of Nations and under its constant supervision.
47. As applied to Palestine the Mandate System meant that “ the well-being and development ” of its existing population were to be promoted. It also implied that in course of time this population would be enabled to stand by themselves. In 1919, when the Covenant was signed, the vast majority of the population was Arab. It was those half million Arabs, with a small minority of 65,000 Jews, who had been removed from Turkish rule and were now to be entrusted to Mandatory administration.
48. But Palestine was different from the other ex-Turkish provinces. It was, indeed, unique both as the Holy Land of three world-religions and as the old historic homeland of the Jews. The Arabs had lived in it for centuries, but they had long ceased to rule it, and in view of its peculiar character they could not now claim to possess it in the same way as they could claim possession of Syria or 'Iraq. Speaking in the House of Lords on the 27th June, 1923, Lord Milner declared himself “ a strong supporter of pro-Arab policy.” “ I believe in the independence of the Arab countries. .... I look forward to an Arab Federation.” But, he went on,
“ Palestine can never be regarded as a country on the same footing: as the other Arab countries. You cannot ignore all history and tradition in the matter. You cannot ignore the fact that this is the cradle of two of the great religions of the world. It is a sacred land to the Arabs, but it is also a sacred land to the Jew and the Christian; and the future of Palestine cannot possibly be left to be determined by the temporary impressions and feelings of the Arab majority in the country of the present day.”49. Therein lay the justification for combining the general obligations of the Mandate System with the specific obligations of the Palestine Mandate. The recognition of Jewish rights was thereby linked with the recognition of Arab rights. Jews were admitted to be in Palestine by right. The little Jewish minority was to be helped to grow by immigration. To facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home was a binding international obligation on the Mandatory. The Mandate also imposed specific obligations towards the Arabs. Their civil and. religious rights and their position as affected by immigration and land-settlement were not to be prejudiced. But the acceptance of these specific and negative obligations towards the Arabs did not, of course, release the Mandatory from the general and positive obligations implicit in the first recital of the Preamble and in the first paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant. If Arab claims in Palestine were subject to the rights of others, so were Jewish claims.
50. It is clear, then, that the policy of the Balfour Declaration was subjected to the operation of the Mandate System in 1919 in the belief that the obligations thereby undertaken towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively would not conflict. And this belief was still held when the draft Mandate was confirmed by the Council of the League in 1922. Already by then the Arab leaders had displayed their hostility to the Mandate and all it involved; but it was thought that this hostility would presently weaken and die away. Mr. Churchill spoke of his “ Statement of Policy ” as a basis on which he believed that a “ spirit of co-operation” might be built up. And the ground of this belief in the compatibility of the obligations was no less clear. It was assumed that the establishment of the National Home would mean a great increase of prosperity for all Palestine. It was an essential part of the Zionist mission to revivify the country, to repair by Jewish labour, skill and capital the damage it had suffered from centuries of neglect. Arabs would benefit therefrom as well as Jews. They would find the country they had known so long as poor and backward rapidly acquiring the material blessings of Western civilization. On that account it was assumed that Arab fears and prejudices would gradually be overcome.
51. It must have been obvious from the outset that a very awkward situation would arise if that basic assumption should prove false. It would evidently make the operation of the Mandate at every point more difficult, and it would greatly com-plicate the question of its termination. To foster Jewish immigration in the hope that it might ultimately lead to the creation of a Jewish majority and the establishment of a Jewish State with the consent or at least the acquiescence of the Arabs was one thing. It was quite another thing to contemplate, however remotely, the forcible conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State against the will of the Arabs. For that would clearly violate the spirit and intention of the Mandate System. It would mean that national self-determination had been withheld when the Arabs were a majority in Palestine and only conceded when the Jews were a majority. It would mean that the Arabs had been denied the opportunity of standing by themselves: that they had, in fact, after an interval of conflict, been bartered about from Turkish sovereignty to Jewish sovereignty. It is true that in the light of history Jewish rule over Palestine could not be regarded as foreign rule in the same sense as Turkish; but the international recognition of the right of the Jews to return to their old homeland did not involve the recognition of the right of the Jews to govern the Arabs in it against their will. The case stated by Lord Milner against an Arab control of Palestine applies equally to a Jewish control.
52. The essential points of this chapter may be summarized as follows: —
(1) The Arabs understood, before and after the outbreak of the Hedjaz Revolution in 1915, that, in the event of an Allied victory, Palestine would be included in the sphere of Arab independence.(2) In 1917 the British Government promised to facilitate the establishment of a National Home for the Jewish People in Palestine provided that the civil and religious rights of the Arabs and other non-Jews were not prejudiced; and the Jews understood that, if the experiment succeeded, the National Home would develop in course of time into a Jewish State.
(3) The Mandate system was adopted as the vehicle for the execution of this policy. It involved certain general obligations, mainly towards the Arabs. The Mandate itself involved certain specific obligations, mainly towards the Jews.
(4) The association of the Balfour Declaration policy with the Mandate System implied the belief that Arab hostility to the former would sooner or later be overcome. If this belief should prove false it would be very difficult to operate or to terminate the Mandate.
CHAPTER III
PALESTINE FROM 1920 TO 1936
1.—1920 to 1925
1. It was deemed advisable that the British Mandate for Palestine and the French Mandate for Syria should be put into force at the same time. Since, therefore, the promulgation of the latter was delayed by Franco-Italian discussions, it was not till September 29, 1923, that the two Mandates came into operation. In Palestine, however, the main provisions of the Mandate had already been applied; and the history of its execution may be said to have begun when in the summer of 1920 a Civil Administration was established in place of the military regime. The first holder of the High Commissionership—a title intended, no doubt, to mark the mandatory character of the territory, though Governorships were instituted for the African Mandates— was Sir Herbert Samuel. The government he headed was a government of a simple “Crown Colony” type. There was a small- Executive Council of officials, and an Advisory Council consisting (besides the High Commissioner) of ten officials and ten nominated non-officials, of whom four were Moslem Arabs, three Christian Arabs, and three Jews—a distribution which gave the minority communities more than their due representation, since of the population as estimated in 1922, 589,000 were Moslems, 83,000 Jews, and 71,000 Christians. The senior officials both in the central departments and in the districts- were British, mostly ex-officers of the Army who had served under the military regime. From the first the junior posts were filled by Palestinians, Arab and Jew. The police were Palestinian with British officers, but a special British gendarmerie, numbering originally 762, were enlisted in 1922, mostly from Ireland. As to the judiciary, British judges were presidents of the two sections of the Court of Appeal, of each of the four Districts Courts, and of two Land Courts. The rest of the judges and magistrates were Palestinians. Cases of religious law and personal status were determined by Moslem and Jewish tribunals.
2. Though the specific and positive obligations of the Palestine- Mandate were mainly concerned with the establishment of the National Home, the first principle of mandatory government is to promote, as we have explained in the preceding chapter, “ the well-being and development ” of the people of the mandated territory as a whole. And for the well-being and development of the Arabs, who constituted the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people, there was much that needed doing.
3. In 1920 the structure of Arab society in Palestine was still quasi-feudal. At the top of it was a small aristocracy of landowners, who had been admitted long before the War to the effendi or governing class of the Turkish Empire. Many of them were wealthy and most of them well-educated men, who from college-life at Beirut or elsewhere or from travel had acquired the outward forms of European culture. The cohesion of this ruling class was somewhat impaired by traditional rivalry between its leading families, of which the two foremost at this time were the Husseini and the Nashashibi. Next in the social scale came a middle-class of professional and business men in the towns—there were a few small industries, notably soapmaking at Nablus—and of the more prosperous owner-cultivators in the plains. But this class was small; and the great majority of the Arab population were peasantry or fellaheen, some of them owners of their little plots of land, but mostly tenants or cultivators on the estates of the effendi, who in many cases were “ absentee landlords”. At the lowest level were the Bedouin, nomads from the desert, still largely pastoral, but also engaged in primitive agriculture. Their number was estimated, probably too highly, in 1922 as a trifle over 100,000.
4. The outstanding characteristic of the peasant class was its poverty. For this there were several reasons—the poorness of the soil, especially in the stony hills where most of their villages were situated, and the lack of water; the heavy load of debt which robbed them of most of their earnings and deprived them of the capital required for the better irrigation of their land or the improvement of its crops; the lack of knowledge of intensive methods of cultivation; the cramping effect of the antiquated land-system and the general insecurity of tenure; the limited markets for country produce and the badness of the means of access to towns. The birth-rate, however, was high, and, despite primitive sanitation and a wholly inadequate system of public health, the peasant population was steadily increasing. As a result, moreover, of the ending of Turkish rule, those younger males in every family who had formerly been drafted out to compulsory service in the army, usually never to return, were now available for work at home. Emigration overseas, too, had been checked by the post-war restrictions on immigration. In every village, therefore, the amount of labour available was greater than it had been before the War; but this could not in itself do much to raise the standard of life. It might, indeed, depress it unless the other factors needed for development were forthcoming.
5. Considering the limited resources available, the progress made between 1920 and 1925 in dealing with this complicated problem was substantial. Part of the country was surveyed and mapped as a preliminary to land-settlement. Including money advanced before 1920, a sum of over half a million pounds was lent, mostly in small amounts, to cultivators. Expert advice was provided for the improvement and protection of crops. Nearly 200 primary schools were established in the country districts. By drainage and other measures malaria, which in 1920 was rife not only in low-lying rural areas but even in the towns, was eliminated from all the larger towns except Haifa and from wide stretches of the plains. A similar campaign was launched against eye-disease. New hospitals were built, child-welfare centres and clinics opened, training for nurses and midwives provided. Jerusalem obtained a proper water-supply. Hundreds of miles of road were laid, facilitating omnibus services and a great increase in other motor traffic. The railway system was re-organized and renovated. In all these and in other ways a vigorous beginning had been made by 1925 in providing backward Palestine with the material equipment of a modem state.
6. Much of the work summarized above was done by other agencies than Government. Christian missions and other European philanthropic bodies, some of which had been established in Palestine long before the War, took, as they still take, an important part in the provision of social services, especially in health and education. There were some social services, moreover, and in particular education, which the Jews from the outset desired to provide for themselves in their own way and, if need be, at their own cost. And for such expenditure the Zionist Organisation and other bodies could command large sums of money. In the result, much of the work mentioned above was done by the Jewish immigrants themselves, partly by their own efforts, partly with Jewish help from Europe and America. The work of the Hadassah Medical Organisation, a strong and efficient body established by American Zionists, deserves particular mention: and, like the draining of swamps by Jewish colonists, it benefited Arab as well as Jew.
7. It should be frankly recognized that, while the social activities of Government were directly or indirectly beneficial to the country as a whole, they were more to the advantage of the Arabs than the Jews. This was reasonable enough, apart from the fact that the Arabs constituted the overwhelming majority of the population. There could be little prospect of that rapprochement and co-operation between the races on which the ultimate success of the whole experiment depended, unless every effort were made in every walk of life to close the gap between them. But even under the most favourable conditions, even if the financial resources available had been far greater than they were, the closing of the gap, the lifting of Arab standards of knowledge, skill and enterprise towards the Jewish level, could only be a very slow business; and, if in 1925 a new era of progress had evidently begun, the Arabs were still living in the atmosphere of the past, still separated, almost, it might seem, by centuries, from the educated, resourceful, Western-minded section of the Jews now entering the country in increasing numbers.
8. To “ facilitate ” this inflow “ under suitable conditions ” was one of the specific duties imposed by the Mandate. Stimulated by the Balfour Declaration, the tide of Jewish immigrants was now gathering momentum from the restoration of peace and order; and the Government's first duty was what Sir Herbert Samuel rightly called “ the invidious task ” of preventing this tide from swamping Palestine. A special department was established to deal with immigration and an Ordinance was passed to regulate it.* The result was that the Jewish population, which was reckoned at about 55,000 in 1918, had risen by March, 1925, to 108,000. This increase meant more than a difference in numbers: it meant a difference in character. There was more variety now not only in the provenance of the immigrants but in their type and outlook. To quote from Sir Herbert Samuel's review of his five year's administration:
“ There are rabbis and laymen to whom the ancient religion is alone of importance, and in whose lives the study of the Law and ritual requirements are the chief concern. . . . There are eager young workers, essentially modem, who have rejected the letter, though they often retain the spirit, of the religion; intellectual, they are nevertheless keen to engage in manual work in the upbuilding of the country; they may be inspired by the past, but they live actively in the present, and are moving consciously towards a planned future. Between these types there is every gradation and combination of creed and outlook,
“ There are in Palestine Oriental Jews from Bokhara and Persia and ‘Iraq, and there are University men and women from New York and Chicago. There are Jews from the Yemen . . . good craftsmen in silver and ivory or good labourers on the farms; and there are agricultural experts from the colleges of France, engineers from Germany, bankers from Holland, manufacturers and merchants from Poland and Russia. There are students and writers, doctors and lawyers, architects and musicians, organisers and social workers, from Eastern Europe and Western, from Asia and America. . . .
“ Taking a general view, it may be said that at least one-half of the present Jewish population come from Eastern Europe; that those who are strictly orthodox in religion are a minority, those who are wholly irreligous are also a minority, and the mass lie between; that the majority are politically inclined, and progressive in their views; that communists are few, and those who may be regarded as revolutionary or ‘ Bolshevist ’ are a group negligible in numbers; and that three-fourths of this population live at present in the towns and onefourth in the agricultural colonies.”Thus already the unique character of Jewish colonization in Palestine was plain. The colonies of the New World were mostly founded by settlers of a single nation, drawn mainly from the working or lower middle class and not of very varied occupations. The Jewish immigrants came from a variety of different countries, and represented all classes and activities. Their settlement resembled that colonization by a complete society in miniature—a slice through all its strata—which the Colonial Reformers in England in the early nineteenth century dreamed of but never realized. It was unique, too, in the preparations made for it. Not only had most of the immigrants been carefully selected by the Zionist Organisation, but a number of them had undergone a three-years’ course of training, mostly for agriculture but also for industry and handicrafts, in twenty centres established in various European countries. All those trained men and women were young and belonged for the most part to the organization called the Halutzim or Pioneers.
* For details of the immigration system see Chapter X. below.
9. An elaborate Jewish machinery for financing and controlling this colonization was already in operation. A Jewish Agency, known at this time as the Zionist Executive, representing the Zionist Movement throughout the world, had been established in accordance with the Mandate, and was cooperating with the Administration, especially in the work of settlement. Another body, distinct from the Zionists, the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (Pica), successor of Baron Edmond de Rothschilds society, had also been engaged for some time past in land-purchase and settlement. The Anglo-Jewish Association and the Alliance Israelite Universelie were continuing their pre-war work, especially in agricultural training; and several other societies had been founded or were about to be founded, especially in the United States, to assist in the building of the National Home.
10. The land required for the colonists had been purchased partly by tlie Jewish National Fund, or Keren Kayemeth, maintained by the voluntary contributions of Jews all over the world, and partly by the “Pica ”. Another fund, the Foundation Fund or Keren Hayesod, had been created to finance the cost of settlement. Altogether roughly £6,000,000 had already been spent on the National Home since the War. 944,000 dunums* of land had been purchased and about 100 villages had been established, containing some 25,000 settlers. Some of the colonies were in the hills of Galilee, but the great majority were in the Maritime Plain and the Plain of Esdraelon. The conversion of the latter from a swampy and thinly-peopled area into healthy and highly cultivated farm-land, at the cost of much suffering and mortality from malaria, had been a particularly notable achievement from the Jewish point of view.
* A dunum is roughly one-quarter of an acre.
11. From the first, too, the social organization of the colonies was as varied as it is to-day. There were orange-plantations in private ownership; there were settlements of individual farmers or small-holders; there were co-operative settlements, some working the land on an individual basis, others working it in common; and there were a few communal settlements, where no wages were paid but work was distributed and needs supplied on the collective principle.
12. In some rural districts the pre-war Jewish villages were growing into little country-towns. The area of Petah Tiqva had grown from 700 to 5,000 acres, and its population from 125 to 4,000. Rehovot in 1890 was a village of less than 300 inhabitants: in 1925 they numbered over 1,400.
13. For the urban population new suburbs had sprung up at Jerusalem and Haifa; and Tel Aviv, on the northern outskirts of Jaffa, which in 1914 consisted of less than 200 houses with 2,000 inhabitants, was now a sea-side town of over 2,000 houses and 30,000 people—“ the only town in the world which is wholly Jewish ”. To maintain these town-dwellers new industries had been established—four big-scale factories for cement, bricks, flour, and oil and soap, involving between them a capital expenditure of over £500,000, and more than 100 smaller businesses. To assist these industrial developments a company headed by Mr. Rutenberg, a Russian-Jewish electrical engineer, had constructed an electric power station run by oil at Tel Aviv, while another company under the same leadership had begun the work of harnessing the waters of the Jordan and the Yarmuk, at a point some five miles south of Lake Tiberias—an enterprise intended to supply the greater part of Palestine with power at the cost of about £1,000,000.
14. Already, again, the immigrant community had developed an elaborate social and political organization. Most of the industrial workers were enrolled in various branches of the General Federation of Jewish Labour or Histadruth, which not only provided social services on a co-operative basis but also tendered for contracts for building and other work. On the political side, a General Assembly had been established of 314 members, elected by the votes of all adult Jews of both sexes and divided into numerous party groups; and a National Executive Council, or Va’ad Leumi, chosen by the Assembly, constituted, so to speak, the responsible government of the National Home. Locally, Tel Aviv had its elected Town Council, and every small town and every village of any size had its elected Committee. The religious affairs of the whole community were dealt with by a Rabbinical Council. By regulations made in 1927 under the Religious Communities (Organisation) Ordinance all those bodies were recognized and regulated. Thenceforward the Va'ad Leumi and the Committees were entitled by law to levy taxation by annual budgets and to maintain social services, of which the most important were public health and education. The regulations provided, of course, for the control of those bodies by the Government of Palestine, especially with regard to finance; but, none the less, it would be difficult to find in history a precedent for the establishment of so distinct an imperium in imperio.
15. In its culture, lastly, this little society of 100,000 Jews already reflected the post-War life of the Western world. A creative spirit was apparent in local art and literature. Bialik, the greatest Hebrew poet of modern times, was soon to spend the last years of his life at Tel Aviv. A former conductor of Grand Opera in Petrograd and Moscow had trained an orchestra which played to crowded audiences. The only cultural difference, in fact, between this young community and its elders in Europe or America was a difference of intensity. In the first place, owing to the system of immigration, a quite unusual proportion of the community were young and highly-educated. Secondly, the great majority of them were almost passionately conscious of a national mission. They were the builders or re-builders of the National Home. How intense the spirit of nationalism can be has been manifest, not always with happy results, in many quarters of the world in recent times; but nowhere was it in those early days of colonization, and nowhere is it now, more intense than among the Jews in Palestine. The most striking feature of it was and is the revival of the Hebrew language. This, as has been seen, had always been one of the cardinal points of Zionism, and from the time of the Balfour Declaration onwards it had been regarded as essential for this purpose first that Hebrew should be recognized as an “ official language ” in Palestine and, secondly, that the education of the colonists should be in Jewish hands. Thus already by 1925 a complete framework of Jewish education had been erected— primary schools, secondary schools and technical schools —and in the spring of that year the structure had been crowned by the opening by Lord Balfour of the Hebrew University at Jerusalem. In the primary schools Hebrew was intensively taught and at all the higher stages the language of instruction was Hebrew. As the result a language which a generation earlier had only been spoken for ritual recitation was now the living everyday language of all the younger, if not yet quite all the older, of the Jews in Palestine. All the Jewish newspapers were printed in Hebrew, and a growing body of Hebrew literature was soon to issue from the local presses.
16. To sum up, it may be said that already in 1925 the National Home had developed all the main features which distinguish it to-day. But, despite the results it had already achieved and the enthusiasm of its pioneers, it was still generally regarded as an experiment which might or might not in the end succeed— and not by gentile critics only. So far the funds needed for land-purchase and settlement and for essential social services had been mainly subcribed in small amounts by the poorer class of Jews throughout the world. Much of the expenditure had been uneconomic. For some of the capital provided no return could be expected; for the rest only a small and possibly long- delayed return. The financing of the National Home, in fact, had been in the nature of donations to a missionary enterprise. But, if it was to realize its promoters’ dreams within measurable time, it would need a more normal economic basis; it would need to be regarded as a “ sound proposition ” and attract investment in the usual way of business.
17. The Jewish National Home is only one side of the picture, and in the course of 1925 the other side of it was illuminated by a significant incident. For the Jews the coming of Lord Balfour to Palestine and his opening of the Hebrew University were the happiest of omens. To the Arabs they were anathema, and they celebrated Lord Balfour's visit by maintaining an effective “ general strike ”. In fact the Arab opposition to the policy implicit in the National Home had lost nothing of its force. In the early years, indeed, it had been marked by the first two of those violent outbreaks which were to recur at intervals up to 1936. Despite the presence of a substantial number of British troops in the country, a serious outbreak of rioting and looting occurred in April, 1920, in Jerusalem. Savage attacks were made by Arabs on Jews, and firm action of the troops was required to restore order. Five Jews were killed and no less than 211 wounded, including several women and children. Of the Arabs, four were killed and twenty-one wounded. It appeared on investigation that the causes of the trouble had been (1) the Arabs’ disappointment at the non-fulfilment of the promises of independence which they believed to have been given them in the War: (2) the Arabs' belief that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the right of self- determination, and their fear that the establishment of the National Home would mean a great increase of Jewish immigration and would lead to their economic and political subjection to the Jews: (3) the aggravation of those sentiments on the one hand by propaganda from outside Palestine associated with the proclamation of the Emir Feisal as King of a re-united Syria and with the growth of Pan-Arab and Pan-Moslem ideas and on the other hand by the activities of the Zionist Commission, supported by the resources and influence of Jews in the world at large. It was pointed out that Jewish immigration before the War had not unduly alarmed the Arabs and that there were some among them who recognized the economic value to the country of a reasonable number of Jewish residents. But, as an influential Arab remarked at the time, “ Who that wants salt empties the whole cellar into his plate? ”
18. A year later, in May, 1921, there was another alarming outbreak. Excited by disturbances arising from an internal Jewish quarrel between the Bolshevik group and the orthodox Labour Party, the Arabs of Jaffa made a murderous attack on the Jewish inhabitants of the town; and on subsequent days destructive Arab raids were made on five of the Jewish rural colonies. In the course of the trouble 47 Jews were killed and 146 wounded, mostly by Arabs. Of the Arabs, 48 were killed and 73 wounded, mostly by the police and military in suppressing the disorders. The report of the inquiry into these events conducted by Sir Thomas Haycraft, Chief Justice of Palestine, and two officials, revealed to the public for the first time the strength of the Arab antagonism to the National Home and the reasons for it. “ The fundamental cause of the Jaffa riots and the subsequent acts of violence ”, wrote the Commissioners, “ was a feeling among the Arabs of discontent with, and hostility to, the Jews, due to political and economic causes, and connected with Jewish immigration, and with their conception of Zionist policy as derived from Jewish exponents ”. In reply to the Jewish arguments that Arab antagonism was directed more against British rule than against Zionism and had been artificially stimulated among the uneducated mass of the Arab population by effendi, discontented with the loss of the profitable privileges they had enjoyed under the Turkish regime, the Commissioners declared that “ the feeling against the Jews was too genuine, too widespread, and too intense to be accounted for in the above superficial manner ”. The root of the trouble, they maintained, was the Arab fear of a steady increase of Jewish immigration, which would ultimately tend to their political and economic subjection. The Arabs were aware that this prospect was definitely envisaged not only by Zionists of the “ extremist ” kind, like Mr. Jabotinsky, but by more responsible representatives of Zionism, such as Dr. Eder, the acting chairman of the Zionist Commission: and in pursuit of it the Zionists, through their Commission and otherwise, exerted, so the Arabs believed, an undue influence over the Administration. Jewish immigration, moreover, was regarded by the Arabs as a cause of Arab unemployment. “ The object of the modern Jewish pioneer in Palestine ”, it was said in a volume issued by the promoters of the Jewish Foundation Fund, “ is to prepare room and work for the thousands and millions that wait outside ”. Finally, the Arabs had observed with dislike and disquiet the attitude and behaviour of many among the younger immigrants. It was natural enough that young Jews, escaped from the miseries and dangers of Eastern Europe, tasting freedom for the first time, feeling “ at home ” at last in a land they claimed as theirs by right, should give rein to their high spirits, and freely reflect in dress and behaviour the unconventional standards of the younger post-war generation in other parts of the world; but it was no less natural that such conduct should be regarded with distaste, if not opprobrium, by Arabs trained in the stricter school of Islam. They detected, too, in some of those young newcomers an arrogance which seemed to suggest that they felt themselves to be members of a superior race, destined before long to be masters of the country.
19. Certain other features of the troubles of 1921 should be noted. In the first place, the Moslem and Christian Arabs, whose relations had always been uneasy and at times unfriendly, were united in their hostility to the Jews. Secondly, in the areas of disturbance, that hostility had not been limited to a particular class: it had been shared by the Arab community as a whole. Thirdly, the manner in which the wildest anti- Jewish rumours had spread and the intense excitement they had aroused showed how inflammable was the temper of the Arab countryside, how easily a feeling of discontent or dislike could be raised to the pitch of unreasoning fear and murderous hate. It was clear, lastly, that the gulf so suddenly and sharply revealed between the two races was no accidental or temporary phenomenon. “ It is all very well to say ”, the Haycraft Commission reported, “ that there has been peace for a generation between Arab and Jews. It was the sort of peace that exists between two bodies of men who have little or nothing to do with one another ”.
20. It was manifest that the continuance, still more the aggravation, of Arab antagonism to the National Home would undermine the moral basis of the whole policy embodied in the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, and Sir Herbert Samuel addressed himself energetically to the task of conciliation. One of his first steps was to accord to the Moslem community the same sort of official recognition as that accorded to the Jews. In March, 1921, he issued an Order establishing an elected committee to supervise the administration of the Awqaf, or Moslem religious endowments, and the appointment of the judges of the Shari’a, or Moslem religious, Courts. The terms of this Order were severely criticized by the leading Arabs, and in December, 1921, a new Order was issued creating a Supreme Moslem Council in whose constitution the Government was to have no voice and over whose administration of the Awqaf the Government would have no control. It must have been evident from the outset that the position of the President of this Council, if he were supported by a majority of his colleagues, would be one of considerable power and prestige. He would have the Awqaf funds at his command, and these were to grow till in 1936 they amounted to no less than £67,000 a year. And he would enjoy the right of appointing and dismissing the judges and other officers of the Shari’a Courts, whose annual emoluments amount to a total of over £15,000. In 1921 Haj Amin Eff. el Husseini, a whole-hearted Arab nationalist, who had been appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, was also elected President of the Supreme Moslem Council. He has continued to hold both offices ever since.*
*See (pages 177-180) below.
†See Section 4(c) of Chapter IX.21. There were other proofs of the Government's desire to conciliate Arab opinion. The ill-fated proposal made in 1922 to establish a Legislative Council was meant primarily to please the Arab politicians. For the Arab agriculturists substantial relief was accorded by the reduction of the tithe, which was the tax they chiefly felt, from 12½ per cent, to 10 per cent.: and one case of disputed land-ownership, the Beisan case, in which Arab public opinion was deeply interested, was settled on terms very favourable to the Arab cultivators.† The rapid development of social services moreover, though dictated by the general duty of the Government towards the whole population of the country and not specifically by the need of conciliating the Arabs, was bound, it was felt, to have a conciliatory effect. New roads, new hospitals and health-services, new schools, a new regime of equal law and justice—these were the fruits of British administration; and although the Jewish immigrants only paid as yet a fraction of the taxes which financed it, this fraction was already out of proportion to their numbers. And, finally, these influences for peace and harmony in Palestine had been strengthened by the attitude adopted by the Government in England. It was hoped that the “ Statement of Policy ” of 1922, while firmly re-asserting the Government's adherence to the Balfour Declaration, had robbed it of much of its sting by the moderate definition it contained of the National Home.
22. In the light of all these favouring factors, Sir Herbert Samuel, at the completion of his five years of office, reported a marked improvement in the Arab attitude. The extravagant fears of 1921 had not been realized. Trust in the honest intentions of the British Government had been strengthened. The attitude of the Arab Executive, it is true, was still uncompromising, but its influence was apparently declining. A new and more moderate party, the National Party, had been formed by the Nashashibi faction. An increasing number of thoughtful Arabs, particularly those whose economic interests were not in conflict with the economic interests of the Jews, were beginning, he believed, to think that Jewish immigration might after all promote the welfare of Arab as well as Jew.
23. Deeds are more significant than words, and the best evidence of the hopes entertained twelve years ago was the marked reduction in the forces available for the maintenance of law and order. The garrison, in Palestine and Trans-Jordan, which in 1921 had consisted of three infantry battalions, and three cavalry regiments with artillery and attached troops, had been reduced by the end of 1926 to a single squadron of the Royal Air Force and two companies of armoured cars; the British gendarmerie had been disbanded and the British as well as the Palestinian element in the police diminished; and ten of the twenty-nine British district officers serving in 1920 had been replaced by Palestinians, Arab and Jew.
2. The Situation in 1925.
24. It is easy to be wise after the event, and we do not mean to suggest that there was no foundation for the cautious optimism prevalent in 1925. But it is quite clear to us now, with our knowledge of what has happened since, that, whatever temporary improvements in the situation may have been effected, the root of the problem remained untouched. The dominant force in the mind of educated Arabs was the spirit of Arab nationalism. It had been intensified, as has been seen, by the events of the War, and it had not in any degree been weakened by anything that had happened after it. The clearest demonstration of this was the definite, logical and unwavering attitude of the Arab Executive to the proposal to establish a Legislative Council. The first communication addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) by the delegation which the Executive sent to London at the beginning of 1922 opened with the following statement:—
“ Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
“ If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine—who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad for their country—Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.”In the course of the subsequent discussions it appeared that this was in fact a claim for immediate and complete national self-government, and that it was based on two main legal or quasi-legal contentions. First, it was asserted that Palestine was included in the body of Arab States which had been promised independence by the McMahon Agreement.* Secondly, it was maintained that Palestine was one of the “ communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire ” mentioned in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, whose “ existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone ”—a status obviously quite different from that which Palestine then possessed. Mr. Churchill's reply to the first of these contentions was that in the view of His Majesty's Government “ Palestine west of the Jordan was excluded from Sir H. McMahon's pledge ”. As to the second contention, “ There is no question”, he said, “ of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in 'Iraq and Syria . . . [but] it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people ”. In view of the open opposition of the Arab leaders to Jewish immigration, nobody could question the truth of this last statement, nor could anyone fail to draw from it the obvious inference. The Arab delegates promptly grasped it and underlined it. “ The above statement”, they wrote “ constitutes the strongest proof that the Jewish National Home is the cause of depriving us of our natural right of establishing an independent government the same as Mesopotamia and the Hedjaz ”. And again, “ We can find no reason for this delay [in conceding national independence] but in the eagerness of the Government to allow time to elapse during which Jews will have increased in numbers and the powers of Zionism become more established in the land.”
* See pages 19 to 20 above (Chapter II,6).
25. We believe that the British Government and Parliament have always maintained the moral assumption on which, as explained above, the Mandate was based, namely, that in course of time Arabs and Jews could and would sink their differences in a common Palestinian citizenship. It was for the achievement of that concord, not merely for the further growth in size and strength of the National Home, that they insisted on delay. In other words a national self-government could not be established in Palestine as long as it would be used to frustrate the purpose of the Balfour Declaration. Even so, the crux was plain enough to Arab eyes. It was the Balfour Declaration and its embodiment in the draft Mandate and nothing else which seemingly prevented their attaining a similar measure of independence to that which other Arab communities already enjoyed. And their reaction to this crux was logical. They repudiated the Balfour Declaration. They protested against its implementation in the draft Mandate. “ The people of Palestine ”, they said, “ cannot accept the creation of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine”. And they refused to co-operate in any form of government other than a national government responsible to the Palestinian people.
26. The British Government were not deterred by the intransigence of the Arab Executive from pursuing the policy they had framed. The main positive proposal of Mr. Churchill's Statement of Policy was the establishment of a Legislative Council to consist of Moslem Arabs, Christian Arabs, and Jews and officials, with the High Commissioner presiding; and elections for it were held in due course in 1923. But the great majority of the Arabs refused to vote, whereupon the proceedings were nullified by Order in Council, and an attempt was made to reconstitute the Advisory Council by nominating unofficial members on the same representative basis as that of the proposed Legislative Council. The High Commissioner invited ten moderate-minded Arabs to become members, eight Moslems and two Christians. All the invitations were accepted, but under pressure from the Arab Executive seven were withdrawn. The nomination of unofficial members was accordingly abandoned: and the Advisory Council remained, and has to this day remained, a council of officials only.
27. In the course of 1923 the difficulty of securing Arab cooperation was made still clearer. Impressed by the emphasis laid by the Arab delegation in the previous year on the powers possessed by the Zionist Executive in Palestine, the Duke of Devonshire, who had succeeded Mr. Churchill at the Colonial Office, proposed that an Arab Agency should be established, “ which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency under Article 4 of the Mandate ”. The High Commissioner was to nominate the members of the Agency “ in consultation with the local leaders ”. This proposal, it was pointed out, was “ a great concession to Arab sentiment ”, and it would not be pursued if it were not certain to be “ loyally implemented by the Arabs themselves ”. The offer was explained by the High Commissioner to a gathering of 26 Arab leaders. Although several of them belonged to the moderate school, and although such conciliatory force as the “ Churchill Statement of Policy ” contained had by now had time to take effect, “the meeting was unanimous in declining to accept the offer of an Arab Agency which would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people ”.
28. In a telegram of the 9th November, 1923, the Duke of Devonshire enumerated the three proposals made “with a view to closer association of Arab community with administration of Palestine”, the Legislative Council, the enlarged Advisory Council, and the Arab Agency. “ Towards all these proposals Arabs have adopted same attitude, viz., refusal to co-operate. His Majesty's Government have been reluctantly driven to conclusion that further efforts on similar lines would be useless and they have accordingly decided not to repeat the attempt.” As regards constitutional development the deadlock was complete.
29. Two years later the position was the same. The only hope of progress lay in the emergence of a moderate Arab party. But the history of nationalist movements in all parts of the world goes to show that in a struggle for national independence it is always easier for the extremist than for the moderate to secure the allegiance of his people. And the reason is plain. The mainspring of nationalism in revolt is the desire of a people not merely for freedom but for that equal status with other self-goveming peoples which freedom implies. And, if freedom can be, equality cannot be, a matter of degree. Every time, therefore, that a moderate nationalist appeals to his people to accept something less than national independence, he is invariably outbidden by the extremist who demands it in full.
30. In Palestine, moreover, the prospects of a moderate nationalism, ready to acquiesce in a more or less indefinite postponement of independence, were prejudiced from the outset by the fact that the problem of Palestine was not a problem that concerned Palestine alone. We do not refer to its unique religious standing in the world, to the feeling in the hearts of countless men and women outside its borders for a land that is sacred to three faiths. We believe that this aspect of the problem has always been and still is susceptible of treatment by general consent. The religious significance of the country, it is true, is closely associated with both Arab and Jewish nationalism, and it can be perverted by reckless extremists to excite the less cool-headed adherents of both. But it need not be, and except on one unhappy occasion* it has not been up to the present, a dominant factor in the exacerbation of the problem. What we mean when we say that the problem extends beyond Palestine is that it involves not only the Arabs and the Jews in the country, but also the Arabs and the Jews outside it. The situation in Palestine, therefore, has never been stable. On the one hand, the Zionist movement, supported as time passed by a growing body of World Jewry, was unceasingly and insistently pressing to get more and more Jews into the country: so that moderate Arab nationalists were not confronted merely with a certain number of Jews in Palestine at a certain time. They were bound to look abroad and ahead and to contemplate, however reassuring the 1922 Statement of Policy might seem to be, at best a steadily continued, at worst a largely increased, inflow of Jews, which would drastically alter the existing balance between the races; and they were bound, therefore, to find it difficult to disagree, and to persuade their fellow Arabs to disagree, with the extremists who said that Jewish immigration must be stopped and that it could only be stopped by the attainment of independence. On the other side Arab nationalism was exposed to the pressure of events in all the neighbouring countries. North and east and south-east lay Syria, Trans- Jordan, 'Iraq, the Wahabi Kingdom and the Kingdom of the Hedjaz, all Arab lands; and south-west lay Egypt, largely Arab in blood, mainly Moslem in faith. With all these peoples the Arabs of Palestine were in constant touch. Travel by air had not become the commonplace it is to-day; but ‘Iraq was already linked with Syria by a motor-service across the desert. And with Syria Palestine was intimately connected. Until the post-war settlement they had belonged for centuries to a single territorial entity. Many of the leading Arabs in the two countries belonged to the same families. Commercial and professional intercourse was close and frequent. Important happenings in Syria, therefore, instantly affected Palestine, and vice versa; and there was a similar, if not always quite so strong, reciprocal reaction of events throughout the Arab world and in Egypt.
* See page 67 below (Chapter III, 49).
31. Nowhere, as it happened, was the spirit of nationalism more acute after the War than in this area of the Near and Middle East. In all of its constituent territories, except Trans- Jordan, there were serious disturbances, and in all of them, except Palestine, there was a marked advance towards self-government. Trouble came first in Egypt, which had become a British Protectorate at the end of 1914. With this regime post-war Egyptian patriots were far from satisfied, and in 1919 the organization of the nationalist movement under Zaghlul Pasha, aiming at complete and immediate independence, led to widespread rioting and bloodshed. In 1920 the Milner Mission recommended recognition of Egypt as a sovereign independent State under certain conditions, and in 1922 this recognition was accorded by a unilateral declaration by the British Government. The Protectorate was abolished and Egypt declared an independent sovereign State, subject to the reservation of four points to the absolute discretion of the British Government pending agreement in regard thereto. These were the security of the communications of the British Empire, the defence of Egypt against foreign aggression or interference, the protection of British interests and of Minorities, and the Sudan. The declaration was never accepted by the nationalists. A long series of political outrages followed, culminating in the murder of Sir Lee Stack in 1924. Severe measures were taken by the British Government: “terrorism ” was crushed or driven underground: but in 1925, though Zaghlul was no longer in office, the nationalists could still count on the support of the great majority of the Egyptian people.
32. The situation in Syria was even more disturbed. From the first, it will be remembered, the Syrians had rejected the idea of Mandatory government and demanded national independence; and it was only after some fighting that the French were able in 1920 to occupy Damascus and compel King Feisal to leave the country. During the next four years the French Mandatory administration was organized on a basis of territorial division, under which four “ states ” were ultimately constituted—a large inland “ Syria ”; two small sea-board “ states ”, Lebanon (where the tradition of French friendship was oldest and strongest) and an Alouite “ state ” north of Lebanon; and a separate enclave in the hill-country for the Druses. In each of these units elected Representative Councils had been established by 1925; the administration was in the hands of Arab ministers; and the powers of the French officials were nominally limited to supervision and advice. Despite this substantial measure of self- government a dangerous insurrection, started by the Druses, broke out in the summer of 1925. It was marked at the outset by the defeat of a French column with 800 casualties and the siege of several isolated garrisons. The most startling incident of the protracted fighting which ensued was the French bombard-ment of Damascus in October. By the end of 1925, though the situation had been improved by M. de Jouvenel's attempts to revert to “constitutional ” methods, the trouble was not ended and guerilla warfare still continued. It was clear not only to France but to the Arab world that the task of maintaining the Mandate in the teeth of Syrian nationalism was difficult and costly.
33. The sympathy of the Palestinian Arabs with their kinsmen in Syria had been plainly shown throughout this period. Both peoples clung to the principle that Palestine was part of Syria and should never have been cut off from it. Feisal was proclaimed King by a Syrian Congress which included Palestinians. Another Syro-Palestinian Congress was founded at Geneva in 1921. In 1925 an effective “ general strike ” was organized in Palestine in sympathy with the Arab revolt in Syria, and another in the following year to protest against M. de Jouvenel’s official visit to Jerusalem. And in 1925, when Lord Balfour proceeded from Jerusalem to Damascus, his arrival precipitated such serious rioting that French troops had to be called in and his own life was for a time in danger.
34. If the sentiment of the Palestinian Arabs was most clearly- engaged in developments in Syria, it was 'Iraq that provided the most striking example of what Arab nationalism could achieve. In 'Iraq, as in Syria, agitation against the Mandate policy had persisted since the end of the War, and the confirmation of that policy at San Remo in the spring of 1920 aggravated the unrest. It culminated in the course of the summer in a rebellion so vigorous and widespread that it necessitated something like the reconquest of the country by a British army of some 76,000 men. Before the fighting was over the British Government had decided to make far-reaching concessions to the nationalist movement. In October, in place of what had hitherto been a mainly British administration, more or less on the lines of that of an Indian Province before the War, a provisional Council of State was established, consisting of Arab ministers, and the chief administrative posts in the country districts were similarly filled with Arabs, with British officials acting in both cases as advisers. This regime prepared the way for an Arab constitutional monarchy. In 1921, on the resolution of the State Council confirmed by a plebiscite, Feisal was proclaimed King. In 1922, with the approval of the Mandates Commission, the draft Mandate was discarded and in place of it a Treaty of Alliance between the British Government and the Government of 'Iraq was negotiated, under which the former, while it retained a measure of advisory control over foreign, financial and military matters, acknowledged the sovereign independence of 'Iraq and undertook in due course to facilitate its admission to the League of Nations. Thus, at the end of 1925, 'Iraq was almost, if not yet quite, a free and equal member of international society, with an Arab constitutional monarchy and an Arab cabinet responsible to an elected Arab parliament.
35. Less dramatic than events in 'Iraq, but still significant for Palestinian Arabs, was the quiet beginning of a similar regime on a smaller scale in Trans-Jordan. It remained under Mandate—an extension of the Mandate for Palestine without the Articles relating to the National Home—but the form of government was wholly different from that of Palestine. From 1921 onwards it was headed by an Arab sovereign, the Amir Abdullah, a brother of King Feisal, and in 1923 it was recognized by the British Government as “ an independent government ”. The British High Commissioner for Palestine retained such ultimate powers as the continuance of the Mandate with its international obligations implied; but the function of the British Resident at Amman and his handful of British subordinates was to advise, not to govern, and the departments of the administration were headed by the Amir's Arab ministers and staffed almost entirely by the Amir's Arab officials. The contrast with Palestine was marked. The Arab who in 1925 looked beyond Jerusalem across the valley of. the Jordan to the uplands beyond looked at a country which for ages before the War had been part of Palestine, a far poorer country in its present stage of development than Palestine, a country with a population only about one-third of that of Arab Palestine and socially and politically more backward, yet a country far more advanced than Palestine towards full national freedom.
36. So it was already evident in 1925, that, on its Arab as well as its Jewish side, the problem of Palestine could never be a self-contained, isolated problem. If at the moment Palestine could have been so cut off from the rest of the world by some cataclysm of nature that all approach to it or communication with it from outside became impossible, then perhaps the two peoples confronting each other within its narrow borders might have been forced to make the best of it and learn to live in harmony together. As it was, the Jewish community in Palestine could not be freed from its association with the hopes and fears and sufferings of Jews elsewhere, nor could the national aspirations of the Palestinian Arabs be secluded from those of the Arab world all round it.
37. Thus external as well as internal factors were already operating in those early days to keep the two races in Palestine aloof and hostile. And it is easier to see now than it was then that a conflict had been created between two national ideals, and that under the system imposed by the Mandate it could only be resolved if one or both of those ideals were abandoned. If the Jews had come to Palestine willing to fuse their life and culture with Arab life and culture, to accept the language of the majority, to contemplate the possibility of being some day ruled by that majority, then it is conceivable that they might have been as welcome and successful in Palestine as their ancestors in 'Iraq or Egypt or Spain in the early days of the Diaspora. But it would have been wholly unreasonable to expect such an attitude on their part. It would have been the direct negation of Zionism, both on its social or political and on its cultural side. The Zionists came back to Palestine, on the one hand, to escape from an alien environment, to shake off the shadow of the ghetto, to free themselves from all the drawbacks of “ minority ” life On the other hand, they came back inspired with the faith that the Jewish genius, restored to its old home, could do things comparable with the things it had done in ancient days. Necessarily, therefore, the Hebrew language had to be the language of the National Home: necessarily Jewish nationalism was intensified by its foundation. Enlightened immigrants might take a highly sympathetic interest in Arab life and culture: but there could be no question of a Jewish fusion or “assimilation ” with it, still less of a subordination. The National Home could not be half-national. Nor, it need hardly be said, was the idea of the Arabs acquiescing on their side in a fusion of Arab with Jewish culture more imaginable. To quote the Arab delegates of 1922 again, “ Nature does not allow the creation of a spirit of co-operation between two peoples so different .*
* Cmd. 1700, p. 28.
38. The situation at the end of the first five years of the Civil Administration has been described at some length because it is important to make it clear that the situation as we ourselves found it eleven years later is not a different situation, brought about by new or temporary factors, in Palestine or outside it. It is the old situation intensified. Most of what has happened since 1925 has been a repetition, on a steadily increasing scale of gravity, of what happened before 1925. The present difficulties of the problem of Palestine were all inherent in it from the beginning. Time has not altered, it has only strengthened them.
3.-—1926 to 1929
39. The outstanding feature of the four years after 1925 was the economic depression which afflicted Palestine and, in particular, the National Home. It was not a part of the world-wide depression which began to operate in the course of 1929, and the causes of it are difficult to assess with certainty. One factor is undisputed, the collapse of the Polish zloty and the restrictions on currency in Eastern Europe generally, which seriously impoverished the Jewish immigrants who came from that part of the world and represented about one-half of the total immigration. Whatever the cause, the result of the depression was a sharp fall in the rate of immigration. In 1925 as many as 33,801 Jews had entered Palestine and only 2,151 had left it. In 1926 the immigrants numbered 13,081 and the emigrants 7,365. In 1927 only 2,713 came in, and 5,071, nearly twice as many, went out. And, despite this ebbing tide, the figure of Jewish unemployment rose from about 400 at the beginning of 1925 to 5,000 at the end of 1927. Revenue reacted sharply, especially in the return from import duties.
Total Revenue
(excluding
grants-in-aid)Customs
Revenue
£ £ 1925-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,604,446 886,312 1926-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,364,887 803,665 1927 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,709,035 569,935 (April to December)
Efforts were made to relieve the prevalent distress, which was accentuated by a destructive earthquake in 1927. The Government anticipated its Public Works programme in order to provide work and wages for the unemployed.
40. But there were brighter features in the situation which showed that the disease was by no means mortal. There was a steady increase in production, both agricultural and industrial. The index number for the agricultural yield of the country continued to rise. The extent of orange plantations in 1927 was twice as great as it had been in 1923. The industrial returns were equally encouraging. The bigger industries, cement, flour and soap, increased their trade. The young tobacco industry flourished. Even the smaller industries at Tel Aviv were increasing their output and extending their market in Palestine and abroad. Thus, while imports were falling, exports were rising. The value of Palestine products exported was £1,330,830 1925, £1,308,333 in 1926, and £1,889,759 in 1927; and of these the agricultural exports in 1927 exceeded the agricultural imports for the first time since the War.
41. The actual growth of the National Home, moreover, if it had been checked, had not been stepped. Between 1925 and 1928 the Jewish population rose from 121,000 to 151,000 and the area of land in Jewish ownership from 944,000 dunums to 1,024,000 dunums.
42. In the spring of 1928 the tide began to turn. Unemployment steadily declined. The full current of Jewish immigration was not yet restored: the total of immigrants for the year was only 2,178. But the outward flow had been checked : there were ten more immigrants than emigrants. Thus by the middle of 1928 the National Home had survived the worst crisis it had so far had to face; and just at that time its moral strength was reinforced by the enlargement of the Jewish Agency. It has been observed in an earlier chapter that the Balfour Declaration had not been welcomed by all the Jews of the Diaspora. A powerful group had been definitely opposed to it. But in the years that had elapsed this opposition had weakened and a growing number of Jews, especially in the United States, if still unwilling to subscribe to all the tenets of the Zionist creed, were now warm supporters of the National Home and anxious to assist in its growth. Co-operation between them and the Zionist Organisation was obviously desirable. It was affirmed in principle by the Zionist Congresses of 1925 and 1927; and in 1928, as the result of a full inquiry by a Joint Commission and of a series of conferences, a new constitution was adopted giving representative non-Zionists an equal number of seats with Zionists on all the bodies which controlled the development of the National Home. This reorganization was endorsed at the close of the Zionist Congress in August, 1929. Thus the Jewish Agency in Palestine became Jewish in a wider sense, and better qualified to mobilize and direct the sympathy and resources of all friends of the National Home among the Jewish people, in America as well as in Europe.
43. It is significant that these years of depression had been years of peace. From 1926 to 1928 Arab antagonism was relatively quiescent. The official reports for these years record no organized protests against Jewish immigration, nor demands for self-government. No meeting of the Palestine Arab Congress was held between 1925 and 1928. The Government, it was evident, did not believe that the troubles of 1920 and 1921 were likely to recur; for it kept the forces available for maintaining order at the very low strength to which they had been reduced in 1926, and this despite the warning of the Permanent Mandates Commission against the “ danger of not maintaining adequate local forces ”.*
* Permanent Mandates Commission, 1926. Minutes, p. 184.
44. Various factors contributed, no doubt, to this interlude of peace. The Government was steadily pursuing its task of developing the country and providing public services; and due weight must be given to the prestige enjoyed by Lord Plumer, who was High Commissioner from 1925 to 1928, and to the influence he exercised among all sections of the population. But to ascribe the apparent softening of Arab bitterness only to such factors as these was to ignore the root of the problem and to foster a dangerous illusion of security. It stands to reason that the main cause of Arab quiescence was the sharp decline in the fortunes of the National Home. For a year or two it must have seemed as if their fears had been exaggerated. The low rate of immigration in 1926 meant that, if it continued, the Arab majority in Palestine, already 5 to 1, would become a steadily greater majority, since the amount of Arab natural increase would exceed the amount of Jewish increase natural and immigrant together. The prospect seemed still brighter in 1927, when over 2,000 more Jews left Palestine than entered it. If this went on, there was no need for the Arabs to make trouble. The National Home, it seemed, had proved a failure and was in course of dissolution. But, when the depression began to lift, when the process of decline was checked, when in 1928 there was a surplus, minute though it was, of Jewish immigrants, when the early months of 1929 witnessed no emigration at all, the Arab attitude quickly changed. The old fears were re-awakened. The old antagonism revived.
45. Nor was it only the internal factors which brought the peaceful interlude to a sudden and violent end in the summer of 1929. The external factors played their part. On the one hand, the enlargement of the basis of the Jewish Agency was not unnoticed by the Arabs. They knew it meant an increase in the pressure of World Jewry on Palestine and in the material resources behind it. They saw, too, that it had revived the selfconfidence, not to say aggressiveness, of the less-restrained inhabitants of the National Home. On the other hand, the forces of nationalism and self-government in neighbouring countries were making new advances. In Trans-Jordan the regime of “ independent government ” established in 1923 was confirmed on the 20th February, 1928, by a formal Agreement between His Britannic Majesty and His Highness the Amir, and an Organic Law came provisionally into force, establishing inter alia a Legislative Council consisting of elected representative of the people together with the Amir’s Ministers. In Egypt a Treaty of Alliance was agreed upon by the British Foreign Secretary and the Egyptian Premier in 1927, which, though it failed to meet the full nationalist claims and was presently withdrawn, embodied substantial concessions on the British side. Egypt was to enter the League of Nations without delay, and the vexed question of the locality of, the British garrison was to be reconsidered in ten years’ time.* In ‘Iraq the advance was still more marked. By successive agreements from 1926 onwards the British Government had undertaken to bring the quasi-Mandatory position to an end and to promote the entry of 'Iraq into the League at as early a date as the progress of the country justified. But, in view of the nationalist demand for a more specific pledge, a new Treaty was signed in the summer of 1930, committing the British Government to recommend ‘Iraq’s admission to the League without any proviso in 1932. Even in troubled Syria, always closest to Arab Palestine in sentiment as in physical fact, the prospects of nationalism were brightening. The French Government, doubtless impressed by the course of events in 'Iraq, set itself wholeheartedly to come to terms with Syrian nationalism, and in 1928 a Constituent Assembly was set up to draft a constitution in accordance with Syrian ideas. Certain articles in the draft went too far to accord with French Mandatory obligations, and nothing came of it for the moment. But in opening the Assembly the High Commis-sioner had revealed that a modification or termination of the Mandate was already contemplated. He had declared “ that when the Assembly had completed its task, the time would have arrived for placing the relations between Syria and France on the basis of a treaty”. Thus, in 1929, as in 1925, among all that group of kindred countries it was only in Palestine that no advance whatever had been made towards popular government or national independence.
*Further negotiations took place in 1929 and in 1930 agreement was reached on all questions except the future of the Sudan.
46. The starting-point of the series of events which culminated, in the disastrous outbreak in August, 1929, was an incident which occurred in Jerusalem on the 24th September, 1928, the Jewish Day of Atonement. In accordance with immemorial usage, a service was held on that day in front of the Wailing Wall, a lofty wall of massive stone blocks which is sacred to the Jews as having once been part of the Temple exterior, and sacred to the Moslems as constituting the Western face of the platform of the Haram-esh-Sharif. It is Moslem property; but since the Middle Ages, if not earlier times, the Jews have enjoyed the right of access to the narrow pavement below the. Wall in order to pray there. But the Moslem authorities had insisted, and the Turkish Government had agreed, that no chairs, benches, screens and so forth were to be set up on the pavement. The British Administration, mindful of its obligations under Article 13 of the Mandate, had decided strictly to maintain the status quo. When, therefore, it was reported on the evening of the 23rd September that the Jews had introduced a screen to divide the men from the women, orders were given for its removal. But the Jews did not remove it, and it was forcibly removed by the police in the course of the service on the 24th.
47. Nothing more occurred, and to the uninstructed it might well have seemed a very trivial incident. But in Palestine it cannot be forgotten that the Haram-esh-Sharif was once the site of the Temple. No moderate-minded Zionist, we are convinced, whatever symbolic language he may use, would contemplate in these days the actual restoration of the Temple. But many less responsible Jews thought otherwise and had said or written words to that effect; and, while moderate-minded Arabs might not be unreasonably alarmed, there were extremist Arabs ready to believe the worst and to pass it on to the credulous and fanatical country folk throughout the land. So far, fortunately, this highly incendiary element of religion had had little to do with the growth of Arab antagonism to the National Home. In Palestine, as elsewhere in the Moslem world, nationalism had been more political than religious. But, if the religious cry were raised, if it were widely and genuinely believed that the coming of the Jews to the country would mean not merely their economic and political ascendancy but also the full re-establishment of ancient Judaism, the invasion and desecration of the Holy Place, and the rebuilding of the Temple on its original site, then there could be little doubt that Arab hostility would be more unanimous, more fanatical, and more desperate than it had ever yet been.
48. The Jewish authorities at once realized the danger latent in the incident. The Zionist Organisation, in addressing a protest to the League of Nations against the removal of the screen, took occasion to repudiate in vigorous terms the suggestion that the Jews intended “ to menace the inviolability of the Moslem Holy Place ”: and in an open letter to the Moslems of Palestine the Va’ad Leumi, while asking that Jewish rights at the Wailing Wall should be respected, declared “ emphatically and sincerely that no Jew has ever thought of encroaching upon the rights of Moslems over their own Holy Places”.* But the harm had been done. Haj Amin Eff. Husseini, still Mufti of Jerusalem and still President of the Supreme Moslem Council, and his fellow-leaders had determined to make the most of it. Protests were made to the Palestine Government; a telegram was sent to the King, “ alleging that there were repeated encroachments by Jews at the Wall ”; and the Mufti, addressing the Officer acting for the absent High Commissioner, declared in the name of the Supreme Moslem Council the Moslem belief “ that the Jews' aim is to take possession of the Mosque of Al-Aqsa gradually.” (†) On the 1st November a General Moslem Conference met, the Mufti of Jerusalem presiding, and addressed further protests to the League of Nations and resolved to establish a “ Society for the- Protection of the Moslem Holy Places ”. Further fuel was added to the flames in the course of the next few months by building operations and other “ innovations ” carried out by the Moslems in the neighbourhood of the Wailing Wall, which the Jews believed to be deliberately intended to interfere with their devotions. An attempt by the Government to settle the various questions in dispute by mutual agreement between the two communities was baffled as much by Jewish reluctance as by Arab.
* Shaw Report, Cmd. 3530, p. 30.
† Ibid, p. 3149. Meanwhile politics had begun to play their part in alliance with religion. The Arab Executive set itself early in 1929 to bring about a revival of nationalist agitation throughout the country; and for that purpose branches of certain Moslem societies were established in the larger provincial towns. The primary objective of this agitation was the old objective, national self-government; and, when Lord Plumer left office at the end of 1928, the Arab Executive lost no time in pressing on Sir John Chancellor, the new High Commissioner, a request for the re-opening of negotiations for the establishment of a Representative Assembly.
50. The immediate prelude to the outbreak of disorder in August, 1929, was a provocative demonstration and counterdemonstration of Jewish and Arab nationalism respectively. On the 15th August the Jews marched in procession to the Wailing Wall. On the next day the Arabs did likewise. A week later the fire which had so long been kindling burst into flame. From the 23rd to the 29th August murderous attacks were made on the Jews in various parts of the country. The most violent were directed not against the new settlements but against the old-established Jewish communities in the Arab hill-country at Hebron and Safad. At Hebron over 60 Jews were killed, including women and children,and more than 50 injured. Much Jewish property was destroyed, synagogues were desecrated, and a Jewish hospital looted. Only the courage of the one British police officer in the town prevented the outbreak from developing into a general massacre.* At Safad 45 Jews were killed or wounded, and there was similar looting and destruction in the Jewish quarter. Less sanguinary outbreaks occurred at Jerusalem and Jaffa. In the rural areas several Jewish colonies were attacked and six of them virtually destroyed. There was little retaliation by the Jews. The worst cases were at Jaffa, where an Arab Imam and some six others were killed, and at Jerusalem, where a mosque of great antiquity was damaged and desecrated.
* Shaw Report (Cmd. 3530), p.64.
51. When peace had been restored with the help of troops rushed up from Egypt, it was reckoned that 133 Jews had been killed and 339 wounded. Of the Arabs, as far as could be ascertained, 116 had been killed and 232 wounded. As in 1921, the majority of Arab casualties were inflicted by the troops or police. In the subsequent judicial proceedings 27 death-sentences for murder were finally confirmed, one of them on a Jew. Three Arabs were hanged: the rest of the sentences were commuted by the High Commissioner to terms of imprisonment.
52. In the report of the Commission of Enquiry, under Sir Walter Shaw, which visited Palestine from October to December, 1929, the causes of the outbreak were clearly stated. “ There can, in our view, be no doubt that racial animosity on the part of the Arabs, consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future, was the fundamental cause of the outbreak of August last.” On the political side, the Commissioners pointed out that the schism between the races was a development of postwar days and was mainly due to the conflict between the interpretations placed by Arab and Jewish nationalists respectively on the war-time pledges given by the British Government. The following sentence deserves special attention. “ A National Home for the Jews, in the sense in which it was widely understood, was inconsistent with the demands of Arab nationalists while the claims of Arab nationalism, if admitted, would have rendered impossible the fulfilment of the pledge to the Jews.” On the economic side the Commissioners reported:
“ In pre-war days the Jews in Palestine, regarded collectively, had formed an unobtrusive minority; individually many of them were dependent on charity for their living, while many of the remainder— in particular the colonists—brought direct and obvious material benefits to the inhabitants of the area in which they settled. The Jewish immigrant of the post-war period, on the other hand, is a person of greater energy and initiative than were the majority of the Jewish community of pre-war days. He represents a movement created by an important international organization supported by funds which, judged by Arab standards, seem inexhaustible. To the Arabs it must appear improbable that such competitors will in years to come be content to share the country with them. These fears have been intensified by the more extreme statements of Zionist policy and the Arabs have come to see in the Jewish immigrant not only a menace to their livelihood but a possible overlord of the future.”53. These political and economic fears, the Report explained, had been intensified on the one hand by the number of Jewish immigrants who, despite the set-back of 1926-8, had already settled in the country, and on the other hand by the amount of land they had already acquired.
“ Though Jewish immigration and enterprise have been of great advantage to Palestine, the direct benefit to individual Arabs, which alone is likely to be appreciated, has been small, almost negligible, by comparison with what it might have been had the pre-war methods of settlement been continued. When trade depression and unemployment followed the period of heavy immigration the indirect benefits which Jewish activities had brought to many parts of Palestine were forgotten and everywhere among the Arab people the Zionist movement was regarded as the cause of the economic problems of the country. The sale of the Sursock lands and other Jewish land purchases in districts where the soil is most productive were regarded as showing that the immigrants would not be content to occupy undeveloped areas and that economic pressure upon the Arab population was likely to increase.
“ In other words, those consequences of Jewish enterprise which have most closely affected the Arab people have been such that the Arab leaders could use them as the means of impressing upon their followers that a continuance of Jewish immigration and land purchases could have no other result than that the Arabs would in time be deprived of their livelihood and that they, and their country, might ultimately come under the political domination of the Jews. Racial antipathy needed no other stimulus, but it was further encouraged by a spirit of mutual intolerance which has unfortunately been a marked feature of the past decade in Palestine. From the beginning the two races had no common interest. They differed in language, in religion, and in outlook. Only by mutual toleration and by compromise could the views of the leaders of the two peoples have been reconciled and a joint endeavour for the common good have been brought about. Instead, neither side had made any sustained attempt to improve racial relationships. The Jews, prompted by eager desire to see their hopes fulfilled, have pressed on with a policy at least as comprehensive as the White Paper of 1922 can warrant. The Arabs, with unrelenting opposition, have refused to accept that document and have prosecuted a political campaign designed to counter Jewish activities and to realize their own political ambitions.”54. Subsequent events, in our opinion, have confirmed the truth of these observations, which again revealed the real gravity of the problem. The hopes on which the optimism of 1925 had rested had been shown to be illusory. The sense of peace and security which had inspired the reduction of the garrison had proved false and dangerous. So far from drawing together during the last four years, the races had drifted further apart. And the breach had been widened far beyond its breadth in 1925 by the events of 1928-9, first the emergence of the religious factor, and then the actual outbreak of murder and destruction and its forcible repression. For some time to come, at any rate, all possibility of co-operation, even in the economic field where its chances seemed most favourable, was eliminated. Reciprocal “ boycotts ” of Arab and Jewish trade were organized. Jewish merchants at Jerusalem abandoned their establishments in the Old City and started afresh in the new commercial quarter outside the walls. Jewish shopkeepers moved from Jaffa to Tel Aviv. In every respect the schism between the two peoples was now open and undisguised.
4. The Controversy of 1930.
55. By the opening months of 1930, though race-feeling was still bitter and its expression in the newspapers still virulent, the tension had somewhat relaxed. The Arab trade-boycott, which had been stricter and had lasted longer than the Jewish one, gradually died out; and the influence of common economic interests was again perceptible. It was as if something like an armistice had been declared pending the publication of the Shaw Report and the Government's decision on it. But it was only a truce, not peace. There was no question of compromise or co-operation. When an International Commission arrived in Palestine in June to deal with the question of the Wailing Wall, the Government's attempt to persuade the Arab and Jewish leaders to come together and frame a voluntary agreement on the matter instead of having a decision imposed on them from above was a complete failure. At the end of the year the Commission reported, and its recommendations were adopted. Though Arab fears of far-reaching Jewish designs on the Haram-esh-Shanf have never been dissipated and were indeed expressed in Arab evidence before us, on this particular question of the Wailing Wall there has been no serious controversy since.
56. The Shaw Report appeared in March. It attributed, as has been seen, the main cause of the outbreak to Arab antagonism to the National Home, as being on the one hand an obstacle to the attainment of their national independence and as tending, on the other hand, through the increase of immigration and land-purchase, to lead to their economic and political subjection. In fact the findings of the Shaw Commission, though they were the fruit of a longer and fuller investigation, were virtually identical with those of the Haycraft Commission. In 1921 and 1929 the same causes had the same results. As will presently be seen, the same causes were to have the same results in 1933 and 1936.
57. The main recommendations of the Report were (1) “ the issue of a clear statement of the policy which His Majesty’s Government intend to be pursued in Palestine . . . with the least possible delay ”; including a definition of the meaning of the passages in the Mandate which purported to safeguard the interests of the “ non-Jewish communities ” : (2) a revision of the methods of regulating immigration to prevent “ a repetition of the excessive immigration of 1925 and 1926 ” and to provide for consultation with non-Jewish representatives with regard to it: (3) the initiation of a scientific expert inquiry into “ the prospects of introducing improved methods of cultivation in Palestine”, and the regulation of land-policy in accordance with the results: (4) a re-affirmation of the statement made in 1922 that “ the special position assigned to the Zionist Organisation by the Mandate does not entitle it to share in any degree in the government of Palestine”.
58. As far as it went, the Shaw Report was not unsatisfactory to the Arabs. In particular it had raised their hopes by expressing the opinion that Jewish immigration had been “ excessive ” in the past; and they were still further encouraged when the issue of immigration certificates was suspended until Sir John Hope Simpson, who arrived in Palestine in May to conduct the inquiry recommended by the Shaw Commission, had completed his work. His Report was. published in October, and once more, it seemed, it was the Arab rather than the Jewish point of view that had prevailed. For that Report was based on a calculation which, if it were accurate, cut at the very root of the National Home. It had hitherto been taken for granted that a substantial amount of cultivable land was still available for the further expansion of Jewish colonization without injury to Arab interests. The amount available had been put by some Zionists as high as 16,000,000 dunums or more; the Commissioner of Lands had estimated it at 10,592,000;* but Sir John Hope Simpson’s figure was only 6,544,000* dunums. From that basic calculation he drew two startling conclusions.
(1) If all the cultivable land in Palestine were divided up among the Arab agricultural population, there would not be enough to provide every family with a decent liveli-hood.
(2) Until further development of Jewish lands and of irrigation had taken place and the Arabs had adopted better methods of cultivation, “ there is no room for a single additional settler if the standard of life of the fellaheen is to remain at its present level.” On State lands, similarly, there was no room, pending development, for Jewish settlers.
* These estimates excluded the Beersheba Sub-District.
But Sir John Hope Simpson went on to record his “personal belief . . . that with thorough development of the country there will be room, not only for all the present agricultural population on a higher standard of life than it as present enjoys, but for not less than 20,000 families of settlers from outside ”. In order, therefore, to carry out the obligations of the Mandate towards both Arabs and Jews he recommended “ an active policy of agricultural development, having as its object close settlement on the land and intensive cultivation by both Arabs and Jews ”.
59. It would take time for the fruits of this development policy to mature, and meanwhile Sir John Hope Simpson was clearly opposed to the admission of any more Jewish immigrants as settlers on the land. Nor, at first sight, was he much more encouraging with regard to industrial immigration. At that time there was no statistical material available—it is still insufficient—to form a scientific opinion on the amount of Arab unemployment in the country. While refusing, therefore, to dogmatize on the subject, Sir John Hope Simpson was convinced that Arab unemployment was “ serious and widespread ”: and “ it is wrong,” he argued, “ that a Jew from Poland, Lithuania, or the Yemen, should be admitted to fill an existing vacancy, while in Palestine there are already workmen capable of filling that vacancy who are unable to find employment.” “ This policy,” he added, “ will be unacceptable to the Jewish authorities.” He was right: but in point of fact he had added a rider to his judgment which went far to meet the Jewish case.
“ It has been pointed out that Jewish capital will not be brought into Palestine in order to employ Arab labour. It will come in with the definite object of the employment of Jewish labour and not otherwise. The principle of ‘ derived demand ’ would justify the immigration of Jewish labour even when there are Arab unemployed in the country if the newly-imported Jewish labour is assured of work of a permanent nature, through the introduction of Jewish capital to provide the work on which that labour is to be employed. It is clearly of no advantage to the unemployed Arab that Jewish capital should be prevented from entering the country, and he is in no worse position by the importation of Jewish labour to do work in Palestine for which the funds are available by the simultaneous importation of Jewish capital. In fact, he is better off, as the expenditure of that capital on wages to Jewish workmen will cause, ultimately, a demand for the services of a portion of the Arab unemployed.”*60. The inquiries arising from the outbreak of 1929 were now complete, and His Majesty's Government lost no time in acting on them. In October, 1930, concurrently with the Hope Simpson Report, appeared a “ Statement of Policy by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom,” soon to be known as the “ White Paper.”†The first part of it contained the definition of policy and the expression of a determination to pursue it which had headed the list of the Shaw Commission's recommendations. It quoted the words used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) in the House of Commons a few months earlier: “ a double undertaking is involved, to the Jewish people on the one hand and to the non-Jewish population of Palestine on the other ”; it pointed out that much of the recent agitation had arisen from a failure, both by Arabs and by Jews, to realize the limits imposed on policy by this double undertaking; and it declared that “ His Majesty's Government .... will not be moved, by any pressure or threats, from the path laid down in the Mandate.” As regards the character of the National Home and the functions of the Jewish Agency it repeated what had been said in the Churchill Memorandum of 1922; and it re-affirmed the principle that “ economic absorptive capacity” was to be the limiting factor in immigration. So much for principles. “ The practical problems to be faced ” were then dealt with under three heads, (1) Security, (2) Constitutional Development, (3) Economic and Social Development. On the first head it was stated that two battalions of infantry, two squadrons of aircraft and four sections of armoured cars would be retained for the time being in Palestine and Trans-Jordan. On the second head it declared that the time had come to establish a Legislative Council on the lines indicated in the Churchill Statement of Policy. On the third head, embracing the most difficult and controversial issues—the possibilities of land-settlement, the problem of unemployment, and the effect thereof on the rate of immigration—it adopted, almost word for word, most of Sir John Hope Simpson's estimates, opinions and recommendations. But there were two notable omissions. The “ White Paper ” did not commit the Government to the view that, if a comprehensive policy of development were carried out, there would ultimately be room for a substantial number of Jewish settlers on land not yet acquired by them. Secondly, while it repeated Sir John Hope Simpson's argument as to the connexion between Arab unemployment and the rate of immigration, it made no reference to his saving paragraph on the employment of Jewish capital which would not otherwise have been available. The language of the “ White Paper,” moreover, betrayed a marked insensitiveness to Jewish feelings. Thus, while the Government had not in fact gone beyond the decisions and proposals of the Shaw and Hope Simpson Reports, the tone of the document suggested a rather more definite inclination towards the Arab side of the controversy than had either of the two Reports.
* Hope Simpson Report (Cmd. 3686), pp. 131-6.
† Cmd. 3692.61. The sequel was unfortunate. The publication of the “ White Paper” was the last of a series of set-backs to the Zionist cause. The outbreak of 1929 and in particular the butchery at Hebron and Safad had revealed the insecurity of the National Home. The Shaw Report had warned the Government against “ excessive ” immigration. The Hope Simpson Report had foreshadowed a drastic restriction of it, if not a temporary cessation, for the purposes of settlement on the land. The “ White Paper ” had given the impression that for the purposes of labour likewise no Jewish workman would be admitted as long as any Arab workman was unemployed. And these successive blows had fallen at the moment when the National Home had just recovered from the “ slump ” and Jewish hopes for the future were running high. Not unnaturally there was an outcry among Zionists and their supporters in Europe and America. Dr. Weizmann protested that the “ White Paper ” was “ inconsistent with the terms of the Mandate and in vital particulars marks the reversal of the policy hitherto followed by His Majesty’s Government in regard to the Jewish National Home ”, and informed the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Passfield) that he had resigned his joint office of President of the Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency. Other eminent Zionists also resigned their posts in the Zionist administration. Their attitude was openly supported by leading politicians. Letters appeared in The Times supporting Dr. Weizmann's claim that the course of British policy had been changed and accepting his interpretation of the Mandate; and for the moment there seemed to be a serious danger that the government of Palestine would become an issue in British party-politics, with one party on the Arab side and the others on the Jewish. Such a deplorable denouement was happily averted; but the public ventilation of the controversy was an impressive demonstration of the political power the Zionists could mobilize in England, provided always that they could make a reasonable case. And this they had been able to do. They had been able to show that the basis of Sir John Hope Simpson's Report, his estimate of the total cultivable land, was not—it seems doubtful, indeed, if it had been intended to be—a sufficiently scientific and final calculation to justify a reversal of immigration-policy. They had been able to argue with some force that the reservation of all such State land as might become available for landless Arabs, whether dispossessed by Jews or not, could not easily be reconciled with the requirements of Article 6 of the Mandate. And they had been able to exploit the particular omissions and the general temper of the “ White Paper ” of which mention has been made above.
62. It was announced in November that the Jewish Agency had been invited to confer with Government on the “ White Paper.” In the following February the result was published, not in an amended “Statement of Policy ” but in the form of .a letter from the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann. This letter did not repudiate the policy laid down in the “ White Paper ”; it set out to explain or interpret it; but on such important points as the prospective availability of State land for Jewish settiers or the admission of Jewish labour maintained by Jewish capital the interpretation was more favourable to Jewish claims than the uninterpreted “ White Paper ” had seemed to be. But a close comparison of the two documents shows that the difference between them was not in fact so marked as has commonly been supposed. The really striking difference was not in statements, of opinion or of policy but in the tone.
63. The effect, however, of these proceedings as a whole on Arab opinion was inevitably mischievous. The swing-back to a more sympathetic attitude towards the National Home or, as the Zionists put it, an attitude more in consonance with the Mandate, was necessarily regarded by the Arabs as an unjust Jewish victory over Arab rights. And it is still commonly stated, and not only by Arabs, that a series of Commissions have been sent to Palestine, that in each case they have reported in favour of the Arabs, and that in each case their recommendations have been rejected by the British Government. This is far from the truth. As a matter of fact, the main recommendations of the Shaw Commission and of Sir John Hope Simpson were promptly adopted and put into effect. A statement of policy was issued: the machinery for regulating immigration was improved: the fact that the Jewish Agency, though entitled under the Mandate to advise and co-operate with the Government of Palestine, was not in any sense a part of that Government, was re-asserted: a Development Department was established and began to carry out the recommended programme. The only important question on which the Government’s subsequent action did not accord with the Shaw and Hope Simpson Reports was the question of Jewish land-settlement: and on that point the Jewish representatives had forcibly maintained—and the event, in our opinion, has confirmed it—that a certain amount of further settlement was possible, particularly on land hitherto regarded as uncultivable, without injury to the Arab population.
64. The truth, however, as to what was done had been sadly obscured by the method of doing it. In Arab eyes the substitution of the “ Black Letter ”, as they called it, for the “ White Paper ” was plain proof of the power which World Jewry could exert in London, and such confidence as they might previously have had in British determination to do at least what justice could be done under what they have always regarded as an unjust Mandate was seriously shaken. But here again the effect on Arab opinion has been exaggerated. It is widely believed that the so-called volte-face of 1931 was a primary cause of the subsequent “ disturbances”; and it is not to be denied that the memory of it has been an aggravating factor in the Arab attitude ever since. But we have tried to make it clear on previous pages of this Report that in our view the root of the trouble lay deeper. The overriding desire of the Arab leaders in 1931 was precisely what it had been in 1920—national independence: and the overriding cause of their antagonism to the National Home in 1931, as in 1920, was the conviction that it barred the way to the realization of that desire. It is sometimes forgotten that an Arab delegation, headed by the President of the Arab Executive, came to London in March, 1930, the month in which the Shaw Report was published. According to the official summary of the ensuing conversations between the delegates and members of the Government, the Arabs stated their case not only on landpurchase and immigration but also on self-government; and it was to the last point that the Government's reply was mainly directed.
“ It was pointed out to the Delegation that the sweeping constitutional changes demanded by them were wholly unacceptable since they would have rendered it impossible for His Majesty's Government to carry out their obligations under the Mandate. It was made clear that no proposals could be considered which were incom-patible with the requirements of the Mandate.
“ Since the effect of meeting the wishes of the Arab Delegation as regards democratic government would have been to render it impossible for His Majesty’s Government to carry out their full responsibilities as Mandatory for Palestine and since despite the explanations and assurances given by His Majesty’s Ministers the Delegation could not see their way to modify their attitude, it became evident that this matter could not usefully be pursued further.”65. Nor could the Arabs derive more satisfaction on this basic issue from the Shaw Report. While the Commissioners admitted that the Arab animosity towards the Jews, which was the fundamental cause of the outbreak of 1929, had arisen from “ the disappointment of their political and national aspirations ” as well as from “ fear for their economic future”, they expressly refrained from making any recommendation on “ constitutional development ”. Even the “ White Paper ”, seemingly not in- appreciative of the Arab point of view on other questions, only offered them again the Legislative Council they had already rejected. The concession of anything more than that was firmly ruled out. “ It is useless for Arab leaders to maintain their demands for a form of Constitution which would render it impossible for His Majesty's Government to carry out, in the fullest sense, the double undertaking . . . to the Jewish people on the one hand and to the non-Jewish population of Palestine on the other ”. In that stark contradiction between Arab aspirations and British obligations lay and had always lain the one insurmountable crux. The rate of Jewish immigration might rise or fall, Jewish land-purchase might be extended or restricted, “ Black Letters ” might follow on “ White Papers ”, but all these factors, though they were certainly important, were only subsidiary factors. They might add fuel to the flames or damp them down. But the Mandate itself, of which these other factors were only applications or interpretations, had lighted the fire; and the Mandate itself, however applied or interpreted, was bound to keep it burning—except on the old original assumption that the two races could and would learn to live and work together.
66. It is not suggested that His Majesty’s Government had failed at any time to realize how fundamental this assumption was. On the contrary, at every crisis, in every discussion, in every official statement, it had been firmly and sometimes eloquently reaffirmed. The following quotations speak for themselves.
Churchill Statement of Policy, 1922.
“ The Secretary of State believes . . . that upon this basis may be built up that spirit of co-operation upon which the future progress and prosperity of the Holy Land must largely depend.”
Duke of Devonshire to High Commissioner,- 1923.
“ For this reason His Majesty’s Government have made it their primary concern to devise measures which will put an end to the present agitation and inaugurate a regime in which all sections of the community will co-operate with the British Administration.
” White Paper, 1930.
“ It is necessary, however, to emphasise one important point, viz., that in the peculiar circumstances of Palestine no policy, however enlightened or however vigorously prosecuted, can hope for success, unless it is supported, not merely by the acceptance, but by the willing co-operation of the communities for whose benefit it is designed.”
Prime Minister’s Letter, 1931.
“ Differing interests and viewpoints . . . can only be reconciled if there is a proper realisation that the full solution of the problem depends on an understanding between the Jews and the Arabs.”67. The various Commissions of inquiry had preached from the same text.
Haycraft Commission, 1921.
“ Much, we feel, might be done to allay the existing hostility between the races if responsible persons on both sides could agree to discuss the questions arising between them in a reasonable spirit, on the basis that the Arabs should accept implicitly the declared policy of the Government on the subject of the Jewish National Home, and that the Zionist leaders should abandon and repudiate all pretensions that go beyond it.”
Shaw Commission, 1930. “ In an atmosphere in which racial antagonism and mutual suspicion are general ... it may seem idle at this moment to point out that there is little prospect either of the success of Jewish colonization in Palestine or of the peaceful and progressive development of the Arab people unless co-operation between the two races, the composure of their differences and the removal of causes of suspicion are by some means brought about .... Without co-operation in a spirit of mutual tolerance, there is little hope that the aspirations of either people can be realized.”
Lord Snell’s Note of Reservations, 1930.
“ Peaceful economic and political development in Palestine will be dependent upon a corresponding growth of good will between the two peoples.”
Hope Simpson Report, 1930.
“ Unless such a scheme is accepted by both Jew and Arab it may very well fail. Of both it will require the support, if it is to have the desired result, namely, the advancement of a neglected but historic country in the path of modern efficiency, by the joint endeavour of the two great sections of its population, with the assistance of the Mandatory Power.”68. The Zionists, for their part, had endorsed these declarations.
Resolution of Zionist Congress, 1921.
“ The determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of concord and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community.”
Letter from Zionist Organization to Colonial Office, 1922.
“ The Zionist Organization will continue on its side to spare no efforts to foster the spirit of goodwill to which His Majesty’s Government have pointed as the only sure foundation for the future prosperity of Palestine.”
Jewish Agency Memorandum on White Paper, 1930.
The Congress Resolution of 1921 “ remains true, as it has always been true.”69. Thus British Ministers, Commissioners of Inquiry, and the spokesmen of Zionism had unanimously re-affirmed the assumption on which the successful operation of the Mandate had rested from the outset, namely, that somehow and at some time Jews and Arabs would co-operate in promoting the peace and welfare of Palestine. Only one voice was missing from the chorus—the Arab voice. Not once since 1919 had any Arab leader said that co-operation with the Jews was even possible. The response of Arab nationalism to the assumption to which all the other parties in the case so stubbornly adhered was an equally stubborn denial. Obstat natura.
5. 1931 to 1936
70. The outbreak of 1929 and the subsequent inquiries and discussions had clearly revealed the difficulties inherent in the execution of the Mandate. The balance which the Mandatory had striven to maintain between its two obligations had been disturbed. For a moment, under Arab pressure, it had swung a little to the Arab side. Immediately, under Jewish pressure, it had swung back to its old position. Loyalty to the Mandate, it appeared, required that Jewish immigration should continue as long as it could be shown that it did not injure Arab economic interests. The political problem was left, as before, for time to solve. That it was the major problem, that it was acute, that it barred the road to peace—those basic facts may have been blurred by the belief that the possibility of the Jews becoming a majority in Palestine seemed remote. If that was, indeed, the line of reasoning, it missed the point. Jewish immigration had not created, it had only stiffened, the Arab demand for national independence. And even if that dominant fact and all that flows from it had been fully understood, it is doubtful whether at that time His Majesty’s Government would have been prepared to reconsider the whole position and to ask whether the Mandate itself, in the light of ten years’ civil government of Palestine, ought not perhaps to be revised. So the old process continued on much the same course after 1929 as before it: and it led, as will soon be seen, to the same result.
71. Since the turn of the tide in 1928 the fortunes of the National Home had been steadily, if slowly, rising. In 1929 the number of Jewish immigrants was 5,249, in 1930 4,994, and in 1931 4,075. But against this slight decline in immigration stood a marked decline in emigration. The number of Jewish emigrants in those same years was 1,746, 1,679 and 666. And then in 1932 the immigration figure rose to 9,553, the first of the four consecutive leaps which were to transform the situation by the beginning of 1936. No emigration figure for Jews as distinct from other races was compiled in the years 1932 to 1934, but in 1935 Jewish emigration had sunk to the negligible total of 396. Nor was that the whole picture. For some years past a growing number of Jews had been entering Palestine and remaining there in violation of the law, either by obtaining travellers’ passports and outstaying the time of residence permitted or by smuggling themselves in by land and sea. In 1931 the Government decided to accept the fait accompli and allowed some 6,000 Jews, who admitted their illegal presence in the country, to be registered as immigrants. But the irregular inflow continued. When the improved system of control came into force, it was discovered that the number of “ travellers ” entering and illegally remaining in the country in 1933 ran into thousands, and to that was to be added a number of “ self-smugglers.”
72. With the growth of immigration went a corresponding, growth in the amount of capital invested in the National Home and in its agricultural and industrial production. It has been suggested, indeed, that the high volume of illegal immigration was partly due to the information spreading over Eastern Europe, now in the trough of the world-depression, that work was to be had and wages earned in Palestine.
73. Meantime the economic position of the Arabs as a whole continued to improve. Wages rose, markets for country-produce expanded, more roads and bridges and schools were built. And in due course the new measures determined on in 1930 for safeguarding and advancing Arab interests came into operation. In the summer of 1931 Mr. Lewis French, the new Director of Development, arrived in Palestine and in December, 1931, and April, 1932, he submitted two reports. He was to have been assisted by two colleagues, an Arab and a Jew; but, significantly enough, neither the Arabs nor the Jews would agree to take part in the work. In 1931, Arabs claiming that they had been displaced from lands owing to Jewish purchase thereof were invited to submit their claims for registration with a view to re-settlement at Government cost. To guard against further “ landlessness” a Protection of Cultivators Ordinance had been enacted in 1929, securing tenants from arbitrary removal from land in the event of its sale. After several amendments this was replaced by a new Ordinance in 1933. In 1931, and again in 1933, Mr. C. F. Strickland visited the country to promote, by inquiry and report and by personal propaganda throughout the country, the growth of co-operative societies—a measure of assistance, again, which, though helpful to both races, was needed less by the Jews, who had long established an extensive and varied system of co-operation, than by the Arabs, who knew virtually nothing about it. In the political field, likewise, an advance was made which might have been regarded as designed to meet Arab needs and claims more than Jewish. In 1932 a draft Municipal Corporations Ordinance was communicated to the Arab Executive, the Jewish Agency, and various local authorities for comment and criticism; and the Government declared its intention of taking steps towards the formation of a Legislative Council as soon as the Ordinance in its final form had come into operation.
74. The relative tranquillity which prevailed in Palestine between 1930 and 1933 might have encouraged a belief that, taken all together, these measures for promoting Arab welfare were having a conciliatory effect. But events occurred from time to time which revealed that under the quiet surface Arab antagonism was still fiercely smouldering. Several Jews were murdered by unknown assassins. Jewish orange-trees were destroyed, Jewish cattle maimed, Jewish land-purchases obstructed by organised trespass. In 1931 the rifles which had been stored for ten years past in sealed armouries in isolated Jewish colonies were replaced by shot-guns, effective for defence but useless for long-range fighting. In view of the murderous attacks of 1929, this change could scarcely be regarded as provocative, at any rate by Arabs; but it was made the excuse for an inflammatory agitation in the Arab Press against the “ arming of the Jews ”; and the consequent demonstration at Nablus was only repressed by vigorous action on the part of the police. There were cases, it is true, of interracial co-operation. A few Arabs and Jews were sitting together on Government Committees and on the old Municipal Corporations. But an invitation to representative Arabs to serve on a Government Education Committee in 1932 was refused, and two Arab members of the Road Board resigned soon after their appointment. Nor was there any change in the attitude of the Arab leaders towards economic co-operation. When the Jews opened a Palestine trade exhibition, the “Levant Fair,” at Tel Aviv, the Arab Executive not only declared a boycott of the Fair, but announced that Jews would not be invited to participate in the Arab Fair to be held in the following year. Two other events of the period are worth recording. At the end of 1931 a Moslem Congress, attended by 145 delegates from all parts of the Moslem world, assembled at Jerusalem. Its public proceedings were not political, and did not lead, as had been feared, to disorders. But on the one hand it strengthened the position and prestige of the Mufti of Jerusalem, who presided; and on the other hand it was a demonstration of the solidarity of Islam, significantly staged on Palestinian soil. The second noteworthy event was the creation in 1932 of a new Arab party, the Istiqlal (Independence) Party, which, if it could not compete with the two dominant factions, the Husseini and the Nashashibi, was calculated to appeal to the younger generation of Arab nationalists by its uncompromising concentration on the demand for national freedom.
75. Such was the internal position—as bad beneath the surface as it had ever been—when one of the two external factors, which from the outset had continuously played upon the delicate balance of affairs in Palestine, suddenly began to operate with immensely aggravated force. On the 30th January, 1933, the National-Socialist regime was established in Germany. Almost immediately, and in steadily increasing volume, a stream of Jewish fugitives began to pour out of Germany. Many of them found a temporary refuge in neighbouring countries; but the doors which had been closed after the War against large-scale immigration overseas were not reopened. Meantime the situation of the Jews in Poland and Roumania was growing steadily worse. It was the blackest crisis the Jewish people has had to face in modem times—blacker because more widespread and in some respects more painful than the crisis of the Russian pogroms before the War. And naturally it was to Palestine that the eyes of Jewry turned—to the only country they could enter “ as of right and not on sufferance ”. In that year, 1933, the record of Jewish immigration jumped from 9,553 to 30,327—more than a threefold increase. Of those, the majority (13,125) came as in previous years from Poland; but the second place in the list was now occupied by Jews from Germany, who in 1932 had numbered only 353 but in 1933 numbered 5,392. And in one respect this new wave of immigration was of an unprecedented character. The immigrants from Germany included a body of unusually gifted men—some of them men of world-wide reputation in science and the professions. And with scientists and doctors and lawyers came men of experience and ability in finance and business organization. Materially, too, the strength of the National Home was greatly fortified. The amount of Jewish capital invested in land-purchase, in the development of citriculture, and in industry and transport was £2,833,000 in 1932 and £5,630,000 in 1933.* The imports of capital goods for the equipment of agriculture, industry and transport or as raw materials were worth £2,422,000 in 1932 and £4,060,000 in 1933.* The financial element which the National Home had always needed for its success—the investment of money in it not as a missionary enterprise but as a “ going concern ”—had already begun to materialize before 1933; but now its continuance and expansion seemed assured.
76. The Arab reaction to this sudden and striking development was quite natural. All that the Arab leaders had felt in 1929 they now felt more bitterly. Then the National Home was emerging from a “ slump”. Now it was entering on a “ boom ”. All these Jewish men and women, all this Jewish money, pouring into Palestine might mean more prosperity for Arabs as well as Jews, though even that measure of consolation they refused to admit: but the greater the Jewish inflow, the greater the obstacle to their attainment of national independence. And now, for the first time, a worse fate seemed to threaten them than the withholding of their freedom and the continuance of Mandatory rule. Hitherto, with the high rate of natural increase among the Arabs, it had seemed impossible that the Jews could become a majority in Palestine within measurable time. But what if the new flood of immigration were to rise still higher? That question gave a very different colour to the idea of self-government in Palestine as Arab nationalists had hitherto conceived it. It opened up the intolerable prospect of a Jewish State—of Palestinian Arabs being ruled by Jews. It is not surprising, therefore, to find, as ship after ship of Jewish immigrants arrives, hailed with unrestrained enthusiasm by the Hebrew Press, the old antagonism growing hotter and hotter, till it bursts again into flames.
* Figures supplied by the Jewish Agency.
77. The first open manifestation of this rising temper was the publication by the Arab Executive Committee in March, 1933, of a manifesto to the Arab Nation. It declared that “ the general tendency of Jews to take possession of the lands of this holy country and their streaming into it by hundreds and thousands through legal and illegal means has terrified the country.” The country, it went on, was fully aware that the object of the Government's policy was “ to pave the road for driving the nation away from its homeland for foreigners to supersede it ”: they “ will not expect any good from this Government and its oppression ”; and “ it will be looked upon as the true enemy whom they must get rid of through every legal means ”. The manifesto concluded with an announcement of a meeting to be held at Jaffa and appealed to the nation “ to get ready for the serious acts which will be imposed by the resolutions of this assembly ”. “ The country calls its sons for action and sacrifice in these hard times ”. The meeting was held on the 26th March and attended by some five or six hundred Arabs of all classes, townsmen and villagers alike, and of all parties, by the members of the Arab Executive, including the Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the mayors of most of the Arab towns. Resolutions were passed adopting “ the principle of non-co-operation ”, and ordering “ the immediate execution of its first steps forthwith, such as boycotting receptions and exchange of courtesies with Government, Government Boards, British goods and Zionist goods, products and commercial premises ”, and the formation of a Committee to study ways and means for a wider application of the “ non-co-operation principle ”.
78. From that time onwards, the Arab Press, already virulent enough, became steadily more inflammatory. A new Press Ordinance was enacted under which newspapers publishing matter “ likely to endanger the public peace ” could be suspended with or without warning; but a number of warnings addressed to certain newspapers had little, if any, effect, and none was actually suspended in 1933. By the early autumn such crude charges against the Palestine Government were being printed as that it was deliberately “ flooding the country with Jews with the object of displacing Arabs from the land and depriving them of their employment ” or that “ a mass immigration of Jews was being allowed and encouraged by Government so that when the Legislative Council was introduced the Jews would be in a majority ”.* In August the flames were fanned by the proceedings of the Zionist Congress at Prague—which demanded, with special reference to events in Germany, that the Jewish National Home should be “ built as speedily as possible and on the largest scale ”—and by reports that as many as 10,000 “ illegal immigrants ” had recently secured a footing in the country. At a Moslem festival early in September the President of the Arab Executive, Musa Kazem Pasha el Husseini, made a violent speech against Jewish immigration and telegraphed to the High Commissioner demanding its immediate stoppage. Further serious agitation followed, and public meetings were organized not only by the Istiqlal Party and the Moslem Young Men's Association, but also by the Moslem-Christian Association: for Moslem and Christian Arabs were once more sinking their differences in the common cause.
* Annual Report for 1933, p. 5.
79. Finally, early in October, the Arab Executive, whose members had been bitterly criticized in the Arab newspapers for their apathy and inertia, announced that a “ general strike ” would be declared on the 13th October and a demonstration made at the Government Offices at Jerusalem. Despite the Government's prohibition, the demonstration was attempted on the appointed date, and the angry mob was only dispersed after repeated baton charges by the police. In the course of the next few weeks the trouble spread to other parts of Palestine. On the 27th October there was a serious outbreak at Jaffa. So excited and so dangerous was the temper of the Arab rioters that the police were forced to use their firearms before order could be restored. The news of these events quickly reached Nablus where public buildings were attacked and the police stoned, and travelled on to Haifa where that evening and next day there were similar disturbances. On the 28th and 29th rioting broke out again at Jerusalem. At each of these towns the attacks on the police, though nowhere so grave as at Jaffa, were formidable enough to compel them to fire in self-defence. The total casualties were one policeman killed and 56 injured, and 26 rioters or bystanders killed and 187 injured.
80. So one more page of the history of Palestine under the Mandate had been written in blood. And there was one feature of this last outbreak of Arab violence which was as unprecedented as it was significant. In 1920, 1921 and 1929 the Arabs had attacked the Jews. In 1933 they attacked the Government. The idea that the British authorities in London or Jerusalem were trying to hold the balance even between Arab and Jew was now openly scouted. They were the allies of the Jews, it was said, and. the enemies of the Arabs. The Mandate was merely a cynical device for promoting British “imperialism ” under a mask of humane consideration for the Jews. One other point could not be missed—rhe rapidity with which the trouble had spread. Palestine is a small country, and the Arab leaders, it was clear, already possessed a dangerous measure of control over public opinion at large. It has been asserted, indeed, that, if prompt action had not been taken at the outset, if the police had abstained from firing, a situation not much less serious than that of 1936 might quickly have developed. As it was, the prompt repression of the disorders may have tempted the authorities to go on hoping that somehow or other the Mandate might be made to work without bloodshed, that somehow or other the quarrel between Arab and Jewish nationalism could be composed.
81. The Arabs, in this period of tension, were not the only disturbers of the peace. From the beginning of the Mandatory regime there had always been a minority-group among the Jews almost as bitterly opposed to the Mandate as the Arab nationalists. They were called “Revisionists ”, because they desired the Mandate to be revised so as to include Trans-Jordan within its scope. They repudiated the idea of a National Home in the area between the Jordan and the sea. They claimed that all Palestine, on both sides of the river, should be the National Home. And if the British Government were not prepared to people it as soon as possible with several millions of Jews, then they demanded the transfer of the Mandate to some other Power that would be so prepared. Party feeling among the Jews had always been vigorous and, despite the progress of the National Home and the great increase in immigration, it was running high in 1933. It was widely suspected that the brutal murder of Dr. Arlosoroff, a leading member of the Jewish Agency, in June was an act of political terrorism. In the Arab outbreaks in the autumn, which were directed, as has been seen, against the Government, the Jews were happily not involved. But in December, soon after their repression, there was a clash at Tel Aviv between a Revisionist gathering and the police, who were compelled to charge the mob through a shower of stones. Nobody was killed, but 11 police and 8 civilians were injured.
82. In this uneasy atmosphere the growth of the National Home continued to accelerate. In 1934 there were 42,359 authorized immigrants, in 1935, 61,854. Two new points stood out. First, far more future immigrants were going to be “ absorbed ” into industry and urban life than by agriculture and land-settlement. Secondly, so far from reducing “ economic absorptive capacity ”, immigration increased it. The more immigrants came in, the more work they created for local industries to meet their needs, especially in building: and more work meant more room for immigrants under the “ labour schedule ”. Unless, therefore, the Government adopted a more restrictive policy, or unless there were some economic or financial set-back, there seemed no reason why the rate of immigration should not go on climbing up and up.
83. As in 1933, so or more so in 1934 and 1935, the indices of commercial and industrial activity rose with the rising figures of immigration. Some of these are given in the following table:
1933 1934 1935 Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,327 42,359 61,854 Imports for consumption (in £ millions) 11.1 15.1 17.7 Exports (in £ millions) . . . . . . . . . 2.6 3.2 4.2
Railway Goods Traffic (in million ton kilometres). 86 103 133
Overseas Shipping tonnage cleared (in million tons, steamships only). 3.1 4.1 5.4
Consumption of Electric Power (in million K.W.H.). 22.2 37.5 56.8
Note and Coin Circulation at end of year (in £ millions). 3.6 4.7 6.6
Revenue (in £ millions) . . . . . . . . . 3.9
5.4 5.7
Customs (in £ millions) 1.8
2.6 2.7 Expenditure (in £ millions) . . . . . . . . . 2.7 3.2 4.2 The National Home, in fact, was growing at a pace which in earlier days its most ardent supporters can scarcely have expected; and its prosperity was reflected in the mounting revenue of the Palestine Government. On the material side, indeed, most other countries at that time might well have envied Palestine. But there were two sides to the picture; and the brighter grew the one, the darker grew the other. With almost mathematical precision the betterment of the economic situation in Palestine meant the deterioration of the political situation.
84. As the National Home expanded from 1933 onwards, so the Arab hate and fear of it increased. It made no difference that in the spring of 1934 the Government cut down the Jewish Agency’s half-yearly estimate of “ absorptive capacity ” for the Labour Schedule from 20,100 to 5,600, with the result that a strike was declared at Tel Aviv and Jewish rioters were dispersed by the police. Nor was Arab feeling tempered by the fact that the measures taken by the Government to prevent illegal immigration were now proving fairly efficacious. On the contrary, the attitude of the Arab leaders became more hostile to the Government, and the tone of the Arab Press more bitter. In the autumn of 1934 the Arab Executive submitted to the High Commissioner a formal expression of their view that the safeguards for Arab interests embodied in the Mandate had broken down. A campaign, in which the Supreme Moslem Council took an active part, was set on foot to prevent more Arab land passing into Jewish hands. Small landowners were persuaded to register their lands as family awqaf to preclude alienation. One particular contract for the sale of 5,000 dunums to Jews was cancelled at the direct instance of the Supreme Moslem Council. Arabs accused of facilitating the sale of land to Jews were denounced in the mosques, at public meetings and in the Press as traitors to the nation. An Arab bank was started with a capital of £60,000 for the development of Arab land or its exclusion from alien purchase. Attempts were made, moreover, by organized trespass and fictitious litigation, to prevent the settlement of Jews on land they had already bought.
85. In politics the symptoms of deepening hostility were equally marked. In 1934 the activities of the six Arab organizations were largely concerned with mutual jealousies and recriminations; but in the course of 1935 they not only tended to crystallize into more efficient “ parties ”, but, yielding to vehement appeals in the newspapers for the subordination of their quarrels to the national cause, they united, with the exception of the Istiqlal Party, in preparing a joint statement of their case for submission to the Government. Meantime the nationalist movement as a whole was improving its organization and widening its scope. The “ Youth Movement ”, in particular, was encouraged. Young men's societies, under various names, became more consciously and ardently nationalist. Boy-scout bands and sports-clubs were constituted. “ Towards the end of 1935 ” (to quote the Government Report*) “ the younger elements had evidently gained ground, and were becoming a factor which might challenge the influence of the older Arab leaders ”.
* Report on the Administration of Palestine for 1935, p. 17.
86. It was thus becoming clear that the crux of the situation in Palestine was not growing less formidable with the passing of time. On the contrary, the longer the Mandate operated, the stronger and more bitter Arab antagonism to it became. And the task of reconciliation to which Sir Arthur Wauchope, who succeeded to the High Commissionership in 1931, wholeheartedly addressed himself had never been more difficult. In his personal testimony at the twenty-second session of the Permanent Mandates Commission in 1932 he gave reasons for taking a moderately hopeful view. For the immediate future he based his hopes of peace on the development of “self-governing institutions ”, under Article 2 of the Mandate. He expected, he said, to enact a new Local Government Ordinance in 1933 and to follow it up with new proposals for the establishment of a Legislative Council. Asked whether these measures would “ satisfy the aspirations of the Arabs for self-government ”, he replied that “ though the extremists might not be influenced, he hoped that the moderate Arabs would be satisfied ”. On the long view, he expressed his faith in the community of economic interests. “ He was convinced that with the passage of time, the Arabs and Jews would see that it was to their mutual advantage to work together He concluded his formal statement as follows:—
“ We would gladly govern Palestine in accordance with the wishes of the two races; and when these wishes conflict, I use every means to reconcile them. If these efforts prove of no avail, then Government must, regardless of criticism, carry out whatever policy it considers best in the interests of the people as a whole and in accordance with the Mandate ”.*
* Minutes of the 22nd Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission, p. 82-86.
87. The last words are important; for it was the obligations of the Mandate, then as always, that made the task of reconciliation not only supremely difficult but, as we now think, impossible. When the Arab Executive, as has been seen, submitted a protest against Jewish immigration and land-purchase in the autumn of 1934, the High Commissioner could only reply that the number of immigrants had not exceeded the absorptive capacity of the country and that he was doing what he could to protect Arab cultivators and increase the productivity of the land. Nor was any deep impression made by his announcement that on obtaining the concession for the drainage of the Huleh basin the Jewish group concerned had agreed to increase by about one-half the area reserved for Arab settlement. In June of the following year (1935) the sincerity of the High Commissioner's desire for reconciliation was manifested by a signal act of clemency. On the occasion of the King's birthday he announced that fourteen prisoners, who had been convicted for participation in the disorders of 1929, would be at once released, and that twenty-two whose death-sentences for murder had been previously commuted to imprisonment for life would be released in 1936.
88. In the autumn the situation rapidly deteriorated. In October the discovery of arms and ammunition concealed in a consignment of cement imported from Belgium was hailed as a proof that the Jews were secretly arming on a large scale. The Arab Press excelled itself in denunciation of the Government and the Jews. By way of protest a “strike ” was declared for the 26th October and widely observed. At Jaffa it excited strong feeling, and a clash with Tel Aviv was narrowly averted.
89. Early in November it became known that a “ terrorist ” band had established itself in the hills of Galilee, under the leadership of Sheikh Izzed Din al Qassam, a political refugee from Syria with a widespread reputation as a religious leader. The band was caught by the police near Jenin, and four of its members killed, including Sheikh Izzed Din. A great crowd of Arabs attended his funeral at Haifa, and there was some demonstration and stone-throwing. The Arab newspapers hailed him as a martyr to his nation and his faith. “ Dear friend and martyr ”, said one of them, “ I have heard you preach from a platform resting on a sword. To-day . . . you are, by God, a greater preacher than alive you ever were ”.
90. On the 25 th November the five Arab Parties formally presented the High Commissioner with three main demands—(1) the establishment of democratic government, (2) the prohibition of the transfer of Arab lands to Jews, (3) the immediate cessation of Jewish immigration and the formation of a committee to determine the “ absorptive capacity ” of the country.
91. It was obvious, once again, that the concession of the second and third demands was inhibited by the Mandate unless it could be shown that Jewish immigration and land-purchase were definitely injuring the rights and position of the Arabs. And the Jews were prepared to maintain with a wealth of argument that, so far from injuring the Arabs, the National Home had greatly benefited them. Just at this time, moreover, the “ external factors ”, as we have termed them, were operating on the Jewish as well (as will be seen) as on the Arab side with maximum force. Jewish prospects in Europe were no better; in Poland, indeed, they were worse; and the “ boom ” in the National Home had raised to the highest pitch the hope that relief on an increasing scale would be found in Palestine. The attitude of the Zionist Congress, which had been held at Lucerne in July and August, had shown that in Jewish eyes it was a question not of restricting but of augmenting the volume of immigration in the future.
“ In brief, the resolutions of the Political Commission which were carried unanimously, reviewed the adverse conditions of Jewish life in the Diaspora, considered that Jewish achievements in Palestine, the only country at present open to Jewish immigration on a large scale, had proved that immigration and settlement could proceed far more rapidly than hitherto, and proclaimed the firm resolve of the Zionist Organisation to focus the energies of the Jewish people on the extension and acceleration of its re-settlement in Palestine. The Congress, while appreciating the part played by the Mandatory Power and re-affirming the readiness of the Zionist Organisation to co-operate appealed to the Government to fulfil its obligations by an active and systematic policy of furthering the Jewish National Home on a scale and at a pace demanded by the position of Jews in the world and possible with active Government assistance.”*
* Report on the Administration of Palestine for 1935, p. 19.
The British Government may not have been prepared to endorse so sanguine a view of future possibilities, but at any rate they saw no reason for departing from the policy of 1931. The second and third of the Arab demands were, therefore, rejected. But an effort was made to show that the Arab case was by no means overlooked. The High Commissioner was authorized in February, 1936, to inform the leaders of the five parties that (1) an Ordinance was to be enacted prohibiting the sale of land unless the owner should retain a sufficient amount of it to provide subsistence for himself and his family, and (2) the careful estimates already made of “ absorptive capacity ” were to be further checked by a new Statistical Bureau.
92. To the first of the Arab demands the Government's reply had been given without delay. It has been seen that Sir Arthur Wauchope’s chief hope of peace lay in the development of self-governing institutions. The new Municipal Corporations Ordinance had come into force in January 1934. In the following December he had informed the Arab leaders that, with the full agreement of the Secretary of State, he proposed, after a reasonable interval for observing the operation of the new Municipal Councils, to discuss with the various parties the establishment of a Legislative Council. On the 21st and 22nd December, 1935, he submitted to the Arab and Jewish leaders successively a definite scheme for the constitution of the Council. It was to consist of twenty-eight members, only five of whom would be officials. There would be eleven nominated unofficial members, and twelve elected members. Of these twenty-three, eleven would be Moslems, seven Jews, three Christians, and two representatives of commercial interests. The President would be “ some impartial person unconnected with Palestine ”. There would thus be no official majority; but there were to be three main “ safeguards ”. (1) The validity of the Mandate was not to be questioned. (2) The High Commissioner would be empowered, in certain circumstances, to legislate by “ certification ” or by ordinance. (3) He would continue to determine the Labour Schedules, though discussion of them in the Council would be allowed.
93. These proposals could scarcely be regarded by the Arab leaders as conceding the “ democratic government ” they had demanded, still less the national independence which from the outset had figured in the forefront of Arab claims and was still vigorously championed by the Istiqlal Party and by a growing number of the younger educated Arabs. Almost all the Arab newspapers denounced the scheme as maintaining too much power in the hands of the High Commissioner and giving too little weight to the Arab electorate. Above all, it afforded little prospect of Arab opinion being more effective in the future than it had been in the past in checking the flow of Jewish immigration. The scheme, however, was a longer step towards real self-government than the scheme of 1922, and the united partyleaders did not reject it outright.
94. We have little doubt that one of the main reasons why the Arabs acquiesced to this extent in the proposals was the vehemence with which the Jews opposed them. Such merit as the scheme possessed in Arab eyes condemned it in theirs. An advance towards real self-government meant an advance towords the subjection of the National Home to an Arab majority. Already at Lucerne the Zionist Congress had made its uncompromising attitude quite clear. To continue the summary quoted above:
“ Expressing its grave concern at the intention of the Mandatory Government to establish a Legislative Council, a step which it regarded as contrary to the spirit of the Mandate, the Congress re-affirmed its opposition to the establishment of a Legislative Council in the present stage of the development of Palestine, and reluctantly expressed its categorical rejection of the scheme.”*Dr. Weizmann and his colleagues accordingly informed the High Commissioner that they rejected the scheme and had resolved to take no part in its operation.
* Report on the Administration of Palestine for 1935, p. 19
95. Its fate was soon determined outside Palestine. On 26th February, 1936, it was debated in the House of Lords and on the 24th March in the House of Commons. On the former occasion Lords Snell, Lytton, Lothian, Jessel, Elibank, Mansfield, Melchett, Marley and Cecil, representing all Parties in the House, were agreed in urging that the scheme should either be abandoned for the present or suspended while a Royal Commission inquired into the question on the spot. The Government spokesman, Lord Plymouth, was its only supporter. In the House of Commons the result was much the same. Twelve members asked for the suspension or drastic modification of the scheme; and the Secretary of State (Mr. J. H. Thomas), whose speech was constantly interrupted, had only two supporters.
96. In view of the Arab reaction to these debates, we think it right to point out that only two of the speakers in each House were Jews. Re-reading the debates, moreover, in the light of our experience in Palestine, we have been impressed by the fairness of most of the speeches. If the case stated against the scheme was partly based on the likelihood that it would operate to the disadvantage of the Jewish National Home, it was also based on such general considerations as the desirability of allowing more time to elapse for training in local government or the unwisdom of committing Palestine to a form of constitution which would naturally lead, and had elsewhere led, to Responsible Government. And on this last point it should be remembered that for several years past Parliament had been discussing the difficulty of introducing Responsible Government in a country so deeply divided by communal differences as India.
97. But, if Parliament judged the scheme on its merits, it is none the less unfortunate that the Jewish side of the case was so much more fully stated than the Arab. The debate, indeed, was a striking illustration of the disadvantage which the Arabs suffer whenever the field of controversy shifts from Palestine to the United Kingdom. The Jews are perfectly entitled to make use of all the opportunities at their command for ensuring that their claims are fully understood; but we believe that their own ultimate interests would have been better served if British public opinion could have been confronted from the outset with a no less clear and cogent statement of the Arab case.
98. It was, we assume, with a view to adjusting in some degree the one-sidedness of the position that after the debates an invitation was addressed to the Arab leaders to send a delegation to discuss the question of a Legislative Council at the Colonial Office. The “disturbances ” broke out before this proposal could take effect: but it is difficult to suppose that it could in any case have done much to erase the impression made on Arab minds by the debates. Nobody in Palestine doubted that Parliament had killed the scheme. The Jewish Press was jubilant. It went so far as to hail the result as “ a great Jewish victory ”. And that, of course, was how the Arabs looked at it. They were bound to think it an even more conclusive demonstration of Jewish power in London than the “ Black Letter ”. The scheme, which in their eyes went only a little way to concede the rights they claimed, had been adopted by the High Commissioner and endorsed by the British Govern- ment, only to be rejected by Jewish influence in Parliament. That there might have been some other reason for the rejection seems never to have entered their minds. Inevitably their old hostility to the Mandate and all it stood for was reinforced. More than that, their old fear that the Mandate might ultimately lead to their subjection to the Jews became more concrete and more urgent. They were really to be “ swamped ”, it seemed, and that in no long time.
99. While we think it important thus to emphasize the serious effect on Arab feeling of the rejection of the Legislative Council scheme, we must once more enter a caveat against exaggeration. The rejection was not the cause of the trouble that ensued. It aggravated the cause of it. It helped to bring it to a head. But, in our considered judgment, if Parliament had accepted the Legislative Council scheme, it would not have satisfied the Arab nationalists for any length of time. To suppose that it would have done so is to ignore the “ external factors ”. For, just as the pressure of European Jewry on Palestine was now at its strongest, so also was the influence of events in neighbouring lands. This very winter of 1935-36 witnessed a recrudescence of nationalist agitation in Egypt and in Syria so vigorous and effective that in both countries, within a few months it attained its final objective, the concession of national independence.In the autumn of 1935 developments arising out of the Abyssinian war led to the formation in Egypt of a “ United Front ” of political parties. This body demanded the conclusion of a treaty between Great Britain and Egypt. The five weeks which elapsed before the British reply was published were marked by constant unrest and serious rioting, mainly by the students in Cairo. But, when it was known that the British Government were prepared to negotiate, the tension was eased. On the 2nd March, 1936, the negotiations began. On the 26th August the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of Alliance was signed. In it the British Government, having already recognized Egypt as “ a sovereign independent State ”, undertook to support its application for admission to the League of Nations. Other articles established “ an alliance between the High Contracting Parties ”, provided for consultation in times of crisis and co-operation in the event of war, declared the British military occupation of Egypt to be terminated, and provided for the removal of the British air and land forces to the neighbourhood of the Suez Canal.
100. The Egyptian example had a considerable influence on opinion in Syria, and the course of events there was much the same as that in Egypt. In January 1936 the growing power of the “ Nationalist bloc ” culminated in an outbreak of serious disorder. A “ strike ” was declared and lasted for fifty days. On the 1st March the French Government announced its decision to negotiate a treaty. On the 9th September the Franco-Syrian Treaty of Alliance was signed. Modelled on the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930, it provided that, within three years at most, the. French Government should resign the Mandate and support the application of Syria for admission to the League of Nations. Provision was made for an alliance between France and Syria, for consultation on foreign policy, and for mutual assistance against aggression. France was to have the use of two military air-bases on Syrian soil. The rights of minorities were carefully safeguarded. The essence of the Syrian Treaty, like that of the Egyptian, was the acquisition of full national status. It meant that a treaty-relationship between two sovereign States- was shortly to be substituted for the existing relationship between a Mandatory Power and a Mandated Territory. Thus quickly and decisively Syrian nationalism had reached its goal.
101. On the 13th November an almost identical treaty was signed between France and the Lebanon, under which that little sea-board country, with a population of about 860,000 and a territory about the size of Norfolk and Suffolk combined, will soon become, like Syria and 'Iraq, a sovereign independent State.
102. These developments in Egypt and Syria were bound to stimulate nationalist agitation in Palestine. The Arab newspapers made the most of such congenial matter. At the time of the riots in Cairo, one of them called on its readers to follow the Egyptian example. “ Rise to rid yourselves from Jewish and British slavery . . . The leaders in Egypt have awakened. Where are our leaders hiding? ” Again, a little later, the students of Palestine were urged to awake like their brothers. “The time is near and the situation grave. Unify yourselves. Demand your violated rights and stolen freedom. Advance. God is with you ”. The opening of the Franco-Syrian negotiations, similarly, evoked the strongest expressions of sympathy with “ our heroic brothers in the northern part of this oppressed Arab country ”. “ Syria is to be congratulated. Palestine wishes it success in its national aspirations and in its challenge to the colonizers ”. It was only to be expected that Palestinian Arabs should thus envy and seek to emulate their successful fellow-nationalists in those countries just across their northern and southern borders. For now of all the Arab peoples in the Middle East they were the only people, except the people of Trans-Jordan, who had not attained or were not soon to attain full national- freedom: and, as has been mentioned before, the Government of Trans-Jordan had long been recognized as an “ independent government ”.
103.There was one further external factor operating on the situation. The conflict between Italy and the League of Nations on the question of Abyssinia from September 1935 onwards was closely watched throughout the Levant, and its upshot, we have been informed, was everywhere taken to show that British sea-power in the Eastern Mediterranean was no longer so unquestioned as it once had been. Italian propaganda at that time was not unnaturally concerned to weaken British prestige wherever possible. The wireless-station at Bari broadcast criticisms of British “ imperialism ” in Arabic. The attention of Arab “listeners ” in Palestine was directed, for example, to the inadequate provision made by the Government for Arab education. But it would be easy, we think, to overestimate the influence of the Abyssinian imbroglio over events in Palestine. Unquestionably it suggested to zealous nationalists, in Palestine as in Syria and Egypt, that an opportunity had been given them for pressing their claims which might not easily recur; and it seems probable that the coincidence in time between the Anglo-Italian tension and the “disturbances ” in Egypt, Syria, and Palestine was no accident. But that is all. To suppose that the quarrel over Abyssinia greatly increased the trouble in Palestine, still more to imagine that Italian propaganda engendered it, is to make the old mistake. As we have tried to show, the situation was quite grave enough before September 1935.
104. Thus the history of the fifteen years which had passed since the execution of the Mandate was first entrusted to a Civil Administration had led up to a situation in which almost every factor, both internal and external, prejudicial to a peaceful outcome was stronger than it had been at the outset. It is not surprising in the circumstances that in April 1936 the “ disturbances ” broke out which occasioned the appointment of the Royal Commission.
CHAPTER IV.
THE DISTURBANCES OF 1936.
1. We do not regard it as part of our duty to describe the “disturbances” of last year in detail or to discuss the manner in which they were dealt with by the Palestine Government. We propose, therefore, to confine ourselves in this chapter to summarizing very briefly the course and character of the disturbances and to stating our opinion as to the “ underlying causes ” of them in pursuance of the first of our terms of reference.
1. The Course of the Disturbances.
2. The trouble began with the murder of two Jews by Arab bandits on the night of the 15th April on the Tulkarm-Nablus road. The following night two Arabs were murdered not far from Petah Tiqva as an act, so the Arabs believed, of Jewish reprisal. The funeral of one of the murdered Jews at Tel Aviv on the 17th April led to angry Jewish demonstrations. A series of assaults on Arabs in Tel Aviv began, and on the 19th April, excited by false rumours that Arabs had been killed, Arab mobs in Jaffa began attacking Jews and murdered three of them. Police, reinforced by troops, dispersed the rioters. Curfew was imposed on Jaffa and Tel Aviv, and the Palestine (Defence) Order in Council and the Emergency Regulations thereunder were brought into force for all Palestine by proclamation.
3. On the 20th April an Arab National Committee was formed at Nablus and resolved that a general strike should be declared throughout the country and maintained until the Arab demands as put forward in the previous November had been conceded. By the end of the month National Committees had also been constituted in all the towns and in some of the larger villages in Palestine. On the 21st April the leaders of the five united parties accepted the decision taken at Nablus and called a general strike of all Arabs engaged in labour, transport, and shopkeeping on the next day. On the 25th April at a meeting of all Arab parties a Supreme Arab Committee, subsequently known as the Arab Higher Committee, was established. It consisted of Haj Amin Eff. El Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem (President), Awni Bey Abdelhadi (Secretary), Ahmad Hilmi Pasha (Treasurer), Ragheb Bey Nashashibi, Jamaal Bey El Husseini, Abdul Latif Bey Salah, Dr. Hussein Eff. El Khalidi (Mayor of Jerusalem), Yaqub Eff. Ghussein, Yaqub Eff. Farraj and Alfred Eff. Rock. It should be noted that the Istiqlal Party was now prominently associated with the rest, since Awni Bey Abdelhadi is its General Secretary and Ahmad Hilmi Pasha (Manager of the Arab Bank) is associated with it, and that Yaqub Eff. Farraj and Alfred Eff. Rock represented the Christian Arabs, being members of the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic communities respectively.
4. The new Committee adopted a resolution “ to continue the general strike until the British Government changes its present policy in a fundamental manner, the beginning of which is the stoppage of Jewish immigration.” They also re-stated the Arab national demands as follows: (1) the prohibition of Jewish immigration; (2) the prohibition of the transfer of Arab land to Jews; (3) the establishment of a National Government responsible to a representative council. It will be observed that the third item is a clearer definition of the full Arab claim than “ the establishment of democratic government ” demanded in the previous November.
5. On the 5th May the High Commissioner unsuccessfully appealed to the Arab Higher Committee to assist the Government in maintaining law and order. On the 8th May a conference of the National Committees was held at Jerusalem and resolved not only that the strike should be continued but that Arabs should refuse to pay taxes. A manifesto issued by the Arab Car-owners’ and Drivers’ Committee* also urged the non-payment of taxes and further called on the Arab Higher Committee to enforce a strike of all Arab Government officials.
The Committee intimated that, while they were not responsible for it, the agitation in favour of “ civil disobedience ” must be regarded as a spontaneous expression of national feeling, and they added that they could not use their influence to check illegal action or to call off the strike unless Jewish immigration were suspended. To such a “ fundamental ” change of policy the High Commissioner could not agree. On the 18th May a Labour Schedule of 4,500 immigrants for the next six months was approved.
The President and Vice-President of this Committee were convicted of inciting to disorder and fined £25 each.
6. Meantime the strike had been effectively imposed. Already, in May, Arab work and trade were virtually at a standstill. Jaffa port was out of action. Arab shops in Jerusalem and elsewhere were closed. Only at Haifa Port and to some extent on the railways was Arab labour still available. The strike was accompanied by intermittent local demonstrations. Jews were assaulted and stoned in various parts of the country. Much destruction, however, was done to Jewish trees and crops in the Northern District.
7. On the 18th May the Secretary of State informed the House of Commons that it had been “ decided, after order is restored, to advise His Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission which, without bringing into question the terms of the Mandate, will investigate causes of unrest and alleged grievances either of Arabs or of Jews.” In a debate on the 19th June Mr. Ormsby Gore, who had succeeded Mr. Thomas as Secretary of State, declared, with reference to the Royal Commission, that “ the sole aim of His Majesty's Government is to obtain an objective and non-partisan report, to enable them to do justice to all sections of the Palestine population.” If the policy recommended by the Commission commended itself to the Government, it would be carried into effect without fear or favour; but, in view especially of its obligations to the League of Nations, the Government must retain the ultimate responsibility. He added that until the report had been received and considered, “ no change of policy whatsoever could be contemplated.” On the 29th July the personnel of the Commission and its terms of reference were announced.
8. The position in Palestine, meanwhile, had been steadily worsening. During May and June the strike hardened throughout the country. Those few Arabs who kept their shops open or otherwise abstained from striking were soon won over or intimidated by representatives of the National Committees, which, staffed largely by younger Arabs, kept a highly efficient watch on the conduct of the strike. Violence and sabotage increased. There was persistent sniping at Jewish colonies. Five Jews, two Arabs, and one British policeman were murdered. Sporadic attacks were made on the railway lines, two trains were derailed, and one bridge blown up. Roads were barricaded, and telephone wires cut. But the most serious development was the appearance of bands of armed Arabs in the hills, including volunteers from Syria and 'Iraq. Hitherto the military and police had only been exposed to indiscriminate sniping. Now organized attacks were made on them.
9. From the second week in May onwards military reinforcements were arriving from Egypt and Malta. They were mainly used for the defence of key-points, patrolling the roads, escorting convoys and protecting the railway lines. No large-scale attack was made on the bands in the hills. On the 23rd May sixty-one Arab agitators in various parts of the country were arrested, and in most cases compelled to reside under police supervision in other than their home towns. In June some of the more prominent leaders, including Awni Bey Abdelhadi, were interned in a “ concentration camp ” at Sarafand. In the same month the Emergency Regulations were extended so as to increase the penalties for firing on troops and police, bomb-throwing, and the illegal possession of arms. Those measures had little effect, and at the end of June a weakeningbecame apparent in the ranks of the administration itself. A memorandum was submitted to the High Commissioner, signed by 137 Arab senior officials and judges.
10. The salient points of this memorandum (which is printed in full as Appendix 2 to this Report) were as follows:—
(i) The disturbances were due to a feeling of despair among the Arabs which had been largely caused by “ loss of faith in the value of official pledges and assurances for the future.” “ The Arab complaint on this head is sub-stantially justified.”11. This memorandum, which, though phrased in deferential language, definitely asserted that distrust of the Government’s good faith was justified and definitely condemned its policy, was signed or afterwards endorsed by all the senior Arab officials, including highly-placed officers in the political as well as the technical departments of the Administration,* and— still more remarkable—by all the Arab judges. It seems to us to throw a sharp light on the state of affairs in Palestine that a British Government should ever have been confronted with such a situation. The memorandum was accepted. A similar memorandum was submitted some weeks later by 1,200 Arab officials in the Second Division of the Public Service.
(ii) The Government has apparently failed to realize that the trouble cannot be stopped by force, but only by removing the causes of it.
(iii) “ We have no hesitation in recommending the stoppage of immigration as the only fair, humane, and honourable solution of the deadlock.”
(iv) “ We must conscientiously raise a protest against the present policy of repression.”
In putting forward these opinions and recommendations the signatories claimed to be “ naturally in closer contact with the intimate thoughts of the Arab population than even Your Excellency’s closest advisers.”
* Officials in the Police were the only exception.
12. In the middle of July the Qadis of the Moslem Shari’a Courts presented yet another memorandum. These judges, it will be remembered, are not Government officers, but they are appointed by and responsible to the President of the Supreme Moslem Council, who receives a salary from Government. The tone of this document was more mutinous than that of the others. It described the Government’s policy as “ detestable”; it charged the police and military with “unimaginable acts ”; and it warned “ the British authorities of the revenge of God the Almighty ”. It demanded, in conclusion, “ the grant of all the demands of the Arabs and the enforcement of the pledges given to them.”
13. The announcement of the terms and reference and personnel of the Royal Commission at the end of July had no effect on Arab opinion. It was argued, first, that the result of previous enquiries had shown that no recommendations favourable to the Arab cause would be implemented and, secondly, that the terms of reference pre-cluded the Arabs from attacking the Mandate itself on the ground that it had broken an antecedent pledge. Throughout August and September, therefore, the “disturbances ” continued. There were two short periods of relative, quiescence while attempts were made to settle the dispute. His Highness the Amir of Trans-Jordan had invited the Arab Higher Committee to Amman on the 6th June, and had been informed by them that they were powerless to stop the strike unless Jewish immigration were suspended. Now, on the 7th August the Amir repeated his invitation, but the result was no more satisfactory. The next move came from ‘Iraq, Nuri Pasha, the ‘Iraqi Foreign Minister, arrived in Palestine on the 20th August, having offered his services as an unofficial mediator between the Government and the Arab leaders. The latter welcomed his intervention; but, since he could make no promises on the Government's behalf, the negotiations broke down. On the 30th August the Arab Higher Committee published a manifesto, declaring their willingness to trust to “ the mediation of the Government of ‘Iraq and of Their Majesties and Highnesses the Arab Kings and Princes ”, and that in the meantime “ the Nation will continue its general strike with the same steadfastness and conviction which it has shown.”
14. Throughout these months the forces of disorder became more powerful and active. The strength of the bands in the hills was increased both in numbers and in arms and ammunition; and towards the end of August they were joined by trained guerilla leaders from outside Palestine. One of these Fawzi ed Din el Kauwakji, a Syrian, had served with distinction in the Turkish Army in the War and after the French occupation of Syria had obtained the legion d’honneur for his work as an intelligence officer. On the outbreak of the Druse revolt in 1925 he had joined the rebels and been sentenced to death; but he had escaped to the Hedjaz, where he became Military Adviser to King Ibn Saud. Finally he had obtained a commission in the ‘Iraq Army, which he resigned in 1936. Arrived in Palestine, he appointed himself “ generalissimo ” of the rebel forces* and issued “communiques ” and “ procla-mations ”. Under his leadership the bands were drilled and instructed in trench-warfare, and they had several sharp encounters with the British troops. Meanwhile the lawless activities of individual Arabs or “terrorist ” gangs became more violent and frequent. Several Jews were murdered. Sabotage of every kind increased. The oil pipe-line running through the Plain of Esdraelon was repeatedly punctured. Roads were systematically mined. Railways were frequently damaged and there was one serious derailment involving loss of life.
15. On the 7th September the Colonial Office issued a Statement of Policy. It outlined the course of the disturbances and described “ the situation which had been created ” as a “ direct challenge to the authority of the British Government in Palestine ”. It referred to the appointment of the Royal Commission and to the attempts at conciliation from outside, and pointed out that, owing to the Arab leaders’ determination not to end the strike until “ fundamental changes ” had been made in British policy, “ all efforts to introduce a reasonable spirit of accommodation have hitherto failed.” Finally it declared that the state of disorder must be brought to an end without delay, and announced that an additional division of troops was being sent to Palestine and that Lieutenant-General J. G. Dill would assume the supreme military command.
16. The reinforcements began to arrive in Palestine on the 22nd September and extensive operations were promptly set on foot with a view to rounding up the Arab bands. By the end of the month the number of British troops in the. country had risen to about 20,000. Moreover, an Order in Council had been made authorizing the application of “ martial law ” by the High Commissioner or by the G.O.C. Palestine Forces as his delegate.
17. The outbreak was now clearly nearing its end. On the one hand, it was evident that the bands could not long resist so large a military force; on the other hand, many of the less politically-minded Arabs were wearying of the long conflict and the personal insecurity and pecuniary sacrifice it entailed. The prospect of not participating in the orange-season, which opens in November, was particularly unpleasant. In this situation, the Arab Higher Committee, who had kept in touch with the Arab Kings and Princes throughout the disorders, welcomed the arrival of appeals for peace, couched in identical terms, from King Ibn Saud, King Ghazi of ‘Iraq, and the Amir Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. The text was as follows: —
“ Through the President of the Arab Higher Committee to our sons the Arabs of Palestine: —
“ We have been deeply pained by the present state of affairs in Palestine. For this reason we have agreed with our Brothers the Kings and the Emir to call upon you to resolve for peace in order to save further shedding of blood. In doing this, we rely on the good intentions of our friend Great Britain, who has declared that she will do justice. You must be confident that we will continue our efforts to assist you.”18. On the 11th October the Arab Higher Committee published this document, and announced that with the unanimous agreement of the National Committees they had decided “ to respond to the appeal of Their Majesties and Highnesses the Arab Kings and Amirs, and to call upon the noble Arab nation in Palestine to resort to quietness and to put an end to the strike and disorders ”.
19. These orders were obeyed. Work was generally resumed on the 12th October. The bands, on which the British troops were now beginning to close in, were permitted to disperse. Cases of sniping and law-breaking still occurred, but the “ disturbances ” as an organized national movement had ceased. They had lasted six months.
20. At the beginning of November the situation was considered sufficiently peaceful for the Royal Commission to go out to Palestine. We left England on the 5th November and arrived at Jerusalem on the 11th November. But, though the strike had been ended, we found that the Arab leaders were not prepared to assist us in our inquiry. On the 5th November the Secretary of State had announced in the House of Commons the Government's decision that a suspension of immigration during the course of the Royal Commission's investigation “ would not be justifiable on economic or on other grounds ”.
“ It is the view of His Majesty’s Government that, if any drastic departure from the immigration policy hitherto pursued were now to be introduced in advance of the findings of the Royal Commission, this would involve an alteration in the existing situation and might be held to prejudice the inquiries of the Royal Commission, which will be directed, among other matters, to the very important question of immigration generally.”21. In view of this announcement, the Arab Higher Committee resolved on the 6th November to boycott the Commission; and next day, after an interview with the High Commissioner, who did his utmost to persuade them to change their minds, the decision was published in the following terms:—
“ The Arab Higher Committee has met and studied the statement made by the Colonial Secretary in the House of Commons on 5th November, 1936, in relation to the decision of the British Government not to stop Jewish immigration and consenting to issue fresh labour immigration certificates and to allow all other forms of immigration. This is contrary to what the Arabs had been expecting, i.e., a complete stoppage of all forms of immigration. The Committee finds the reasons given by the Colonial Secretary obviously inadequate.“ Whereas the strike which was declared by the Arabs and which continued for six months was nothing but a protest against the policy of the British Government, which deprives the Arabs of their political rights, and a demand for a fundamental change of policy which would have as its first aspect a suspension of immigration (Jewish), and whereas the statement of the Colonial Secretary is a strong insult to the Arabs and hostile to their interests and is an indication of an absence of good faith, in bringing about a just solution of the Arab case based on the realisation of the Arab demands and the safe-guarding of their national existence:
Therefore the Committee denounces with vigour this stand and decides not to co-operate with the Royal Commission and asks the honourable nation, which has proved to the world at large its political maturity and strong national faith, to abide by this decision; and may God arrange matters.
The Arab Higher Committee.”22. The boycott was maintained until we had heard most of the Jewish and British evidence and had announced the date at which we intended to leave Palestine. But on the 6th January it was abandoned in similar circumstances to those in which the strike had been called off. On the previous evening a delegation which the Arab Higher Committee had sent to ‘Iraq and Saudi-Arabia returned to Jerusalem, bringing letters from King Ghazi and King Ibn Saud. They recommended the Arab Higher Committee, in identical terms, to state their case to the Royal Commission.
“ On account of the confidence we have in the good intentions of the British Government to give justice to the Arabs, we have seen that it is in the interest of the Arab case to get into touch with the Royal Commission and to lay before it your just claims because that is a surer method to safeguard your rights and a more helpful way for securing the aid of your friends in defending you properly. We have explained to the noble delegation all our thoughts on this matter and wish to assure you that we shall not refrain from helping you in bettering the situation as far as lies in our power and we trust that God will help you all to what is best for Islam and the Arabs.”Next day the Arab Higher Committee issued the following manifesto:—“ The Arab Higher Committee has held a session in the presence of the delegation which has returned from Baghdad and Ryadh and after hearing the statement of the delegation and reading the letters of the King of ’Iraq and King of Saudi Arabia which were brought by the delegation, has found it necessary to accept the exalted request of the said kings and to present the Arab case before the Royal Commission.“ The Arab Higher Committee will get into touch with the Royal Commission on behalf of the Arabs and hopes that everyone who has information or statements helpful to the case will send them to the Committee in writing and that no individual will go to give evidence without prior consent of the Arab Higher Committee as this rule will both lead to a proper and systematic presentation of the case and will avoid repetition and confusion.”2. The Character of the Disturbances and the Loss occasioned by them.
23. It remains to draw attention to the more significant features of the disturbances and roughly to estimate their cost. In some respects the outbreak of 1936 followed the same lines as those described in the preceding chapter. There was the same use of the economic weapon—the strike. There was the same consolidation of the Arab nationalist forces, all parties uniting and Christian making common cause with Moslem. There were similar assaults on the persons and property of the Jews, conducted with the same reckless ferocity. Women and children were not spared. Of many tragic cases we may mention that of Mr. Lewis Billig, Lecturer in Arabic Literature in the Hebrew University, who had devoted his life to Arabic studies and was murdered in his house in the suburbs of Jerusalem. But in all these respects, except, perhaps, the last, the outbreak of 1936 overshadowed all its predecessors. It lasted far longer; it extended more completely throughout the whole country; and it was much more efficiently organized.
24. One other feature of the “ disturbances ” of last year had likewise appeared before. It has been pointed out that the outbreak of 1933 was not only, or even mainly, an attack on the Jews, but an attack on the Palestine Government. In 1936 this was still clearer. Jewish lives were taken and Jewish property destroyed; but the outbreak was. chiefly and directly aimed at the Government. The word “ disturbances ” gives a misleading impression of what happened. It was an open rebellion of the Palestinian Arabs, assisted by fellow-Arabs from other countries, against British Mandatory rule. Throughout the strike the Arab press indulged in unrestrained invective against the Government. “ The Government imprisons and demolishes and imposes extortionate fines in the interests of imperialism ”. “ Great Britain has made the League of Nations into a tool for the realization of its wickedest objects and the legalization of its worst political and social aims, and relies on it as an agent for the annihilation of Palestine.” And as to the militaly operations and the conduct of the troops, the dropping of poisoned sweets from aeroplanes was one of the least outrageous charges made.
25. So far the outbreak of 1936 was a repetition, to a greatly intensified degree, of the past: but there were two features of it which were quite unprecedented. The first was the attitude of the Arab officials. We have already referred to their memo-randum, and we shall refer later on to the difficulty the Government experienced, as the disorders dragged on, in relying on its Arab district officers and police. The second novelty was the intrusion of the “ external factor.” Previous outbreaks in Palestine had excited the interest and sympathy of the neighbouring Arab peoples: but this time, not only was considerable popular feeling displayed against the British Government as well as the Jews, but a substantial number of volunteers, including the ultimate leader of the rebellion, came from Syria or 'Iraq, and the Arabs of Trans-Jordan were with difficulty prevented from joining in the conflict. Still more important, the Arab Governments concerned themselves for the first time in the dispute. Throughout its course the Arab leaders in Palestine kept in touch with the Kings of Saudi Arabia and 'Iraq and the Amir of Trans-Jordan. A direct attempt to mediate was made by the 'Iraqi Foreign Minister. And the rebellion was brought to an end on the direct advice of the Rulers of Saudi Arabia,. 'Iraq, Yemen and Trans- Jordan. The boycott of the Royal Commission, similarly, was abandoned at the instance of King Ibn Saud and King Ghazi. Naturally, too, the language used both by the Rulers in their letters and by the Arab Higher Committee in announcing the acceptance of their advice reflects the solidarity of Arab interests. The Rulers address the Palestine Arabs as “ our sons ” and promise to give them all the help they can. The Arab Higher Committee acknowledges “The great benefit to accrue from their intervention and support.” The Arab Rulers are well aware that Your Majesty’s Government is accountable to no other body than the League of Nations for its execution of the Mandate; and we understand that their relations with Your Majesty’s Government are altogether friendly and correct: but the difficulty in which they are placed by an Arab rebellion in Palestine and by the excitement it arouses among their subjects is evident. If, indeed, we were to pick out the feature of the late “ disturbances ” which on a general view seems to us the most striking and far-reach-ing, it would be the manner in which they roused the feeling of the Arab world at large against Zionism and its defenders.
26. Only the roughest reckoning can be made of the loss occasioned by the “ disturbances ” to the Arab population. The official list of “casualties ” gives 195 Arabs killed or died of wounds and 804 wounded. But these figures are based only on verified deaths and treatment in hospitals; and the full extent of the Arab losses cannot be gauged. It has been credibly estimated at 1,000 killed—mostly in fighting, since very few Arabs were murdered.
27. On the Jewish side, the official list gives 80 Jews killed or died of wounds and 308 wounded. The figures supplied by the Jewish Agency are “ 82 Jews murdered, apart from nine further deaths arising out of and connected with the disturbances between April and October, 1936,” and 369 Jews wounded in the same period. As to material loss, the Jewish Agency reports the destruction of 80,000 citrus trees, 62,000 other fruit trees, 64,000 forest trees, and 16,500 dunums of crops. It reckons the total cost of the injury to Jewish property at about £250,000, of which £100,000 is in respect of the destruction or damage of commercial or industrial premises in Jaffa by fire or otherwise.
28. Of the Palestine Police Force and the Trans-Jordan Frontier Force one officer and fifteen other ranks were killed or died of wounds, and fifteen officers and eighty-seven other ranks were wounded.
29. Of the British forces, naval, military and air, two officers and nineteen other ranks were killed or died of wounds, and seventeen officers and eighty-seven other ranks were wounded.
30. The direct cost of the “ disturbances ” to the Palestine Treasury in the financial year 1936-37 is estimated at more than £1,500,000 (including £1,186,000 for additional troops, £144,000 for extra expenditure on Police and Prisons, and about £35,000 for repairing damage to roads and railway bridges, rolling stock and the like). The corresponding total for 1937-38 is £433,000 (principally increased expenditure on security forces). The effect on receipts is more difficult to assess, but the loss of revenue probably amounted to £900,000 in 1936-37, and it is estimated that it will be as much as £750,000 in the current year. Thus the total direct cost to the taxpayers of Palestine will have been approximately £3½ million. To this must be added the losses incurred by the Arab and Jewish communities —both directly from the interruption of business and employment, the suspension of the tourist trade, damage to property and in other ways, and indirectly from the resultant check on the importation of capital. Only conjecture is possible as to the amount of these losses; but it must have run into millions of pounds.
3. The Underlying Causes.
31. This seems to us to be an appropriate point to deal with the first of our terms of reference, which requires us “ to ascertain the underlying causes of the disturbances ”,
32. The evidence given by the Arabs on this question is the more important, because it was they who made the “ disturbances ”, and the Arab Higher Committee told us plainly why they did it. There has never, indeed, been very much doubt about it. The Arab leaders have often set out their case before in public statements, and for some time they were in doubt whether they could add to its weight by repeating it before the Royal Commission.
33. The gist of their evidence on, the matter may be summarized as follows:—
They frankly stated that, though they considered that they have complaints as to the way in which the Mandate has been carried out, they do not rest their case upon these grievances but that their quarrel is with the existence of the Mandate itself. They do not accept the interpretation of the McMahon letter set out in the Government’s statement of British policy in Palestine in June, 1922.* They deny the validity of the Balfour Declaration. They have never admitted the right of the Powers to entrust a Mandate to Great Britain. They hold that the authority exercised by the Mandatory is inconsistent with the Covenant of the League of Nations and with the principle of self-determination embodied in that Covenant. We have examined these controversial issues in an earlier chapter; and the point which concerns us here is not whether these Arab claims are justified or not, but simply, that they are their claims, and that the overriding or setting-aside of them was the main cause of the disturbances.
* See page 20 above (Chapter II, 8. to 10).
34. In support of these claims, the Arab Higher Committee re-affirmed the conviction, maintained by Arab leaders ever since the War, that Palestine west of the Jordan was not meant to be excluded from the McMahon Pledge. They asserted that they were not an oppressed people under Turkish rule but that they had as full a share as any other Turkish citizens in the government of the country. It was not to escape oppression but to secure independence that they assisted the British forces and threw in their lot with the Allies. King Hussein called upon all the Arab territories to take their share, and volunteers from Palestine were among the first to join in a revolt which had a single end in view—the independence of the Arab lands, including Palestine. The Arabs of Palestine put their trust in the Proclamation which Lord Allenby issued in 1918 in the name of the Governments of Great Britain and France that it was the solemn purpose of the Allies to further the cause of Arab self-determination and to establish. Arab national governments. They understood this Proclamation to be the renewed assertion of the promise made to King Hussein in the McMahon letter.
35. The Arab Higher Committee further claimed that the League of Nations recognized in principle the independence of all the Arab countries which were separated from the Turkish Empire. They were classed together in a group, to which what were called “A” Mandates were to be applied: i.e., they were to be subject to the temporary advice and supervision of a Mandatory Government, and in the selection of the Mandatory the public opinion of the state concerned was to have a determining voice. The Arabs were therefore indignant when Palestine, without any consultation of its inhabitants by the Allied Powers, was severed from Syria and placed under a British Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was enshrined. Again, though the Mandate was ostensibly based on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, its positive injunctions were not directed to the “ well-being and development ” of the existing Arab population but to the promotion of Jewish interests. Complete power over legisla- tation as well as administration was delegated to the Mandatory, who undertook to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
36. In actual fact, the Arab witnesses maintained, the rights and position of Arabs have been prejudiced by the fail in their numerical proportions in Palestine from about 90 per cent in 1922 to 70 per cent to-day. As their aspirations to self-rule have been disappointed they have been unable to administer their own country and their national existence is threatened with annihilation through the entering into the country of another race.
37. One member of the Arab Higher Committee dealt more closely with the legal argument. He remarked that the terms of the Mandate are inconsistent with the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Paragraph 4 of that Article recognizes the existence of two juristic persons—one the community which should govern independently and the other the foreigner who is to assist and advise until the former is able to stand alone. But in Palestine there is one person who governs and who assists himself. Your Majesty is the Mandatory and Your Majesty's Government and their nominees are the Government of Palestine and, while the Preamble speaks of a Mandate, Article 1 denies the existence of a Mandate in the proper sense by conferring upon what is called “ the Mandatory ” full powers of legislation and administration. The community which is to be provisionally recognized as independent has no existence. This, it was argued, does not meet the provisions of Paragraph 4 and is contrary in principle to the treatment of other territories which were, like Palestine, released from the Government of Turkey. The Arabs maintain that all “ A ” Mandates were or are being governed by this section with the exception of the Mandate for Palestine; and they claim that the Arabs of Palestine are as fit for self-government’ as the Arabs of #Iraq or Syria. They think that Article 22, and particularly Paragraph 4 of that Article, is really their charter and the Mandate represents—or should represent—its by-laws. They submit that the by-laws are inconsistent with the charter. They complain that the terms of the Mandate are drafted in such a manner that the student might understand that there existed in Palestine a Jewish majority and a non-Jewish minority, the other sections of the population. On the contrary the Arab inhabitants of Palestine form the overwhelming majority and are the owners of the territory for the welfare of which the Mandate system was created; yet throughout the Mandate they are referred to as the “ non-Jewish ” population—a misleading and humiliating term. The Jews, in fact, are to live in Palestine, to quote the words of the Churchill Statement of Policy, “ as of right and not on sufferance while the Arabs, on the other hand, are to live in Palestine as on sufferance and not of right. Again, in Article 2 the country is to be placed under such administrative, economic and political conditions as will secure the establishment of a Jewish National Home, while the Arab owners and inhabitants of the land are merely to have their religious and civil rights safeguarded. Under Article 4 a Jewish Agency is to be established to assist the Mandatory in all Jewish affairs. This provision has not only created a state within a state, but has formed a Mandate over a Mandatory in that country.
38. The Arab Higher Committee further maintained that faith of the Arabs in the British Government was shaken by this outcome of their efforts in the War, and that subsequent actions of the Government had deepened their distrust. In particular the substitution of Mr. MacDonald's letter for the “ White Paper ” of 1930 and the recent rejection by Parliament of the proposals for a Legislative Council had convinced them that Jewish influence was too powerful to permit justice to be done.
39. The desire for the removal of the Mandate and the establishment of national independence was thus put forward by the Arab Higher Committee as the primary cause of the disturbances. With it was associated both by Arab and non-Arab wit-nesses the fear of Jewish domination, political and economic. The Arabs are afraid of the Jews: they are impressed and alarmed by their pertinacity, their wealth, their ability and growing numbers. They cannot attempt to emulate the £70 million or more of capital which the Jews in the last 20 years have brought into the country. They view with mistrust the extent of land which has passed into Jewish hands: they fear that as the result of high prices and the weakness of some of their fellow-countrymen more land will pass into the hands of the Jews. They note that land once acquired by the Jewish National Fund can never, by the terms of the trust, be re-sold to the Arab. They point to the destruction of villages and the decay of the social structure of village life. If they have fears forthemselves, these fears are multiplied a thousandfold for their children, whose whole future seeems to be threatened by the advancing tide of Jewish immigrants. No doubt, too, among the less-educated Arabs at any rate, the fear is widespread that Jewish domination might affect the Holy Places and influence the freedom of religious observance.
40. The Jewish witnesses agreed with the Arab in regarding the “underlying causes ” of the disturbances as political. They questioned whether Arab nationalism was so strong or so coherent as it might seem to be on the surface in Palestine or outside it: but they admitted that the opposition of Arab nationalism to the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate was the mainspring of all the trouble. “The underlying cause ”, said a Jewish witness, “ is that we exist ”.
41. But this opposition, it was argued, would have been restrained and its expression in violence and rebellion discouraged if the Mandatory Government had shown a more positive sympathy with the policy of the Jewish National Home and a greater resolution in carrying it into effect. As it was, the official tendency in Palestine to take up a defeatist, almost an apologetic, attitude on this cardinal issue had helped to foster a belief in the Arab mind that the National Home was not an immutable point of policy and that, if Arab resistance to it were sufficiently obstinate and forcible, the Mandatory Power might presently be worried or even frightened into giving it up. In this connexion Jewish witnesses laid stress on the Government’s failure to maintain law and order, on its hesitation to make use of Jewish loyalty, particularly in police-service, on its toleration of inflammatory attacks on the National Home in the Arab Press, and on its permitting Palestine to become a centre of Pan-Arab and Pan-Islamic propaganda.
42. On the negative side the Jews asserted that the trouble had not been caused either by the economic effects on the Arabs of Jewish immigration or by its increase. The growth of the National Home had benefited the Arabs as a whole; and, though the high figure for immigration in 1935 might have helped to precipitate the outbreak in the following year, the outbreaks of 1920 and 1921 had occurred when immigrants were relatively few, and that of 1929 had followed on two years of greatly reduced immigration.
43. After examining this and other evidence and studying the course of events in Palestine since the War, we have no doubt as to what were “the underlying causes of the disturbances ” of last year. They were:—
(i) The desire of the Arabs for national independence.
(ii) Their hatred and fear of the establishment of the Jewish National Home.44. We make the following comments on these two causes: —
(i) They were the same underlying causes as those which brought about the “ disturbances ” of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1933.
(ii) They were, and always have been, inextricably linked together. The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate under which it was to be implemented involved the denial of national independence at the outset. The subsequent growth of the National Home created a practical obstacle, and the only serious one, to the concession later of national independence. It was believed that its further growth might mean the political as well as economic subjection of the Arabs to the Jews, so that, if ultimately the Mandate should terminate and Palestine become independent, it would not be national independence in the Arab sense but self-government by a Jewish majority.
(iii) They were the only “ underlying ” causes. All the other factors were complementary or subsidiary, aggravating the two causes or helping to determine the time at which the disturbances broke out.45. The other factors may be summarized as follows: —
(i) The effect on Arab opinion in Palestine of the attainment of national independence first by ‘Iraq, to a less complete extent by Trans-Jordan, then by Egypt and lastly, subject to a short delay, by Syria and the Lebanon. The weight of this factor has been augmented by close contact between Arabs in Palestine and Arabs in Syria, 'Iraq and Saudi Arabia and by the willingness shown by the Arab Rulers to do what they properly could to assist them.
(ii) The pressure on Palestine exerted by World Jewry in view of the sufferings and anxieties of the Jews in Central and Eastern Europe. The increase in this pressure from the beginning of 1933 onwards and the consequent high figures of Jewish immigration gravely accentuated Arab fears of Jewish domination over Palestine.
(iii) The inequality of opportunity enjoyed by Arabs and Jews respectively in putting their case before Your Majesty’s Government, Parliament, and public opinion in this country; and the Arab belief that the Jews can always get their way by means denied to the Arabs. Based in general on the status of the Jewish Agency both in Jerusalem and in London, this belief was greatly strengthened by the publication of Mr. MacDonald’s letter to Dr. Weizmann in 1931 and by the debates in Parliament on the proposals for a Legislative Council early last year.
(iv) Associated with this last factor, the growth of Arab distrust, dating back to the time of the McMahon Pledge and the Balfour Declaration, in the ability, if not the will, of Your Majesty's Government to carry out their promises.
(v) Arab alarm at the continued purchase of Arab land by Jews.
(vi) The intensive character of' Jewish nationalism in Palestine; the “ modernism ” of many of the younger immigrants; the provocative language used by irresponsible Jews; and the intemperate tone of much of the Jewish as well as the Arab Press.
(vii) The general uncertainty, accentuated by the ambiguity of certain phrases in the Mandate, as to the ultimate intentions of the Mandatory Power. This uncertainty has aggravated all the difficulties of the situation, and in particular has (a) stimulated the Jewish desire to expand and consolidate their position in Palestine as quickly as may be, and (b) made it possible for the Arabs to interpret the conciliatory policy of the Palestine Government and the sympathetic attitude of some of its officials as showing that the British determination to implement the Balfour Declaration is not whole-hearted.CHAPTER V.
THE PRESENT SITUATION.
1. We arrived in Palestine on Armistice Day and attended the ceremony at the British War cemetery on Mount Scopus overlooking Jerusalem. No one in the circumstances could help reflecting that the Peace which followed the Armistice of 1918 had been an even less real peace in Palestine than in Europe. Something like another war, however minute in scale, had recently been waged, and something like another armistice had been concluded. The more we saw and the more we heard in the days that followed, the clearer it became that this armistice was only a suspension of hostilities, not a preliminary to peace. The Arab leaders had refused to co-operate with us in our search for a means of settling the dispute. It was believed in many quarters that another outbreak might occur at any moment. Several isolated murders or assaults occurred during our stay, and at one time acts of brigandage were reported almost every day. It was impossible not to feel the sense of tension at Jerusalem, and of pessimism. In neutral circles the task we had undertaken was regarded as well-nigh impossible. But, while indeed it seemed manifest that the situation was far more serious and a settlement far more difficult than we had imagined before leaving England, we realized the danger of allowing ourselves to be too much affected by the atmosphere around us. We tried to prevent our judgment being unduly darkened by the circumstances of the moment. We sought to discount all such factors in the problem as might fairly be regarded as the transient outcome of the recent disorders. And, if in the result our grave view of the situation was not only confirmed but enhanced, it was not due, so far as we are aware, to any neglect on our part to give due weight to any reassuring facts or opinions or to follow up any line which might conceivably lead to a happier conclusion. We are sure, therefore, that the following description of the position in Palestine as we found it and left it, discouraging though it may be, is not an overstatement of the facts.
1. The Jewish National Home
2. At first sight and viewed in isolation from the sombre background, one feature in the picture might seem bright enough. Twelve years ago the National Home was an experiment: to-day it is a “ going concern ”. The number of its inhabitants has increased fourfold. In 1925 it was 121,000. Last year the official estimate was 370,000; but it was generally admitted that the actual figure was at least 400,000 and probably higher. The process of agricultural colonization has steadily continued. The amount of land in Jewish ownership has risen from 844,000 dunums in 1925 to 1,332,000 dunums in 1936. There are now 203 agricultural settlements containing some 97,000 people.* Some of the new colonies are again in the uplands of Galilee, northwards of Mount Tabor; but most of them, as before, are in the plains. Three-parts of the Plain of Esdraelon, all the Valley of Jezreel, a great part of the Maritime Plain between Jaffa and Mount Cannel, and another large area south of Jaffa—these wide stretches of plain-land, drained and irrigated and green with citrus trees or brown from the plough, are now the agrarian basis of the National Home. The country-towns have likewise grown and prospered. To take the two examples given for 1925, the area of Petah Tiqva (including village lands outside the municipal area) is now 5,900 acres and its population 15,000. The population of Rehovot has increased from about 1,400 to nearly 7,000, and its Local Council, which in 1925 had raised and spent some £1,400 on local services, had a budget in 1936 of nearly £20,000.
* Jewish Agency’s enumeration, September, 1936.
3. Yet more impressive has been the urban development. Tel Aviv, still a wholly Jewish town, has leaped to the first place among the towns of Palestine. Its population now probably exceeds 150,000. It spreads over 1,600 acres and contains between 6,000 and 7,000 houses. Its Municipal Council obtains a revenue of over £400,000 (exclusive of the Government grant-in-aid). It has grown too fast for orderly town-planning: its frontage on the sea has so far been neglected; and it has not yet acquired public buildings worthy of it; but its main boulevard and some of its residential quarters, its shops and cafes and cinemas, above all the busy, active people in the streets already reproduce the atmosphere of the older Mediterranean sea-side towns of Europe. But it is essentially European. From its beginnings the contrast between Tel Aviv, an artificial creation, rising so quickly from a barren strip of sand, and ancient Jaffa, still more the contrast with a purely Arab town among the hills like Nablus, was clearly marked, and it is now quite startling.
There is the same effect at Jerusalem. On the slope rising westwards from the Old City, still a tangle of narrow streets and dark arcades, still indomitably Asiatic, has spread, and is still fast spreading, a suburb of modern Jewish stone-built villas and flats and shops, centred round the massive fortresslike headquarters of the Jewish Agency. The population of Jerusalem has grown to 125,000: and of that some 76,000 are Jews.
The growth of Haifa, too, which has now a population of 100,000, is only less remarkable than that of Tel Aviv. But Haifa is not, like Tel Aviv, a wholly Jewish concern. It has grown, it is true, with the growth of the National Home, about one-half of its inhabitants are now Jews, and much of the business of its port is Jewish business, but much of it is also international. The European shipping in the new and spacious harbour is serving Arab as well as Jewish Palestine. We observed that many cases of goods in the sheds at the quay-side were marked for transit to Baghdad.
4. But, broadly speaking, the remarkable urban development in Palestine has been Jewish. Nor is it in Jewish eyes by any means complete. If all goes well with the National Home, if the “ boom ” persists, if expanding industries can find expanding markets, if the immigration of men and money continues to supply the demands of production and consumption alike, new towns, it is foretold, will spring up along the sandy coast, where no one can assert, whatever may be said inland, that a Jew coming in means an Arab going out. Already, indeed, on a barren waste just south of Jaffa a whole township has been planned, many of the streets laid out and paved, and building begun; and schemes, no doubt, are being considered for the development of other seaside towns. To some Zionists this rapid growth of industry and urban life may seem to threaten one of the basic principles of their original creed—that the return to Palestine was a return to work on its soil. But so far, at any rate, it can be said that the industrial structure has not entirely outgrown its agrarian base. The relation between rural and urban areas, between industrialists and agriculturists, has remained fairly constant from the start. In 1927 the proportion of workers on the land (earners) to the Jewish population was 7.3 per cent.: to-day it is 6.4 per cent. In the United Kingdom the proportion is 6.4 per cent.; in Belgium 7 per cent.
* Figures supplied by Jewish to Agency.
5. The economic structure of the National Home will be examined in a later Chapter.† It is sufficient here to illustrate the growth of citrus production on the one hand and industrial enterprise on the other by figures supplied by the Jewish Agency. In the 1929-30 season the value of the fruit exported from Jewish orange, grapefruit and lemon plantations was about £300,000: in the 1936-37 season it is estimated to have been £2,000,000. During the same period the production of Jewish industrial enterprise rose from £2½ millions to £8½ millions, and the amount of capital invested from £2¼ millions to over £8 millions. From 1918 to the present day over £14 millions has been invested in Palestine through the “ national funds ” and roughly £63 millions by private investors, nearly half the latter sum in the course of the last four years. The total investment, therefore, amounts to £77 millions, and of this at least one-fifth has been contributed by the Jews in the United States. Lastly, the amount of Jewish deposits in Palestine banks amounted last year to millions. These are all startling figures. They bear witness to a quite extraordinary measure of economic expansion.
† See Chapter VIII.
6. The political and social structure remains as we described it in 1925. With the passing of ten years and the fourfold increase in the population the Jewish Agency and the Va’ad Leumi have consolidated their position as the allied organs of World Jewry and the Jews in Palestine. The General Assembly, the membership of which was reduced in 1930 to 71 (the number of the old Sanhedrin), still consists of nearly 20 parties or groups, but these, as before, have roughly cohered into a dominant Labour “ bloc ”, a mainly Revisionist opposition, and a weak and unorganized Centre. Local government is now firmly established. The Municipal Council of Tel Aviv is crying out for more freedom from official control than the Government has so far thought it wise to concede. While we were drafting this Report, Petah Tiqva attained municipal status, and thus became the second wholly Jewish town in the world. Every Jewish “ colony ” or village still manages its domestic affairs through elected committees.
7. With every year that passes, the contrast between this intensely democratic and highly organized modern community and the old-fashioned Arab world around it grows sharper, and in nothing, perhaps, more markedly than on its cultural side. The literary output of the National Home is out of all proportion to its size. Hebrew translations have been published of the works of Aristotle, Descartes, Leibnitz, Fichte, Kant, Bergson, Einstein and other philosophers, and of Shakespeare, Goethe, Heine, Byron, Dickens, the great Russian novelists, and many modern writers. In creative literature the work of Bialik, who died in 1935, has been the outstanding achievement in Hebrew poetry, and that of Nahum Sokolov, who died in 1936, in Hebrew prose. A number of Hebrew novels have been written reflecting the influence on the Jewish mind of life in the National Home. The Hebrew Press has expanded to four daily and ten weekly papers. Of the former the Ha’aretz and the Davar, with circulations of about 17,000 and 25,000 respectively, are the most influential and maintain a high literary standard. Two periodicals are exclusively concerned with literature and one with dramatic art.. But perhaps the most striking aspect of the culture of the National Home is its love of music. It was while we were in Palestine, as it happened, that Signor Toscanini conducted the Palestine Symphony Orchestra, composed of some 70 Palestinian Jews, in six concerts mainly devoted to the works of Brahms and Beethoven. On each occasion every seat was occupied, and it is noteworthy that one concert was reserved for some 3,000 workpeople at very low rates and that another 3,000 attended the Orchestra’s final rehearsal. All in all, the cultural achievement of this little community of 400,000 people is one of the most remarkable features of the National Home.
8. There is Arab literature, of course, and Arab music, but the culture of Arab Palestine is the monopoly of the intelligenzia; and, bom as it is of Asia, it has little kinship with that of the National Home, which, though it is linked with ancient Jewish tradition, is predominantly a culture of the West. Nowhere, indeed, is the gulf between the races more obvious. Anyone who attended the Toscanini Concerts at Jerusalem might have imagined, if he closed his eyes, that he was in Paris., London, or New York. Yet, almost within earshot was the Old City, the Haram-esh-Sharif, and the headquarters of the Arab Higher Committee. It is the same with science. The Daniel Sieff Research Institute at Rehovot is equipped with the most delicate modern instruments; the experiments conducted there are watched by chemists all over the world: yet from its windows can be seen the hills inhabited by a backward peasantry who regard it only as the demonstration of a power they hate and fear and who would like, no doubt, when their blood is up, to destroy it.
9. Our stay in Palestine was necessarily too short for us to probe deeply into the psychology of the National Home, but we received some marked impressions. The Jews in Palestine, to begin with, are happy. . They are not as happy as they were before the outbreak of last year. If there is gaiety at Tel Aviv, there is tension there, too, as at Jerusalem; and throughout the “ colonies ” there is an uneasy feeling that the National Home is confronted with a crisis in its fate. Some members of the community, moreover, notably some of the recent immigrants from Germany, are not enthusiastic Zionists nor deeply steeped in Hebrew tradition, and may therefore find the National Home not very homelike. But, speaking generally, whether it be the Jew who has been driven from a comfortable life in a cultured milieu and is now digging all day in the fields and sleeping in a bare cottage, or whether it be the Jew who has emerged from a Polish ghetto and is now working in a factory at Tel Aviv, the dominant feeling of both is an overwhelming sense of escape. The champions of Zionism have always held—and on the whole they are now proved right—that a Jew released from an anti-Jewish environment and “ restored ” to Palestine would not only feel free as he had never felt before but would also acquire a new self-confidence, a new zest in living from his consciousness that he was engaged in a great constructive task.
10. This sense of a “ mission ” was strong, as has been seen, from the first; and it is at least as strong now as it has ever been. But the change in its character already to be observed in 1925 is now more marked. In the older “ colonies ”, which are largely of Russian origin, the religious attitude to the National Home still prevails; but in some of the newer “colonies ” and in the towns the most zealous, the most missionary-minded Jews are often Jews in race alone and not in faith. To adopt the terms of a significant question and answer at one of our sessions, there are fewer Jews now whose mandate is the Bible and more whose bible is the Mandate.
11. The non-Zionist orthodox Jewish community, Agudath Israel, is known to have deplored this increasing tendency towards secularism, and it has long carried on a stubborn dispute with the Jewish Agency with special reference to the allotment of immigration-certificates. Nevertheless, as with Moslem and Christian Arabs, so with orthodox and unorthodox Jews, the national crisis has established a common front. The disorders of 1933 were quickly followed by a rapprochement between Agudath Israel and official Zionism. The more serious outbreak of 1936 cemented the alliance. In giving evidence before us the representatives of Agudath Israel supported on all major points the case presented by the Jewish Agency. Zionism, in fact, is Jewish nationalism, and like nationalism elsewhere—in post-war Turkey, for example—its driving force is political rather than religious.
12. Thus a tendency already apparent in 1925 has been intensified; and under existing conditions the process is bound, in our view, to continue. To take one vital point, the Jewish system of education is doing what it was meant to do. Practically every Jewish boy and girl attends a primary school. A substantial proportion of them go on to a secondary school. In more than two cases out of three, the school, whether primary or secondary, is a Jewish school, the instruction is in Hebrew, the course of work is planned to impregnate the pupil with the Hebrew tradition. A glance at the curriculum of a leading Jewish secondary school will illustrate this point. Twelve hours a week are devoted to the Hebrew language, the Bible, the Talmud, and Hebrew literature and history in general, as against four hours to English and three hours to Arabic—which last is a highly commendable provision as far as it goes. Considering, further, that Jewish schoolmasters and schoolmistresses are bound for the most part to be enthusiastic believers in the Zionist “ mission ” , it is not surprising if from this educational “ melting-pot ” emerges a national selfconsciousness of unusual intensity. We do not underrate this achievement. It is impossible, indeed, not to be impressed by the energy and self-sacrifice which have gone to build up this system of education. We are only concerned to point out that the process is intensive, and that the product of it loses in breadth what it has gained in depth. The civic sense of Jewish youth in Palestine is not Palestinian except in so far as in theory or in prospect Palestine is identified with the National Home.
13. It should be frankly recognized, then, that the ideal of the National Home is a purely Jewish ideal. The Arabs hardly come into the picture except when they force an entry with violence and bloodshed. That does not mean, it need hardly be said, that the Jews wish to oppress the Arabs or to keep them poor and backward. On the contrary they maintain as they have always maintained—and we do not question their sincerity—that the establishment of the National Home has been and will continue to be a positive economic advantage to the Arabs. But for the average Jew that comfortable assurance is enough. He goes on with his work and tries to forget about the Arabs. In some of the older “ colonies ” there used to be some sense of kinship with the Arabs or at least that fellow-feeling which comes from working side by side. But there is little of that left now, and there has never been much of it among the more modern, western-minded, urban Jews. Welfare work has been done for Arab as well as for Jew by Jewish institutions, notably the Hadassah. Jewish professional men have given their services to both races. Since we left Palestine a tragic case has been reported .in the press of a Jewish doctor who went back alone to work among the Arab villagers in remote Beisan and was murdered. But, broadly speaking, we got the impression that the social conscience of the National Home tends to concentrate on Jewish needs and to leave the Arabs to the care of Government.
14. Jewish nationalism, indeed, seems sometimes to reject consciously or unconsciously, the very idea of a real Palestinian community. It claims, for example, that, though Palestine is not an Arab word and might therefore fairly serve for Jews as well as Arabs, Eretz Israel (Land of Israel) should be also accepted as the official translation of “ Palestine ”, and protests that the printing of the Hebrew initials “E.I.” after “ Palestine ” on every stamp and coin is not enough. It demands, too, that Government grants for public services should be shared between Arabs and Jews in strict proportion to their numbers, and, since Jews provide proportionally more revenue, the claim seems logical; but in fact it runs counter to one of two principles. Either it repudiates the basic idea of public finance in the democratic world—that the rich should be taxed to meet the needs of the poor—or it denies or ignores the theory that Arabs and Jews are members of one Palestinian society. It has long been obvious that the notion of a cultural “ assimilation ’’ between Arab and Jew is a phantasy. It is time, surely, that Palestinian “citizenship ” also should be recognized as what it is, as nothing but a legal formula devoid of moral meaning.
15. It remains to consider the relations of the Jews with the Mandatory Government. It can be said at once, though it is little enough to say, that they are better than the relations of the Arabs with the Government. The policy of the great majority of the Jews is the policy of the Jewish Agency; and the Jewish Agency, which is entitled under the Mandate to co-operate with the Government, may have differed from it often enough, criticized it, resented its decisions, but it has never carried controversy to the point of challenging the Government’s authority. It has steered a course for the majority between the opinions of two minority groups. One of these is a group of intellectuals, centred at the Hebrew University, who hold that the only solution of the problem of Palestine is for the Jews to show themselves not “ like other nations ” in the quality and temper of their nationalism, to subordinate political ambitions to cultural and spiritual ends, to acquiesce in such a limitation of their numbers as would make them a permanent minority in Palestine, even in the last resort to submit to Arab- rule. The moral courage of that school of thought must com-mand respect; but it enlists no effective support in the National Home. The other minority consists of the Revisionists, who still demand the expansion of the National Home, presumably by force, over all Palestine and Trans-Jordan. They are a determined and troublesome group. Since we left Palestine they have attacked the Jewish Agency’s headquarters at Jerusalem and its branch-office at Warsaw. But their followers only amount to about one-twentieth of the Jews in Palestine; and we have little doubt that the Jewish Agency, backed as it is by an organised majority in the National Assembly and the Va’ad Leumi, will maintain its control of the situation. For in the National Home “ extremist ” nationalism is deprived of the advantage which, as has been explained above, it enjoys elsewhere. It cannot, like Arab extremism, “ go all out ” for freedom, since a free Palestine in present circumstances means an Arab State. Nor can it refuse allegiance to the British Government, which alone protects it from the enmity of the Arab world. But, if the Agency and the Va’ad Leumi are not in that sense extremist, their policy is not altogether moderate. They claim the maximum of “ rights ” which the Mandate, as they interpret it, can yield. They insist that the rate of immigration should be kept up to the full extent of the “ economic absorptive capacity ” of the country, and their estimate of that capacity has always exceeded and often far exceeded the Government's estimate. They attack the Government's proposals for regulating the sale of land in the interests or Arab agriculturists. They complain that the share of revenue allotted to Jewish public services is not in fair proportion to their numbers or their contribution to taxation.. And, when in these and other matters they do not get their way, they are tempted to forget that the Mandatory obligation is twofold and to complain that the administration is culpably “ pro-Arab."
16. We shall consider in later chapters of this Report how far this sense of grievance is justified. Our concern at the moment is to point out that the relationship between the National Home and the Government is not as happy as it ought to be. It is true, of course, that in times of disturbance the Jews, as compared with the Arabs., are the law-abiding section of the population: and, indeed, throughout the whole series of outbreaks, and under very great provocation, they have shown a notable capacity for discipline and self-restraint. But in less grave matters than rioting and bloodshed we could not help observing a certain restiveness, a certain impatience of authority. An illustration is the attitude assumed by the inhabitants of Tel Aviv. The law requires that the Municipal Council should expend no money without the prior approval of the Government, represented by the District Commissioner. In fact, that prior approval is often dispensed with, on the ground that some expansion of social services is needed without delay. The Government for its part usually acquiesces in such infringement of the law, on the ground that an attempt to enforce it would be met by at least the passive resistance of the whole community. In our view such an attitude to Government, however unfortunate, is not altogether surprising. The British Government, it should be remembered, is an alien Government to all but a tiny handful of the Jews in Palestine. Jews from Poland or Germany or Roumania may appreciate the difference between the British attitude to Jewry and that which they have experienced in the countries of their birth. All Jews, we were assured, are grateful to Britain. But, when Jews in Palestine are told that the Government's interest in the National Home is at the most halfhearted, their resentment is not softened by any sense of kinship with its British officers or any native loyalty to the British Crown.
17. The root of the restiveness, however, lies deeper than that. The National Home is a highly educated, highly democratic, very politically-minded, and unusually young community. It is conceivable, though we think improbable, that it would acquiesce in a dictatorship if the dictator were a Jew of its own choice: but it can never be at ease under an alien bureaucracy. Crown Colony government is not a suitable form of government for a numerous, self-reliant, progressive people. European for the most part in outlook and equipment, if not in race. The European communities in the British Empire overseas have long outgrown it. The evolution of self-government in India left that stage behind in 1909. Crown Colony government is nowadays mainly maintained for the wardship of politically backward races in the tropical or sub-tropical world. Its retention in other Colonies, such as most of the West Indies or Mauritius or Malta, is due to the existence of a mixed population or to other special circumstances. And, of course, it is only the peculiar circumstances of Palestine which justify the maintenance of Crown Colony government there. If, apart from those circumstances, it would be difficult to contest the Arab claim that they are “ able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world,” it would be absurd to contest such a claim on the part of the Jews.
18. The form of government, then, which circumstances have imposed on the whole of Palestine, is not a suitable or natural form for the Jewish section of its population. It tends, moreover, in our opinion, to impair the political health of the National Home: for it breeds one of the worst of political ailments—irresponsibility. On a wide range of important matters, it is true, the Jews enjoy a large measure of local self-government; but even in that field it is the Government of Palestine which possesses, if it does not always exercise, the ultimate control. And in more vital matters, the rate of immigration, the regulation of land-sales, the protection of in-dustry and promotion of trade, the maintenance of law and order, the provision of a garrison, in the matters, in fact, which really determine the fate of the National Home, its inhabitants have no constitutional power at all and no responsibility. The general demand they make on the Government may be summarized as a demand for a forcing of the pace. They want more immigrants, more land, more rural and urban develop-ment,. and they want it all in a hurry. They realize, no doubt, that so rapid a growth has its risks, and, no doubt, they are prepared to face them in the sanguine spirit of their race and mission; but, when they abuse the Government for not conceding all they ask, they seem to forget that, if things go wrong, the Government must bear the blame and the burden of putting them right. We have referred elsewhere to the difficulty of foretelling the future economic development of the National Home; but it stands to reason that for one cause or another; as the result, perhaps, of some world-wide catastrophe, a set-back to its fortunes is at least conceivable. In that case the National Home would doubtless suffer most, but all Palestine would suffer with it: and the cost of reparation and recovery would fall on Arab as well as Jewish tax-payers and perhaps in the end on British taxpayers as well. To make demands without having to deal with all the difficulties they may involve, to clamour for a policy without being answerable for its execution, to insist on risks being taken without incurring the full responsibility for the consequences, these are familiar features of agitation among politically-minded people who are not responsible for governing themselves. The unusual feature in this particular case is that the agitators do not want self-government, because it means government by an Arab majority. So the disease continues unchecked by its natural remedy; and we cannot help regarding it as a regrettable weakness in the life of the National Home that its young community should be growing up in an atmosphere of irresponsibility with regard to the gravest issues that confront it.
19. We have just referred to the forcing of the pace: and the sense of haste is the last, but by no means the least marked, of the impressions we wish to record of the National Home. It is obvious, indeed, that the rapidity with which its whole structure has been built up, especially in the last few years, has intensified the difficulties inherent in the situation. If Jewish immigrants had only trickled in, if Jewish colonization had been predominantly agrarian and only gradually extended, if there had been no great urban and industrial development, the problem of adjusting the relations between the National Home and Arab nationalism would have had to be faced in due course: but conceivably it could have been dealt with in a calmer atmosphere and with better chances of agreement. As it is, the pace at which the Home has grown has exacerbated the quarrel and helped to bring it to a head. Yet the reason for haste is easy to understand. Immigration means escape. Immigrants squeeze into Palestine, prepared to endure any hardships which may result from overcrowding, because life in Palestine at its worst is better than the life they have led elsewhere.
20. But there is another reason for haste which has recently, we think, been working on Jewish minds. Arab antagonism to the National Home was never ignored by thoughtful Zionists; but, whereas they used to regard it as no more than an obstacle, however serious, to be somehow overcome, they now see it, we believe, though they do not always say so, as the danger that it is or might become. Nobody in Palestine can fail to realize how much more bitter, how much more widely spread among the people, Arab hatred of the National Home is now than it was five or ten years ago. And the feeling is not confined to Palestine. The Arab leaders have long seen to it that their grievances were known and discussed in Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad; and the story of fighting and bloodshed in Palestine last year, often grossly magnified and distorted, was soon current talk throughout the Arab world. In earlier times there had been little, if any, anti-Jewish sentiment observable in Egypt or 'Iraq or the heart of Arabia. But last summer there were repeated demonstrations in Cairo and Baghdad. We have reason to believe that this anti-Jewish agitation has not yet become formidable; for the moment it is quiescent: but there can be little doubt that a renewal of the conflict in Palestine would revive and inflame it. The same is true of Trans-Jordan. The militant Bedouin were only restrained with difficulty from joining in the fight across the river; and we were told on unimpeachable authority that, whatever may have been the attitude of the Arabs in Trans-Jordan to the question of Jewish immigration in the past, a Jewish settler could only enter the country now at the risk of his life.
21. It is, indeed, one of the most unhappy aspects of the present situation—this opening of a breach between Jewry and the Arab world. We believe that not in Palestine only but in all the Middle East the Arabs might profit from the capital and enterprise which the Jews are ready enough to provide; and we believe that in ordinary circumstances the various Arab Governments would be ready enough on their side to permit a measure of Jewish immigration under their own conditions and control. But the creation of the National Home has been neither conditioned nor controlled by the Arabs of Palestine. It has been established directly against their will. And that hard fact has had its natural reaction on Arab minds elsewhere. The Jews were fully entitled to enter the door forced open for them into Palestine. They did it with the sanction and encouragement of the League of Nations and the United States of America. But by doing it they have closed the other doors of the Arab world against them. And in certain circumstances this antagonism might become dangerously aggressive. Like everyone else, the Jews must realize that another world-war is unhappily not impossible: and in the changes and chances of war it is easy to imagine circumstances under which the Jews might have to rely mainly on their own resources for the defence of the National Home. There, then, is a second and a very potent reason for haste. The more immigrants, the more potential soldiers. “There is safety in numbers,” said a Jewish witness. And again: “ If we are kept in a state of permanent minority, then it is not a National Home, it may become a death-trap.”
22. It is impossible, we believe, for any unprejudiced observer to see the National Home and not to wish it well. It has meant so much for the relief of unmerited suffering. It displays so much energy and enterprise and devotion to a common cause. In so far as Britain has helped towards its creation, we would claim, with Lord Balfour, that to that extent, at any rate, Christendom has shown itself “ not oblivious of all the wrong it has done.” But we would ask all sympathisers with the National Home, in Europe or overseas, not to under-estimate the difficulties which confront it. It does it no service to brush them aside, to say that all will be well if we wait a little longer, still less to assert that there would be no real difficulty at all if the Mandatory Power would do its duty by the Mandate. At each successive crisis in Palestine those idle hopes have been raised, and those hasty charges made. The best service which well- wishers of the National Home can render it is to recognize frankly that the situation in Palestine has reached a deadlock and to bend their minds to finding a way out.
2. Arab Progress.
23. In Arab as in Jewish Palestine the most striking fact is the growth of population. It has risen since 1920 from about 600,000 to about 950,000; and in this case, unlike the Jewish, the rise has been due in only a slight degree to immigration; No accurate estimate can be made of the number of Arabs who have come into Palestine from neighbouring Arab lands and settled there, but it may be reckoned that roughly nine-tenths of the growth has been due to natural increase, and it has been a growth of over 50 per cent, in 17 years. Those are remarkable figures, especially in view of the general belief that the population of Palestine under the Ottoman regime was more or less stationary. If, further, we consider the growth in the prosperity of Palestine as a whole, it is difficult, on the face of it, to believe that the Arab population has had no share in it. The inference, however, is the subject of sharp controversy. The Jews in evidence before us sought to confirm it with a wealth of arguments and statistics. The Arabs denied it outright. They were better off , they told us, before the days of the British Occupation. It was clearly our duty to probe the case on either side, and we have done what we could to form a judgment on it. But, since, until a year or so ago, the technical equipment of the Palestine Government for exact sociological inquiry was deplorably inadequate, our judgment must be taken as only a rough, though we believe it to be a fair, opinion on a complicated question.
24. The effendi, to begin with, have suffered one definite loss. They do not enjoy “ the sweets of office ” under the present Administration to the extent that they enjoyed them before the War. But this is not an injury that worsens with time. On the contrary a steadily increasing number of effendi and other educated Arabs have obtained posts in the Government service since the British Occupation, and some of them high-salaried posts. Apart from that, it is difficult to detect any deterioration in the economic position of the Arab upper class. Landowners have sold substantial pieces of land at a figure far above the price it could have fetched before the War. In the early days, it is true, much of the selling was done by Arab owners domiciled in Syria; but in recent transactions mainly Palestinian Arabs have been concerned, and those transactions have been considerable. In 1933 £854,796 was paid for the purchase of Arab land, mostly from owners of large estates, £1,647,836 in 1934, and £1,699,448 in 1935. Partly, no doubt, as the result of landsales the effendi class has been able to make substantial investments of capital. Some of this has gone towards increased production, especially of fruit, from the land they have retained. At least six times more Arab-owned land is now planted with citrus than in 1920. Arab citrus plantations in the Maritime Plain now cover 135,000 dunums, and represent an investment of £6,500,000.
25. Some of the capital has been directed to building houses for lease or sale or to industrial enterprise. The development of Arab industry, though not comparable, of course, with that of Jewish industry, has made progress. It appears from the Gov-ernment Report for 1933 that the number of Arab “ industrial undertakings ”, which was about 1,200 before the War, had risen to about 2,200. Among relatively large-scale industries are soap, flour-milling, bricks and tiles, cigarettes and tobacco, cotton, wool and silk weaving, salt-quarrying, stone and lime, bedsteads, nails, wearing apparel, confectionery, and alcoholic liquor. No official statistics are available as to the amount of capital invested in this industrial field as a whole; but it has certainly increased in the course of the last few years, as has the amount of Arab bank-deposits.
26. In the light of these facts we have no doubt that many Arab landowners have benefited financially from Jewish immigration. They have sold a large amount of land to Jews at a price far higher than its pre-war value. A member of the Arab Higher Committee admitted to us that “ nowhere in the world were such uneconomic land-prices paid as by Jews in Palestine ”. Some of the Jewish money has been spent also on the products of Arab industry, such as stone and other building materials, on rent for Arab-owned houses and in wages for Arab labour. On the other hand it is evident that Arab industry cannot in the long run. compete with Jewish where technical skill or the use of imported raw materials are needed. It seems to us inevitable that, as the industrial enterprise and equipment of the National Home expand, so Arab industries will decline. Already, indeed, the major Arab industry, Nablus soap, has severely felt the effects of Jewish as well as Egyptian competition.
27. It is the condition of the fellaheen, still the great majority of the Arab population, that must be regarded as the dominant factor in any estimate of the economic progress of Arab Palestine. It cannot, unhappily, be questioned that the standard of living among the fellaheen is still low. Like other agricultural communities they have suffered from the world-wide fall in prices. They have suffered, too, from severe and repeated droughts and consequent bad harvests. Some of the obstacles to their progress have been partially removed. Some of the cramping mash’a system of land-tenure has been replaced by individual ownership. Their burden of debt has been eased. The Government has done much to relieve them by reducing and remitting taxation and providing loans. Tithe was reduced, commuted, and finally replaced by a more equitable tax on rural property. The development of cooperation has been slow and somewhat discouraging, but at least a beginning has been made and over 60 Arab Co-operative Societies are now in existence. There is evidence, moreover, that some fellaheen are at any rate on the way to becoming better cultivators. If the great majority are still wedded to their old primitive ways, there are some who are learning better methods, using better seed and better tools, under official guidance and inspection.
28. There is one point on which the fellaheen have lost ground. In 1920 they had little enough land on which to maintain themselves and their families. Their numbers have greatly increased and to-day there are many for whom no land is available. Inevitably, therefore, in Palestine, as in most other parts of the world, a drift has begun to set in from the country to the towns. But, though there again exact statistics are unavailable, it appears that industrial development has gone far to provide employment for those Arabs who can no longer make a living on the land. The number of Arabs engaged in industry must now be well above the 60,000 at which it was estimated in the Census of 1931. Work in the towns accounts, too, for the growth of such excrescences as the collection of “ shacks ” on the outskirts of Haifa, opprobriously known as “ Tin Town.” But, if there are signs that the growth of an urban proletariat has begun, this is a social symptom not peculiar to Palestine, and in Palestine, as far as we could judge, it has not yet meant destitution or degeneration. The official estimate for Arab unemployment, admittedly a very rough one, was 6,000 at the time of our visit to Palestine, which in the circumstances and especially in view of the “ disturbances ” is not an alarming figure. And for the employed the rate of wages has steadily gone up. The daily wage paid to an Arab for skilled labour is now from 250 to 600 mils, and for unskilled labour from 100 to 180 mils.* In Syria the wage ranges from 67 mils in older industries to 124 mils in newer ones. Factory labour in ‘Iraq is paid from 40 to 60 mils.
* 100 mils = 2 shillings.
29. Nor is it only in the towns that the landless fellah finds a livelihood. The Government's programme of public works means a continuous demand for labour, and a large number of Arabs are employed on roads and bridges and the like. More-over, the great expansion of citrus-cultivation, Arab as well as Jewish, has greatly increased the demand for agricultural labour; and for that, too, the rate of wages has risen. For general agricultural work it was 80 to 120 mils a day in 1931, and 100 to 150 mils in 1935. For tree-planting and nursery work it was 100 to 150 mils in 1931, and 150 to 200 mils in 1935.
30. It is not easy to say whether the rise of wages has meant a rise of real wages. The Arab Higher Committee asserted that the cost of living has gone up and that this is partly due to the artificial protection of Jewish industries. Undoubtedly the cost of living is higher than it was before the War; but the Jewish Agency cited official calculations to show that for some years past it has been steadily falling.
31. In the light of the foregoing considerations we have come to the conclusion that, despite the disproportion between their numbers and the amount of cultivable land they occupy, the fellaheen are on the whole better off than they were in 1920. But there is another consideration which we have not yet mentioned, and one on which there can be no controversy. The whole range of public services, the initiation of which we described in the preceding chapter, has steadily developed, to the benefit of the fellaheen. Except in periods of “ disturbance,” their lives and property have been reasonably safe. Their civil rights have been safeguarded by the Courts. The growth in their numbers has been largely due to the health services, combating malaria, reducing the infant death-rate, improving water-supply and sanitation. Education, if as yet it only meets half the demand, has to that extent enabled the rising generation to profit more easily from the technical instruction given in the Arab Agricultural College or by official advisers in the villages. Better roads and quicker transport have meant higher returns on market-produce. In sum, it may be said that, though much more could have been done if more money had been available, the equipment of Palestine with social services is more advanced than that of any of its neighbours,* and far more advanced than that of an Indian province or an African colony.
* A table comparing the revenue expenditure and trade of Palestine with those of neighbouring countries is given in Appendix 3.
32. It remains to examine the validity of the Jewish claim that this advance has been largely due to the establishment of the National Home. After considering the evidence submitted to us, both orally and in writing, by the Jewish representatives on this question, we have come to the following conclusions:—
(i) The large import of Jewish capital into Palestine has had a general fructifying effect on the economic life of the whole country.
(ii) The expansion of Arab industry and citriculture has been largely financed by the capital thus obtained.
(iii) Jewish example has done much to improve Arab cultivation, especially of citrus.
(iv) Owing to Jewish development and enterprise the employment of Arab labour has increased in urban areas, particularly in the ports.
(v) The reclamation and anti-malaria work undertaken in Jewish “ colonies ” have benefited all Arabs in the neighbourhood.
(vi) Institutions, founded with Jewish funds primarily to serve the National Home, have also served the Arab population. Hadassah, for example, treats Arab patients, notably at the Tuberculosis Hospital at Safad and the Radiology Institute at Jerusalem, admits Arab countryfolk to the clinics of its Rural Sick Benefit Fund, and does much infant welfare work for Arab mothers.
(vii) The general beneficent effect of Jewish immigration on Arab welfare is illustrated by the fact that the increase in the Arab population is most marked in urban areas affected by Jewish development. A comparison of the Census returns in 1922 and 1931 shows that, six years ago, the increase per cent in Haifa was 86, in Jaffa 62, in Jerusalem 37, while in purely Arab towns such as Nablus and Hebron it was only 7, and at Gaza there was a decrease of 2 per cent.33. The further claim, based on the Jewish contribution to revenue, seems to us indisputable. Arab witnesses argued that the Government could have spent more money in social services if the National Home had not, on the one hand, necessitated a more elaborate and costly administration than was needed for the Arabs, and if it had not, on the other hand, involved so large an expenditure on security to protect it from attack. But they could not deny that such public services as had in fact been provided had benefited their people; nor could they deny that the revenue available for those services had been largely provided by the Jews. It is impossible to calculate with anything like precision what share of taxation is borne by the Jews. But it is certain that much the greater part of the customs duties are paid by them, and the rising amount of customs-revenue has formed from 1920 to the present day the biggest item in the rising total revenue.*
*For the figures see page (206).
34. Our conclusion, then, is that, broadly speaking, the Arabs have shared to a considerable degree in the material benefits which Jewish immigration has brought to Palestine. The obligation of the Mandate in this respect has been observed. The economic position of the Arabs, regarded as a whole, has not so far been prejudiced by the establishment of the National Home. But we would add a rider to that judgment. First, the continuance of such economic benefit as the Arabs derive from the National Home depends on the continuance of its prosperity. If it were to encounter a serious set-back, if there were widespread unemployment, we think that Arab labour would be the first to suffer. Secondly, such economic advantage as the Arabs gain from Jewish immigration will steadily decrease and ultimately disappear if the political breach between the races continues to widen. Two peoples at war cannot promote each other's welfare. Boycott and bloodshed and all they mean in the breakdown of economic relationships, in the shrinking of trade, in the cost to Government and the contraction of public services—these things, if they continue, will soon undo all the good the coming of the Jews has done to Palestine as a whole.
3. Arab Nationalism.
35. It was not till we had announced the date on which we intended to leave the country that the Higher Committee decided to abandon its “boycott ” and co-operate with us in trying to find the way to peace in Palestine; and when at last they came before us, headed by the Mufti of Jerusalem, the first words of the prepared statement he made to us, were these: “ The Arab cause in Palestine is one which aims at national independence. In its essence it does not differ from similar movements amongst the Arabs in all other Arab territories.” And at the close of his statement he stated that the first cause of the “ disturbances " was “ the fact that the Arabs in Palestine were deprived of their natural and political rights ” ; and he summed up the Arab demands as (1) “ the abandonment of the experiment of the Jewish National Home ”, (2) “ the immediate and complete stoppage of Jewish immigration ”, (3) “the immediate and complete prohibition of the sale of Arab land to Jews ”, and (4) “ the solution of the Palestine problem on the same basis as that on which were solved the problems of 'Iraq, Syria and the Lebanon, namely, by the termination of the Mandate and by the conclusion of a treaty between Great Britain and Palestine by virtue of which a national and independent government in constitutional form will be established ”.
36. Thus it is clear that the standpoint of the Arab leaders has not shifted by an inch from that which they adopted when first they understood the implications of the Balfour Declaration. The events of 17 years have only served to stiffen and embitter their resistance, and, as they argue, to strengthen their case. And the core of their case, it must be stressed again, is political. There has been, no doubt, a sense of economic rivalry between the races; and the Arabs have been alarmed at the business capacity the Jews have shown and the financial resources they can command. But so far (as we have just explained) they have not suffered. On the balance the National Home has meant a substantial material gain to them. Not unnaturally they deny it. But, even if they could be persuaded to admit it, we are quite convinced it would not appreciably weaken their antagonism. Their feeling in the matter has been put in some such figurative language as this. “ You say we are better off: you say my house has been enriched by the strangers who have entered it. But it is my house, and I did not invite the strangers in, or ask them to enrich it, and I do not care how poor or bare it is if only I am master in it.”
37. Nor is the conflict in its essence an interracial conflict, arising from any old instinctive antipathy of Arabs towards Jews. There was little or no friction, as we have seen, between Arab and Jew in the rest of the Arab world until the strife in Palestine engendered it. And there has been precisely the same political trouble in 'Iraq, Syria and Egypt—agitation, rebellion and bloodshed—where there are no “ National Homes.” Quite obviously, then, the problem of Palestine is political. It as, as elsewhere, the problem of insurgent nationalism. The only difference is that in Palestine Arab nationalism is inextricably interwoven with antagonism to the Jews. And the reasons for that, it is worth repeating, are equally obvious. In the first place, the establishment of the National Home involved at the outset a blank negation of the rights implied in the principle of national self-government. Secondly, it soon proved to be not merely an obstacle to the development of national self-government, but apparently the only serious obstacle. Thirdly, as the Home has grown, the fear has grown with it that, if and when self-government is conceded, it may not be national in the Arab sense, but government by a Jewish majority. That is why it is difficult to be an Arab patriot and not to hate the Jews.
38. The logical consequence of this became increasingly clear as the Arab evidence proceeded. The demand for national independence takes priority of the demand for the stoppage of Jewish immigration and land purchase. Given inde-pendence, as the Mufti of Jerusalem said, the Arabs will deal with the Jews themselves. It follows that, even if it were possible to crystallize the National Home as it stands, to forbid another Jew to enter Palestine, or another Arab dunum to be bought, the mainspring of Arab agitation would remain untouched. We cannot, in fact, avoid the conclusion that restrictions on the growth of the National Home, whether or not they may be desirable for other reasons, would not remove the basic cause of Arab discontent. The National Home in Arab eyes is already too big. But even if it were far smaller, even if it had been crystallized in 1925, the Arab attitude would be much the same. Big or small, it blocks the way to national independence. Big or small, the Arabs insist on their right to govern it as part of a self-governed Palestine.
39. The story of the last seventeen years is proof that this Arab nationalism with its anti-Jewish spearhead is not a new or transient phenomenon. It was there at the beginning: its strength and range have steadily increased; and it seems evident to us from what we saw and heard that it has not yet reached its climax. Both internal and external factors are forcing on its growth. Two of the internal factors are pre-dominant. First, the movement is now sustained by a far more efficient and comprehensive political machine than existed in earlier years. The centralization of control which we noted as an alarming feature of the outbreak in 1933 has now been as fully effected as is possible in any Arab country. All the political parties present a “ common front ” and their leaders sit together on the Arab Higher Committee. Christian as well as Moslem Arabs are represented on it. There is no opposition party. If anything is said in public or done in daylight against the known desires of the Arab Higher Committee, it is the work not of a more moderate, but a more full-blooded nationalism than theirs. In every town there is an Arab National Committee, which has its representatives in the neighbouring villages. How widespread is this organization and how well it does its work was shown by the conduct of the Arab population as a whole in the course of the disturbances last year. Our own experience was a further proof of it. As long as the Arab Higher Committee maintained the “ boycott,” no Arab came near us: and, even when it was withdrawn, the only witnesses permitted to give evidence before us were, with four exceptions, members or agents of the Higher Committee. The exceptions were the Melkite Archbishop of Galilee and the Rev. N. Mamura, who appeared with the full assent of the Arab Higher Committee and in company wih one of its Christian Members; Mr. George Antonius, whose appearance was likewise approved; and Hassan Sidki Bey Dajani, who is at least a sufficientiy ardent nationalist to have been interned at Sarafand. All those four witnesses supported in toto the Arab Higher Committee’s case.
40. This nationalist organization is served by a copious and vigorous Press. There are four daily newspapers printed in Arabic. Al Liwa (circulation 3,000 to 4,000) is the official organ of the Palestine Arab Party, the Mufti's Party, and Jamal Bey El Husseini is its proprietor. Falastin (4,000 to 6,ooo), which is in Christian Arab ownership, supports the National Defence Party, the President of which is Ragheb Bey Nashashibi. Al Difa’a (4,000 to 6,000) speaks for the Istiqlal Party, of which Awni Bey Abdelhadi is the Secretary-General. Al Jamia al Islamiya (about 2,000) is more independent of party organizations, but is strongly nationalist. There is also a weekly journal, printed in English, Palestine and Transjordan (about 1,500), of which the Managing Editor is Fuad Eff. Saba, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee. It will be observed that all these newspapers but one are associated more or less closely with members of the Arab Higher Committee; and, while they differ often enough on personal issues or points of tactics—Falastin, for example, during our stay in Jerusalem took a less intransigent line on the question of the “ boycott ” than the others—they reiterate in unbroken unison the full Arab claim for national independence. Nor is there a trace of moderation in their tone. During the “ disturbances ” last year Arab newspapers were suspended 34 times and officially warned 11 times. And if evidence were needed to show that the ending of the “ strike ” meant little change of heart, we could find it ourselves in the general temper and often in the actual language that appeared in print from day to day while we were in the country. Al D’ifa’a, for instance, published an article on the 21st December headed “ The Claws of the Wolf ”. “ The Arabs of Palestine ”, it declared, “ are looking at the Government with an eye of hate ”; and, fixing the responsibility for all the trouble “ first on the Government and then on the Jews ”, it hinted that more “ sacrifices ” might be needed to save the country from “ the madness of imperialism ”.
41. The second internal factor in the growth of Arab nationalism is education. Except for a few private schools, the whole of the Arab educational system, unlike the Jewish, is maintained by the Government: but, for reasons which will be examined in a later chapter,* it is at least as purely Arab in its character as the Jewish system is Jewish. At both the primary and secondary stages the teaching is in Arabic only : apart from scientific subjects, the curriculum is almost wholly devoted to the literature, history and traditions of the Arabs; and all the schoolmasters from the humblest village teacher to the head of the Government Arab College are Arabs. A school-system thus purely Arab may be better for Arab children than a “ mixed ” system with a British element in its staff and in its field of instruction; it is the right way, it is said, to make them “good Arabs ”. Whether that is so or not, it certainly makes them good Arab patriots. The general tendency of schoolmasters to be politically-minded is nowhere more marked than in the Middle East: and it is not to be expected that Arab schoolmasters in Palestine, Government servants though they are, should be able to repress entirely their sympathy with the nationalist cause. It is significant, though the attitude of the parents must not be forgotten, that practically every Arab school throughout the country closed its doors during the “ strike ” last year. The boys of the Government Arab College, the corner-stone of the system, were not prevented by their masters from breaking the windows of a private “ mixed ” school at Jerusalem which continued at work. All the senior Arab schoolmasters and officials in the Education Department signed the manifesto of the 30th June, 1936. Two of the masters were interned at Sarafand.
* See Chapter XVI.
42. Arab education thus produces one of the most intractable difficulties in the situation. We cannot wish there should be less of it, merely because of its political results: and in a later chapter we shall explain that under present conditions such drastic alterations in its curriculum or teaching-staff as might be devised with a view to neutralizing its political influence are so difficult as to be virtually impracticable. The fact, therefore, must be faced that every year some thousands of young Arabs emerge from a school-system which has inevitably fostered their nascent patriotism.
43. Nor is that the end of their political education. We have seen how the “ Youth Movement ” which has played so large a part in recent years in the efflorescence of nationalism in Egypt and Syria, has lately spread in Palestine. It inevitably attracts the keener-minded young Arabs. It offers them opportunities of active service in the national cause as “ Scouts ”—and these “ Scouts ” do actually and usefully scout—or as patrols to enforce a “ strike ” or “ boycott,” or even, it is suspected, as assassins. It is, as might be supposed, an extremist movement. Its adherents have nothing to do with “ moderates.” They are quick to denounce the official leadership of their cause when they think it too slow or too timid. They talk of new men and new methods and, as in Syria, they take a sympathetic interest in Fascism. They are quite unmoved by economic arguments. They interpret their crusade in terms of conflict and sacrifice, not of peace and prosperity. “ British talk,” writes one who knows the Arabs well, “ of balanced budgets and higher standards of living is poor cold stuff compared to the heroics of the nationalists. No gallant youth of any race would hesitate for a moment under which banner to enlist.” This Youth Movement has not yet, it seems, produced a notable leader, and at present, therefore, its zeal is at the command of older men. Nor has it acquired such political power as has been exercised in recent years by the student class in Cairo. But, if its importance should not be overrated, neither should it be minimized. The Youth Movement, in conjunction with the Arab system of education, means at the least that the strength of Arab nationalism in Palestine is not likely to decrease as time goes on.
44. So much for the internal factors which are stimulating the growth of Arab nationalism. We have already emphasized the importance of the external factors; and we need only point out here that their influence on the situation is also increasing and will probably continue to increase. On the one hand, the urge of the Jews to escape from Eastern Europe is not likely to grow less in the course of the next few years. On the other hand, the realization of national independence in Egypt, and in the near future in Syria, and the Lebanon, and the admission of these countries into the League of Nations will quicken and embitter the Palestinian Arabs consciousness of their political inferiority. The sight of Syria, especially, when, in less than three years from now, she emerges from mandatory tutelage and stands in friendship and alliance on an equal footing with France, will be a constant irritant; and the sympathy of Syria with the aspirations of the Palestinian Arabs may well be more pronounced when she is no longer subject to the restraining influence which the French Government has hitherto exercised on behalf of its mandatory colleague at Jerusalem.
45. The ugliest element in the picture remains to be noted. Arab nationalism in Palestine has not escaped infection with the foul disease which has so often defiled the cause of nationalism in other lands. Acts of “ terrorism ” in various parts of the country have long been only too familiar reading in the newspapers. As in Ireland in the worst days after the War or in Bengal, intimidation at the point of a revolver has become a not infrequent feature of Arab politics. Attacks by Arabs on Jews, unhappily, are no new thing. The novelty in the present situation is attacks by Arabs on Arabs. For an Arab to be suspected of a lukewarm adherence to the nationalist cause is to invite a visit from a body of “ gunmen.” Such a visit was paid to the editor of one of the Arabic newspapers last August shortly after he had published articles in favour of calling off the “ strike.” Similar visits were paid during our stay in Palestine to wealthy Arab landowners or businessmen who were believed to have made inadequate contributions to the fund which the Arab Higher Committee were raising to compensate Arabs for damage suffered during the “ disturbances.” Nor do the “ gunmen ” stop at intimidation. It is not known who murdered the Arab Acting Mayor of Hebron last August, but no one doubts that he lost his life because he had dared to differ from the “ extremist ” policy of the Higher Committee. The attempt to murder the Arab Mayor of Haifa, which took place a few days after we left Palestine, is also, we are told, regarded as political. It is not surprising that a number of Arabs have asked for Government protection.
46. Such, in the briefest compass we could achieve, is our analysis of the character and sentiment of the two national groups whose opposition constitutes the problem of Palestine. To sum up: —
The establishment of the Jewish National Home has so far been to the economic advantage of the Arabs as a whole.
Jewish nationalism is as intense and self-centred as Arab nationalism. Both are growing forces, and the gulf between them is widening.
What the Arabs most desire is national independence. What they most fear is Jewish domination.
What the Jews most desire is freedom to develop fully the ideas inherent in the National Home and in particular to admit to it as many immigrants as they themselves think can be “ absorbed ”. What they most fear is a crystallization of the National Home as it is, leaving the Jews in a permanent minority in Palestine, exposed to the possibility of Arab domination or even, in certain not inconceivable circumstances, of suffering the fate that befell the Greeks at Smyrna or the Assyrians in 'Iraq.4. The Position of the Government.
47. We doubt whether there is any country in the world where the position of the Government is less enviable than that of the Government of Palestine, poised as it is above two irreconcilable communities, compelled to follow a path between them marked out by an elaborate, yet not very lucid, legal instrument, watched at every step it takes by both contending parties inside the country and watched from outside by experienced critics on the Permanent Mandates Commission and by multitudes of Jews throughout the world.
48. Its task would have been easier if Palestine had been a British territory. The Government could then have set itself with a free hand to devise all possible measures for bringing the two races together and building up a sense of common citizenship between them. English could have been made the sole official language, and might have helped Arabs and Jews, as it has so notably helped the varied peoples of India, to understand each other. The whole educational system could have been kept under effective Government control and directed towards the same unifying purpose. Above all, the personnel of the administration might have been entirely British except in very minor posts. If the whole District Administration in particular had consisted of British officials, carefully selected for the work, speaking both Arabic and Hebrew, fully conversant with the history and claims of both races, and instructed that their first duty was to try, by close personal contact with Arabs and Jews, to bring about a better understanding between them, then, it is conceivable that the gulf might not have widened quite so fast and so far as it has.
49. But all this was inhibited—in general by the mandatory character of the administration, and in particular by the specific requirements of the Mandate. In general, the principles and intentions of the Mandate System made it as impracticable for Palestine to be governed on normal Crown Colony lines as it was to treat 'Iraq as if it were a province of British India or Syria as if it were part of “ overseas France”. Thus, at the very outset, as has been seen it was regarded as part of the Government’s duty to appoint as many Arab and Jewish officials as practicable in order that they might qualify by experience for their ultimate task of self-government. In happier circumstances those “ Palestinian ” officials might have done something, though not as much as British officials, to promote a better feeling between their respective peoples: but, as things were, they could do little, and, as things are, they can do nothing. No Arab official is given charge of a Jewish District, no Jewish official of an Arab one. Nor can they so neutralize their natural feelings as to play the part of intermediaries between their peoples. In quiet times, we were informed, they have done their full duty to the Government and co-operated loyally with each other; but in times of political conflict they draw apart and cannot act as one administration. It was not denied that, as the “ disturbances ” of last year grew more and more serious, so the Arab District Officers and police, with some notable exceptions, were less and less able to withstand the strain imposed upon their loyalty. Fortunately, there is little present likelihood of an analogous situation on the Jewish side: but should it arise, Jewish officials and police would be put in the same difficult position as their Arab colleagues were last year.
50. The particular requirements of the Mandate were an equally insuperable obstacle to the adoption of a thoroughgoing policy for bringing the races together and fostering the gradual growth of a common devotion to their common homeland. The Mandate, indeed, just because it was framed mainly to realize the nationalist ideals of Zionism, could scarcely have been better calculated than it is to keep the races apart. In the first place it imposed the use of three official languages. It affirmed, secondly, “ the right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language ”. It established, thirdly, a Jewish Agency to “ advise and co-operate ” with the Government—a provision which was counterpoised in due course, though not fairly balanced, by the establishment of the Supreme Moslem Council and the Arab Executive and its successor. In the result, the two communities, instead of being drawn together by the common forms and symbols of a single citizenship, have adopted the forms and symbols of separate nationhood. There are three national flags flown in Palestine—the Union Jack; the red, white, green and black Arab flag; and the blue and white banner of Zionism. Nobody wants a Palestinian flag. If there are not three National Anthems, it is only because there is no Arab hymn to sing with “ God Save the King ” and the Zionist“ Hatikva ”. And last, and most prejudicial to the cause of peace, there are three political bodies in Palestine which lay claim to the allegiance of Palestinians—the Mandatory Administration, the Arab Higher Committee allied with the Supreme Moslem Council, and the Jewish Agency allied with the Va’ad Leumi. They might almost be called three Governments; and it is the simple truth that of the three the Government of Palestine makes the least appeal to the natural loyalty of either the Arabs or the Jews.
51. Its hands tied by the Mandate, the Government of Palestine has been quite unable to prevent the steady frustration of its hopes of concord and co-operation. Such positive efforts as it has made from time to time to bridge the gulf have all proved useless; and it has tended more and more to adopt the rôle of the impartial arbiter. But here again, unfortunately, the Mandate has not been helpful: for a strict obedience to its provisions against discrimination between the races has fostered the growth of a kind of mechanical impartiality which makes neither for good govetnment nor, in fact, for better relations between the races.
52. A clear illustration of this is the process of recruitment. If there had been no Mandate, the Government might from the outset have adopted the principle that, Arabs and Jews being members of one political community, capacity would be the sole test for official employment. But under the Mandate it has been assumed that the number of official posts should be, as far as possible, shared between Arabs and Jews in proportion to their total numbers. Not only, therefore, must a vacancy in an Arab or Jewish area be filled by an Arab or a Jew; but, for posts which do not involve direct contact with the people, the first question, we understand, is often not whether the man is the best man for the post, but whether it is the turn of an Arab or a Jew to be appointed.
53. This principle of proportional treatment goes far beyond the question of personnel: it permeates the whole field of the administration. In 1933 the Government decided that from 30 to 33 per cent of the labour employed on public works should be Jewish, the percentage being calculated on wages and not on the total number of working days. This percentage was based on two factors: the Government accepted 37 per cent as the percentage of Jewish contribution to public revenue and 18 per cent as the approximate proportion of Jews in the population. The calculations involved in basing the amount of the Government grant to Jewish education on (a) the amount spent on Arab education and (b) the ratio between the Arab and Jewish “ school-age ” populations have led to a sharp dispute between the Department of Education and the Va’ad Leumi. The grant for health services is similarly determined. In every department and in every detail the most scrupulous care is taken to preserve the balance. It is a very small point, but none the less significant, that the three cars provided by Government for our personal use were hired from Moslem Arab, Christian Arab, and Jewish firms respectively. We doubt, indeed, if anywhere else the principle of impartiality between different sections of a community has been so strictly applied. The Government of Palestine might almost be described as government by arithmetic. And the worst of it is that the more strictly and widely it operates, the more it nourishes the spirit of antagonism between the races. Both the Arab and the Hebrew newspapers are jealously on the watch for the slightest deviation from the narrow path, and during our stay in Palestine indignant protests were published on the following, among other, grounds—that Jewish scavengers in Jerusalem were not supplied with winter clothes as Arab scavengers had been; that a Jewish doctor was appointed to the hospital at Jaffa while there are no Arab doctors in Tel Aviv; that trunk-calls to and from Tel Aviv have to pass through the Jaffa Exchange; that on the main gate of the Jerusalem Museum the title of the institution is inscribed in English and Hebrew, but not in Arabic.
54. Whether or not it was necessary to extend the principle of impartiality or non-discrimination so far as it has been extended, the maintenance of the principle as one of the bases of the Government’s policy is, of course, unquestionably right; and, though individual officials have sometimes by incautious language betrayed a personal bias out of keeping with the twofold obligation of the Mandate, the Government as a whole can claim to have honestly maintained the principle. The point we wish to emphasize is that official impartiality has had no helpful effect on the relations between the races. Neither of them believes in its sincerity; and it has whetted rather than blunted their jealousy and antagonism.
55. The same is true of another marked feature of the Government's policy. From first to last it has been conciliatory. As regards the Jews, it has gone far, if not always as far as they have wished, to meet their claims. In applying, for example, the principle of economic absorptive capacity as the limiting factor for immigration, the case submitted by the Jewish Agency has always been most carefully examined. In municipal matters Tel Aviv has been ridden on a very light rein; no attempt has ever been made to compel a strict observance of the Ordinance. But the Jews, of course, since they accept the Mandate, need conciliating less than the Arabs, who repudiate it. And, if one thing stands out clear from the record of the Mandatory administration, it is the leniency with which Arab political agitation, even when carried to the point of violence and murder, has been treated. The facts recorded in Chapter III speak for themselves. After each successive outbreak, punishment was sparing and clemency the rule: there was no real attempt at disarmament, nor any general repression: freedom of speech was not curtailed. On the Government's handling of the last outbreak it is not our duty to express opinions: the matter was implicitly ruled out from our terms of reference; but we feel bound to say, and we think the Government itself would be the first to admit, that it carried the policy of conciliation to its farthest possible limit. Again we are not discussing the wisdom of the policy. Through all these years, indeed, it has been obvious that the only chance of peace in Palestine, the only hope of attaining that ultimate harmony and co-operation on which the whole future of the Mandate depended, was to try to reconcile the Arabs to it. Our point, once more, is that conciliation, like impartiality, has failed. If the patient treatment of the Arabs last year has been sharply criticized, its critics must confess that it had at least this merit. It proved to demonstration that conciliation is no use. It has now been tried for 17 years, and at the end the Arabs, taken as a whole, are more hostile to the Jews and much more hostile to the Government than they were at the beginning.
5. The Arab and Jewish Proposals.
56. The situation thus compels the question what other line of policy, if any, has a better prospect of success; and with this in our minds we listened with the greatest attention to the proposals put before us by the official spokesmen of the two contending parties.
57. The solution of the problem advanced by the Arab Committee was, as has been seen, a simple one. The prompt establishment of national independence, they asserted, is the only way to peace in Palestine. In other circumstances, it is evident from the course of British policy in neighbouring countries that that claim would not be unfavourably regarded by British public opinion. But in the circumstances as they are we find it difficult to believe that Arab public opinion on its side really thinks the claim can be conceded. For it means the surrender of the Jewish National Home to government by Arabs who outnumber the Jews by more than two to one.
58. The Arab Higher Committee assured us that the welfare of the Jewish minority would be safeguarded not only by specific provisions in the Treaty which would accompany the grant of independence but also by the habitual toleration which Jewish minorities have enjoyed in other Arab lands. But it must be remembered that those Jewish minorities elsewhere are relatively very small and that the Jewish minority in Palestine is already regarded by the Arabs as too big. On this point the following questions put to the Mufti of Jerusalem and his replies should be noted : —
Q. Does His Eminence think that this country can assimilate and digest the 400,000 Jews now in the country?
A, No.
Q. Some of them would have to be removed by a process kindly or painful as the case may be?
A. We must leave all this to the future.We are not questioning the sincerity or the humanity of the Mufti’s intentions and those of his colleagues; but we cannot forget what recently happened, despite treaty provisions and explicit assurances, to the Assyrian minority in `'Iraq; nor can we forget that the hatred of the Arab politician for the National Home has never been concealed and that it has now permeated the Arab population as a whole.
59. Nor is it only a question of humanity. We have tried to show that the National Home is essentially a European institution, essentially modern, and, on its economic side especially, intimately linked with the outer world. We mean to imply no reflection on the natural ability of Arab leaders if we say that the National Home, with its peculiar and delicate economic constitution, cannot prosper under a government which has had little experience of modern capitalism and is not fully acquainted with financial and commercial problems on a worldwide scale. It seems clear to us, in fact, that the establishment of an independent government of Palestine at this time would violate the undertaking in Article 2 of the Mandate to place the country “ under such political, administrative and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home ”. Nor, we think, can it be argued that, since a Home has been established, we can honourably cease to interest ourselves in its security. Here, indeed, as in other aspects of the problem, the actual circumstances of to-day are as compelling in themselves as any previous commitments. There are 400,000 Jews in Palestine. They have come there not only with our permission but with our encouragement. We are answerable, within reason, for their welfare. We cannot, in the present state of affairs, abandon them to the good intentions of an Arab government.
6o. This seems to us quite plain, and we cannot help thinking it must be plain to any thoughtful Arab statesman also. Disputants are bound to put forward their maximum claims when their case is up for trial; and the Arab Higher Committee could scarcely be expected to ask for less than the national independence which, on their interpretation of the agreement, was promised to King Hussein, and which is now enjoyed or about to be enjoyed by all Arabs in Asia outside Palestine. But surely they must realise, even on their own showing, that two wrongs do not make a right; and we doubt whether British prestige and the belief in British good faith would stand higher anywhere in the Arab world if we tried to escape from our difficulties in Palestine by an open betrayal of the Jews.
61. Jewish opposition, moreover, would have to be reckoned with. The Jews, as has been observed, are believed to have secretly armed themselves to a certain extent. Convinced as they are that an Arab government would mean the frustration of all their efforts and ideals, that it would convert the National Home into one more cramped and dangerous ghetto, it seems only too probable that they would fight rather than submit to Arab rule. And to repress a Jewish rebellion against British policy would be as unpleasant a task as the repression of Arab rebellions has been.
62. To the Jewish extremists the solution of the problem is as simple as that put forward by the Arab Higher Committee. Mr. Jabotinsky and the Revisionists demand that the expansion of the National Home should continue at an accelerated pace. Trans-Jordan should be opened to Jewish immigrants and room quickly found in this larger Palestine for many millions of Jews. The whole country would thus become in fact Eretz Israel and in due course obtain its independence as a Jewish State. It is true that, as explained in Chapter II, the Jews understood, in the days of the Balfour Declaration, that some such result as this might be its final outcome. But the whole situation has been changed by what has happened in the interval. In present circumstances the Revisionist programme is not merely at plain variance with our legal and moral obligations: its execution would convert the friendship of all the Arab peoples into implacable resentment and react beyond their borders throughout the Moslem world.
63. More serious and prolonged consideration must be given to the Jewish proposals as submitted to us by Dr. Weizmann and his colleagues on behalf of the Jewish Agency and the Va’ad Leumi. Those witnesses are men of the world, who realize, better, perhaps, than the Arabs, the difficulty in which Your Majesty's Government is placed, and who realize, too, the dangers that confront themselves. Their representations, it was clear, had been very thoroughly and anxiously con-sidered: they were put before us at full length and with a multitude of corroborative facts and figures. Indeed, the Jewish evidence, oral and in writing, was an impressive performance, characteristic of the industry and scientific standards of the National Home. Nor was it surprising that such a full-scale effort should be made on its behalf in view of the fact that its fate, at this moment of crisis, might be seriously affected for good or ill by our Report. For that reason also it was natural, no doubt, that the Jewish case, like the Arab, should be maximal; that the Jews, like the Arabs, should ask, or rather insist on having, 100 per cent of what they claim as theirs by right. Nor could we forget what the Jews in Palestine never forget—the sufferings of the Jews in Europe, and the incentive they constitute for trying to stretch the bounds of the National Home to their utmost limit.
64. The proposals can be clearly summarized. We were told that peace could only be attained in Palestine by the application of the Mandate interpreted at every point in accordance with the full Jewish claims. There must be no new restriction on immigration. Its rate must continue to be “determined ” only by the “ economic absorptive capacity ” of the country, and must be kept up to the limit of that capacity. No new restrictions must be placed on the sale of Arab land to Jews. No measures must be taken to prevent the Jewish population from becoming in due course a majority in Palestine; and, if and when it becomes a majority, no veto should be put on Palestine becoming a Jewish State, in the sense that the Jews would have a major voice in its government. At this point only was a concession made. The Jews did not wish, they said, to be “ dominated ” by the Arabs, neither did they wish to “ dominate ” them. They were prepared, therefore, to adhere to the principle of “ parity.” If a Legislative Council were now established, and if the present Jewish minority were given an equal number of seats thereon with the present Arab majority, the Jews would never claim more than that equal number, whatever the future ratio between Arab and Jewish population might become.
65. If the Government would adopt this policy without hesitation or equivocation and make it clear that any illegal agitation against it would be promptly and firmly repressed, then, the Jewish witnesses assured us, all would be well. The Arab extremists, it was suggested or to be inferred, would at once lose their hold on public opinion. The moderates would come to the front and co-operate with Government. Common economic interests between Arab and Jew would re-assert themselves.- Educated Arabs for the most part would come to acquiesce in the frustration of their national ambitions, while the fellaheen, anxious only to be left to till their fields in peace, would welcome the collapse of a dangerous and costly agitation in which their hearts had never been engaged. In other words, the policy laid down in Mr. Ramsay MacDonald’s letter requires no alteration, but only enforcement. The apparent obstacle is an unreal obstacle. Arab nationalism in Palestine has been artificially puffed up by methods which the Government should never have allowed. Only a little firmness is needed to deflate it.
66. We understand that this optimistic outlook is widely shared in England and elsewhere outside Palestine; and it is not to be lightly brushed aside. If, indeed, it were justified by the facts, the difficulties of the problem, it is obvious, would be greatly reduced. But we are convinced it is not justified. It is founded, in our opinion, on two false estimates. It underrates the strength of Arab nationalism throughout the country and particularly among the young. And it overrates the help which Arab moderates would be willing or able to render in the continued enforcement of the policy of 1931.
67. It is far from our purpose to cast any reflection on the attitude of the moderates in the past. It is greatly to their credit that they should have yielded as much as they have to the pressure of successive High Commissioners and co-operated as much as they have with the Government and in some cases with the Jews. Thus before the recent deterioration in the situation, only a few of the Arabs invited to sit on “ mixed ” Government boards or committees refused outright to do so on the ground that they included Jews or, in their view, too large a proportion of Jews. Even now Arabs are still serving on such bodies as the General Agricultural Council, the Standing Com-mittee for Commerce and Industry, or the Harbour and Road Boards. But these Arabs, we are informed, do not regard themselves as co-operating with the Jews, but only, as they were asked to do, with the Government, whose official representative is always in the chair.
68. In the “ mixed ” municipalities. Arab mayors and councillors have succeeded in working with Jewish colleagues in the past, except, of course, in periods of “ disturbance ”. Friction has always been less marked in Haifa than elsewhere, and a policy of co-operation with the Jews has been pursued. Jewish interests in Jaffa have received a fair share of municipal attention. In Jerusalem, where the mayor has always been an Arab though the majority of the taxpayers have for some time past been Jews, municipal questions have not been determined as a rule on racial lines; but the strength of latent feeling was revealed last year by the bitter quarrel which broke out when the “ disturbances ” began and the mayor became a member of the Arab Higher Committee.
69. In business, likewise, moderate-minded Arabs have worked in quiet times with Jews. The members of the Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce have maintained a fair measure of co-operation: but Arab and Jewish citrus-growers are separately organized and have not often succeeded in adjusting their conflicting interests. And, of course, there has been considerable commercial, though little social, intercourse between individuals. Even the breach created between Tel Aviv and Jaffa in 1929 was overcome; and before the troubles of last year many Arabs of Jaffa, particularly women of the upper classes, shopped at Tel Aviv.
70. That is by no means a negligible record; but two comments must be passed on it.
First, Arab “ moderation ” has never extended to the higher plane of politics. Willingness to co-operate with Jews in municipal government is unhappily no evidence at all of willingness to co-operate on a national scale: and Arab councillors, who can agree with Jews about improving an urban water-supply or regulating a market or laying out a park, cannot agree with them about the rate of immigration or land-purchase or the constitution of a Legislative Council. Practically all the Arab mayors, it will be remembered, attended the nationalist meeting at Jaffa which preceded the outbreak of 1933.* And of course, the moderates among the Arab politicians have always made common cause with the extremists on major national issues.
* See page 83 (Chapter III, 77).
71. Secondly, the will to co-operate has never been strong enough to survive a crisis. When race-feeling was aroused, when an outbreak became imminent, then, if ever, was the time for the moderates to cling to the principle of co-operation, to seek for common ground, to use all their influence to avert the storm. But in public at any rate, whatever may have happened in private, they were never strong enough to take the line of compromise and conciliation. And in each case, of course, the threads of co-operation were broken by the outbreak itself, and only slowly and partially knitted up again when it was over. At the present moment, with few exceptions, the two races are holding rigidly apart. The Jerusalem Municipality, as a “ mixed ” body, is virtually out of action. A separate Arab Chamber of Commerce has been established. Jaffa and Tel Aviv are once more at open war, embittered now by the building of a new jetty at Tel Aviv, which was necessitated by the cessation of work last year at Jaffa port. There is little or no Arab shopping now at Jewish shops and social intercourse has practically ceased. In Galilee this is peculiarly significant. Be-fore 1929, at any rate, the relations between the Arabs of Galilee and, the old-established Arab-speaking Jews were not unfriendly. Now there is serious tension in Tiberias and the Jews of Safad are segregated into something like a ghetto.
72. Another reason for questioning the wisdom of trying to base a settlement on moderate Arab opinion is the difficulty of finding anyone now to, profess it. The moderates have always been nationalists. They have been exposed like other Arabs to the pressure of events and influences which have operated, as has been pointed out, to inflame and intensify their nationalism. And if it has never been easy for an Arab who is proud of his race to hold aloof from his more ardent compatriots, it is harder than ever now—and not only, or even mainly, because it is more dangerous.
73. Our last reason is drawn from experience. As we pointed out in discussing the situation in 1925, the extremist has usually kept the lead, the moderate has rarely counted, in a struggle for national independence. We see no reason why the history of nationalism in Ireland, India, Egypt—to mention only countries with which Britain has been concerned—should not repeat itself in Palestine.
74. For these reasons we find ourselves reluctantly convinced that no prospect of a lasting settlement can be founded on moderate Arab nationalism. At every successive crisis in the past that hope has been entertained. In each case it has proved illusory.
75. If the opinions we have stated in the preceding para-graphs are well-founded, it is clear that the policy recom-mended by the Jewish Agency and the Va’ad Leumi will not bring peace to Palestine. Its execution, we have no doubt,would be resisted by the whole force of Arab nationalism, whether in some general outbreak or in recurrent “disturbances.” For it would mean the influx of the maximum number of Jews for which the National Home and its supporters oversea could find or make employment. It would mean a Jewish population mounting steadily, if all went well, towards a majority over the Arab population, with the prospect which that implies of ultimate Jewish control over the whole country. The Arabs, therefore, would be bound to regard the process as the gradual conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State.
76. It has sometimes crossed our minds that this conversion might conceivably have been accomplished, once for all, as an act of war. In terms of Realpolitik the British had conquered the country from the Turks and were entitled to do what they liked with it. If any Arab contribution to victory had been ignored and any undertakings to them brushed aside and if the new frontier had at once been drawn and the new Jewish State at once established, it is possible, perhaps, that the Arabs would by now have acquiesced. But it is far harder to imagine the conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State in the present circumstances as, so to speak, an act of peace. It is true that Jewish immigration is not merely sanctioned but required by solemn international agreements. It is true that the Jews enter Palestine “ as of right and not on sufferance.” None the less, the Arabs regard their entry, sustained as it is from time to time by force in the teeth of their resistance, as in the nature of an invasion, and the process by which they gradually rise towards a majority in the country as a sort of creeping conquest.
77. But, if Arab opposition to the policy recommended by the Jewish Agency and the Va’ad Leumi seems to us inevitable, we do not suggest it would be formidable. It would be ludicrous to suppose that it is beyond the resources of Your Majesty's Government to deal with a rebellion on so small a scale and so ill-equipped for modem warfare. But we do suggest that, before committing itself to a course of repression, British public opinion would have to be convinced that there is no other means by which justice can be done in Palestine. And we go further. We venture to think that Jewish public opinion throughout the world, if it could realise as clearly as we do that the policy advocated by its spokesmen entails the recurrent use of force, would likewise hesitate to press for its adoption, unless, again, there is demonstrably no other way by which its aspirations can be fairly satisfied. The instruments of force, it is true, the soldiers and aircraft, the bombs and machine-guns, are British: they must be British, for Your Majesty's Government cannot stand aside and let the Jews and Arabs fight their quarrel out. But that does not veil from Jewish eyes the harsh realities of repression; and, if it could be shown that a reasonable chance existed of solving the problem by other means, we believe that the spirit of Zionism, as we understand it, would revolt against the use of force, all the more strongly because it is not its own.
78. It is clear to us, therefore, that neither the Arab nor the Jewish proposals, as officially put before us, afford a basis for a peaceful or lasting settlement. We have sought accordingly, with the aid of all those witnesses who took a moderate line, to find a middle path. We have exhaustively considered what might be done in one field after another in execution of the Mandate to improve the prospect of peace. In the ensuing second part of this Report we have embodied the results of this inquiry.