iwmlondonischanging
Falkirk Herald 08 07 22, PALESTINE AND THE MANDATE
PALESTINE AND THE MANDATE, 8 July, #1922Live, Falkirk Herald
“..The present difficulties have arisen from different opinions as to what was meant by this project of a National Home. Many had assumed that it meant merely a settlement – a large settlement but still only a settlement – of Jews among a population predominantly Arab, and if that were the case, then under the accepted doctrine of self-determination the Arabs would have a considerable voice, if not a decisive one, in the government of the country.
“The Arabs, it was asserted in the debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday, would not have any objection to receiving Jewish settlers in the country, so to speak, as guests, and the point of the accusation against the Government’s present policy is that certain proposed arrangements for the development of Palestine go beyond this conception of Jewish settlement. It is asserted that these measures tend towards putting Palestine under the control of organisations promoted by the Zionist Movement.
In particular the concession agreed to be given to a Mr Rutenberg granting him powers for large commercial exploitation of the country, is objected to as threatening Arab interests. Looked at broadly, this controversy is one which might have been expected to arise if the Zionist ideal of a National Home was to be taken seriously. The Jews are, by the practice of centuries accustomed to handling large commercial affairs.
Almost their whole population in the scattered countries of Europe and America is a town population. It is true that in Palestine there are agricultural communities recently established by Jews to whom Zionism has been a sort of poetical inspiration, a dream of a return to the ancient pastoral life of the Jews. But the arrival of Jewish interests necessarily brought into the population an element which would tend to provide the managers of the country.
The native Arabs, as Churchill pointed out, could not compete with the Jews when it came to making arrangements for developing the country. Such a state of things was bound to produce a certain conflict before the new regime had had time to establish itself, to conciliate native interests, and show that it existed for the good of the country. Churchill did not defend the Government’s position, especially in regard to the Rutenberg concession in any detail, but he did assert that the system of irrigation and introduction of electric power which the scheme proposed would work to the advantage of the Arabs no less than the Jews, and that the Government had seen to it that the civil and religious rights of the Arabs were uninjured.
This is good as far as it goes, but it is the duty of the Government to see that the scheme of Zionists and others in Palestine are not only for the good of the country as a whole but are made acceptable to the Arab population. The best contrived plans might go wrong if the impression got abroad that they were being imposed on a reluctant population, even for their own good. The case in the House of Commons was put, on the Arab side, by those Unionist malcontents who have a special interest in attacking the Government, and that fact deprived their accusation of more than half their value.
The vote of the House showed that there is no serious apprehension in regard to the effect of Zionist measures in Palestine and with that provisional conclusion we may rest satisfied.”
Falkirk Herald 08 07 22, PALESTINE AND THE MANDATE
PALESTINE AND THE MANDATE, 8 July, #1922Live, Falkirk Herald
“..The present difficulties have arisen from different opinions as to what was meant by this project of a National Home. Many had assumed that it meant merely a settlement – a large settlement but still only a settlement – of Jews among a population predominantly Arab, and if that were the case, then under the accepted doctrine of self-determination the Arabs would have a considerable voice, if not a decisive one, in the government of the country.
“The Arabs, it was asserted in the debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday, would not have any objection to receiving Jewish settlers in the country, so to speak, as guests, and the point of the accusation against the Government’s present policy is that certain proposed arrangements for the development of Palestine go beyond this conception of Jewish settlement. It is asserted that these measures tend towards putting Palestine under the control of organisations promoted by the Zionist Movement.
In particular the concession agreed to be given to a Mr Rutenberg granting him powers for large commercial exploitation of the country, is objected to as threatening Arab interests. Looked at broadly, this controversy is one which might have been expected to arise if the Zionist ideal of a National Home was to be taken seriously. The Jews are, by the practice of centuries accustomed to handling large commercial affairs.
Almost their whole population in the scattered countries of Europe and America is a town population. It is true that in Palestine there are agricultural communities recently established by Jews to whom Zionism has been a sort of poetical inspiration, a dream of a return to the ancient pastoral life of the Jews. But the arrival of Jewish interests necessarily brought into the population an element which would tend to provide the managers of the country.
The native Arabs, as Churchill pointed out, could not compete with the Jews when it came to making arrangements for developing the country. Such a state of things was bound to produce a certain conflict before the new regime had had time to establish itself, to conciliate native interests, and show that it existed for the good of the country. Churchill did not defend the Government’s position, especially in regard to the Rutenberg concession in any detail, but he did assert that the system of irrigation and introduction of electric power which the scheme proposed would work to the advantage of the Arabs no less than the Jews, and that the Government had seen to it that the civil and religious rights of the Arabs were uninjured.
This is good as far as it goes, but it is the duty of the Government to see that the scheme of Zionists and others in Palestine are not only for the good of the country as a whole but are made acceptable to the Arab population. The best contrived plans might go wrong if the impression got abroad that they were being imposed on a reluctant population, even for their own good. The case in the House of Commons was put, on the Arab side, by those Unionist malcontents who have a special interest in attacking the Government, and that fact deprived their accusation of more than half their value.
The vote of the House showed that there is no serious apprehension in regard to the effect of Zionist measures in Palestine and with that provisional conclusion we may rest satisfied.”