iwmlondonischanging
Commons for Palestine Mandate, Churchill, W. 19 July 1922
Commons for Palestine Mandate, CHURCHILL DEFENDS ZIONIST POLICY AND RUTHENBERG CONCESSION DEMANDING VOTE OF CONFIDENCE
The Denver Jewish News, 19 July, #1922Live, Timeline of British Mandatory Palestine
(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
“London, July 4. - Following what described by Parliamentary observers as the most important debate on a Jewish question, the House of Commons today rejected by a vote of 292 to 35 the motion of Sir W. Joynson Hicks, calling for a reconsideration of the terms of the Palestine Mandate before it is submitted to the League of Nations.
By way of censuring the Governments present Palestine policy, he moved a reduction of the Colonial Secretary’s salary by £100.
Speaking on the vote, prior to Joynson-Hicks, Olmsby Gore, a staunch friend of the Zionist policy, reminded the author of the motion of his statement in 1918 that he (Joynson-Hicks) was “ready to help the Jews take possession of their land.” Olmsby Gore said he hoped the Government would in no way be deterred by hostile criticism and should carry out the terms of the Balfour Declaration, the campaign against the Declaration being really contrary to the best British interests.
Sir Joynson Hicks explained that his motion to reduce the Colonial Secretary’s salary by £100 was merely formal and proceeded to say that the Government was taking a grave responsibility in acting on the Mandate without previously submitting to to the House, a procedure, he said, which was totally against democratic principle.
The trouble with the Palestine policy was not the Declaration, he said but the way the Zionists were permitted by the British Government to control the Palestine Government.
Referring to Sir Herbert Samuel, Sir Joynson Hicks declared that the present High Commissioner was a member of the Zionist Organisation before he went to Palestine and the Zionists had always claimed their representative. It is insufficient, he said, for an English Governor to be above suspicion. The non-Jewish 90% of the Palestinian population must believe him to be above suspicion. The Arabs, he said, are entitled to say who shall enter their country.
Turning to the agreement for the concessions between the British Government and Pinhas Rutenberg, the Jewish engineer, Sir Joynson-Hicks accused the Palestine Government of “blocking all concessions till Jews were strong enough to take them over.
The Rutenberg concession, he said, was most astonishing. He was not at all sure that the Rutenberg scheme was good and Britain had no right to hand over the control of Palestine to a man whose character was subject to grave suspicion.
Lord Eustace Percy, in supporting the anti-Government amendments attacked the Colonial Office for not having invited English engineers to compete for the electrification concessions.
Voicing the views of the Labor Party, Morgan Jones declared he was sure the Jews and Arabs would live together in peace if they were left alone. He was certain, he said, that the British firms who were envious of the concessions were behind the present agitation in the press. He could not understand the misgivings of the Mohammedans and the Catholics, being confident, he said, that the religious rights would be safeguarded.
Winston Churchill, Colonial Secretary, declared the Government was bound to make the question of this motion a vote of confidence. There were two questions which the House had to determine. Churchill said. One, whether the Government should keep the pledges made to Zionists; and two whether the Administration charged with carrying of pledges was a proper one. While the House should criticize an improper administration, he said, it could not repudiate the Government’s pledge of 1917.
The pledges that were made during the War were not only on the merits of the Zionist case but were considered valuable because of the support elicited thereby among Jews, particularly in the United States and Russia, Churchill said.
Continuing, Churchill said that he accepted his share of his great transaction which “leaves a formidable obligation upon the Government, but is bound to prove an unchallengeable victory.” Parliament, he said had repeatedly approved the acceptance of the Mandate.
The fulfillment of the Declaration was an indisputable and integral part of the mandatory stystem, and he as the Colonial Secretary was bound to execute these pledges.
Mr Churchill then quoted former statements favoring the Palestine policy by Lords Gray, Crewe, Cecil, Henderson, Sydenham and Joynson-Hicks, himself, causing a round of laughter as he wittily referred to some of the present anti-Zionists who had previously favored the Zionist policy.
Joynson-Hicks, he said, had no right to support the Balfour Declaration in the war crisis, and now to attack the Colonial Minister for faithfully translating into fact that Declaration. The Government is pledged to the national home policy by which it is not intended to displace the Arabs. The newcomers must therefore create new sources of wealth, he said.
There was room in Palestine for a larger population if the course of the Jordan were properly regulated and electrical power supplied, he said. Both the House of Commons at the country were irrevocably committed to the pledge.
Defending the Rutenberg concessions, Mr Churchill asked, “Who will believe the tales that the Arabs will do this for themselves? The Arabs would not have taken steps in a thousand years for the electrification and irrigation of the country. The grant of the Rutenberg concession followed in very respect the regular procedure.”
“Rutenberg is a man of exceptional ability and personal force, whose application was supported by the influential Zionist Organization. If the fact that he is against him and if we are to inscribe over the portals of the New Jerusalem, that no Israelite need apply here, allow me to confine my attention to Irish matters and to be released of my responsibility for Palestine.” Rutenberg is anti-Czarist and anti-Bolshevist, Mr Churchill said, adding.
“If Rutenberg had been a Bolshevik and come round to the Colonial office for a concession, I should have told him to go to Genoa.”
Because of the unfortunate adverse vote of the House of Lords, Mr Churchill said he was bound to treat this motion as a vote of confidence for the Government.
Ridiculing the vote of the Lords, Mr Churchill said, if uncorrected by the Commons would excite false hopes in Palestine and lead to bloodshed.
Palestine is important in view of Egypt and the Suez Canal, and the millions expended are not too much for control and guardianship of this historic land, and the word given to the nations of the world, Mr Churchill concluded.
Scene in Parliamentary
Unusual interest in the debate was apparent long before the House was called to order. The House of Commons was overcrowded, as were the galleries. All Government supporters were present, and all Jewish members in their seats. From the movements in the House it was clear that while Hicks was mobilizing the Zionist opposition, Robert Cecil was marshalling the pro-Zionist forces.”
Commons for Palestine Mandate, Churchill, W. 19 July 1922
Commons for Palestine Mandate, CHURCHILL DEFENDS ZIONIST POLICY AND RUTHENBERG CONCESSION DEMANDING VOTE OF CONFIDENCE
The Denver Jewish News, 19 July, #1922Live, Timeline of British Mandatory Palestine
(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
“London, July 4. - Following what described by Parliamentary observers as the most important debate on a Jewish question, the House of Commons today rejected by a vote of 292 to 35 the motion of Sir W. Joynson Hicks, calling for a reconsideration of the terms of the Palestine Mandate before it is submitted to the League of Nations.
By way of censuring the Governments present Palestine policy, he moved a reduction of the Colonial Secretary’s salary by £100.
Speaking on the vote, prior to Joynson-Hicks, Olmsby Gore, a staunch friend of the Zionist policy, reminded the author of the motion of his statement in 1918 that he (Joynson-Hicks) was “ready to help the Jews take possession of their land.” Olmsby Gore said he hoped the Government would in no way be deterred by hostile criticism and should carry out the terms of the Balfour Declaration, the campaign against the Declaration being really contrary to the best British interests.
Sir Joynson Hicks explained that his motion to reduce the Colonial Secretary’s salary by £100 was merely formal and proceeded to say that the Government was taking a grave responsibility in acting on the Mandate without previously submitting to to the House, a procedure, he said, which was totally against democratic principle.
The trouble with the Palestine policy was not the Declaration, he said but the way the Zionists were permitted by the British Government to control the Palestine Government.
Referring to Sir Herbert Samuel, Sir Joynson Hicks declared that the present High Commissioner was a member of the Zionist Organisation before he went to Palestine and the Zionists had always claimed their representative. It is insufficient, he said, for an English Governor to be above suspicion. The non-Jewish 90% of the Palestinian population must believe him to be above suspicion. The Arabs, he said, are entitled to say who shall enter their country.
Turning to the agreement for the concessions between the British Government and Pinhas Rutenberg, the Jewish engineer, Sir Joynson-Hicks accused the Palestine Government of “blocking all concessions till Jews were strong enough to take them over.
The Rutenberg concession, he said, was most astonishing. He was not at all sure that the Rutenberg scheme was good and Britain had no right to hand over the control of Palestine to a man whose character was subject to grave suspicion.
Lord Eustace Percy, in supporting the anti-Government amendments attacked the Colonial Office for not having invited English engineers to compete for the electrification concessions.
Voicing the views of the Labor Party, Morgan Jones declared he was sure the Jews and Arabs would live together in peace if they were left alone. He was certain, he said, that the British firms who were envious of the concessions were behind the present agitation in the press. He could not understand the misgivings of the Mohammedans and the Catholics, being confident, he said, that the religious rights would be safeguarded.
Winston Churchill, Colonial Secretary, declared the Government was bound to make the question of this motion a vote of confidence. There were two questions which the House had to determine. Churchill said. One, whether the Government should keep the pledges made to Zionists; and two whether the Administration charged with carrying of pledges was a proper one. While the House should criticize an improper administration, he said, it could not repudiate the Government’s pledge of 1917.
The pledges that were made during the War were not only on the merits of the Zionist case but were considered valuable because of the support elicited thereby among Jews, particularly in the United States and Russia, Churchill said.
Continuing, Churchill said that he accepted his share of his great transaction which “leaves a formidable obligation upon the Government, but is bound to prove an unchallengeable victory.” Parliament, he said had repeatedly approved the acceptance of the Mandate.
The fulfillment of the Declaration was an indisputable and integral part of the mandatory stystem, and he as the Colonial Secretary was bound to execute these pledges.
Mr Churchill then quoted former statements favoring the Palestine policy by Lords Gray, Crewe, Cecil, Henderson, Sydenham and Joynson-Hicks, himself, causing a round of laughter as he wittily referred to some of the present anti-Zionists who had previously favored the Zionist policy.
Joynson-Hicks, he said, had no right to support the Balfour Declaration in the war crisis, and now to attack the Colonial Minister for faithfully translating into fact that Declaration. The Government is pledged to the national home policy by which it is not intended to displace the Arabs. The newcomers must therefore create new sources of wealth, he said.
There was room in Palestine for a larger population if the course of the Jordan were properly regulated and electrical power supplied, he said. Both the House of Commons at the country were irrevocably committed to the pledge.
Defending the Rutenberg concessions, Mr Churchill asked, “Who will believe the tales that the Arabs will do this for themselves? The Arabs would not have taken steps in a thousand years for the electrification and irrigation of the country. The grant of the Rutenberg concession followed in very respect the regular procedure.”
“Rutenberg is a man of exceptional ability and personal force, whose application was supported by the influential Zionist Organization. If the fact that he is against him and if we are to inscribe over the portals of the New Jerusalem, that no Israelite need apply here, allow me to confine my attention to Irish matters and to be released of my responsibility for Palestine.” Rutenberg is anti-Czarist and anti-Bolshevist, Mr Churchill said, adding.
“If Rutenberg had been a Bolshevik and come round to the Colonial office for a concession, I should have told him to go to Genoa.”
Because of the unfortunate adverse vote of the House of Lords, Mr Churchill said he was bound to treat this motion as a vote of confidence for the Government.
Ridiculing the vote of the Lords, Mr Churchill said, if uncorrected by the Commons would excite false hopes in Palestine and lead to bloodshed.
Palestine is important in view of Egypt and the Suez Canal, and the millions expended are not too much for control and guardianship of this historic land, and the word given to the nations of the world, Mr Churchill concluded.
Scene in Parliamentary
Unusual interest in the debate was apparent long before the House was called to order. The House of Commons was overcrowded, as were the galleries. All Government supporters were present, and all Jewish members in their seats. From the movements in the House it was clear that while Hicks was mobilizing the Zionist opposition, Robert Cecil was marshalling the pro-Zionist forces.”