PALESTINE.

HC Deb 05 April 1939 vol 345 cc2766-9

38. Mr. T. Williams

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the committee set up to consider the McMahon correspondence went beyond its terms of reference when it dealt with documents relating to, and expressed views bearing upon, the meaning of the Balfour Declaration and the nature of the responsibilities assumed by His Majesty's Government in relation to Palestine; and why the Jewish delegation was not consulted before the results of the inquiry were made public in an official document?

Mr. M. MacDonald

The Committee had no precise terms of reference beyond those of considering the McMahon correspondence; and I cannot accept the view expressed in the first part of the question. The results of the inquiry were published as a report adopted by the Conference between United Kingdom and Arab represeentatives, and in the circumstances there was no reason for consultation with the Jewish Delegation before publication.

Mr. Williams

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Anglo-Arab conference did go beyond, as they thought, their terms of reference; should not the Jewish Agency have been brought in; and may I ask whether, if they are to issue a report of some documents and not of all relevant documents, is that not likely to be misleading and create false hopes and fears?

Mr. MacDonald

I cannot accept the conclusion that the Committee did go beyond its terms of reference. As to the second part of the supplementary, as the subject under discussion was the correspondence which had passed between the British authorities and the Arab authorities, it would not necessarily be appropriate for the Jewish view to be taken in regard to those documents. In the light of all the circumstances I cannot agree that it would have been appropriate for them to have been consulted.

Mr. Williams

In view of the fact that Jewish interests were so deeply involved in these discussions and examinations, might not the Jewish section of the conference have been consulted as well as the Anglo-Arab section of the conference?

Mr. MacDonald

I think a careful study of the report will indicate that the Jewish interests in the matter were very carefully watched by the representatives of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mander

In view of the fact that the conclusions might definitely affect Jewish interests is it not extraordinary that they were not given an opportunity of presenting their point of view?

Mr. MacDonald

We were all anxious that the Arab, Jewish and British representatives should all meet together and discuss these matters, and it was not the fault of His Majesty's Government that they could not meet in common conference.

Mr. T. Williams

Was it the fault of the Jewish representatives that they could not all meet together?

Mr. Crossley

Why not send the whole of the correspondence for the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?

Mr. MacDonald

The whole matter was adequately dealt with and no amount of further examination would alter the sort of conclusion at which the Committee arrived.

Mr. Noel-Bakers

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider inviting the Jews to put forward their observations and publish them in a White Paper?

Mr. MacDonald

The observations of the Jewish Agency have already been published to some extent in letters to the Press. It is perfectly open to representatives of the Jewish Agency to publish their documents at any time, as they have done on many occasions.

Mr. T. Williams

Is it not the case that if a White Paper is published it is recognised throughout the world as an official document, whereas letters to the Press are ignored by people who know the contents of the official document?

Mr. MacDonald

I would repeat, that the subject matter of this inquiry was the correspondence between British authorities and Arab authorities in which no Jewish authorities were concerned. The report indicates that it is concerned with these documents, and these documents alone, and it adds that there are other relevant documents which would have to be taken into consideration before a final and comprehensive conclusion is reached.

39. Mr. T. Williams

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the exact terms of the declaration of the claim for the independence of the Arabic areas, made before the Council of Five at the Peace Conference, were submitted to the Lord Chancellor's Committee on the McMahon correspondence?

Mr. MacDonald

The answer is in the negative.

Mr. Williams

Is it not the case that if Palestine had been promised to the Arabs the Arab delegation would have demanded independence at the Conference?

Mr. MacDonald

I do not think that is necessarily so. I agree that it is an important consideration that at the Conference Palestine was not included in the territories which the Hedjaz delegation claimed.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Is it not the case that the Hedjaz delegation specifically excluded Palestine?

Mr. MacDonald

That is exactly the point put by the hon. Member.

Mr. Crossley

What had the Hedjaz delegation to do with the Palestinian Arabs?

40. Mr. T. Williams

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the concluding paragraph of Cmd. 5974, and the inference to be drawn therefrom; and, as this inference is inconsistent with the decision of the principal allied Powers and the League of Nations when they conferred mandatory power on the British Government to administer in accordance with the terms of the Balfour Declaration, and the preamble to the Mandate, will he submit the White Paper to the Mandates Commission and ask for their opinion on it?

Mr. MacDonald

I am aware of the paragraph in the report to which the hon. Member refers. I cannot agree with the suggestion contained in the second part of the question, and that being so I see no reason to submit the report of the committee to the Permanent Mandates Commission.

Mr. Williams

If the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to do that, may I ask whether it is not the case that the presence of Great Britain in Palestine is only as long as we fulfil the terms of the Mandate, which involves the establishment of a National Home, among other things?

Mr. MacDonald

Yes, Sir.

41. Mr. T. Smith

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the statement made by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, on 25th July, 1921, in reply to a question, was considered by the Anglo-Arab Committee; and, if so, why it was omitted from the White Paper published on 16th March, 1939?

Mr. MacDonald

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.