PALESTINE.

HL Deb 23 April 1947 vol 147 cc57-121

3.10 p.m.

LORD ALTRINCHAM

rose to call attention to the recent statements of His Majesty's Government on Palestine; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which I rise to move this afternoon has figured on the Order Paper for a considerable time. As noble Lords opposite will remember, it was postponed once or twice because the conditions were really not appropriate; conferences were going on and so forth, and it was better, by agreement on both sides, not to discuss the matter at those times. A further postponement was due to consideration for myself, for which I am very grateful to noble Lords on both sides of the House. Finally, yet another short delay was due to our anxiety to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, reply for His Majesty's Government upon this Motion. We all desire this, in view of his long experience at the Colonial Office and his participation in the important conferences which have taken place. I understand that he has been away upon a naval inspection in the Mediterranean. I hope that he has come home refreshed by the Mediterranean breezes, and I can assure him that the statement which we are counting upon him to make cannot be too full for our satisfaction. We hope that he will take all the time that is necessary to give us all the information that he possibly can give at the present moment. I particularly emphasize that because the form of my Motion is now rather out of date. It is not my desire now so much to call attention to statements which have been made on Palestine as to ask for further statements to be made and for answers to be given by His Majesty's Government to questions of which I have given notice, and to most of which, I understand, the noble Viscount will be prepared to reply.

The first subject with which I would like to deal is one which I am sure fills Parliament in general, and all parts of the civilized world, with horror: that is, the continuation of illegal immigration into Palestine. This traffic is carried on under conditions which really resemble the old slave trade across the Atlantic. It is an inhuman process; it is disgusting and it is disgraceful. No feeling can be too strong in dealing with it. The ships which are employed are less well-found than the ships which carried slaves to North America—much less well-found. The human cargoes, on the other hand, do start out borne up by hope, but that hope is doomed to end in the most terrible disillusionment. One can hardly conceive a trade which deserves more condemnation from the civilized world. I cannot emphasize too strongly that this disgrace on the name of civilization is not the fault of this country. All civilized Governments are bound to resist an unauthorized and unfiltered rush of immigrants into any territory for which they are responsible. This Government do so; the Government of the United States do so; every Government in Europe do so.

That we should be blamed for resisting immigration in that form is out of all reason. Other Powers, Powers who guard their gates with such keen vigilance, are in no position to criticize us, and failure to resist such immigration, terrible as the conditions are, would be an abdication of government, on our part, in Palestine. I therefore most strongly support His Majesty's Government in the steps which they have taken to resist it, despite the suffering which is caused, and I can only congratulate the Services chiefly engaged, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, on the extraordinary skill and care with which they have done their best to prevent this dreadful traffic turning Palestine into an even more terrible shambles than it is at the present time.

The Jewish sufferers from this traffic are the victims of two things—political fanaticism in their own people, and political indifference in others. Of these two things I think that political indifference among Christian Powers is the worse. Jewish misery and Jewish hopelessness are Europe's responsibility, and Europe cannot attempt to foist the whole of that responsibility upon Islam and the Arab peoples. The problem was first created by a nation which abjured Christianity—Hitler's Germany. It was immensely aggravated by the conditions of the war, and since then it has been prolonged and intensified by cynical indifference on the part of Powers which profess to be, and call themselves, Christian. I would therefore ask the noble Viscount if he can tell us what success His Majesty's Government have had in the inquiries which they have made, and in requests which they have made, for co-operation from the French Government and the Italian Government, and from others from whose ports, I believe, this terrible traffic sets out. I would also ask whether it is not the case that strictures which General Morgan made upon the organization of U.N.R.R.A. were perfectly justified. I do not know General Morgan, but I think that when one of our countrymen—and a distinguished fellow countryman of ours—holding a position of responsibility in an international organization is grossly traduced, something should be said in defence of him in Parliament.

The evil will not, however, be cured by merely treating the symptoms. The cause of the evil is the suffering and the hopelessness in camps of dispossessed Jewish persons in Europe, and it is that cause which has to be dealt with if the problem of illegal immigration is ever to be solved. I would ask the noble Viscount what is the number of dispossessed Jewish persons in the camps who have to be dealt with; also how many are now interned in Cyprus? We would be very glad to have these figures. I understand that although the number is, perhaps, in the neighbourhood of half a million, it is probably altogether too great for absorption by Palestine, at any rate over any short period. But it is not a very great number if it is to be dealt with wholeheartedly by the United Nations. I would ask, in that connexion, what this country and the United States are doing about the admission of Jewish persons. There are great difficulties about that, but we cannot face the Arab peoples, we cannot face Islam, with any moral standing if we refuse to do anything and demand that they, and they alone, shall accept Jewish immigrants. I understand that the regulations are at present very hard in some respects upon Jewish people living in this country who wish to bring their relations here. I should be glad of any information which the noble Viscount can give us on that subject.

I would also ask—I apologize for putting one question after another so fast, but we are very short of information—what is being done to implement undertakings which were given in the United Nations about the International Refugee Organization. That organization, I understand, is to take the place of U.N.R.R.A. after June I. When U.N.R.R.A. ceases to operate there will be no system of financing the camps of dispossessed persons, unless another organization is established by that time. I have been told this, and I ask whether this is true. I am told that up to the present only this country and New Zealand have offered to contribute their quota to this organization. I would ask if that is true. I think it is extremely unfortunate that since the end of the war this question of refugees and of dispossessed persons in Europe has not been placed under some individual possessed of great drive, as it was after the last war, when it was entrusted to Nansen. What Europe owes to Nansen is almost incalculable, and it is a great misfortune that this problem has not been handed over to a man of that imagination and with that broad capacity.

If one wants to realize what can be done by a man of imagination and resource., one has only to look at what has been done in the way of forming a new settlement in South America. It may interest your Lordships to know of the kind of settlement established in one of the richest parts of Brazil (but a part which was entirely uncultivated) by a Brazilian subject named Señor Antonio J. Moura Andrade. In 1938 he started a settlement in the forest; he provided the whole capital himself, and he advanced money for implements, and so on, to new settlers. The only bar to settlers which he imposed was that they must be capable of working with their hands, and they should not be German, Italian, or Japanese, because he was antitotalitarian.

That settlement, Andradina, has been a resounding success. In nine years a city of 10,000 people has been established in the centre of it. The total number of successful settlers is 100,000, and only 2 per cent. have failed, while 60 per cent. have paid off the whole of the cost of their land and of their own establishment. Señor Andrade has said there ought to be many more Andradinas. Who is to say that if there had been a man of imagination and drive in charge of this international organization, something of that kind might not have been done? I recommend it to His Majesty's Government as an example of what can be done by private enterprise. Compare private enterprise with Government enterprise in this very important matter. So much for Andradina.

I hope that when this question comes before the United. Nations, they will be invited to deal with the Jewish problem as a whole—as'the Anglo-American Commission were invited—and not merely with the Palestine aspect. You cannot deal with the main problem of Palestine unless you look at the question throughout the world as a whole. Certainly, there will be no reduction of tension in Palestine until this problem of the dispossessed persons living hopelessly in camps is disposed of. I would remind His Majesty's Government that the present effect of this state of affairs, and of the terrorist activities in Palestine (to which I shall come in a moment), is to create among our Services a very dangerous, but nevertheless entirely natural, feeling of anti-Semitism that will come back to this country. It will have its reaction in this country; indeed, it is coming in letters every day. That is a very grave aspect of this appalling tension and of the failure to deal with the problem of the suffering of Jewry—suffering which is entirely due to the crimes of Europe.

I come now to the question of terrorism, and If have some questions to ask about that. In the first place, can the noble Viscount tell us what co-operation the Government of Palestine and the military authorities in Palestine have received from the Jewish Agency? I think we are entitled to demand whole-hearted co-operation from the Jewish Agency, because the Jewish Agency have been endowed with some of the powers and responsibilities of government in Palestine; they raise the taxes, and command armed forces. These are powers which are normally given only to a Government, and therefore the Jewish Agency, in virtue of the powers which they enjoy and of the position with which they have been endowed, ought to co-operate whole-heartedly in the suppression of terrorism.

While I feel in that way about the Jewish Agency, I am much more doubtful about asking for the ea-operation of the Jewish population in general. I understand that in many quarters the Jewish population have shown great courage in this matter; terrorist posters have been torn down; villagers have refused to give comfort, assistance or shelter to terrorists; they have resisted demands for a subscription; and I understand that they have suffered very severely in the process. Can the noble Viscount tell me whether it is true that whole villages have been deprived of water by the terrorists because they attempted to co-operate with the Government in the suppression of terrorism? That has been reported in the newspapers, and I think we ought to have the facts about it. If these reprisals have taken place it is easy to understand the difficulties experienced by the ordinary Jewish population. Ordinary men and women are, of course, bound to resist terrorist demands for help and shelter, but we must recognize that if the Government cannot guarantee them security they are faced with very great difficulties in carrying out their duties under the law.

Finally, on this question of terrorism, I would ask His Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the efficiency of our intelligence service. It appears to us uninformed people that the terrorist intelligence is greatly superior to our own. It always seems to be ahead of ours, and it is far better informed about our movements than we are about the movements of the terrorists. That is a great reflection upon the Government's services. I emphasize this because everybody who has had experience of this problem knows that intelligence is the key to the suppression of terrorism. You can do nothing unless your intelligence service is good. That was exemplified, as noble Lords opposite will remember, at the time when Sir John Anderson was Governor of Bengal. There was at that time a widespread, bitter, and terrible terrorist movement in Bengal. It was not suppressed by asking for co-operation from the population; it was suppressed, in the main, by a good intelligence service. I am sure that anybody who knew Bengal then would support that statement.

Of course, there is a great difference between Bengal and Palestine. In Bengal in the 1930's it was possible, to a very large extent, to control the movement and supply of arms and explosives; owing to the conditions left by the war, this is extremely difficult in Palestine. It is only fair to allow for that important factor, but, even so, the failure of our intelligence services is conspicuous. The noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, called attention just now to the suicides in gaol. That unopened oranges should be conveyed into the cell of a condemned man is an unspeakable reflection upon an efficient prison service. Surely, the intelligence service ought to know about there being in the vicinity of the gaol people who are likely to connive at the defeat of justice in that manner. To mention only one of many examples, there was the attack on the train yesterday, with great loss of life, of which we have not yet heard full details.

I would call attention to another matter. The organization called Irgun Zvai Leumi is the most active and the largest of the terrorist organizations. It was responsible for the assassination of Lord Moyne, my predecessor in the Middle East. A £2,000 reward was placed upon the head of a Pole named Beigin who is known to be the head of that organization. Our intelligence service has never been able to trace Beigin. We know all about him. He was brought by our own Government from Russia to Palestine; he served in our Forces, and then became a single-minded and devoted fanatic who believes he is conducting not a programme of association with but a programme of warfare against the British Government. That is the explanation why we have placed a price upon his head. We have been endeavouring to find him—with absolutely no success. Month after month follows and nothing is ever heard of this elusive person.

I would call the attention of His Majesty's Government to this fact. I hold in my hand a copy of the New York Herald Tribune of March 17 of this year, which contains a report of an interview between an American correspondent and Beigin which took place either in Jerusalem or in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. It would seem that American correspondents are very much better informed than our own intelligence service. I am glad to hand this copy over to the noble Viscount. I think it will be worth his study. I give that simply as an example of the fear I have that our intelligence services are not as thorough as they ought to be at the present moment. Therefore, I ask: Is there complete cooperation and liaison between the civil and military authorities in Palestine? Is there really no failure in working together between the Army and the Police? So many valuable lives, British and others (a terrible list was read out earlier this afternoon) are being sacrificed in Palestine because of this failure on the part of our intelligence services, without any sign of improvement, that I beg His Majesty's Government to look carefully into the matter and to make sure that the intelligence services are what they ought to be and what we have certainly succeeded in making them at critical times in other parts of the Empire.

I do not wish to detain your Lordships too long. I merely want to ask one or two questions about the ultimate issue of this Palestine question—its reference to the United Nations. In the first place, I congratulate His Majesty's Government on their decision to refer the question to the United Nations. That is undoubtedly the only course to be taken at the present time, and the only comment that noble Lords on this side of the House would make is that we wish it had been done much earlier. I think that comment was made by Mr. Churchill in another place and I most certainly endorse it. I repeat, however, that while I think it right that the matter should be referred to the United Nations, that is not because I believe we have ourselves failed in our task in Palestine. The reason for referring it to the United Nations is that the question should be brought to book in that international forum; for the responsibility for the situation in Palestine is really due to the crimes of Europe and to sabotage by other civilized powers of our government in Palestine. They have sabotaged it by the encouragement of illegal immigration. We all know that. They have sabotaged it by ignorant support of Jewish extremists, and the whole of the responsibility for what is now taking place in the Holy Land will, I hope, be brought home in the inquiry which is to be conducted by the United Nations. Only the United Nations can correct a terrible defect of that kind, and I hope, as I said earlier in my speech, that the United Nations will deal with the problem as a whole.

I also think—indeed all the noble Lords on this Bench think—that His. Majesty's Government are quite right in putting this issue to the United Nations without in the first instance advancing any solution of their own. I consider that that is a wise decision. If the United Nations are to deal with the question as a whole, no excuse must be given to them for concentrating upon one aspect of the matter. Such an opportunity would be provided if a British scheme were laid before them. I think we may say with confidence, from recent performances of that organization, that if a British scheme were laid before them, it would he torn to pieces, and weeks—perhaps indeed months—would be taken in that enjoyable process without any advantage to Palestine. Ultimately, however, we must be pressed to give our view as to the right solution. I am not going to ask His Majesty's Government for any statement to-day as to what they will say when that moment comes. It is far better to leave that for His Majesty's Government to determine when the time comes.

But I would say two things on the subject. In the first place, we on this Bench feel that a clear answer should be given: that when the times comes we should say what we consider to be the best solution. When that moment comes, any failure on our part to give a clear account of our view of what should be done would be a great failure and an abdication on our part as the Mandatory Power. The other remark I can only make for myself, because, as everybody knows, very varied opinions are held by all Parties on this Palestine question; but for my part I most earnestly hope that the original principle; of the Mandate will be sustained as it is in what are called the Bevin Proposals. I hope, indeed, that when an answer is given on inquiry by the United Nations, it will be on the lines of what are called the Bevin Proposals. I am convinced that that is the only solution which will ensure a stable peace in the Holy Land, and I am convinced it is a practicable solution provided we have the moral support of the United Nations and of those great Powers which have hitherto denied it.

Some say that the solution may lie in the application to Palestine of what is called "Dominion status." There have been many admirable Jewish arguments on that subject, which have been endorsed by distinguished English opinion. It seems to me, however, that the solution is surely based on a misunderstanding of what constitutes Dominion status. Dominion status is not a thing that can be established by the hat of any British Government; it is a thing that can be established only by the wish of the inhabitants of the proposed Dominion. That is the history of every Dominion. The British Government cannot say: "This shall be a Dominion"; it rests entirely with the inhabitants.

LORD STRABOLGI

Yes, but this is very important: in tin case of Ireland, which is the most recent example of the setting up of Dominion status, we let it be known that such a solution would be acceptable to the British Government. We did not impose it on them, but we let it be known in the negotiations—as the noble Lord knows perfectly well—that that would be acceptable.

LORD ALTRINCHAM

I think it is pretty obvious from what has happened in Ireland that the issue rests with the Irish people, and that is going to be the case everywhere.

LORD STRABOLGI

That was the machinery.

LORD ALTRINCHAM

Let me take the case of Canada, a very apt parallel. After the Napoleonic Wars a distinguished member of this House, Lord Durham, went to Canada. He found, as he said in his famous Report, "two nations warring in the bosom of a single state"— exactly what is happening in Palestine. And how did he deal with it? He dealt with it first of all by reconciliation of those two nations on the spot; then matters passed to joint self-government and ultimately, by the wish of the inhabitants, Canada has followed, through federation, to great development as a Dominion and is now one of the most powerful in the world—entirely based on the spirit and sentiment of the wish of her own people. Now the first step in Palestine must be the same. There must be reconciliation between the peoples; there must be agreement between the peoples to establish joint government. If that is what is meant by Dominion status, I am entirely with those who advocate it, but I would suggest that it is no use arguing as if we could to-morrow establish Dominion status in Palestine, any more than we have ever been able to do it elsewhere. It is a matter that depends upon the course taken by affairs, and ultimately upon the sentiment of the people.

I have no doubt, however, that the reconciliation of the two races, and the establishment of a bi-racial State, was the original principle which we undertook to carry out in the Mandate. There is no question whatever about that. I hope that in this matter, as in every other matter, we shall hold to our undertakings. What this country has once said it will do it ought to go on to do, and it should never go back on its undertakings. The Arabs attach considerable importance, as does a very large section of Jewry—although it is the quieter section—to this undertaking. Since the Mandate itself is sometimes regarded as equivocal, let me quote what was said about it in the document published in 1922—a document well known as the Churchill Memorandum—to explain exactly what we mean by it. I quote only one section on this subject from that Memorandum. It said: Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. That shows clearly that we mean to create one Palestinian state, and not two or three, as has been suggested since in various quarters.

I hope that we shall not go back in any way upon the great responsibility and the great mission which we undertook, which I believe is the only way of establishing peace in the Holy Land. I am sure that our failure to stand by our undertakings in this matter would be regarded as a further surrender, and as a further abdication, throughout the Middle East and throughout Islam. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, who is not present to-day, has sometimes offended noble Lords opposite by using the words "humbug" and "scuttle." I know that they are sensitive about those two words, but perhaps I may console them if I say generously that in other parts of the world, at any rate, there has been no humbug about their scuttle. I hope that in Palestine there will be absolutely straight dealing and no abdication in any form whatever from our undertakings.

I would support that by one final argument. The Mandate was based upon an appreciation of the situation in Palestine put forward by the ablest Arab of that day, the Emir Feisal, afterwards the first King of Iraq. While every other Mar? date was regarded as inconsistent with the undertakings given to the Arab people, the leading Arabs of that time—not the political Arabs, but the leading Arabs—took the view that the Mandate was the best way of dealing with the situation in Palestine. I will not quote his actual words, as they are well known. Most of them are contained in the memorandum which he addressed to the Peace Conference in Paris in 1919, on which the Mandate was based. I would go further than that; I would go back to the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration contains a very grave warn- ing as to watching the effect of what we do in Palestine upon the welfare of Jewry in other parts of the world. That is the end of the last sentence in the Balfour Declaration. I might perhaps read those words: … 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 the Jews in any other country. Consider what would happen if a Jewish state were set up in Palestine. At the very most it would contain not more than one-fifth or one-sixth of the whole of world Jewry. Five million Jews are in the United States, and there are many millions elsewhere. To whatever number it was possible to raise the population of the Jewish State in Palestine, it would be only a small fraction of world Jewry. Naturally, therefore, it is important to study what effect that would have upon Jewry elsewhere. That Jewish State would be located in a part of the world where great interests meet, where the great Powers are often in controversy, in an area which has always in the history of the world been a difficult and dangerous strategic area. Any State established there is bound to have very difficult questions of policy to decide, and whatever decision it makes is sure to dissatisfy great Powers in some part of the world. What would then be the effect upon the Jews who live in the dissatisfied country? Those who framed the Balfour Declaration were very wise in calling attention to this danger. There it is, in the last sentence of the Balfour Declaration. I have been urged, I think I may say, by representative Jews not only in this country but also in America to call some attention to this aspect of the matter.

I hope that His Majesty's Government will stand by our undertaking. Let me repeat—and this is the last word that I have to say—that we have no reason to admit failure, and no reason to accept responsibility for the present state of Palestine. It is clue, in the first instance, to Hitler's Germany, and, in the second instance, to the failure of Christendom. Let us then, when the time comes, declare before the United Nations that we will be faithful to the engagement which we made in Palestine on one essential condition, and that is, the support of that great section of the world which shares our concept of civilization. I beg to move for Papers.

3.49 P.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, in addressing your Lordships to-day I must first refer to the matter which I am sure is uppermost in the minds of all your Lordships—namely, the continuance of the terrible terrorist outrages in. Palestine. In view of my long connexion with the Palestinian question, since before the Balfour Declaration, and the fact that I devoted five years of my life in the attempt to establish a stable and prosperous Government in Palestine, it is a matter upon which I feel perhaps more deeply than can any other member of your Lordships' House. This group of fanatics, mostly very young enthusiasts, are animated by that abominable doctrine that the end justifies the means; that any purpose-which is held to be good in itself may warrant any methods in its pursuit, however wicked they may be. That doctrine has been the curse of mankind all through its history. The Jewish people have always taken pride in the good deeds performed and the distinctions won by their members; in the number of great scientists, writers, musicians, philosophers and statesmen who have come from the Jewish ranks. far out of pros portion to their numbers. They remember that in the distant past it was the Jewish people who laid the foundations for the three greatest religions of the world. Here in this city, and in all the great cities of the West, vast cathedrals and abbeys are dedicated to the names of men of Jewish stock; their psalms are sung and their prayers are recited in these fanes.

To-day these same people have given birth to a set of assassins, who, disguised in false uniforms, waylay soldiers and policemen, hurl bombs promiscuously, blow up trains, and are responsible for the terrible list of casualties, particulars of which have been given to your Lordships only this afternoon. I feel bound to say to-day, as I have said before in this House, that the Jewish population of Palestine and the Jewish Agency are blameworthy for not having, by resolute determination and at whatever. cost, extirpated this curse which has brought shame upon all members of the Jewish community. I do not to-day say that the Government should take this or that action in order to end this terrorism—far from it. On the contrary, if the British Government were to say that until the terrorism stopped nothing else could be done, it might perhaps be justified, although it might not be statesmanlike. I urge to-day that action should be taken, not because of it but in spite of it.

With regard to immigration, I look upon that from an entirely different point of view. I do not put that on the same footing. I think that there the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, has missed the real point, which is that the Jews of Palestine—of all sections, from the most moderate and law-abiding to the most violent and extreme—with hardly a single exception, support this immigration and approve of it. They declare that it is not illegal and that what is illegal is the ordinance that forbids it. That is the point to which the noble Lord did not give any attention. It may seem rash to claim, after all these controversies have raged for so many years about Palestine, that anyone can bring forward a new point; yet I think this afternoon there is one thing new which can be said. It arises out of a recent speech by the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Bevin, in another place, and it touches very closely this point whether the prohibition of immigration is itself legal or illegal.

Speaking in another place on February 25 last, Mr. Bevin discussed whether there should be in Palestine a Jewish State, or an Arab State, or a mixed State. He said that the British Government had no power to decide that point, and that, therefore, it must be taken to the United Nations. I quote his exact words because they are exceedingly important. He said: That, therefore, raises the issue which has got to be decided and we, as Mandatory Power, cannot solve that problem until the United Nations have recommended which of these three alternatives is to form the basis of the future organization of Palestine. We, as Mandatory Power, have no power to make that decision. Nothing that I can find in any of the documents, either at the League of Nations or in the discussions between the great Powers at Versailles and after, indicate that we have that power. The Mandate certainly does not give it… It may not be thought that is relevant to the particular point; but it is, because he declares that the British Government cannot decide this hut must refer it to the United Nations since the Mandate would not authorize anything of this kind—any one of these three courses departing from the existing conditions. But has the Mandate authorized the prohibition of Jewish immigration into Palestine? Where is there anything in the Mandate that would confer that power upon the British Government, acting under it and with the approval of the League of Nations?

The White Paper of 1939 (which is the root of the whole of the present difficulties and which was enacted by the Chamberlain Government) declared that after five years from that date there was to be no more Jewish immigration into Palestine at all, unless the Arab community of Palestine give their assent to it. Everyone knew that there was no reason why the Arabs of Palestine should give their assent; that was universally agreed. Consequently, there was to be, after five years, a prohibition of Jewish immigration Into Palestine. Is that in accordance with the Balfour Declaration? The Balfour Declaration declared—and this is embodied textually in the Mandate itself—that the Mandatory Power should favour the establishment of a Jewish National Home, should encourage Jewish immigration and should enact such laws with regard to land settlement and so forth as would conduce to it. That was approved, first of all, by all the great Powers—the United States, France, Italy and others—and afterwards, formally, by the League of Nations itself in 1922. How the Mandate is to be interpreted was not left to the Mandatory Power itself; it was not for the British Government to say, "This is allowed and this is not allowed", as Mr. Bevin very frankly and clearly stated.

The League of Nations set up a Mandates Commission which was to exercise supervision over all the Mandates entrusted to various Powers and to be the authority charged with the duty of interpreting the Mandates. The White Paper of 1939 was brought before that Mandates Commission in June of that year, and it occupied their attention at a number of sittings. They heard Mr. Malcolm Macdonald, the then Colonial Secretary, with regard to it, and they went into the whole subject with the utmost thoroughness. The Mandates Commission was an extremely competent body, consisting largely of representatives of the smaller Powers, some of them with colonial experience. They were perfectly impartial. When I was High Commissioner I had the privilege of appear- ing before them for three days, and I was greatly impressed by their competence and their impartiality. On this occasion the views of the members diverged, but they were unanimous on one point.

I have lately been refreshing my memory by reference to the voluminous reports of that Commission—a great volume of some 300 or 400 pages and there I find these records. This is one paragraph, on page 275: From the first, one fact forced itself to the notice of the Commission—namely, that the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate. That was unanimous. The White Paper put a different interpretation upon the Mandate from that which had been, for many years until then—this was 1939 and the Mandate was 1922—adopted by the Mandatory Power, by the Commission and by the Council of the League. Then they said: It"— that is the Commission— went on to consider whether the Palestine Mandate might riot perhaps be open to a new interpretation which, while still respecting its main principles, would be sufficiently flexible for the White Paper not to appear at variance with if. There the Commission was divided. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey—whom I see in his place to-day—was the British representative at that time. The divergent views that were expressed could only be recorded by the Commission, which could not judge between them, and they set out what they were.

The noble Lord, Lord Hankey—the British Government representative—supported by two other members, held that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided that the Council did not oppose it; that is, that the matter ought to be referred to the Council and then, if they did not oppose it, it might be held that this restriction on immigration was in accordance with the letter or the spirit—I do not know what their view was—of the Mandate. But the majority of the Commission—four members—refused to say, I quote again— that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors. Here is the argument which I wish to address to your Lordships. The Foreign Secretary has lately stated that proposed future arrangements for Palestine must he referred to the United Nations. because the Government here have no authority under the Mandate to adopt any one of the three courses or any substantial departure from the Mandate. The international body which was appointed to interpret the Mandate considered this prohibition of Jewish immigration. They were unanimous that the new departure differed from all previous interpretations of the Mandate. Four of the Commission held that it was contrary to the terms of the Mandate. That was the majority view; that it was not justified by the Mandate, and was contrary to its terms. Three of them held that it might be justified, subject to any ac ion by the Council of the League. But the war came and the Council of the League had never considered this matter, never assented, and never even had an opportunity of declaring its opposition.

Thus the present Foreign Secretary, by saying that he has no power to adopt this policy, is saying in effect that his predecessors, the Chamberlain Government and Mr. Malcolm Macdonald, as Colonial Secretary, had no power to do this very thing which I now in dispute. That is the reason why the Jewish community of Palestine, Jews throughout the world and the Zionist Organization, say that the illegality is not on the part of the immigrants, but was on the part of the British Government here, at the time of Mr. Malcolm Macdonald, who declared that five years from then the doors of the Jewish national home should be closed, and this prohibition should be clamped down upon Zionists throughout the world who were seeking to go to Palestine. That is the essence of the whole present situation. When the noble Lord denounces with so much vehemence the horrible conditions in which these immigrants are coming in, and says we must uphold the law, the Government of the United States and other Governments may be inclined to ask: "How dare you shut out these Jews, and stop this immigration in defiance of the very. spirit of the Mandate which you purport to administer?

LORD ALTRINCHAM

As the noble Viscount has questioned my interpretation of the Mandate, may I say that the Mandates Commission was not the body set up to interpret the Mandate? The only body to interpret the Mandate was the League itself. The Mandates Commission was set up simply to go into the detailed administration of Mandates in various parts of the world. This question was never put to the League of Nations, and there is no reason whatever to assume that because of a majority of four to three in the Mandates Commission on one particular view, that view would necessarily have been taken by the League before the matter had ever been submitted.

LORD CALVERLEY

Would the noble Viscount say if he approves of these coffin ships?

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

The answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, has said—which is a point worth notice—is that it is quite correct that the Mandates Commission were a Commission of the whole body, like a Committee of this House; but the League were always very greatly guided by the Mandates Commission, which went into these matters with the utmost care and made the most elaborate reports to the Council of the League. The League naturally gave the greatest possible attention to the reports of these experts. The Commission were unanimous that a new interpretation was being put upon the Mandate—there was no question of four to three. Three of them said that this might be held to be justified, provided that the Council did not object. How can you say it was authorized to be done, when the Council had no opportunity either of objecting or of not objecting?

For all these reasons the present Government, in fact, have rather belatedly stated quite clearly that they are not accepting the White Paper and are not acting upon it. The Prime Minister said in another place on July I of last year: It is quite wrong to say that we are carrying on the White Paper policy. They disapprove of it themselves, and yet they support these measures for the prevention of immigration into Palestine. As a matter of fact, they are allowing a certain amount of immigration into Palestine in defiance of the White Paper of 1939.

VISCOUNT HALL

Might I ask the noble Viscount whether he is now arguing that immigration can be admitted into Palestine, irrespective of numbers or its effect upon the Arab community?

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I am coming to that a little later on. What I am now dealing with is the question of illegality—on which side the law rests. The Government says: "We have passed an ordinance and that is the law." The Zionist Organization says, "The law you have passed is itself an infringement of the law, an international law, approved by the League of Nations." Mr. Bevin says he cannot act contrary to the Mandate in this or that without the sanction of the League of Nations, yet this was done without the League of Nations.

VISCOUNT HALL

On specific points.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

That is what I am saying. Let me turn to another aspect. We in this generation have been faced with what is unquestionably and literally the greatest crime in the whole history of the world. At the Nuremberg Trials Lord Justice Lawrence—now Lord Oaksey—in his judgment accepted the calculation that 6,000,000 human beings had been murdered by the Nazis in the concentration camps and in other ways. They were not all Jews, and undoubtedly vast numbers had nothing to do with the Jewish community but were Hitler's political opponents. All the great crimes in history, the massacres of Attila, of Jenghiz Khan, the St. Bartholomew Massacre, and the massacre of a large part of the Armenian nation, fall into almost insignificance compared with the scale of this latest crime committed in cold blood by the madman Adolf Hitler, who was on the throne of absolute power.

A few days ago it was announced in the Press that a man named Hoess, who was in charge of the Auschwitz concentration camp, had been hanged, having been found guilty of the murder in gas chambers of 4,000,000 people in that camp. It was stated in the Press that he protested against this, and said there were not more than 2,000,000; but he confessed to 2,000,000. This fact was printed in small type in little paragraphs in the newspapers, and it attracted no particular attention that a man who was found guilty of having murdered 4,000,000 people had been hanged. We are too close to these events to be able to see them in their true scale and to recognize them for the enormity that they present. There is no shock in our present-day civilization—hardly a tremor. What people are chiefly concerned about is that, of the survivors who have escaped, as few as possible shall be admitted into this country, or the United States or into other lands. There have been some survivors, and I have met some of them, whose fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters—whole families—have been murdered in the gas chambers. They were collected from Belgium, Holland, Poland, Austria and elsewhere, and form part of the 6,000,000 who have been murdered. Some of those who survived went back to their homes and received no very warm welcome, because the property they owned and the industries they had built up had been seized and looted and sold to other people. These are very unwelcome ghosts who, not having been killed, have the impertinence to claim their own property.

As a result they wish to move away to start a new life and try to forget the awful horror of their past. They want to go to Palestine where they can be sure they can be free and live according to their own ways and customs. A Committee of the House of Commons on National Expenditure reported the other day that the movement of Jews through Austria on their way to Palestine amounted to a second exodus. Whether it be a second exodus, or a tenth or a twentieth, these people are tired; they want to go and settle somewhere. And Palestine is a place where they would wish to go.

A NOBLE LORD

All of them?

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

They go under conditions of the utmost hardship and in abominable circumstances which have already been referred to by the noble Lord who has just spoken. They have survived the massacre of their families, and have crowded hundreds, even thousands, into little ships, under conditions which the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, rightly says recall the conditions of the slave trade. They have reached Palestine, which was to be the National Home of their race, only to find British destroyers patrolling off the coast. They are brought into harbour and then sent off to internment camps and called "illegal immigrants," while the British Army of 100,000 is holding down the Jewish population of Palestine which is only too eager to welcome them. There is no question of their not being able to find accommodation. Accommodation could easily be found for 100,000 or more. It is not a question of being unable to find ships, because the United States have undertaken to provide all the means of transport that may be required. It is not a case of going there to crowd into some slum districts. The Jewish National Home has been a brilliant success. The Anglo-American Commission reported that it was a miracle, both of physical achievement and spiritual endeavour, and the Peel Commission some years ago spoke in similar terms. Those are the facts of the case.

Noble Lords will ask: "What is your solution?" To my mind the most urgent matter is to settle this question of immigration. The Government say they are no longer pursuing the White Paper policy. In defiance of the White Paper policy they have for some time past allowed 1,800 immigrants a month to go in.

A NOBLE LORD

1,500.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I thought it had been increased to 1,800; but let us say 1,500 a month. That amounts to less than 20,000 a year—an exceedingly small total, in view of conditions both in Europe and in Palestine. In my judgment 40,000 to 50,000 a year could quite easily be absorbed by the country. There is a great shortage of labour in Palestine to-day; the amount of capital awaiting investment in industry and trade amounts to scores of millions of pounds and it cannot be used. In addition, there is an immense demand for all kinds of commodities as well as for exports. If I am asked what policy I would recommend I would say that I would allow immigration of perhaps 50,000 a year, and date it back to the time when the Anglo-American Commission made their recommendation—that is, to April, 1946. From that number should be deducted those already admitted, and. others should he allowed in to bring it up to that rate. The principle should be laid down that that should continue for so long as economic conditions permitted.

As to the future government of Palestine—this is the concluding portion of my observations—I do not agree with a common assertion that there are only three possible courses: a Jewish State, an Arab State or geographical partition. I think all three are wrong. I can only repeat what I said previously. Neither a Jewish State nor an Arab State is practicable; nor is geographical partition. But there is a fourth course. I am not one of those who say that because those solutions are impracticable, therefore the whole question is insoluble. The Jewish State has been the aspiration of the Jewish people for centuries. It is an aspiration which at the present day cannot be realized. It is not contained in the Balfour Declaration. If the Balfour Declaration had intended that a Jewish Palestinian State should be set up, it would have said so. What was said, and what was said in speeches by those who drew it up, was that it might be that future conditions would be such that there would be a Jewish majority there; and there might be a Jewish State. There was no promise of a Jewish State. What was promised was that the British Government would favour the creation of a Jewish National Home—the term was most carefully chosen—in Palestine. The Declaration did not say that Palestine should be the Jewish National Home, but that it favoured a Jewish National Home in Palestine, without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the Arab population.

In 1922, in the White Paper quoted, the British Government of the day reaffirmed that Declaration. In view of the Jews' historic connexion with Palestine the White Paper said they should be regarded as going there as of right, and not by sufferance. That does not justify the Zionists or the Jewish population in Palestine saying that the Arabs are there on sufferance and not as of right. Arabs who have been there for a thousand years also have definite rights in Palestine; that must be admitted and acknowledged, and that is clearly admitted in the Balfour Declaration. The Declaration in 1917 with regard to the Jewish National Home, the Balfour Declaration, and the White Paper of 1922, issued when Mr. Churchill was Colonial Secretary, were accepted by the Zionist Organization—the first one with expressions of warm gratitude which were published at the time. The second was met by a formal declaration of the Zionist Organization saying that they accepted the policy of the White Paper and that their own policy would be made to conform with it. The country was at peace for some years afterwards. It is untrue to say that it is impossible for Jews and Arabs to live together. There was a disturbance in Jaffa in 1921, when I was High Commissioner, but after that, although there was political tension during the remainder of my term until 1925, for eight years the country was at peace. There were no disturbances, no assassinations, not a blow struck between the two sections. And all that time the question of a, Jewish State was never brought into the foreground. It was never mentioned. No claim was pressed.

Unhappily, during the war, the American Zionists thought it desirable to bring it to the front. By a resolution called the Biltmore Resolution, from the place where it was passed, they demanded that Palestine as a whole should be declared to be a Jewish Commonwealth or State—either word was used on different occasions. They declared also that all the inhabitants should have equal political rights from the outset. These resolutions were endorsed by the world Zionist Organization in May, 1945. I have always regarded that as a disastrous political blunder. It was an aim quite impossible of fulfilment, and indeed was meaningless as propounded, for in Palestine to-day Arabs are two to one, compared to the Jews. And if you were to make a declaration that it is a Jewish State, it would not in fact be a Jewish State. If the Jews were equal in numbers to the Arabs it would not be a Jewish State—it would be half Jewish and half Arab. Even if the Jews were twice as many as the Arabs in the future, it would still not be a Jewish State. You might declare that it was, but, as a matter of fact, it would be a mixed state. Therefore, this declaration of the American Zionists, endorsed by the World Zionist organization, merely had the effect of arousing the maximum of opposition from the Arabs and everyone else and achieving the minimum of results.

An Arab State in Palestine, in my view, is also impracticable in view of the Balfour Declaration. As the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, has quite frankly pointed out, what this country has said it must stand to. Therefore there must be a Jewish National Home in Palestine and an Arab State would very gravely shake the stability of anything that could really be called a Jewish National Home. The good faith of this country must be maintained. On the strength of the Balfour Decimation 500,000 people have gone there, and they have started to build up a marvellous community. Putting it on a merely monetary basis, hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested and spent there. In recent years, since the war of 1914–1918, the Arabs have enjoyed advantages far in excess of any possible expectations of theirs at that time. An immense stretch of the world's surface has now, in a single generation, been erected into a series of independent Arab states—Saudi Arabia, a kingdom; Transjordan, an independent kingdom; Iraq, a third kingdom; Syria, an independent republic; Lebanon, an independent republic. All these, together with Egypt also, have formed themselves into a powerful league. It would surely be no very great hardship if this one little bit in Palestine were declared to be a mixed State, and not purely a State under an Arab sovereign or republic.

To my mind that is the right solution. I do not support partition, because knowing the country as I do it seems to me to be geographically impossible. It would create as many problems as it would solve. Instead of one minority problem, as there is now, we should have two. Mr. Bevin said in another place in February that the best scheme of partition which he had seen would create a Jewish State which would have a population of 450,000 Jews and 360,000 Arabs. That would be nearly half and half. That was to be called a Jewish State. There would be a minority there in that community, and there would be about 150,000 Jews left outside. You would have to impose a frontier between the two without any natural boundaries, and this would give rise to all sorts of difficulties. Criminals could step with ease from one side of the boundary to the other. You could never have anything in the nature of a tariff.

Immigration could not be confined to one part. It could easily seep through into the other part. When the Peel Commission reported in favour of partition, an expert Commission was appointed to draw up a boundary and declared that it was not possible to do so. The problem which presents itself is unique in the world. We are so accustomed, in this country and in the United States, to look upon democracy as government by a representative body which is elected by geographical constituencies that we always think there must be some areas which will elect members by a majority, and that the minority will acquiesce in the decisions of the majority. A democracy of this kind cannot be maintained in countries where you have—as there are in Palestine—two communities, each imbued with a passionate feeling of the justice of their several causes. You must provide not on a basis of geography but on a basis of communities, unless (as in Ireland) you can draw a line a ad make two sides of a frontier between them. In any case, that gives rise to all sorts of difficulties, and it cannot be done in Palestine.

When I was High Commissioner I tried to build up two organizations on a communal basis. The present representative Council of the Jewish community—the Va'ad Leumi—was set up by ordinance, looking after their own finances, their schools, and their own concerns in general, while keeping in direct touch with the Executive. I was intending to do the same for the Arabs, but they were too divided. However, we passed an ordinance and established a Moslem Council, elected by Moslems to look after their endowments and their ecclesiastical courts. We should have been ready to do the same for the Christian community if they had wished it, but they were politically identified with the Moslem Arabs.

The Constitution which I envisage—this is not new for I have been saying this for years, in this House and elsewhere—is the kind of Constitution that the Anglo-American Committee unanimously recommended. Their recommendation has been ignored. The British Mandate should remain for a series of years, until the country is more settled. It should be accountable to the Trusteeship Committee of the United Nations. There should not be a British Dominion. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in advocating a British Dominion. We have declared loudly, again and again, that there are to be no annexations by any of the Great Powers. To attach Palestine to the British Empire under the name of a Dominion would give rise to the strongest protests in various directions. We should be accused of Imperialism, in addition to which, so far as I can see, the Dominion policy would dispose of none of our present problems—immigration, the tension between the two communities, and majorities and minorities.

All these would remain equally if it were called a British Dominion as if it were called a British Mandate. Therefore, in my view, there ought to be constituted two communities—a Jewish community as it now exists, with its own representative body, and an Arab community, with a third Christian community if it were desired, though I do not think it would be. They would manage their own schools, hospitals and social services. They would have their own finances, and would be in direct and constant touch with the Executive. It might be hoped that in course of time these two would grow together. At first, no doubt, they would be separate, and would communicate separately with the British Administration. But after a time they might grow more together. Their first joint effort under the pressure of practical need might be to form joint committees dealing with particular subjects; and then they might gradually combine, until perhaps in a few years time they could form a joint Council, which, in turn, would be; come a proper system of government for the country as a whole, regardless of majorities, regardless of minorities, and regardless of geographical distribution, based upon the system of communities.

Local government, dealing with the question of roads, drains, lighting, and the like, would be effected, as now, by local government bodies which in Tel-Aviv is Jewish, in Nablus is mostly Moslem, while as in Haifa, they now have mixed municipalities working happily together, except that in Jerusalem it has been temporarily suspended. Immigration must be decided on the authority of the United Nations before the new Constitution has been brought into being, and numbers should be decided which would hold good over a series of years, subject to modification by the executive only on grounds of economic conditions. That is the plan that I have previously advanced in this House and in my evidence before the Anglo-American Commission. Doctor Magnes in Palestine has formed a Party advocating much the same proposals. The Anglo-American Commission's Report has been very much on the same lines—no Jewish State, no Arab State, and no partition.

We all knew that the Conference in London would be perfectly futile. Everybody knew from the beginning that to bring Jews and Arabs together in London to decide these matters would lead to no result whatsoever. It was merely regarded as an effort by the British Government to effect delay because it did not know what to do. This very solution could properly be accepted by the Arab League. They have all this vast territory under their own control. It would be an act of magnaminity and of good grace to consent to a mixed Constitution of this kind, and it would be greatly to the advantage of the Arab population of Palestine, who have flourished under the Mandate. They have not been oppressed they have not been driven out, their population has increased by as many as the Jewish population has increased, and they have reached a state of economic prosperity greater than they have ever known.

People say "Well, they all want a final settlement—to have something settled now which will last in perpetuity." It cannot be done. They must consent to have a mixed Constitution for the time being that will grow into something better, and a system of immigration that may be subject to review in later years as conditions alter. Both this Government and the United States Government might accept a scheme of that kind if it could be based upon a unanimous report of the Joint Committee appointed by both of them.

VISCOUNT HALL

The British Government did accept that scheme and endeavoured to get the Jews, the Arabs, and the Government of the United States of America to agree.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I am delighted to hear it, but what has been suggested is still on a geographical basis, with provincial governments. Drawing lines on maps to form provinces which should have quasi-governmental powers is not the same thing. You must get away froth that idea of drawing lines on a map; it will not do. The provincial lines that were drawn in these proposals are exactly the matters that gave rise to the intense controversy, and it is not a similar plan to the one I have suggested. It is a geographical plan, and the frontiers of the provinces, and the powers within the provinces which are to be Arab or Jewish, is partition in a different form. You should abandon that and get a really admirable scheme. The Government came closer than ever before to a wise scheme, but must cling on to the idea of constituencies and of separate authorities, each having quasi-governmental powers. If such a plan as I suggest were now to be adopted, frankly and definitely, by the Government, if it were backed by the American Government and, above all, if it came forward with the immense authority of the United Nations, representing the opinion of the vast majority of mankind, then it might well be accepted by the Arab League and by the Jewish Community in Palestine. The people of Palestine want peace. They want peace now. It is only a minority of extremists on each side that keep the country in turmoil. Put forward a comprehensive and definite scheme of that kind and then the controversy might, perhaps, be ended; and at last the warfare of Zion would be accomplished and Jerusalem be comforted.

4.35 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I believe your Lordships will agree with me that the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, has performed a great service to the House in bringing forward this Motion to-day. It was obviously rather overdue, as he himself admitted. The events in Palestine, and what has led up to them, had to be discussed, and it was high time we had this debate, I do not stand here to criticize His Majesty's Government in their policy of referring this dire and difficult problem to the United Nations, and if, in a few moments, I venture to make certain suggestions to my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, I wish him to understand that I quite appreciate the difficulties of the Government, and I give them credit for trying to do their best in a very complicated situation.

I think the, noble Viscount who has just addressed your Lordships from the Liberal Benches would agree that the picture of Palestine as presented to the British public through the Press, and so on, is an incorrect one. It is a propaganda picture. For example, while these events that were described by the noble Lord who moved the Motion were going on; while this tragic stream of hapless fugitives are trying to enter the Holy Land, as Viscount Samuel has described, the work of reconstruction in Palestine, the rehabilitation of the country by the colonists and settlers, continues. In fact, as soon as the curfew is lifted the busy life begins again. There have been some most remarkable achievements already in soil reclamation, in land settlement, and in the scientific use of the rich soil of Palestine which has suffered so much from centuries of neglect.

Take, for example, the brilliant work of reconstruction in the area of the Dead Sea, to which, I think, my noble friend Lord Morrison has had his attention drawn and about which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, certainly knows; the remarkable work in the colony of Beth Haaa Rava— I apologize for my bad Hebrew pronunciation, but the translation is "The House in the Wilderness." There land has been for centuries so impregnated with salt from the Dead Sea that it was considered useless; but by tapping the sweet waters of the Jordan before they entered the Dead Sea, by piping water to this salt-saturated area and by washing the soil in sections for nine months but still leaving enough salt to act as a fertilizer, the most wonderful crops are now being grown. That is as remarkable a piece of reclammation of land that was considered hopeless as modern agricultural science can offer. That work has been going on through all these grim events—the acts of terrorism, reprisals, and so on, that have horrified everyone in your Lordships' House.

The work of settlement proceeds elsewhere in Palestine, and with tremendous energy the land is being prepared and recovered. Manufacturing activities continue and the ordinary work of development goes on, despite the disorders. I am not pessimistic of the future of the Jewish National Home and I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is not pessimistic either. I hope he is not despairing. He knows the facts also about the people who, as settlers, do these things in that country of Palestine. They can claim the attributes of nationhood. There will be a National Home in Palestine. Nothing can delay it and nothing can destroy it. And I am not pessimistic about the future. That is why I have supported His Majesty's Government in referring this whole matter to the United Nations Organization.

Then there is another entirely false picture that is drawn for the British public. The suggestion is that there are 100,000 or 120,000 troops, including the Air Forces, in the country for the purpose of preventing the Arabs from slaughtering the Jews. That is an entirely false picture. There is no danger whatever of an Arab attack on the Jews. In the Arab rising before the Second World War, when Arab gunmen came over the border from Syria more Arabs than Jews were killed. It was much more a matter of civil war between the Arabs and action against the British than against the Jews. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and the noble Lord who moved the Motion have pointed out, Jews and Arabs, if given the chance, can work together and will work together perfectly well. I have in my mind a picture of the vast procession of Jews and Arabs who were being evicted from those areas of Jersualem which are being made into a British Ghetto, where we are concentrating the business men and civil servants who are allowed to remain, jointly marching in protest against eviction from their homes. I have a picture of the Arab and Jewish trade unionists acting together in advancement of their economic position. I have a picture—a slightly more humorous one perhaps—of Jewish and Arab citrus growers trying to squeeze Mr. John Strachey for a higher price for next season's crop of oranges. The truth of the matter is that in the last twenty-five years in particular there has grown up a younger generation of Palestinian Arabs with a Western outlook. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, reminded your Lordships that to-day they have a higher standard of living than they have ever known before. They have a higher standard of living—as a result of the events of the last twenty-five years in Palestine—than any Arabs in any other part of the Middle East.

The one thing those modern young Arabs, who have Westernized ideas as a result of their contact with the Jews and from seeing what the Jews are doing, do not desire is ever to come back under Arab rule. I can assure your Lordships—and those of your Lordships who have served in the country who know the Arabs well will know that this is so; I am certain that my noble friend Lord Morrison from his experience knows it perfectly well—that the one thing the Arabs in Palestine do not want is to come once more under the control of feudal Arab landlords and the Arab tax-gatherers of the Turkish Empire, with the corruption and inefficiency and general misery that was entailed.

LORD LLOYD

I wonder if the noble Lord will forgive my making this one interruption? The Arabs do not wish to come back under Turkish rule, which is a very different thing from being under Arab rule, which they never really had.

LORD STRABOLGI

The instruments of government were exercised by Arab feudal landlords who held positions under the Turks. They were the tax gatherers under the Turks. I was in Palestine for the first time in 1910, when it was the most impoverished and backward province of the Turkish Empire. The government was controlled then and exercised by Arab officials. The Turks were there as soldiers. Their job was to keep order and, incidentally, to prevent the various Christians sects from flying at each other's throats in the holy places of Jerusalem. That was the job of the Turks. The actual administration and the extortion and tyranny that went with it was exercised by Arab officials. That is well known by the Arabs to-day, and they do not wish to return to that state of affairs. I am convinced from what I have seen, and evidence which has reached me, that if they are encouraged and given the chance, the masses of Arabs and Jews—and by those I mean the farmers, merchants and people generally who are doing an honest job of work—will co-operate and work together. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has just reminded your Lordships, the bulk of the people in Palestine of both religions are heartily sick of the chaos and disorder that is going on in the country. Above all things, they desire peace, and the chance of being able to go ahead with the reconstruction of that beautiful country that can be so prosperous and rich once more, and to do it without interruption.

There is one piece of evidence which I will bring to your Lordships' attention and which I think will not be denied by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, or by any others who know the military situation in Palestine during the past few years. That is the example set by the late General Wingate and his achievement in Palestine. He was the most successful soldier we ever had in Palestine in welding together into a most efficient fighting force a mixed Jewish and Arab Brigade. He was so successful in getting the Jews and Arabs to collaborate and to resist the then Arab terrorists, that the War Office became alarmed, cleared him out of Palestine, and gave orders that he was never to be allowed back into the country. It did not suit the book of certain people. I hope that they are not in any position to influence His Majesty's present advisers. It did not suit certain people that there should be Jewish and Arab collaboration at that time. Under Wingate, there was Jewish arid Arab collaboration under the most testing conditions of all—in the field of battle.

What General Wingate did was this. He trained Jewish and Arab villagers—who only wanted encouragement and were only too glad to put an end to the terrorism which was then going on, in this case by the Arabs—to fight at night. In those days the British Army used to control the whole country in the day time; then the soldiers went to bed and the control of the country passed to the hands of the terrorists, mostly Syrians. He taught his brigade of mixed Jewish and Arab villagers to fight at night. They beat the terrorists at their own game, and in a matter of six to eight weeks the back of the revolt was broken by Wingate's mixed Arab and Jewish brigade. That is a most important example of what may be done by way of collaboration between the Jews and the Arabs. I am glad to say that the memory of Wingate is very fresh in Palestine to-day, and has been a great encouragement to those who are working for Arab and Jewish friendship and co-operation.

But those people are not exactly encouraged when the sort of thing to which I will now refer happens. I know it is not the fault of my noble friend Lord Morrison and his colleagues, but the only witnesses seen and heard by the mixed Anglo-American Commission were those nominated by the Arab Higher Committee. That meant that, in effect, they heard only Arab witnesses who were nominated by the mouthpiece of the Mufti, the inveterate enemy of Britain. I do not blame them. They probably were advised that if any other Arabs came to put a different point of view, those Arabs would be in danger of assassination. I am afraid that is perfectly true. Unless we are prepared to protect Arabs who take a different line from the Mufti, they will keep very quiet. Some of them have been massacred and assassinated in recent years, in recent months and in recent weeks, as my noble friend knows. Some have been assassinated by their own Arab opponents—the supporters of the Mufti.

LORD MORRISON

An open invitation was issued by the Anglo-American Commission that they were prepared to hear evidence from anyone who desired to give evidence in Washington, London, Cairo, or Jerusalem, and, so far as I know, no one who offered to give evidence was turned away.

LORD STRABOLGI:

I was careful to say that I did not in any way blame my noble friend and his colleagues; but, in effect, the only witnesses they saw were those nominated by the Arab Higher Committee, which was very unfortunate. I will give another example. I do not know what the explanation is—it was certainly extremely faulty intelligence work of the kind that has been complained about by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham—but some explanation is needed of the episode at Lydda Airport the other day when one of the most notorious of the Arab gunmen and fanatics—Fanze el Din Kawji, Raschid Ali's Lieutenant in the Iraq revolt and one of the leaders of the insurrection among the Arabs of Palestine prior to the Second World War—landed at Lydda Aerodrome in Palestine on his way from Egypt. He walked about for an hour or two, and then took off in the plane and continued journey. And he has been on the wanted list of the Palestine Police for years!Surely, with the tight control and the intelligence operations that go on in Palestine, some explanation is required other than the fact that he was travelling under a different name.

I am afraid that there has not been enough active encouragement for the sort of solution that has been canvassed to-day by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and which I am trying to advocate along somewhat different lines in your Lords-hips House this afternoon. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said that he would have to reject the idea of a Dominion solution for Palestine, because that would mean annexation by Britain. I suggest that that is not the case at all. A Dominion of Palestine would have to be asked for by the people of Palestine, and by a large majority. But if it were known that that solution would be acceptable to His Majesty's Government (or, now, that it would be put before the United Nations Organization at the right moment by His Majesty's Government), then I believe there would be a surprising response in Palestine itself from the moderate Jews and the moderate Arabs, who are tired of this disorder, and who wish to work for the future benefit of the whole country. But it must be made known; and here is where I have to say, with great diffidence, that I think His Majesty's Government are taking up an untenable position.

I do not think we can for long maintain our position of not saying what our proposals are, when this matter of Palestine comes before the United Nations Organization. We have got to come forward with something, with some considered proposal. This could be the plan which I am trying to advocate, and which I believe is perfectly feasible. The question of immigration will have to be settled. That is crucial, as the noble Viscount who has just addressed your Lordships has indicated, and as I think the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, admits. But, after all, Mr. Ernest Bevin, in his diligent search for a solution, did put forward the proposal of 4,000 legal immigrants a month. That adds up to 48,000 a year, and in two years it will not be far short of President Truman's 100,000. But the time is slipping away; we are getting to the end of our second year as a Government. I do not think this position of making no proposals can be maintained for very long, once the whole matter comes officially before the United Nations. I very much hope that the advisers and officials at the Colonial Office, which my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty knows so well, and which lie adorned for nearly two years, are not closing their minds to this solution.

In the debate in another place my right honourable friend Mr. Ernest Bevin indicated that there was something in the Dominion solution, but that it was now too late. It is not too late. I submit that the same might have been said about Canada, at the time of Canada's terrible agony, which has already been referred to in this debate. The same could have been said, before it became a Dominion, about the Dominion that is now the Dominion of South Africa. There you have two examples (the Irish case is not nearly so analogous) of bitter racial strife. In the case of South Africa, terrible bitterness was felt in this country and between the two races of what is now a very prosperous and efficient Dominion. In Canada there was bitter strife also between the two communities. They were both solved quite satisfactorily by the assumption of Dominion status. It is not for us to grant Dominion status, but for us to suggest it and to explore its possibilities.

The demand or the request for Dominion status must come from the Palestinians themselves, and it would be a unique example, I believe, of a community voluntarily joining an Empire. I ask my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty who has done so much to try to find a solution, and those who advise him, to look again at this solution. I believe that it can be done, but it needs a lead; it needs authoritative support from His Majesty's Government here, and, above all, in Palestine itself. So far (I am sorry to have to say this) those Arabs who have received favour and patronage have been the extremists. The men who have preached anti-Semitism, and who have resisted any co-operation, have been the ones to receive favour in the past, and those who are prepared to co-operate with their Jewish neighbours and fellow settlers, and who support some such solution as that suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, or proposed by the Anglo-American Commission, or suggested now (with great diffidence) by myself, have not been encouraged or helped. All the evidence which reaches me shows a vast middle body of both Jews and Arabs who are prepared to co-operate in some form of unified government for the benefit of all the inhabitants of this historic and holy land, to which all of us owe so much and whose destiny will mean so much in the future.

I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, for bringing this matter forward. It has to be discussed, and your Lordships' House is a suitable arena in which to discuss this vitally important and terrible problem. Palestine to-day is absorbing the energies of a vast British force, which we can ill spare; and, however well our soldiers behave there—and I know they do—and however hard His Majesty's Government try to find a solution, inevitably tee lack of a solution is holding this country up to criticism throughout the world. It is a situation that cannot be allowed to go on. I support His Majesty's Government in the latest step—they have referred the matter to the United Nations—but I do beg of them to have their plan ready when the time inevitably comes when the other nations will say: "After all, you have had the Mandate for twenty-five years: what is your solution? You are a great Colonial Power, with vast experience. What do you propose? We know little enough about and we are diffident about entangling ourselves."

I do hope, whatever else happens, that we shall not have the eighteenth Commission of Inquiry. My noble friend and his colleagues know the facts, and they have known them for a long time. No further Commission of Inquiry is necessary, but a plan is needed, similar to my proposal, which should be put forward with all the authority of the British Government, and I believe it would be supported by the vast majority of the law-abiding and peace-loving people of Palestine.

4.59 p.m.

LORD HANKEY

My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but my noble friend Viscount Samuel has called in question the view which the minority of the Mandates Commission took in 1939. I think I ought to do my best to offer some account of what happened. I speak at a great disadvantage, because I have been away and have had no notice that this question was to be raised. I have not like my noble friend refreshed my memory on the 400 or so pages on those proceedings (and there were at least half a dozen other equally contentious documents before us at that short meeting); neither have I re-read the Mandate or, what is really almost as important, the resolution of the Peace Conference which established the mandatory position. I have, therefore, to rely on what I always feel to be an unreliable thing—my memory.

I confirm what the noble Viscount said, that the whole of the Commission, including myself, agreed that the White Paper interpretations differ from the previous interpretations of the Mandate Commission. But I myself, and my French and Portuguese colleagues, did not consider that interpretation to be correct and we challenged it. From oar point of view it was unfortunate that the Commission was a very small one. I forget what the total membership was, and I have not been able to refresh my memory on it. It must have been about ten, aid there were only seven members present on that occasion. Of those seven, if my memory serves me correctly, three had been members for a long time, and they would naturally be reluctant to change their view. There was actually one other member of the Commission present in Geneva, but we could not get him to the meetings because, unfortunately, he was at loggerheads with his Government, which was a different one from that which had appointed him, and he would not take any part. That is the sort of thing which affects history. I have every reason to believe that if he had been there he would have supported our point of view and that there would have been a "dead heat." That was what was reported to me at the time. However, we were beaten by four votes to three. I am not a lawyer and I cannot charge my memory with the legal arguments that were adduced in favour of the minority view.

I can remember, however, that the view which I took was that the Mandate was a document intended to guide and help the Mandatory Power, and that it could not possibly lay down exactly what the Mandatory Power, was to do in every sort and kind of circumstance that might arise. It might be that sticking strictly to the letter of the Mandate in a matter such as immigration might ruin the intention of the Mandate; that was quite a possibility. So far as my recollection goes—and I will stand corrected if anyone says I am wrong—the Mandate did not lay down anything about the time within which the policies were to be carried out; so it seemed to me that, if the circumstances demanded it, the Mandatory Power was entitled to take such action as was prescribed in the White Paper, upon which I have not been able to refresh my memory, as slowing down or limiting for a time the extent and the rate of immigration. I may have been right or I may have been wrong, but it seemed to me that this was a document which was essentially a political document and that its interpretation could not depend entirely and exclusively upon the previous views of a number of men, mostly lawyers, who were members of this Commission; or that it could be totally dissociated from the political circumstances of the day.

What were the political circumstances of the day? I do not require to refresh my memory about that. It was June, 1939, and we were hurtling to war. I told my colleagues that. Whether I told them in public session or in private, I do not know, but there was no doubt in the minds of any of my colleagues that I was certain of that, and some of them had evidence to confirm it. I had no reason to defend the British Government. I had only three days' notice to go to Geneva. I was entirely independent of them, and I did not take any instructions from them or have any consultations with them on this point. I came to the conclusion, after hearing what Mr. Malcolm Macdonald had to say on the subject, and after hearing what everybody else had to say, including my colleagues, that the fact that we were in a period of tension, or at any rate that we were coming very close to a period of acute tension—we were in it really—must affect the policy of the Government, and that the British Government, as the Mandatory Power, were bound to look at coming events. If they thought war was a possibility—and they were arming as fast as they could—they had to look at what the position would be in the Middle East.

I asked whether they could afford to adopt a policy which would so affront the Arabs, and so pull the Arabs together, that when the day came they might find the whole of the Middle East in a blaze. The answer was: "This is a purely legal interpretation of a legal document." I maintained that it was not a legal document but a political document, and that it did, in fact, leave a good deal to interpretation. Although we were beaten there, I felt that if the matter went to the League of Nations (which would have been the next step but for the circumstance that war came upon us), there was no doubt that it would there be considered in a very much more political atmosphere. I have never regretted the line I took, and I do not regret it to-day.

5.9 p.m.

LORD LLOYD

My Lords, I do not think that many tears will be shed at the funeral of the present Mandate. I have no doubt that the intentions of its authors were good, but unfortunately they are, I think, of that particular brand with which the road to Hell is proverbially paved. It was so vaguely worded that I do not think anybody could quite understand what it meant. I am fortified in that view, if I may say so with all deference to him, by what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said this afternoon. It seems to me quite clear that all the time there were these two things: on the one hand, there was the Jewish National Home, and, on the other hand, there was the necessity for the civil and religious rights of the Arab people to be protected. Those points were always in conflict and the position was never clearly defined. Therefore I feel we shall none of us weep at this particular funeral and that there is an overwhelming case for the abolition of the present Mandate and its replacement by some more realistic scheme in the future. Indeed, I think I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, that the only thing we on these Benches regret is that His Majesty's Government did not take this action earlier. But if we do perhaps regret a certain sense of political unpunctuality on the part of His Majesty's Government, I, for one, most warmly welcome the steps that they have taken. I do not believe that we should delude ourselves into thinking that by recognizing the impractical nature of the existing Mandate, and referring the whole thing to the United Nations, we are going materially to ease our present difficulties in Palestine.

I must confess that this is my first anxiety in the matter. For many years we have carried out to the best of our ability this very difficult task in Palestine. At times the task has been difficult, and at other times well-nigh impossible. Our difficulties have steadily increased, and each month now increases the problem of physical destruction in Palestine, and the casualties extend to the British taxpayer. I feel very strongly that an early decision is absolutely vital, not only to the people in Palestine who, as the noble Viscount said, so desperately desire peace, but also to the officials and soldiers out there who for all too long have been working in conditions of the most terrible strain and with very little reward.

I must confess that my hopes were raised about this particular point when I read of the announcement that a special meeting of the United Nations was to take place—in fact, so far as I know, it is taking place at this moment. But it appears to me now—perhaps it was always so, although I did not appreciate it—that this special meeting is only to set up another Commission of Investigation. It was only last May that the Anglo-American Commission made their report, and it seems to me that the facts, only too well known, have not changed. To appoint yet another Commission at this stage seems to me, in the present situation, to be the most incredible folly. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that history will write of us that our sins in Palestine were not so much errors of omission as of Commission after Commission. When the well-known facts are re-discovered, so far as I can see, these is even then a great prospect of further delay. It is possible, I agree, that in September the fifty nations of the United Nations will all, with one voice, agree immediately to the same solution; but if one can go by the form book—which I do on other occasions—I cannot honestly conceive that anything but a miracle can produce such a result. It seems to me much more likely that there will be protracted discussions and that in the end, when a decision is reached, it will be a majority decision over possibly quite a strong minority.

In the meantime in Palestine we shall be in that same position of responsibility without power as we are in India to-day. It is a position that is as uncomfortable as it is undignified, and it is one which I do not think we should occupy a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. Let us not forget that we pay for the privilege of occupying that position, not only with the lives of British soldiers, but with the money of the British taxpayer. And what do we get in return? I think in the interim the most one can expect to get is possibly a certain amount of rather acid criticism from certain sections of the American Press—poor compensation even by what we on these Benches think are, the rather unorthodox standards of compensation be lieved in by His Majesty's Government. I think a fairly long delay is almost inevitable, and I cannot help having the gravest misgivings about the effect of such a delay on the situation in Palestine.

I do therefore hope that in his reply the noble Viscount will be able to give us some satisfactory and reassuring answers to the questions which were put by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, about the illegal immigration, and about the steps that are being taken to enlist the co-operation of the Jewish Agency in stopping terrorism. Finally, I hope that His Majesty's Government will take perhaps a slightly "tougher" line with the terrorists. I cannot help comparing the present treatment with the treatment which was meted out to the Arabs between 1936 and 1939. in circumstances where I do not think terrorism was anything like as bad as it is to-day. In those days, villages were destroyed, flocks and crops were confiscated, crushing collective fines were imposed and there was almost continuous martial law. What is more, in 1938 no less than fifty Arabs—in fact rather more—were condemned to death. When you compare that with the sentences and action we are taking to-day, there seems to me to be a very great disparity.

The time factor is a very important thing, but that is not my only anxiety. As I have already said, the existing Mandate is obscure and obsolete. It is obsolete because it was drawn up long before Hitler started to paint the world red; indeed at a time when he was merely painting houses in Vienna. It is essential that the new Trusteeship Agreement should not suffer from the same defects. In my view we must get an absolutely clear decision on this question of the Jewish State. To say, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, his said, that even if you had a large Jewish majority it would not be a Jewish State, seems to me quite honestly, from the Arab point of view, to make no sense at all. At any rate I know a good many Arabs, and that is not their view. They regard themselves as the rightful inhabitants of the country and they consider that any system which will force upon them immigrants, until those immigrant in their turn become a majority, is the very negation of all international morality. Therefore, although I have the greatest sympathy with the Jewish people in all their sufferings—and I am acutely conscious of the urgent need of taking steps to find homes on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, for all these unfortunate people—I do not think that we, as a nation, can stand up for a departure which is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of all Arabs, against all the laws of international morality. The test I apply is: Is it a thing that we would like to happen to us? Would we be quite happy to have Chinamen pumped into this country until they were a majority? I do not believe we would stand it for a minute. If we are not prepared to stand things, I do not think we can inflict them on others.

There is one other point, and that is the question of immigration. The question of immigration is obviously bound up completely with the Jewish State. If you do not intend to have a Jewish State you cannot continue to have unlimited immigration. But I believe that if this whole question of the Jewish displaced persons in Europe could be tackled on separate lines, and we could show the Arabs that other nations were doing something to deal with this problem, then the Arabs themselves would play a not inconspicuous part in doing their share. A solution based on these principles seems to me to he the only solution that we in this country can carry out with a clear conscience. I hope, as suggested by the noble Viscount, that when the time comes His Majesty's Government will stick to the Bevin plan, which I believe to be the soundest yet put up, and make a clear pronouncement on it. There are obvious difficulties as to when the announcement should be made. I do not feel it is for me to suggest to His Majesty's Government the precise moment when it should be done. But it is true, I think, that the people in this country have a right to know what solution His Majesty's Government are to adopt. For that reason it would perhaps be better to make an announcement before the meeting of the United Nations in September, because, if it is made only in September, the people in this country will be committed before they have had a chance to appreciate the policy that is to be adopted by His Majesty's Government. Equally, I am quite sure that failure to put up a solution will leave the United Nations organization without any basis of discussion. I think, also, it is important that the United Nations should know where we stand, for it is conceivable that in certain circumstances it might be impossible for us to carry on the Mandate. I will come to that in a minute.

Finally, I would like to ask the noble Viscount a few things about our position after the matter has been discussed by the United Nations. It is conceivable, as I nave said, that some circumstances might arise which would make impossible the continuation of British control in Palestine. I earnestly hope that such a situation will not arise because I agree that on the whole we have tried to do the job well in Palestine, and on the whole—despite apparent failure—I believe no nation could have done half as well. But it is conceivable that circumstances might arise which might make the situation impossible for us. For example, the United Nations might produce no decision. I do not believe that, without world opinion behind us, we can continue. In the second place, the United Nations might produce a decision which would be foreign to our ideas and for that reason we could not implement it. Thirdly, the decision of the United Nations might not be backed by a sufficient weight of world opinion to enable us to carry on with our task. It might well be that there would be a strong minority against the decision arrived at by the United Nations, and it might include one of the great Powers. In that situation I suggest it would be very difficult for us to persuade the communities to accept a solution, and again it might be conceivable that we should no longer be able to carry out our task.

In these circumstances I would like to ask the noble Viscount for his assurance that, in the first place, we are not bound to carry out any policy, any solution, of the United Nations of which this country cannot approve, and that, secondly, on giving due notice we may surrender our Mandate in Palestine. I have only a few more words to say. I believe the Bevin plan is sound. I hope the United Nations will approve of such a plan and will do so with such unanimity that we can operate it. I hope also—I am sure this is vital—that at the same time as they deal with Palestine the United Nations will produce some world-wide scheme for dealing with the Jewish problem in Europe. The two problems cannot be separated. It is no good discussing Palestine if you do not deal with the other problem at the same time. If this is done, and we are enabled with real world backing to adopt the Bevin plan, I shall not be pessimistic. There may be difficult times but in the two years in which I soldiered in Palestine I have seen too much, both in Arab and Jewish villages, not to believe that co-operation in Palestine could happen. I believe in that event we could all look forward to achievement of the object for which this country has been striving so long and at such heavy cost—the establishment of a free and independent Palestinian State. And thus the history of British rule in Palestine, which has had so many stormy chapters, may have the kind of ending we all like.

5.27 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My Lords, having as Secretary of State been for four years responsible for the administration of Palestine, I should like to add my modest quota to this debate. Those who have had the closest responsibility and first-hand experience are perhaps those who hesitate most to offer a dogmatic solution. I think the debate has been well worth while, and I hope when the Secretary of State comes to reply I shall have no reason to qualify that statement. It has been opportune, informed, worthy of the gravity and the difficulty of the subject; and not least in that comprehensive appreciation, may I say that I include the last speech? I am glad to see that the son of one who commanded so much confidence in the Middle East and whose name was a household word there should be following his father's footsteps.

Many of us may differ in our view as to what is the right solution. It may well be said that a second-rate solution which the people of Palestine, Jew and Arab, would accept, is better than a first-rate solution which. neither would accept. We are face to face to-day with a situation in which no solution so far propounded has proved-acceptable; and now, rightly, the matter has been put to the United Nations. However much we may differ about what is the right solution, there is one thing in which I think we all agree. It is this: throughout all the years of our Mandate the Civil Service in Pales- tine have rendered disinterested, selfless and loyal service, seeking only to serve the best interest of that country, in both peaceful and troublous times. The noble Lord said he would like to rely on form. The Civil Administration have run true to form and the British Army has run true to form, under every possible provocation. When troops are shot in the back, bombed, assassinated—even by people who have disguised themselves in the uniform of British troops—the hardest call is made upon them to maintain their discipline and morale. The way in which the Army has borne itself under all this provocation, its patience and its understanding prove that it is indeed a model Force, and one of which this country and the world may well be proud.

To come to the main problem, there are just two or three things which I would like to say. The first is that Palestine itself does not afford a solution of the problem of Jewish immigration. I do not think that that can be made too clear. The worst friends of Jewish immigration into Palestine are the extremists among the Jews who are trying to force the acceptance in Palestine of every Jew, whether he wants to go there or not. Those people are the worst advocates of a Jewish National Home, and so long as the claim is made by those vocal persons that Palestine could and should absorb all the Jewish immigrants (I am sure that it can absorb some more) so long will any immigration tend to be opposed. The Balfour Declaration which is enshrined in the Mandate set out that Palestine should be a home for the Jews, not—as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has very fairly said—a State. It was a very carefully drawn and short document which put the matter in a single sentence. If a State had been meant then the word "State" would have been used. But the Declaration said "home" and meant home. And it meant a home for Jews, not a home for all Jews.

The test of what immigration may be possible was laid down clearly in the White Paper of 1922 when Mr. Churchill was Colonial Secretary. That test was not challenged at the time, and it was never challenged in all the period that I was Secretary of State, nearly ten years later. It was the test of economic absorptive capacity. I am not saying that Jews and Arabs accepted what successive Secretaries of State and High Commissioners judged to be the possible and right absorptive capacity. They did not; indeed, do not think they ever agreed or accepted. If they had done so the matter would have been made simple. But the Arabs generally said: "You are letting in too many," and the Jews always said:" You are letting in too few." It was always accepted, however, that the High Commissioner—subject to the Secretary of State—was to be the judge of the absorptive capacity, and that necessarily implies that there should be a limitation. It may mean—indeed it must mean—having to stop immigration when the absorptive capacity is exhausted. If I may say so, I think that a mistake was made in the White Paper of 1939. I am not saying that it was not right at that moment to stop, or certainly to limit, immigration. After all, we were always limiting the amount of immigration. The wrong thing was to set a term of finality upon it, because you cannot judge to-day what five or ten years hence may be the absorptive capacity.

When the mandate first came into operation, people might well have supposed that this barren land could absorb only a few thousands of people. But the immense work done by the Jews there, in the way of irrigation, putting in capital, and, generally developing some of the most remarkable agricultural institutions—including dry farming—in the world, has created an absorptive capacity far in excess of what anybody could have supposed was possible in the early 1920's Therefore, I think it was wrong to set a final figure. I feel that it was wrong because, obviously, it is a matter which might have to be subject to adjustment. That there was a right and a duty to limit immigration in accordance with the absorptive capacity, and a duty to stop it if the absorptive capacity was exhausted, I have no doubt. I have equally no doubt that the test of this absorptive capacity was one that must be applied by the Mandatory Power and could not be subject to the permission or discretion of either Arab or Jew. As I have said, I think it was wrong to say that after a certain time there would not he more immigration. except with Arab consent.

If he will forgive my saying so, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in his criticism, entirely overlooked the very material facts which the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, introduced into his speech—that you cannot look at this purely as a legal question, and that the situation faced in June, 1939, when the matter came before the Mandates Commission, was one in which, as everybody knew, we were on the verge of war. That terrible fact transcended any purely legal interpretation or conception.

I am quite sure that the Government have been right to send this matter to the United Nations. Personally, I have an open mind—views do differ in degree and shade in these matters—as to whether they should, in the first instance, have said what they thought to be the right solution. Personally, I think that the arguments in this connexion very nearly balance. I think that the matter should have gone to U.N.O. long ago, and I regret the delay; but, as I say, to my mind, the arguments nearly balance. We all know what these international bodies are. Everybody goes canvassing before the election starts, so to speak, and Party funds are not wanting—particularly if the election takes place in America where funds are very liberally at the disposal of some of the disputants—I should make it clear that I am speaking entirely of this problem, and not of American elections. Had a solution been suggested, there would have been a tremendous amount of canvassing, and by the time delegates met the issue might have been prejudiced.

On the other hand, after twenty-seven years experience of administering this difficult territory, it would be unworthy of us to present a sort of Bill of Fare with four, five or six dishes upon it, and say to the U.N.O. diners: "Take your choice." I hope that is not the line that the Government are going to take. I think they are entitled to say: "If we have to play this hand we must have some discretion as to the way in which we play it." When it comes to the real hearing, not to some procedural application in chambers, which I gather is what the first meeting is to be—and in this connexion I cannot say how much I agree with those who have said that they sincerely hope we are not going to have set up another commission. of inquiry—I hope that we shall insist on having it decided. And when that meeting does come, His Majesty's Government must go forward and say what they believe is the best solution, the right solution, and the fairest solution. Let me just add this. No solution has been accepted, and therefore it certainly is up to them to say what they think is best.

I am quite sure there can be no lasting solution without the co-operation of Arab and Jew. Arabs in the past have underrated the contribution which the Jews have made to the wealth and prosperity of Palestine, and the share which they have had in it. I do not mean merely that they have received liberal compensation for their land—I am not sure that that was a happy business. I know the Jews paid enormous prices for land, sometimes to an absentee landlord and sometimes to an owner occupier, but the purchase price or the compensation money was pretty soon "blued," and there was nothing to show for it, and the Arab was uncertain whether he would get alternative land or alternative occupation. One cannot deal with this on purely legal grounds. I am sure that in a court of law the award would not have been greater. But these people have to live together in that land, as they have been living together in it for hundreds of years. On the other hand, Jews have alienated Arab' sympathy by exclusiveness. Once land had been taken over by the Jewish Agency it could never be occupied again by a non-Jew. They carried it further and tried to insist that only Jews should be employed upon the Jewish estates. That was not wise.

And the need for this co-operation goes beyond the question of land. One of the things of which the Jews, very rightly, are proud is that they have built up a wonderful and an extraordinarily varied industry in Palestine, a far greater industry than can be absorbed by the local market in Palestine. This industry was enjoying a very considerable export trade, but it was an export trade primarily to the surrounding countries—the Arab countries of the Middle East. Nothing could he more damaging to this industry which the Jews have created in Palestine than Arab hostility and an Arab boycott in the adjoining States. For centuries Jew and Arab have lived together side by side all over the Middle East, the Jews prospering and rendering an accepted and valuable service, and the Arabs co-operating. Is Palestine, where co-operation is most needed, to be the only land where this co-operation is impossible?

Various speakers Eave drawn on their experiences, and I would like to give your Lordships a personal experience of my own when I was touring Palestine as Secretary of State. Even in those days, back in the early 1930's, co-operation was very difficult. Jews were ready to meet me, Arabs were ready to meet me, but they would not meet me together. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, told how he had hoped to see these boards working. I tried to get Jew and Arab to work on different hoards of common interest. It was very difficult, and after a weary day (I had started very early in the morning) hearing Arabs complain about Jews, and Jews complain about Arabs, I came in the early evening to Rosh Pinah, a little Jewish settlement above the Sea of Galilea, one of those colonies founded forty years ago or more by Baron Edmond de Rothschild. As I came to this little place, the Jews and the Arabs came out together to meet me, and together they took me into their little village hall. First of all, the Jewish leader made me a speech and then the Arab Muktah made me a speech and said: We have been together here in good times and bad for thirty years, and we have always stuck together. That included the years of the Arab trouble and the time s of the Jewish trouble. Then he said this: If the stones of the wall hold together the wall stands, but if the stones fall apart, the wall falls and much falls with it. That night I went down to Tabca on the Sea of Galilea where I was to meet Dr. Weizmann, and Mr Arlosoroff, whose death was a sad loss to the Jewish cause. I said to Dr. Weizmann: "I have learned this evening what must be the solution. You can have more land provided the Arabs are put hack on it and you show by your joint settlements what the Jews really can do for the Arabs." Those were the terms on which I said they could have the Huleh Basin. But then more trouble came, and the Army had to go in. The memory of these colonies of the late Baron Edmond always sticks in my memory. I thoroughly believe that is the solution, and that is the kind of cooperation and union which must appeal to the United Nations, who exist in order to promote unity of that kind. If such unity, such union, such co-operation, be backed by the whole moral force of the United Nations, then I believe it may still succeed.

5.47 p.m.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, I am sure that all of you will join me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, for introducing this Motion, and you would also like me to say how pleased we are to see him back with us again. He is certainly very robust, and we trust he has completely recovered from his indisposition. I regret the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, Viscount Cranborne, from this debate, and particularly the circumstances which have caused that absence. After all, in regard to the administration of Colonial affairs, and particularly of Palestine, your Lordships' House is very ripe in experience, in that so many noble Lords have been closely associated with the administration of that not too easy territory. Those of us who have had that experience were brought right up against this very problem, which is not a problem of the last four or five years, but is one of some twenty-seven to thirty years' duration. Indeed, those of us who in that period have had the experience to which I have referred must have wished that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, whilst he was charged with the very responsible position of being the first High Commissioner (and he was a very distinguished High Commissioner) had been able to effect a settlement on the lines which he suggested to your Lordships.

I am not going into the history of the difficulties of Palestine. Indeed, on this point I am not going to enter into any of the controversies about interpreting certain parts of the Mandate. But I should like to mention to your Lordships the experience which I had on taking over the very responsible position of Colonial Secretary—indeed within ten days of doing so—because I was faced at once with this very grave and important problem. I met a very important deputation of the World Jewish Organization, which was then meeting in London, and I was faced with the Biltmore Resolutions which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, rightly said, had been accepted by the Zionist Organization. I must say that the attitude adopted by the members of the deputation was different from anything which I had ever before experienced. It was not a request for the consideration by His Majesty's Government of the decisions of the Conference, but a demand that His Majesty's Government should do what the Zionist Organization desired them to do.

When we deal with the Biltmore Resolutions, I think your Lordships should know exactly what they are. In the first place, there was a demand for the immediate admission into Palestine of 100,000 Jews. But that was to be only a first instalment. Indeed, they talked of millions. Let it be said in fairness to the Zionist Organization, which has talked in terms of the entry of millions of Jews into Palestine, that there are other and more responsible people than the World Zionist Organization who have talked in such terms. In addition to the demand for the admission of 100,000 Jews, leading up to millions who were to follow, there was the demand for an immediate declaration by His Majesty's Government that Palestine should become a Jewish State.

I cannot balance on a tightrope in describing what is to be a Jewish State. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, referred to the fact that if there were a majority of Jews in Palestine at any time, that would not make Palestine a Jewish State; nor, indeed, if there were a majority of Arabs—as there are at the present time—would that make it an Arab State. It is a question as to the power to be given into the hands of the persons who will elect the administrative body or organization. We hope—whether Palestine becomes an Arab State or a Jewish State—that whatever system of administration is adopted in Palestine it will be a democratic State. And if adult suffrage is given to the people of that State, then it must mean that the majority of those who are responsible in Palestine, be they Jew or Arab, must have the power to control; and, not only control, but in many cases dominate, the lives of the minority. That is the great problem of Palestine at the present time. The Jews are anxious that immigration shall increase, that there shall be no limit; and the Arabs are equally determined, on the other hand, to ensure that, so far as possible, they will prevent Jewish immigration in any circumstances.

There is the difficulty. The matter is important, and I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in his interpretation of the Mandate. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, properly dealt with the position. I would like to ask the noble Viscount, because he himself referred to the fact of illegal immigration, although he could not regard it as illegal immigration, whether he means that he supports the method of immigration into Palestine, in the conditions under which immigration is going on at the present time, which is in my opinion a complete violation of the Mandate—and indeed a violation of the laws of Palestine, for which His Majesty's Government have some responsibility? Immigration should be regulated, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, rightly said, in accordance with the absorptive capacity.

It is true that the Jewish Agency wish to co-operate with the administration in connexion with the degree of immigration. Indeed, if there were any legal flaw in the Mandate, the Jewish Agency would be the body that would be quick to discover it. The Jewish Agency have cooperated with the Mandatory Power in agreeing to the distribution of the certificates under the terms laid down by the Mandate, which is—if I may say so with due respect—an indication that the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is not the true interpretation of what the Mandate means. Indeed it will be remembered that the Peel Commission fixed—or at least recommended—that the number of immigrants should not exceed 1,000 a month or 12,000 a year. That has not been questioned. Indeed, notwithstanding what might be said with regard to the Mandates Commission, to whom the White Paper of 1939 was referred, no member of the Mandates Commission, so far as I know, questioned the legality of the amount of immigration which was fixed even under the White Paper.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

If I may interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment, I never suggested that regulation of immigration into Palestine is illegal. Of course it is legal. What I suggested was that to draw a line and say that after a certain date there shall be no immigration might be held to be contrary to the Mandate, its spirit and even its letter.

VISCOUNT HALL

I understood—and I am within the hearing of your Lordships—that the noble Viscount said he could not describe any immigration into Palestine as illegal.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

No, I did not say that. If I said that, I must have made myself badly misunderstood. It must have been my own fault. My whole argument was against the White Paper of 1939—the particular provision that after five years there shall be no more immigration. That, I suggested, could not be regarded as within the Mandate; and therefore, in saying now that they must go to the United Nations to have the future of Palestine determined because they have not got power to decide anything themselves contrary to the Mandate, the Government were thereby condemning not their own present action in fixing this or that number but the action taken by Mr. Malcolm Macdonald and the Government of that day.

VISCOUNT HALL

I think the noble Viscount himself referred to the numbers which are allowed into Palestine at the present time.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I did not say it was illegal to fix a number; I suggested the number was insufficient.

VISCOUNT HALL

The noble Viscount did question the number to the extent that he said he could not regard any immigration into Palestine as illegal.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

No, I really did not say that. It is impossible for me to say that any restriction of immigration into Palestine is illegal, because for five years I applied that law myself. I am sorry if I misled the noble Viscount, but my observations with regard to illegality were solely directed to the prohibition imposed by the White Paper of 1939, which is the origin of the present trouble.

VISCOUNT HALL

Does the noble Viscount regard the fixing of the present rate of immigration as being legal?

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

Yes, it is within rights to fix a figure. I thought myself that the figure was much too low, but I did not say it was illegal to fix that figure. I should like to see a certain number per month, and you, within your discretion, have fixed another number.

VISCOUNT HALL

If the noble Viscount agrees that the Government, or the administration of Palestine, are quite entitled to fix the numbers which have been fixed, I really cannot understand the noble Viscount's argument with regard to illegal immigration, because the one followed the other. I want to assure the noble Viscount that I would not knowingly endeavour to misconstrue anything he said. I am very pleased he has made the admission which he has made, but I do not know whether he is now of the opinion that immigration into Palestine ought to be continued in the conditions in which it is being continued, because that is the test. I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, has said in connexion with it. The method adopted by those who are responsible for illegal immigration at the present time is such that it is criminal: three persons to every gross registered ton of shipping; 1,200 persons on a ship of 400 tons gross weight.

I am pleased the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, referred to the work which has been done by the Royal Navy. Indeed, had it not been for the work done by the Royal Navy many of the ships which have left various ports—and the ports are not only the French and Italian ports—would never have reached their destination. Had it not been for the fact that they were towed in by the Royal Navy, several ships with thousands of these poor deluded people aboard would have been lost. I do want to utter this warning: that one day, and perhaps soon, one of those ships will be lost at sea. His Majesty's Government will not take any responsibility for the lives which will be sacrificed should such a disaster occur. I think that ought to be made quite clear. I am pleased that the attitude of His Majesty's Government in dealing with this problem has been criticised only to the extent of a slight reference to delay. I think it is agreed that bringing the Government of the United States of America into consultation was the right thing to do.

I thoroughly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. I had the pleasure on a previous occasion of referring to the fact that during my period at the Colonial Office I was very happy in the choice of my chief, the first Lord Lloyd, although I did not regard it as a happy choice when I was offered the appointment. However, I quickly learned to respect his ability, his drive, his vision and his knowledge. I had a very happy nine months. Unfortunately, they were the last nine months of his life, but I shall never forget that association with him. I, too, am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is following in the footsteps of a very great man.

The Government's plan for dealing with this matter was the correct one. America was brought in and a Committee of Inquiry was set up. Here I would like to pay a tribute to my noble friend, Lord Morrison, who was a valuable member of that Committee. The Committee's conclusions were not as clear as they might have been, but we were able, after some delay, again to induce the Government of the United States of America to come along and consider the full implications of the Report. What is more important, we reached an agreement, not with the American Government, unfortunately, but with the American representatives who sat upon that Committee, and, indeed, that agreement is the basis of the Bevin Plan with which I am pleased to hear so many of your Lordships agree.

There is one other point I would like to make in regard to the Conference. That Conference was taken very largely by the Foreign Secretary, and it was taken by him for the reason that it was impossible to induce any of the Jewish representatives to attend, or, indeed, any representatives of the Arabs in Palestine. I do not in any way desire to cast any reflection upon my Jewish friends but the difficulty in dealing with Palestine is to know which of the organizations is the right and proper organization with which to deal. First of all, there is the Jewish Agency, and after the Jewish Agency you have the World Zionist Organization, which itself has a Central Council. You then have several other organizations, but with the exception of the Jewish Agency all the organizations' represent almost the same people. There is the difficulty. I remember the Foreign Secretary and myself coming to an agreement with one of the representatives of two or three of those organizations. We could not get that agreement implemented because it was turned down by another organization.

I would again like to make this point quite clear, because several suggestions have been made as to plans for the settlement of this dispute. Arabs and Jews were invited to participate in this Conference without in any way committing themselves to the plan which His Majesty's Government said it would support. They were invited to place before the Conference any plan they wished. The Jews could have put forward their plan for partition, for a Jewish State or for anything they liked, in exactly the same way as the Arabs from the Arab States who came along. That was the reason why Mr. Bevin had to spend so much of his time there; the Arab States were outside the administrative functions of the Colonial Office.

I wish the critics of the Government's policy—and here I am referring to all Governments, I care not of what Party—would give some little thought to what has been done during the time that His Majesty's Government have held the Mandate. Let it be remembered that His Majesty's Government did not ask for the Mandate; they had to take it because no other nation was prepared to receive It was offered to the United States. When the Mandate was taken over by His Majesty's Government, the Jewish population of Palestine was between 80,000 and 90,000, or about one-seventh or one-eighth of the total population.

What is it at the present time? At the present time it is nearly 700,000, and the major portion or that number—between 400,000 and 450,000—is made up of immigrants. Are any of your Lordships of the opinion that the Arabs themselves would have allowed 450,000 Jewish immigrants into Palestine? I wish those who, not only in this country but in other parts of the world, are criticising the Government would just say a word of appreciation for what has been done. Immigration, after all, is the crux of the problem—and it is the crux of the problem because this is a fight for power. Let there be no mistake about that at all. The Jews know what it means, and so do the Arabs, with the result that the problem has become such that at the moment it seems insoluble. Mr. Bevin, the Foreign Secretary, rightly said that, notwithstanding the fact that it is now agreed that the problem should be submitted to the United Nations, he would not give up any prospect of an earlier settlement if it were possible.

Several noble Lords have referred to the. fact that we want the closest possible co-operation between Jew and Arab. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made a very important point in regard to it. We all want that; we all desire it. But we also want those moderate Jews and Arabs to assert themselves—and to assert themselves not only in Palestine. I shall have something to say later about the responsibility of persons outside Palestine, without whose financial assistance Palestine would not be in the condition in which it is the present time. There are open advertisements in the newspapers of the United States of America inviting subscriptions, and indeed t hey are receiving those subscriptions. A report I saw quite recently indicates that already this year a sum between $25,000,000 and $30,000,000 has been received. What for? For the purpose of encouraging illegal immigration, for buying ships and indeed for something more than that—for buying guns. They are openly advocating the supporting of the terrorists who are shooting down British soldiers, who are as innocent as any other peace-loving persons in Palestine.

The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, asked if I could indicate what co-operation had been received from the Jewish Agency. I must say that during the last five or six months the Jewish Agency have been much more co-operative than they previously were; they have denounced terrorism and they have taken further steps. It can be said that some of the organizations associated with the Jewish Agency have rendered some assistance, but the trouble is that that assistance is such that it has to he rendered in a way in which they themselves desire. Some co-operation has been received from the Jewish Agency, but it still has a very large armed force which could do very much more.

LORD STRABOLGI

What does the noble Viscount mean by "armed force"?

VISCOUNT HALL

The Hagana.

LORD STRABOLGI

That has been legalized.

VISCOUNT HALL

I said that they had a very large armed force. I did not suggest it was illegal, although I am not sure that the noble Lord is quite correct about that. Anyhow, I will not question it. But if it has been legalized, then it should be used. It is a very large force, and a force consisting of the Jews themselves, who could, if they so desired, render very valuable service in disclosing who many of the terrorists are, because at one time there was a close association between some members of the Hagana and these terrorist organizations. Then the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, asked me about the intelligence service. We have an intelligence service which is, in our opinion, doing very useful work, but, as he knows as a result of his long administrative experience, it is impossible to disclose what the work of the organization is. The difficulty in Palestine is that there are people who dress in all kinds of clothes and who seem to be integrated into the population. The Jewish population themselves will not give the information which the population of other civilized countries will give against the law breaker. They do not fully realize the harm the terrorists are doing to their cause, because otherwise they would be very much more forthcoming than they are at the present time.

The noble Lord also asked about the number of Jews amongst the depressed or dispossessed classes. I am afraid it is almost impossible to give anything like accurate numbers, but from information which I have been able to obtain the number would be from one-sixth to one-seventh of the total—that is, the total number of dispossessed persons. I have seen several figures, and one figure was 142,000 out of about 1,040,000. Other figures I have seen give the number as about 200,000. The difficulty has been not only the dispossessed persons from Germany itself, but the fact that quite a number of persons have been brought from the satellite States into Italy, Austria and Germany. While a certain number have been dealt with, others have come in and have taken their place.

The noble Lord also asked as to what the position is likely to be when the functions of U.N.R.R.A. cease at the end. of June. His Majesty's Government, together with the Government of the United States of America, have been fully seized of the difficulties which are likely to arise. There are fifteen nations who have come together with a view to undertaking the responsibility of dealing with this problem. I would like to assure the noble Lord that more than two, Great Britain and New Zealand, have paid contributions; but not all have paid their contributions. Indeed, the time has come when I think it has to be recognized that if international organizations are to be set up, nations must realize their full financial responsibility to those organ- izations. I have had some little to do with the setting up of the inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees. Great Britain and the United States of America started off by making a substantial contribution the first year and the second year. No one else paid any contributions for that period, and it is said: "Why does not Britain do this?" Britain can always do it, and while Britain leads in matters of this kind—and we will not take second place to any nation in the world—the responsibility for dealing with these problems must be shared by other nations, not only in attending conferences, but in finding the finance which is necessary for that purpose.

The noble Lord referred to the scheme in Brazil. Here is a drive by private enterprise, and here is a problem for private enterprise. I would that he, or someone like him, could suggest a person who would undertake to deal with this problem. What a triumph for private enterprise that would be! But I am afraid it will be the British Government who will have more to do with that than any other nation. I was asked as to what Britain has done with regard to the intake of some of those unfortunate persons from Germany. Well, we have taken in 70,000—

LORD ALTRINCHAM

Since the war?

VISCOUNT HALL

Not since the war, because of the difficulty of getting them out. I think the 70,000 would cover a period from about 1934.

LORD ALTRINCHAM

How many since the war?

VISCOUNT HALL

I could not tell you. I saw a figure contained in a report—and I do not want to be tied too closely to this—which stated that the number of Jews in this country was 350,000, and 50,000 of those are refugees. The latest figures I have had shows the 70,000 and covers the period to which I have referred.

Then the noble Lord asked what had been done with regard to bringing in relatives of Jews who have already settled in this country. The Home Secretary made an announcement in another place some time ago, in which he referred to the fact that where there were close relatives it would be possible for them to be brought into this country. I understand that a considerable number have already been brought in, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord has seen that we are beginning to bring in quite a number of persons from Central Europe into this country. A start was made about a fortnight ago, and I understand that that is going to continue for some time.

I think I can dispose of most of the other questions, or some of them, by referring to the position with regard to the reference to U.N.O. In accordance with the decision to refer the Palestine question to the 'United Nations, His Majesty's Government requested the Secretary-General on April 2, 1947, to place the Palestine issue on the agenda of the General Assembly at the next Regular Session. They would then invite the Assembly to make recommendations, under Article to of the Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine. In the same communication, His Majesty's Government drew the attention of the Secretary-General to the desirability of an early settlement in Palestine; and to the risk that the General Assembly might not be able to decide upon its recommendations at the regular 1947 Session unless some preliminary study of the question had been made under the auspices of the United Nations. They therefore asked that a special session of the Assembly should be convened as soon as possible for the purpose of constituting and instructing a special Committee of the Assembly to prepare the question for the consideration of the regular September Assembly. This proposal for a special session was approved by a majority of the member States, and the Secretary-General has convened it for next Monday, April 28.

I think it can be said that the Secretary-General has acted with expedition in connexion with this matter. The British representative at the session will be Sir Alexander Cadogan who, since taking up his duty with United Nations, has represented the British case when called upon to do so with the clarity, vigour and courtesy, which was expected of him. He will be assisted by advisers from the Foreign Office and from the Colonial Office. It' is expected that at the special session the General Assembly will confine itself to appointing a fact-finding Committee which can study the problem and make a report to the regular General Assembly in September. His Majesty's Government earnestly hope that some. final solution of the problem in Palestine will be arrived at in the course of the September Assembly.

I want to assure noble Lords that His Majesty's Government are quite aware of the need for speed in connexion with this matter. An aspect of the Government's policy which has been criticized in some places is the decision to go before the United Nations without making arty recommendation to them. But, after all, the number of possible solutions for Palestine is limited, and the Assembly will be familiar with them at least in their broad principles. We do not wish to narrow down the Assembly's discussions to arguments for or against particular proposals put forward by His Majesty's Government, nor do we think there is any advantage, from the clearly British point of view, in submitting proposals to the General Assembly. We do not think an attempt should be made to determine the choice between the various possible settlements by a consideration of British interests; and so far as Arab and Jewish interests are concerned we think that the United Nations should be free to choose between them or to frame whatever plans they deem most just and reasonable. Our interest in the matter is that there should be a settlement which will contribute to peace and stability in the Middle East and which will enable the inhabitants in Palestine to look forward to a brighter and less troubled future.

LORD STRABOLGI

May I ask the noble Viscount a question about the fact-finding Commission? I do not expect him to answer it if it is not convenient. This fact-finding Commission is to report. It is not proposed surely that it should go to Palestine and take evidence. It will surely examine the written evidence which exists in such abundance. Secondly, having done that, is it proposed it should put forward proposals or just generally report?

VISCOUNT HALL

I should think, having some experience of conferences, that it would be largely for the Conference to decide. First of all, it has to decide whether a fact-finding Committee should be appointed, and, if so, then possibly it could lay down its terms of reference. I cannot imagine a committee of this kind not asking for certain information from His Majesty's Government which I have no doubt His Majesty's Government would readily render if invited to do so. Before I conclude I should like to say something about the present situation in Palestine. The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, asked what co-operation against the terrorists the Palestine administration has received. We can pass that over. As was expected, there have been further outrages following the execution of four Jewish terrorists on April 15, notwithstanding the most stringent security precautions enforced by the civil and military authorities. These precautions have necessarily reduced the scope of normal Government activity, but in many districts there has been little interference with the activities of Government Departments and at no time has the civilian administration ceased to function. All practical measures will continue to be taken to safeguard life and property.

In answering a question before the debate took place I have already given the numbers of British Servicemen, Police and civilians killed by terrorists since August, 1945. I would like to express on my own behalf and, I am sure, on behalf of your Lordships' House, our abhorence—shared I know by everyone in this country—at this appalling loss of life of innocent men murdered in the course of duty when carrying out a policy of administration which, after all, has brought considerable benefit to the people of Palestine. But for British help the number of Jews there would be far fewer than they are at present. Indeed I might go so far as to say that there would be little semblance of a Jewish National Home in Palestine to-day had it not been for Britain. There can be few instances in history in which less appreciation of help received has been shown by some branches of Jewry, or indeed in which acts of terrorism have been perpetrated on those very persons whose endeavour has been to hold the balance evenly between conflicting claims and to carry out responsibilities under an international instrument approved by the majority of the nations of the world. The terrorists in Palestine are not alone in bearing heavy responsibility for these murders. Those who by their action and finance support the terrorists are equally culpable for the wicked loss of British lives. Only this very morning we read in our newspapers of another outrage as dastardly and criminal as any which has blackened the worst records of terrorism.

There can, however, as your Lordships know, be no real solution of the problem of terrorism in Palestine until a political decision has been taken on the future of that country. That decision now rests with the United Nations and, as I have said, the Government are doing everything in their power to expedite consideration of the problem. Pending the political decision it is the duty of the Palestine administration to maintain the status quo, and they are striving to carry out their duty in circumstances of such difficulty as rarely if ever have confronted the administration of any country. It should be made fully clear that any attempt in the meantime to change the status quo by resort to violence is a direct affront to the United Nations. Whatever the outcome of the discussions of the United Nations, I have no hesitation in affirming that this country has already rendered considerable and impartial service to the inhabitants of Palestine, Arab and Jew alike, which deserves the highest praise. In conclusion, I should like to pay a tribute especially to noble Lords of the Opposition for their helpful attitude, not only throughout this debate but during the last eighteen months or two years, in which no consideration of Party advantage has been permitted to intrude into discussions which have at all times been maintained at the high level of statesmanship customarily associated with this House.

LORD LLOYD

If the noble Lord will forgive me, I have just one question. No statement was made upon it in another place, and I did mention it in my speech this afternoon. It is the question as to whether or not this country will be free to take such action as it chooses, in the event of a decision being taken by the United Nations which we could not carry out because we disapproved of it.

VISCOUNT HALL

I cannot imagine His Majesty's Government carrying out a policy of which it does not approve. In the terms of a well known Parliamentarian I would advise the noble Lord to "Wait and see."

LORD ALTRINCHANI

At this late hour I do not propose to offer any comment on the noble Viscount's reply except to thank him for its fullness. We were most grateful for the information he gave us. There is only one point to which I would like to refer. The Home Secretary made a statement about the reception of Jewish relatives into this country. I understand there are still considerable difficulties. I would be grateful if His Majesty's Government would look into that matter and see if certain unnecessary hardships are not still being inflicted. Apart from that, once again I thank him for the fullness of his reply, and I congratulate him and His Majesty's Government on the tone and spirit of that reply. I would also like to express my acknowledgments to the noble Viscount for his kind references to me personally. I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.