PALESTINE.

HL Deb 13 August 1947 vol 151 cc1369-95

11.38 a.m.

VISCOUNT LONG rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the conditions in Palestine; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships on the Motion which stands in my name, I had no idea a week ago when I put this Motion on the Order Paper that this grave question of Palestine was to be discussed in another place, as it was yesterday. The sole reason that prompted me to put the Motion down was the amount of correspondence I was receiving, and have received, from all parts of the country expressing grave anxiety about the position in Palestine. Had I known that this was going to be discussed in another place I should have gone on with my Motion, and since reading the reply of the Under-Secretary in another place, I am bound to confess that my fears as to the future of Palestine during the holidays, when we are going to be away for at least eight weeks, have been added to rather than decreased.

With regard to the question that I was to raise and of which I gave private notice to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, who is to reply, as to whether the High Commissioner had full powers to act without consultation with His Majesty's Government, I accept the reply given by the Secretary of State yesterday that he had. We come to the question of the Commander-in-Chief. We hear that there are vast Forces in Palestine at this moment—approximately, 100,000. Whether or not these Forms were being extended, the fact remains that terrorism is continuing. I give place to no one in my admiration of the patience and tolerance of our brilliant and magnificent troops in Palestine during this time; and I do not desire to criticize in any way the action of the Higher Command out there. But terrorism and crime increase in Palestine—alas! on both sides. I do not believe that Great Britain is aimed at, but that there is a feud in which we, unfortunately, intervene. But, as it increases, our anxiety in this country increases.

Many of us are implicated in the matter. I have a son who may be going out and there are many thousands like him. We can take it. We proved that we could take it in the. war, when many of us lost those of whom we were very fond. Then, however, there was an object, an enemy, and a policy—to win the war. We won the war, and no sacrifice was too great so long as England came out on top. What is the sacrifice we are called upon to make now? I believe in ruling or in out. Have we got enough getting troops in Palestine? Not very long ago one of our Judges was sitting in his Court out there; the Court was held up and the Judge kidnapped and taken prisoner. Are the greatest precautions being taken now so that our judges are no longer held up in their work? It is this sort of thing that is making people here very anxious. Then we had the appalling crime of the hanging of the two N.C.O.'s—one of whom came from my own port and city of Bristol. How does it come about that these things can happen if we are properly organized? Is every precaution taken to see that our soldiers do not walk about in driblets? Even as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was putting a recent question, a Ministry of Labour building out there was blown up, and three more of our police were killed. The position is getting worse day by day.

One thought we might get a little more encouraging news yesterday when the Secretary of State replied to the debate in another place. Apparently, we now have to wait further developments. I do not criticize that; but we are now told that we must wait four or five weeks before the results of certain investigations are known. I wish to ask the noble Viscount who is to reply whether a Committee is being set up. If not, would it not be wise to set one up before the House rises so that the result of the inquiries can be immediately investigated, and such action taken as may be necessary? Surely, whatever action is necessary should taken at once. That, I believe, is what the people of this country are looking for, and what, so far, they have not received. I appreciate that many of your Lordships have had far greater experience of this grave question than I have. Therefore, I do not wish to go into great detail, or to propound what I think should or should not happen. But I should like to express to His Majesty's Government the great anxiety felt by all the parents and wives of men serving in Palestine at this moment. They are getting more uneasy as time goes on.

But there is another aspect of the question, and that is the ships which convey Jews illegally to Palestine. These ships come from a port in a friendly country, a country with whom we have a treaty of friendship. These ships were allowed to leave, and I would like to ask His Majesty's Government whether we were informed that these Jews were boarding the ships, and if so, why did the French Government allow it to go? I should also like to ask whether representations have been made on this matter through our Ambassador in Paris. We are told that 4,000 Jews were illegally travelling on one ship to Palestine, and of course there are other ships. Who is paying for this? We are paying a considerable sum of money for our troops in Palestine. Are we to bear the whole burden of the extra cost caused by these ships?

The Under-Secretary of State in his reply yesterday said: "I think the French Government are feeding them." After four weeks, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies does not know what is happening to these Jews. Surely we can have a definite answer as to what is happening and who is paying for these ships and for the feeding of these Jews? As they came from France, I should have thought France would have paid her share. Why should the cost fall on this country? So with Italy. Exactly the same thing happened there prior to this incident; a ship tried to get into Palestine but eventually the people were transferred from it to Cyprus. Were there no means of acting through our Ambassador to Italy? After all, we have done a great deal for that country. On the other hand, in the case of a Swedish ship in a Swedish port, I understand that we made representations to stop that ship leaving that port to go and pick up illegal Jews. If it can be done there, why can it not be done with France and Italy?

Can the noble Viscount when he replies tell us whether these illegally-travelling people—I am very sorry for them; they have had an awful time in Central Europe—are being financed by the Communists? If they are being financed by the Communists, the country should be told, and we should know then how to deal with this matter. But there is a complete silence. I am proud to say that I have amongst my friends a considerable number of Jews; I mean that with all sincerity. They subscribe to the fund in this country which, very properly, has been in existence for many years, to help their kith and kin in Central Europe. Two of those prominent Jews said to me the other day, "I wonder where this money really goes?" I am not making any insinuation against the Association, but do the Government know, as I am sure they must know because there is this Treasury ban on money, where this money is going, whether it is really getting into the right hands to help the Jews who are allowed to be sent to Palestine or whether it is getting into the hands of Communists who are using it deliberately to stab England in the back?

There are other questions that I would like to raise, but I do not propose to detain your Lordships much longer, except to say this. Having read this reply on the part of His Majesty's Government that everything is to be postponed, that the Minister in another place regrets that he really cannot answer that, that it is all very difficult, I am bound to say that it is all very difficult. No one abhors riots more than I do, and you must not try the patience of people too long. You must try to help them. Tell them the facts and England will stand up to anything, but you go on putting it off and putting it off and shelving it. After the five weeks that these ships have been in port you can only answer "I think." In these circumstances it is right and proper that this Motion should be moved on the floor of your Lordships' House to-day before we go for our holiday. I beg to move for Papers.

11.53 a.m.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, if I may say so, I think that the noble Viscount who moved this Motion did well—I say this very respectfully—to confine himself, in discussing his Motion, to the immediate situation and not to embark upon a longer-term view of a matter which is still under consideration and, one hopes, is possibly approaching decision by a Committee of the United Nations. I do not propose to follow the noble Viscount point by point. The matter is for the Government to deal with, but I might perhaps say one word which I hope may be of some reassurance to him on one matter which he raised towards the end of his speech. He talked about a fund existing in this country for the purpose of assisting Jews in distress in Germany and Central Europe. I think I know the fund to which he is referring. If I do, I have been associated with it since its foundation in the early 'thirties. I think my noble friend Viscount Samuel was its first President and I do not think that any of your Lordships would accuse either of us or the others of the Jewish community who are responsible for the conduct of that fund——

VISCOUNT LONG

I was not attempting to accuse anybody here.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

I quite accept that. I am not making any point against the noble Viscount. I make the general observation that I do not think that those responsible for the conduct of that fund would he accused by those who knew them of having Communist sympathy or failing to take proper precautions to see that such funds as left this country for the benefit of Jews on the Continent were used for those purposes and only for those purposes, and that every effort was made, wind I believe most successfully made, to seal off any possibility of those funds going astray and reaching undesirable destinations.

I only want to say one or two possibly somewhat disconnected words, reflections which have been borne in upon me by the course of recent events. In saying this and in saying anything else that I say to-day, I would make it clear that I have no authority to speak for the Jewish community in this country or indeed for anybody except myself, but I have an obvious interest in knowing, so far as one can, what the prevailing view is. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of indicating on one or two points what I believe that view to be. I have read on frequent occasions lately statements and exhortations from perfectly friendly sources appealing to the Jews of this country to use their influence with the terrorists in Palestine. At the first approach there is, of course, nothing in the least improper in that. Indeed, it would be quite right that the Jews of this country should use their influence, but it is no good asking them to use their influence if they have none. I sometimes wonder, when people exhort us here to use our influence with the terrorists in Palestine, what action they have in mind that we should take. IN hat do they conceive that we can do in any way to moderate or restrain the activities of these wild and irresponsible men? We who do not agree with them and are at the same time Jews are probably the people in the world who have the least influence with them, and all I would say on that is that it really is no good issuing vague exhortations to the Jewish community in this country to exercise an influence which they do not possess and which in the very circumstances of the case they are the persons least likely to possess.

I only wish—I think that is common to the whole of the Jewish community here—that we had some influence that we could use, because it is not an attractive position for any of the Jews here, perhaps particularly, if I may say so, for those thousands of Jews who in the past years served in His Majesty's Forces, to read now from day to day the horrible and squalid story of the events in Palestine. I think it is true to say of the past that in every country the great danger to the Jewish community of that country has been the growth of a. fanatical and perfervid spirit of nationalism. It is a terrible thing, perhaps particularly for Jews themselves, to see even a small section of Jews, even confined to that one country of Palestine, attacked by this same deadly virus which has been the destruction of so many of their fellows in the past. It does not make it any better that a considerable quantity of that virus is injected from outside and from a section of a country with which otherwise this country is on the friendliest terms, and in the interest: of the peace of the world should remain upon the friendliest terms. I believe it is absolutely true to say that the Jewish community in this country view with increasing disgust, detestation, and dismay, the campaign of vituperation carried on by a section, probably numerous and certainly vociferous, of the Jewish community in the United States, in which virulence of expression seems to be equalled only by ignorance and distortion of fact. It is a tragic situation, when the great need of the world is peace, that the opportunity should be taken by any section of any community to go to the lengths of excess, of incitement and execration which that particular section, by no means representing the whole of the Jewish community of the United States, has allowed itself to achieve.

Having said that, I want to say only one more thing. Hidden behind the dust of this unhappy conflict there still remain, either in the camps or elsewhere, many tens of thousands of those who were the inhabitants of the concentration camps in the days of the liberation of Germany, now two and a quarter years ago. I have seen it said that these two problems are quite separate, and that it is wrong to confuse the problem of Palestine with the problem of the ultimate settlement of these persons. I have enough personal experience to know that you cannot separate those two problems. In connexion with the same Fund that I referred to earlier on, in the years before the war, when there were many thousands of refugees fleeing from Germany and Austria to the sanctuary of this country—a fact which the section of American Jewry to which I have just referred seems now conveniently to forget—and when those many thousands of Jews were given temporary sanctuary here on their way to their ultimate destinations, those of us who were responsible for the organization which received them here looked after them during their stay and intended, if the war had not come, to send them on to their ultimate homes, found ourselves beating against one barred and bolted door after another.

I do not think the experience in the short interval of the post-war years has been very different. Whether one sympathizes with the ideological considerations which turn many Jews' thoughts to Palestine, or whether one's conscience—whether it be a Jewish or a Gentile conscience—is stirred by the plight of these unhappy people, there are these two considerations to be borne in mind. First of all, from whatever aspect, in what- ever state of mind they may have started at the time of liberation, I believe it is true to say now that their hopes are concentrated ultimately upon finding a home in Palestine, amongst people who want to receive them, rather than being given a home in some other country, amongst people who receive them out of kindness and charity, but perhaps with just a little hesitation and reluctance—enough to destroy the welcome.

I hope, therefore, that the Government have not forgotten the position of these people, and will do something in order to give them at least some hope upon which to live, looking forward to the time when they may achieve—or at least the majority of them—what is, perhaps, the only ambition now left to them in life. Some of them may take the view that they have earned, by what they have undergone during these past years, some right to a little consideration in the choice which is made as to their future. I do not propose to elaborate that, but merely to state it as a point of view which is present in many of their minds. My Lords, I know it is difficult. I know the reply which is made, and cogently made, by the Arabs in that part of the world is that it is for the other countries to share with them in the absorption of this population.

One has, I think, always to bear in mind, firstly, what they have gone through; and, secondly, one thing of which I am satisfied, the fact of where their hopes lie for the future. The picture at this moment may be sufficiently sombre. It is not easy to see a rift in the clouds which hang over Palestine, but at the same time there may, perhaps, be just this one brighter reflection. In the past few years, not once but many times in this House and in another place, there have been debates, sometimes acrimonious, certainly by no means unanimous, on the subject of India and the policy to be followed in regard to the future status of that country It is not long now since in both Houses a policy was approved, with almost, if not quite, complete unanimity by all Parties, which it was generally hoped would lead to a lasting settlement of the Indian problem. That example, perhaps, gives us a little foundation for hope that the time may not be too long deferred when, in this House and another place, we may welcome a solution of a kindred problem in Palestine, and that as a result there may return to that country the peace which is the ultimate and overwhelming desire of all sections of opinion.

12.9 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY

My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the most reverend Primate, I find myself called upon to say a few words on behalf of those who habitually sit on these Benches. Let me say at once with what deep sympathy every member of your Lordships' House must have listened to the very moving speech which we have just heard from the noble Marquess. Let me say, too, that we share to the full the distress and horror to which he has given expression, and which everyone else must feel at the present state of affairs in Palestine and at the mounting toll of outrages. and crimes by which that unhappy country's immediate history is being disfigured.

During these recent years of bloodshed and outrage, cruelty and violence, the world has supped full of horrors, and the mind is in danger of being hardened and habituated to the story of them. They become familiar, too familiar, to us all. It is important that we should not allow ourselves to give way to the idea that crimes of violence are either inevitable or excusable, or that the guilt or heinousness of them is in the least degree mitigated by repetition. Having said that, I would go on to say that the Christian Church cannot in principle identify itself with Zionism. The legitimate claim of the Jews in Palestine is not to the possession of the country but to a National Home there. Whether that home can be so extended as to take in all the displaced Jews from Europe who would desire to migrate thither is a question of obvious difficulty, and the noble Marquess who has just spoken himself recognized, by implication, that it might be impracticable for Palestine to receive them all. But the claim to a National Home——

THE MARQUESS OF READING

I was talking about those from concentration camps; I was not speaking of the whole Jewish population of Europe.

THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY

Of course, in the last resort, it is a question of arithmetic. But the claim of the Jews to a National Home in Palestine—within the limits of what is practicable—which an Englishman wishes to see generously interpreted, rests with us not on any literalist interpretation of Old Testament prophecy but on the Balfour Declaration. Whether that Declaration was wise or not, it was made; and it stands. And whether or not conflicting promises, or promises not easily reconciled, were made both to Arab and to Jew, it is in any case obvious that neither Arab nor Jew can be excluded from Palestine. In the end they must share the country between them; nor is there any intrinsic reason why they should not, in the long run, do so to their mutual advantage.

In saying that I am echoing the hope to which the noble Marquess has himself given expression. They must in the end share the country between them. But to say that, of course, is to view the problem with a rational judgment, and the actual situation has become terribly entangled in irrational passions, so that the voice of reason has become wellnigh silenced. It has been silenced by a number of factors: Firstly, the more extreme claims made by the Zionists; secondly, the unscrupulous agitation on behalf of Zionism carrier. on by unwise friends of the Jews in many parts of the world; arid, above all, as the noble Marquess has emphasized, by the sinister exploitation of Zionism by interests extraneous to Palestine and not friendly to this country. Another important factor has been the development and continuance of the lamentable and shocking gangsterism which all right-minded and civilized persons deplore, and by which the cause of the Jews in Palestine has been so grievously prejudiced.

Jews and Arabs, Israel and Islam, both have religious interests in Palestine. So also have Christians. Apart from the fact that Palestine has been in the past, as it will be again in the future, whenever tranquillity has been restored, the goal of religious pilgrimages, Christians of whatever ecclesiastical colour, whether or not they are habituated to regard with sympathy the idea of veneration for holy Places and pilgrimages thereto, can never disinterest themselves from the fate of the land which was the scene of our Lords earthly life—the country, as Shakespeare says: Over whose acres walk'd those blessèd Feet, Which [nineteen] hundred years ago were nail'd For our advantage on the bitter Cross. Christians can never forget that our Lord came of a Jewish mother and was humanly of Jewish race. The record of Christian nations and of Governments and peoples ostensibly Christian, has, in the matter of their treatment of the Jews, too often been a black one. The record of the post-Christian and neo-Pagan regime which recently held sway in Germany has been without parallel in its vileness and horror, and is to-day universally execrated. Unhappily, it is not even to-day needless to draw attention to the fact that there are flagrant manifestations of anti-Semitism utterly irreconcilable with the spirit of Jesus Christ. Nothing can be more irreconcilable with His spirit than anti-Semitism in all its forms.

To-day in this country, to our shame, the spirit of anti-Semitism, provoked very irrationally by recent outrages in Palestine, is beginning sporadically to manifest itself. It is a spirit and a temper and an attitude towards the Jewish race which is in itself utterly out of keeping with our traditions and with what we like to hold to be true of our national character. Alike in the name of the religion which the majority of people in this country still claim to profess and in the name of reason and humanity, I express the hope that these incipient exhibitions of the mood and temper of anti-Semitism may quickly cease. I cannot admire the logic of those who, because of the outrages in Palestine by criminals of Jewish race, attack their own fellow citizens of Jewish race here in England. There appears to be clear evidence that active terrorism, even in Palestine, is confined to a small section of the population, whose activities are not supported—and in fact are condemned—by the majority of the Jews themselves, who themselves stand in terror of the terrorists. Those activities receive nothing but horrified condemnation from British Jewry. Therefore, anti-Semitism in England is without excuse, and I am confident that your Lordships will join with me in the prayer that it may speedily cease.

12.19 p.m.

LORD GRENFELL

My Lords, during the last year of the war I had the honour to serve as liaison officer on the training side of the War Department of the United States. There, in our deliberations and conferences, the factor which governed our actions was whether a particular course would save the life of one American soldier. If it would it was worth it. I believe that in our deliberations to-day, and in all dealings in the future, we should adopt that theory. Would any action we could take save the life of one soldier, sailor, airman, policeman or civilian serving his country in or round the coast of Palestine? If so it would be worth taking. In 1936 I went out to Palestine with the 1st Division, under the then General Sir John Dill, the late lamented Field-Marshal. Though where I was by the coast one had little in those days of the kind of warfare—I must call it warfare—that is going on now, one found that it was the most tiring, wearing and difficult form of military service possible. Now one never knows who is one's enemy, and our men never know from whence information is going to be given to the present enemy, who are, of course, the terrorists. In those days, any fighting that took place went on more in the hills and in the open. Now, to a great extent, it takes place in the towns. Small bands, like snakes, strike and are gone. So I would not under estimate in any way the difficulties which face the Government and the troops in bringing in the men concerned. And may I, in passing, join with everyone else who has spoken on this question in paying my humble tribute to all who have served so loyally, so well and so bravely in Palestine?

May I now turn for one minute to the subject of the aftermath of the dastardly double murder which has recently taken place? Can the noble Viscount who is to reply tell us whether there is any hope of the co-operation of the Jewish community in tracing not only the men responsible but also others who are taking part in these dastardly attacks? If there is not, I cannot help feeling that we must, from every point of view, put Palestine tinder Martial Law. Further, may I ask: Can the noble Viscount assure the House that if—as has been said—there is to be a reduction in the Armed Forces in the near future, Palestine will not be denuded of what Forces are there now? As I have said, what takes place out there is an exhausting and wearing battle of the nerves: and unless there are full reliefs, unless there is full leave, it is possible that tempers may get so frayed that there might he an incident which we would all deprecate. For that reason I believe that it is essential that we should keep up the strength which we have out there. And not only that: if necessary, we should not hesitate to increase it. In closing my few remarks I would express the hope that everything possible may be done to speed up consultations and to relieve the intolerable situation in which our soldiers, sailors, police and all serving in Palestine are placed. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give a clear indication of policy to be followed in the future in order that we may dispel the feeling, the existence of which I fear I must admit, that we are as a ship without a rudder, sailing in a stormy sea.

12.25 p.m.

LORD ALTRINCHAM

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships, in all parts of the House, will agree that the noble Viscount who sits behind me did well to put down this Motion for discussion to-day. It enable us to express our detestation and our horror at the crimes to which our troops are being submitted in Palestine. It also enables us to voice our deep and profound admiration for the manner in which they are bearing themselves under this most terrible strain. The situation in Palestine is indeed grave, and it may at any moment lead to a situation even more serious. That, speaking for myself, is one of the reasons why I am glad that this House is not adjourning for more than a short time. It is quite possible that things might happen in Palestine of which we should really have to take account in Parliament and on which we should express our views to the Government.

The situation is indeed a horrible one, and I feel that it is most horrible because the young men who are serving us there—at any rate in the junior ranks—are young men who can be forgiven for not understanding the kind of responsibility which we undertook in Palestine. It was undertaken in a past generation, and it later was universally—or at least very widely—declared to have been a mistaken responsibility for us to undertake. These young men can be forgiven for not realizing what we were at when we undertook it. They can be forgiven for not seeing any good moral or material purpose, or any national or international advantage, in the kind of duties which they have to carry out. That I think is the most terrible part of the situation. And that feeling is widely held. The feeling: expressed by many of our men in Palestine is: "Why should we have to put up with all this? Why do we not just give it up? "For my part I hope that that feeling will not come to a head. As the right reverend Prelate has said, we put our hand to the Balfour Declaration. We did undertake the Mandate, and we cannot abdicate it until some authority—which, in my opinion, can only be the United Nations—either takes it over or is prepared to support us in a course which we ourselves are prepared to approve and to undertake.

The behaviour of our troops in Palestine has been absolutely splendid, and it reflects the greatest credit on all ranks. But it is a terrible tragedy—and here again I agree with the right reverend Prelate—that the world does not seem to look with horror, as we do, on what is happening in Palestine. Civilized countries are taking these things almost for granted—as if we deserved what we are getting, as if there were no reason to sympathize with us. This is so in America and in France and, I believe. also in Italy and other countries. It is particularly regrettable that there should be this state of opinion in America and in France with regard to this matter. The behaviour of the French Government over the question of the emigrant ships, which sailed from France and were sent back, seems to me to be a matter on. which, as one of the oldest friends of France in this country, one should speak frankly. There is no hope for France or for ourselves, in my opinion, in our discharge of the common responsibilities which we bear in the Mediterranean, and in that part of the world generally, unless we co-operate all along the line. I am bound to say that the attitude which the French Government have adopted with regard to our difficulties in Palestine a not a ground for sympathy with them in their own great difficulties in North Africa. I think that it ought to be realized in France that if they are asking for sympathy—as thy are—they must be prepared to accord sympathy to us, and if they are asking for co-operation they must also be prepared to accord it to us.

We cannot throw up the sponge in Palestine—on that I insist—but it is our bounden duty to shorten the period of uncertainty by any means in our power. Perhaps the noble Viscount may be able to tell us something about that. When can we count on getting some decision from the United Nations? It seems to be a question of many weeks, but we are bound to do our utmost to shorten that period if we can. We owe that to the country and to the men on the spot. I think that may be done if we take measures in Palestine which will tend to show the urgency of a decision. International conferences are very apt to drift without adequate regard to what is happening on the spot about which they are deliberating, and I think we are bound to take all the steps we can to show how desperately urgent the decision on Palestine now is.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that it is a case for declaring Martial Law over a much wider area, or in certain specified areas. I hesitate to offer military advice to the military authorities there. They know much better than we can. I know that the answer of the Government when these suggestions are made is always that the military and civil authorities there, the High Commissioner and the General Officer Commanding, have got absolute authority to do whatever they think right. I do not think that is enough. It means a great deal for men carrying such responsibilities if they are sure the atmosphere behind them is cordial, and that in whatever measures they take they will be supported. It is not enough to say that they can do so. They must know that in whatever they do they will be supported in this country. The situation has reached that point. I think more consideration should be given to the imposition of Martial Law, at any rate in certain areas, or in wider areas than it has yet been tried—if not Martial Law, at any rate a much greater control of roads. All kinds of crimes are committed on thoroughfares, the stealing of lorries or taxis or something of that kind. The noble Lord described the kind of fighting which went on in the hills. These horrors are now taking place in towns and roads, and the control of roads is a vital matter. I wonder whether the convoy system might not be tried in order to get a greater control of traffic on the roads. It has been used very successfully in such conditions elsewhere. Again, one hesitates to make these suggestions, but I think the more we show how deeply concerned we are, even by throwing out suggestions that are not practical on the spot, the more we shall help and comfort the people bearing these responsibilities.

I have one other suggestion. I am not at all satisfied by the reasons given yesterday in another place by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies for the Government's refusal to impose collective fines. Collective fines are a proper measure of retribution when a whole community is obviously responsible, and the time has come when we must face the fact that the whole Jewish community in Palestine is responsible. They are not co-operating with the Government. These things could not take place if the Jewish Agency and the many great instruments of power that the Agency command were co-operating with the Government. In that case we are entitled to say that the whole community are to blame, and the whole community must take the responsibility. I press that because we imposed collective fines on the Arabs. If we imposed collective fines on the Arabs, what reason have we for not imposing them on the Jews? The only fine imposed was to increase the cost of petrol when the Jews attacked the refinery at Haifa. That fell alike on Arabs and Jews. It is all very well to reply that some of the fine is to be spent on social services for the Arabs. Why should, they have extra taxation because the Jews destroy a refinery? That is no justification for the course which the Government took, or at any rate approved. I think that to force on the Jews the realization that the whole of the Jews have the responsibility is deeply in the interests of Jews in Palestine, in this country, and throughout the world, because I do not believe they realize the extent to which the Jewish cause is suffering throughout the world as a result of what is happening in Palestine.

Finally, if the United Nations are going to delay, if we are going to find endless debate, decisions postponed and the strain continuing on our people until it becomes unbearable, I think the Government should consider demanding a denunciation of the crimes in Palestine from the United Nations, which they have not yet made. Astonishing as it may be, the United Nations have not denounced these crimes. The Government should demand the denunciation of these crimes and corrective action by the United Nations, if they go on while a decision is being reached. After all, that is what the United Nations exist for, and one of the most terrible things is that there has been no sign of moral indignation amongst the peoples of the United Nations about what is occurring in Palestine.

I could not agree more than I do with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, who I see has left his place, about the dangers of nationalism at the present time. It is the tragedy of tragedies that the Jews, who have always been one of the great cements between different nations, should now have developed an extreme nationalism of their own, and are not only pursuing an ideal bad in the Holy Land, against the spirit of the age in the Holy Land, but pursuing an ideal which rouses up nationalism against them in other countries and causes this terrible wave of anti-Semitism. Everybody loathes anti-Semitism, but we can see why it arises and we must do our utmost to restrain it. If what is happening in Palestine continues, you will see whether anti-Semitism does not spread. Human nature simply will not stand it.

Here is the acid test for the United Nations. The United Nations were formed to bridge national differences and to broaden and transmute national purposes, to try and check the bitterness and narrowness of nationalism. Here the United Nations should be on their own ground. The noble Lord in his speech referred to the example of India. It is, in one sense, I agree, a cause for hope, but in another, surely there is no member of this House who does not regret that India is now partitioned and a conflict of nationalisms is going to take place there. That, I hope, will not be the case in Palestine. I have always felt that if racial and national co-operation cannot be established in the Holy Land, the birthplace of three great religions, in which the whole monotheistic world is deeply concerned—Christian, Moslem and Jew alike—if the United Nations cannot secure agreement and co-operation between the nations living there, is there any hope in the world?

12.39 p.m.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL)

My Lords, the quality of the debate to which we have just listened has justified the noble Viscount in initiating it, as he has done to-day. His Majesty's Government have no complaint at all to register that there should be on two succeeding days debates in your Lordships' House and in the House of Commons, and I feel that I should at once express my deep appreciation for the very helpful speeches which have been made by those of your Lordships who have participated in the debate here. We are quite conscious of the anxiety and concern in the minds of the people of this country with regard to the present situation in Palestine.

While I do riot want to single out any one of the speeches which have been made, I would like to say that it is some time since I have listened to a more profound, timely, important, and effective speech than that of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I have no doubt as to the attitude of, shall I say, almost every member of the Jewish population in this country concerning this question of Palestine. The speech itself was necessary to indicate to nations outside of our own that that is their attitude. Again, I think tie speech is timely for the remarks which he made as to the attitude of a substantial proportion of Jewry in America. I do hope the noble Marquess's speech will be read in its entirety (I wish it could have been heard) not only by Jewry in this country and America, but by the populations in these two countries an indeed, throughout the world. It may then well assist in bringing about the peaceful solution which all of us desire to this very difficult and long problem.

Many questions have been raised in the course of this debate, and I shall attempt to deal with them. I should say at once that the last crime which was committed in Palestine (I am referring to the murder of Sergeants Martin and Paice) was in some respects the worst crime committed in a series of dastardly crimes. These two British soldiers were innocent of offence against the murderers or, indeed, against Jewry. Their only duty was that of maintaining order—the responsibility which British arms have been called upon to undertake, without which it would not be possible for the very large increase in the Jewish population in Palestine, and without which there would be no prospect of a Jewish National Home, whatever interpretation one can put upon that. Following these murders, there has been a vicious circle of terror and retaliation, with resultant loss of life in Palestine, and the outbreak of anti-Jewish feeling in this country, which in turn has resulted in rioting and much anti-Semitism.

I would like to say how much I agree with the right reverend Prelate who intervened in this debate, in what he said concerning the attitude of His Majesty's Government and the people of this country to those who participate in such actions. It is quite contrary to British feeling and British justice. I feel that I ought to say that this is a danger signal which cannot be ignored. I would that those who are charged with responsibilities in Palestine (I refer particularly to the Jewish Agency) could have their attention specially drawn to such actions as we have seen in this country during the last few weeks. I think I can assure British Jewry that these actions are the actions of misguided persons, who have not the support and sympathy of the British people in their conduct. It is useless to attempt to justify those persons who are responsible by indulging in acts some 3,000 or 4,000 miles away from the scene of the outrages in Palestine.

When this question was last debated in your Lordships' House, I dealt very fully with the effect which illegal immigration had upon the present situation in Palestine. On this occasion I will say no more than that the worst threat to good relations is the continuance of this illegal campaign which is not only hardening but embittering the Arab feeling, and is also stirring up a passion and hatred against the British, and particularly the British administration in Palestine. I agree entirely with the remarks of the noble Lord who spoke last. I do not propose to deal fully with illegal immigration, because I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Long, if he will read the remarks which I made on that occasion, will find that I did give concrete evidence of the source of revenue without which this illegal practice could not be continued. I know of no Communist organization—not that I should—which is behind it. I am convinced that if financial support were withheld from the United States, illegal immigration could not be carried out to the extent to which it has been practised during the course of the last eighteen months, if at all. Further financial assistance from the United States, and possibly some from other countries, has provided for the very large increase in this traffic.

The very worst case of course is that of the ship President Warfield." That is a ship of 1,800 gross standard tonnage, which carried no fewer than 4,600 illegal immigrants. The attempt was made to land them in Palestine, and they are now housed in merchant ships of a tonnage of some 26,000 tons off the coast of France. The passengers in this ship left France with forged Colombian visas, in defiance of French regulations and of the requirements of the international conventions for the safety of life at sea and respecting the Plimsoll Line or load lines. As I said on a previous occasion, some of these ships would never have reached the Palestinian coast had it not been for the assistance which they received from the Royal Navy. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was in Paris at the time of the ship's departure, and in fairness to the French Government I should say that this ship was held up in France for nearly three months as a result of the attitude of the French Government. She did not leave with the approval or the consent of the French Government, but slipped her cables about three o'clock, or very early one morning. She did not leave with the number of immigrants in her which arrived in the territorial waters of Palestine. These ships leave ports in France or Italy and at different points on the voyage collect more immigrants. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised this matter with the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, and His Majesty's Government have since maintained close contact with the French Government through the British Embassy in Paris.

The situation which has arisen has placed His Majesty's Government in a very difficult position. As noble Lords know, illegal immigrants who have been intercepted are taken to Cyprus. It is not that His Majesty's Government are unsympathetic to the entry of illegal immigrants into Palestine, for since the end of the quota of 75,000 under the White Paper no fewer than 30,000 immigrants have been received in Palestine and at the present time there are waiting in Cyprus some 15,000 or 16,000 persons who attempted illegally to enter Palestine. That number does not include those who are at present off the South Coast of France on the three ships to which I have referred. This matter is very costly and expensive to His Majesty's Government; it is no use pretending that it is not. We have to keep a number of ships of the Royal Navy on patrol, and there is no ship which arrives in Palestine conveying illegal immigrants that we consider fit to take them from Palestine to Cyprus. Indeed, we have to provide something like three or four times the accommodation, because we would never expect persons to travel in such miserable unseaworthy hulks as those in which the persons responsible for this illegal immigration expect the illegal immigrants to travel. I wonder sometimes whether this is done purely for propaganda purposes, bearing in mind the possibility of something happening.

The noble Viscount, Lord Long, asked me whether the French forbade the ship to leave. Of course they did. The guards, however, were inadequate, and the cables were cut and the ship left. The noble Viscount then asked who feeds the immigrants. During the voyage from Palestine back to France, of course, His Majesty's Government were responsible, and the people were fed by ships' stores. Since their arrival in France they have been fed by French charitable organizations, and that is the position at the present time. There has been some criticism about the way in which those illegal immigrants are housed. I gave your Lordships the conditions under which they travelled to Palestine and I leave to your Lordships' imagination the conditions under which they are existing at the present time.

The attitude of the French Government is that they are quite prepared to receive these immigrants if they leave the ships voluntarily. They have camps provided for them, but they have informed His Majesty's Government that they will not take steps to remove them forcibly. Up to the present time there are some 130 who have left these ships. It may be, as a result of much propaganda in the ships which could not be prevented, that those who occupy the ships at the present time imagine that if they wait or stay long enough they will be taken either to Palestine or to Cyprus. Even at the expense of repetition of what was said by the Colonial Under-Secretary in another place last night, I do say that it is the present intention of His Majesty's Government that those 4,400 illegal im- migrants aboard those illegal ships will not be taken either to Palestine or to Cyprus. We do hope that they themselves will realize what the position is.

Noble Lords will remember that the noble Viscount, Lord Long, said that he was satisfied that the High Commissioner's powers, as explained by the Colonial Secretary in another place yesterday—and, indeed, the powers given to the military—are sufficient. Therefore there is hardly any need for me to reply now to that question, other titan to take up the point which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. I was always under the impression fiat he, with his vast experience, thought that matters of this kind should be left largely to the men on the spot, provided that they have all the powers which are necessary. I want to assure him that in order to deal with an emergency no powers are withheld, and that there is complete collaboration between the military and the civil authorities. If, of course, there is time for consultation on matters of long-term policy, then consultations take place between them.

LORD ALTRINCHAM

Would the noble Viscount forgive my interrupting? I should hate to think that anything I slid could be interpreted as meaning that I suggested any interference with the discretion of the men on the spot. That was the last thing which I intended. I am sure that the decision should be left to them. But having been a man on the spot myself I know that what the man on the spot can do depends very much upon the atmosphere of the Government at home, and whether he is going to be supported out and out in whatever he does. That was the point I wished to make.

VISCOUNT HALL

I can give the noble Lord an assurance, with possibly one exception, and that was the one to which he referred—namely, collective fines. As that is so, I shall not deal further with that particular question.

The noble Viscount then asked me what was the position of isolated cases of persons who are travelling, or who have to undertake responsibilities, and whether the Security Forces are sufficient to protect them. In the nature of things it is not always possible to guarantee the security of our Forces when they are engaged upon certain operations. Travel on roads is confined to essential duty or to journeys in convoys. When travelling, a party of British civilians, if not in convoy, must apply for and obtain appropriate armed escort. No officer or man is allowed to go outside his camp unarmed; nor is he allowed outside the camp or security zone unless accompanied by three others who are all armed. All vehicles carry at least one armed man beside the driver, and in dangerous areas they always move in pairs. Every possible protection is given to troops on any particular task in the cities. Moreover, in towns military and police patrol the streets that are within bounds.

Instructions have been sent out to make it clear that there are no circumstances in which security instructions can be waived, other than by order from the highest authority. Troops have not been allowed to go into cinemas, restaurants or other public places. It will be realized that these regulations are very irksome and restrictive. They are, however, considered necessary in view of the situation in Palestine. May I here join with other noble Lords who have intervened in this debate in expressing again, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the greatest appreciation of the forbearance, patience, and bravery with which not only the troops but the police and civilian authorities are undertaking their difficult and very distasteful task?

The question of Martial Law has been raised. I do not know whether the inference was that Martial Law should apply throughout the whole of Palestine. Those of your Lordships who, like the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, have had long experience in Palestine, particularly appreciate what it would mean in numbers of troops and expense to apply Martial Law throughout the whole of Palestine. Indeed, there is scarcely any need; for, after all, it must be remembered that two-thirds of the population in Palestine are Arabs, and little has been said about the Arab situation during the course of this debate. Fortunately up to the present time, with one or two exceptions, the Arabs have been orderly, and indeed have assisted the civilian administration in every possible way. Had it been possible to obtain the co-operation of the Jewish community terrorism could not have lasted very long.

It is true, as has been said, that terrorist groups in Palestine are made up of a small number of fanatical persons who assume that acts such as they are carrying out will bring nearer the solution of the Palestine problem. The trouble is that not only do they carry out these acts but they terrorize almost the whole of the Jewish community. If the Jewish Agency, in addition to expressing their sympathy and passing resolutions to throw in the whole of their support whole-heartedly, could bring Haganah into full and complete co-operation, terrorists would not remain in Palestine any longer than they would remain in this country if the whole community were in opposition to them. That is the difficulty in Palestine at the present time, and that is why the defence emergency regulations now contain a regulation by which a form of statutory Martial Law can be imposed in certain areas when required. This is considered more satisfactory than Martial Law, because the authorities can cordon off various areas and take complete control of them, as has been done in Tel Aviv and in Nathanya.

The noble Viscount, Lord Long, asked whether I could say something concerning the outrage at the Labour Office in Jerusalem. This outrage took place shortly before the time at which the Office closed. It is a building which is situated in the Jewish area of Jerusalem, and in the present security conditions only Palestinian staff work there. At irregular times, and under escort, supervisory visits are made by members of British executive authorities, who carry on their own office duties from a security zone. The entry of visitors during office hours is controlled by doorkeepers, who were held up by the terrorists, but the alarm signal for clearing the building of staff—the majority of whom were present at the time when the bomb was placed—functioned successfully, with the result that casualties were reduced to a very small proportion. Outside office hours the building is guarded by two civilian Palestinian watchmen. It will be recognized, however, that it is impossible to guard every Government office, other than those in the security zones, sufficiently to prevent the entry of a determined gang of attackers or saboteurs, and that the most that can be done is to provide for speedy and orderly evacuation in case of danger.

The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, raised the question of collective fines and he referred, too, to the fact that the whole of the community was to blame. I am sure that he did not include the Arab community when he made that reference.

LORD ALTRINCHAM

I said the Jewish community.

VISCOUNT HALL

The noble Lord followed it up by referring to the Jewish community. He also referred to the petrol tax which is being levied for the purpose of compensating the oil company for the destruction of their refinery. That, in itself, discloses the difficulty of applying collective fines. If you apply fines by way of taxation, whether it is indirect or direct, it is difficult to eliminate certain sections of the community. That difficulty has been brought out in relation to the petrol tax. It would be difficult not to levy that tax upon all petrol which was sold in Palestine, and again, let me repeat, two-thirds of the population of Palestine are, of course, Arabs. The estimated amount which is raised in the tax upon the Arabs is returned to the Arabs; it is difficult to return it in the form of cash, but it is returned to the Arabs in the form of assisting in their social services and I think in a way upon which agreement has been reached. It is true, of course, that in the time of the Arab difficulty there was a tax of this kind levied, but it was not easy to collect it, and one of the problems with which the Government are faced is that of discriminating, which is so difficult. That matter has been considered and those difficulties——

LORD ALTRINCHAM

Will the noble Viscount forgive me for intervening, but I would like to say that if it is possible to impose a collective fine upon the limited community of Arabs, it surely is also possible to impose a collective fine upon the community of Jews. Arabs are exempted from the fine. If the fine should be imposed within a limited area, everybody would pay at that rate.

VISCOUNT HALL

I wish it was as easy as appears to be to the mind of the noble Lord, but I can assure him that this matter has received a good deal of consideration.

I now come to what after all is the wider question of policy affecting Palestine. Your Lordships will be conscious of the fact that the United Nations Special Committee have been collecting material for their report. The Committee arrived in Palestine during the middle of June, toured the country extensively, and received evidence from a very large number of people. Public evidence was taken from the Jews only. The Palestine Arabs had decided to boycott the proceedings, but the Committee spent the last few days of their time in the Middle East receiving evidence from the Arab States. They concluded their evidence on the 23rd July when they left for Geneva, where the committee are now engaged in the preparation of their report. There are prospects than: the report will be submitted on 1st September, so your Lordships will see that a further expression of view on Palestine policy in general will not be possible until the Committee's report has been received and examined.

I fully appreciate the dangers of delay, but I would like to recall to the minds of noble Lords the action of His Majesty's Government. When it was discovered that it was impossible to bring about an agreement as a result of the conferences held by His Majesty's Government with the Jews and Arabs, or at least those who would attend in this country, His Majesty's Government; with the full consent of this House arid another place, referred the matter to the United Nations and sought a special meeting of the Assembly for the purpose of preparing for a decision to be taken in the September meetings. In taking that initiative in the matter, His Majesty's Government have saved at least twelve months. It is hoped that a decision will be arrived at——

LORD ALTRINCHAM

In September?

VISCOUNT HALL

At the September meetings or the autumn meetings of the General Assembly of the United Nations. May I express a hope that the findings of the Committee will bring a complete solution and one just to both parties, capable of helping to assure the peaceful progress of the Middle East, for peace in Palestine is a matter of real concern to the whole world?

VISCOUNT LONG

Will the noble Viscount forgive me, but I would like to put one question. There have been some statements to the effect that the indiscriminate shooting from a car in Tel Aviv was due to our own military or police personnel. I believe that has been contradicted in another place. I hope the noble Viscount can confirm that contradiction that our men had nothing to do with it.

VISCOUNT HALL

I can confirm that, so far as the military are concerned, they had nothing at all to do With it. A suggestion was then made that the Palestine Police was in some way responsible, but an inquiry is now being held in connexion with that matter. Until we know the result of the inquiry, no statement can be made about it.

VISCOUNT LONG

The Army is not involved?

VISCOUNT HALL

No.

LORD GRENFELL

Could I possibly have an answer to the question of the reduction of the Armed Forces in Palestine? Could I have an assurance that they will not be reduced in Palestine?

VISCOUNT HALL

I am afraid it is impossible for me to give the noble Lord such an assurance. I think it would be very wrong to give any information with regard to the disposition of the Forces, whether in Palestine or anywhere else where there is such trouble as there is in Palestine. I am afraid it is impossible to give the noble Lord a reply to his question.

VISCOUNT LONG

My Lords, if for no other reason this debate has been justified by the speech of the noble Viscount; and I am sure your Lordship will agree with me in thanking him for a detailed and long speech of immense interest. He has cleared up many points which have been in dispute. And, if I may be allowed to do so, I would like to thank the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for the great speech we have had from him this morning. In view of the time and of the fact that the First Lord of the Admiralty has taken so much trouble to give the House a detailed report, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

[The sitting was suspended at twenty minutes past one o'clock and resumed at half past two.]