• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 The Mandate
 The White paper of 1922
 The Future Policy
 Allegations Against the Jews
 Conclusion
 Appendix
 Errata














Group Title: Palestine white paper of October 1930
Title: The Palestine white paper of October 1930 : memorandum
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00023266/00001
 Material Information
Title: The Palestine white paper of October 1930 : memorandum
Alternate Title: Memorandum
Memorandum, the Palestine white paper of October 1930.
Physical Description: 89 p. ; 25 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Stein, Leonard, 1887-1973
Publisher: Jewish Agency for Palestine
Place of Publication: London
 Subjects
Subject: Great Britain -- Foreign relations -- Palestine
Great Britain Colonial Office Palestine, statement of policy by His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom
Jewish Arab relations -- History -- 1917-1948
Palestine -- Foreign relations -- Great Britain
Palestine -- Politics and government -- 1917-1948
 Notes
General Note: Objections to the paper issued by the British Colonial Office under the title Palestine, statement of policy by His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, 1930.
General Note: "November 1930."
General Note: Includes bibliographical references.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00023266
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: The Isser and Rae Price Library of Judaica
Holding Location: The Isser and Rae Price Library of Judaica
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Table of Contents
        Page 2
    Introduction
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    The Mandate
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
    The White paper of 1922
        Page 29
        Page 30
    The Future Policy
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
    Allegations Against the Jews
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
    Conclusion
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
    Appendix
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
    Errata
        Page 91
Full Text







THE PALESTINE WHITE PAPER
OF OCTOBER, 1930





MEMORANDUM



By

LEONARD STEIN


JEWISH AGENCY FOR PALESTINE,
77 Great Russell Street,
London, W.C. 1

November, 1930









J-/




Pr? CONTENTS
IT3o PAGE
INTRODUCTION . .. . 3-5


I. THE MANDATE

II. THE WHITE PAPER OF 1922


. 6-28

S29-30


III. FUTURE POLICY ..

(1) The Land Questi,

(2) Immigration


.31-77

on .. .. 31-58

.58-77


IV. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE JEWS


CONCLUSION


APPENDICES


.78-82


.83-86


.87-89


Note.-The following abbreviations are used in the marginal references :-
F.O. = Foreign Office.
H.S. = Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development in
Palestine, by Sir John Hope Simpson, 1930. (Command Paper
3686, 193o.)
J.P.S.C. = Joint Palestine Survey Commission Report, 1928.
N.I.D. = Naval Intelligence Department.
P.G.R. = Palestine Government Report, i.e., the Annual Report of the
Palestine Administration for the year indicated.
P.M.C. = Permanent Mandates Commission (Minutes).
S.C.R. = Shaw Commission Report, i.e., Report of the Commission on
the Palestine Disturbances, August, 1929." (Command Paper
3530, 1930.)
W.P. = White Paper-Statement of Policy in Palestine by His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom, 1930. (Command Paper
3692, 1930.)


3UDAICA
LIBRARY







CONFIDENTIAL










INTRODUCTION

I. At the last meeting of the Council of the League of Nations,
when the Council had before it the Report of the Permanent
Mandates Commission on the unhappy events which occurred
in Palestine in August, 1929, it was intimated by the British
Representative that His Majesty's Government proposed to
issue at an early date a full statement of their intentions with
regard to future policy in Palestine. Mr. Henderson added
that His Majesty's Government trust that they will be able
to announce their intention to adopt measures which will
serve to promote goodwill between the two sections of the
population." The Jewish Agency and the Jewish people at
large, grievously as they had suffered, had no desire to dwell
upon the painful memories of the recent past ; they sincerely
hoped that the policy to be announced by His Majesty's
Government would be of the character indicated by Mr. Hen-
derson, and would be such as to command their whole-hearted
co-operation. It is deeply regretted that these hopes have
not been fulfilled, and that, in its spirit no less than in its'
substance, the Statement of Policy has proved to be a docu-
ment to which the Jewish reply can only be an emphatic
protest.

2. It is regretted all the more because no Jew can fail to be
deeply conscious of the ties binding the Jewish people to the
Power to which it owes the Declaration of November 2nd,
1917, and which, by accepting the Mandate, voluntarily under-
took, not merely to tolerate, but to facilitate the establishment
in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. Great
Britain has long been honourably distinguished in Jewish
eyes, alike for her disinterested championship of oppressed
and persecuted Jewish minorities, and for her sympathetic
understanding, dating back to a period much earlier than the


3 A2









Declaration of 1917, of Jewish national aspirations. On both
grounds, Jews throughout the world have an attachment and
a regard for Great Britain which have become an established
tradition. For these reasons, nothing could be more distaste-
ful, or indeed more painful, to the Jewish Agency than to
be drawn into such a controversy as the White Paper
has precipitated. But its duty to those for whom it has
been appointed to speak leaves it no alternative. It would
be false to its trust if, in the face of so gravely injurious
a pronouncement, it permitted itself to stand passively
aside.

3. The objections to the White Paper may be briefly sum-
marised as follows :
(1) The White Paper misrepresents and misinterprets the
Manda te.
(2) It lays down principles which in vital particulars modify,
to the disadvantage of the Jews, the policy embodied in the
White Paper of 1922, and which are incompatible with the
normal development of the Jewish National Home as con-
templated in the Mandate.

(3) Though it purports to be based on the Report of Sir John
Hope Simpson, it gives a false impression of his findings on a
number of important points, and, while emphasising those
features of the Report which can be turned to the disadvantage
of the Jews, fails to bring out the true nature of the constructive
proposals which are of the essence of Sir John Hope Simpson's
final recommendations.

(4) While ostensibly designed to promote cordial co-
operation between the Jews, the Arabs and the Government,"
it loses no opportunity of introducing injurious, and in some
cases quite irrelevant allegations, of which the effect, if not the
purpose, can only be to discredit the Jewish Agency, to dis-
parage Jewish achievements in Palestine, and to encourage the
ill-disposed elements of the Arab population.

(5) Quite apartifrom its specific proposals (which are, indeed,
so vague, confused and ambiguous that it is not easy to be
sure of their precise significance), the White Paper is con-
ceived.in a spirit which is not that of a Government seriously






interested in the establishment of the Jewish National Home,
and conscious of having in this regard responsibilities implying,
not merely a reluctant and grudging acquiescence, but active
and positive co-operation.
4. These points will now be discussed seriatim.












I. THE MANDATE


The Preamble to the Mandate recites the Balfour Declara-
tion, and for a true appreciation of the Mandate the two docu-
ments must be taken together. As an introduction to the
discussion of the Mandate, it will, therefore, not be irrelevant
to illustrate the significance of the Declaration, as conceived
by British statesmen well qualified to know what was, in fact,
in the mind of the British Government. Of the many state-
ments which might be quoted, the following will be sufficient
for the present purpose :
(a) Lord Balfour (Letter to Lord Rothschild, Novem-
ber 2nd, 1917) :
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf
of His Majesty's Government, the following Declaration of
sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been
submitted to and approved by the Cabinet." (Then follows
the text of the Balfour Declaration.)
(b) General Smuts (Zionist Review, November 2nd,
1918):
The march of the year's events has given fresh meaning
and added greater force to our Declaration, which has
become the foundation of a great policy of international
justice. Great as are the changes wrought by this War,
this great world War of justice and freedom, I doubt
whether any of these changes surpass in interest the
liberation of Palestine and its recognition as the Home of
Israel."
(c) Mr. Lloyd George (House of Commons, April 29th,
1920) :
The Mandate for Palestine has been given to Great
Britain. It is a full recognition of the famous Balfour
Declaration in respect of the Jews."
(d) Lord Cecil (Albert Hall, July 12th, 192o) :
We are trying to restore an ancient people to its ancient
home, to knit up again the severed threads of national his-









tory ; we have given you national existence. In your
hands lies your national future."

(e) Lord Balfour (House of Lords, June 22nd, 1922) :
Surely it is in order that we may send a message to every
land where the Jewish race has been scattered, a message
which will tell them that Christendom is not oblivious of
their faith, is not unmindful of the service they have
rendered to the great religions of the world, and most of all
to the religion which the majority of Your Lordships'
House profess, and that we desire, to the best of our
ability, to give them that opportunity of developing, in
peace and quietness under British rule, those great gifts
which hitherto they have been compelled, from the very nature
of the case, to bring to fruition only in countries which know
not their language and belong not to their race ? This is the
ideal which I desire to see accomplished, that is the aim
which lay at the root of the policy I am trying to defend."

5. These authoritative statements speak for themselves as
evidence of the meaning which the world at large, and the
Jewish people in particular, were invited to attach to the
Declaration by statesmen who played a foremost part in
framing it. As already pointed out, the Mandate incorporates
the Declaration, and these commentaries on the Declaration
are not, therefore, without a bearing on the construction of the
Mandate.

6. These quotations, however, illuminating as they are, are
admittedly not conclusive in themselves. The next step, there-
fore, must be a closer analysis of the relevant portions of the
Mandate itself. What is said on this subject should not neces-
sarily be taken to imply that the Jewish contention is that the
Mandatory Power should do no more for the Arab population
of Palestine than it is actually compelled to do by the express
provisions of the Mandate. As, however, His Majesty's
Government have taken the initiative in raising a number of
highly important points as to the interpretation of the Mandate,
it is necessary to inquire whether the construction which it is
sought to place upon it is correct.

7. It will be convenient at the outset to deal with the passage w.P.,para.8
in the White Paper in which His Majesty's Government seek to
justify its general purport by quoting an extract from the









recent Report of the Permanent Mandates Commission. The
Mandates Commission, it is stated,
Made the following important pronouncement:
"'From all these statements two assertions emerge,
which should be emphasised :
(i) that the obligations laid down by the Mandate in
regard to the two sections of the population are
of equal weight;
(2) that the two obligations imposed on the Manda-
tory are in no sense irreconcilable.'
The Mandates Commission has no objection to raise
to these two assertions, which, in its view, accurately
express what it conceives to be the essence of the Mandate
for Palestine, and ensure its future."

8. It will be noticed that all that emerges from this state-
ment is that there are two sets of obligations which are of equal
weight and are not irreconcilable. But what are those obliga-
tions ? On this material point the quotation throws no light.
It is left to be inferred that the obligations of the Mandatory, as
defined by the Permanent Mandates Commission, are obliga-
tions having some bearing upon the matter which bulk most
largely in the White Paper, namely, land and immigration.
This inference would be wholly incorrect. A reference to the
Report of the Seventeenth Session of the Permanent Mandates
Commission (Report and Minutes, p. 145) will show that the
obligations referred to are stated by the Commission to be as
follows :

P.M.C., 17th (I) Placing the country under such . conditions
Session, as will secure the establishment of the Jewish
P. 145. National Home.
(2) (Placing the country under such conditions as will
secure) the development of self-governing insti-
tutions."
9. It will be seen that the pronouncement on which the White
Paper lays so much stress is, in fact, wholly irrelevant to two of
the three main points on which His Majesty's Government
consider themselves bound by the Mandate to take measures
in the interests of the Arabs. As regards the third point-
constitutional reform-the White Paper refrains from referring
to another and not less material passage of the Mandates









Commission's Report. Dealing with the question of self-
government, the Commission observes :

To all sections of the population which are rebelling P.M.C., 17th
against the Mandate, whether they object to it on principle Session,
or wish to retain only those of its provisions which favour P' 143.
their particular cause, the Mandatory Power must
obviously return a definite and categorical refusal. As long
as the leaders of a. community persist in repudiating
what is at once the fundamental charter of the country
and, as far as the Mandatory Power is concerned, an
international obligation which it is not free to set aside,
the negotiations would only unduly enhance their prestige
and raise dangerous hopes among their partisans and
apprehensions amongst their opponents."

Io. On this point it is only necessary to refer to the state-
ment issued by the Palestine Arab Executive on the anniversary
of the outbreak of August 23rd, 1929. In this proclamation, (The text of
after glorifying as martyrs the Arabs sentenced for murderous this state-
ment is re-
attacks on Jews, the Arab Executive proceeds, in effect, to produced in
demand the annulment both of the Balfour Declaration and of Appendix I.)
the British Mandate.

II. The quotation in the White Paper from the Report of
the Permanent Mandates Commission is, therefore, seriously
misleading; it is not only not in harmony, but is definitely
inconsistent, with the view of the dual obligation which it is
apparently invoked to support. That the White Paper, by
divorcing the quotation from its context, should have created a
false impression of what the Mandates Commission actually
said is all the more surprising in the light of the letter of August
2nd, 1930, in which His Majesty's Government comment on the
Mandates Commission's Report. In this letter, His Majesty's
Government quote the definition of the Mandatory's obligations
as set forth above, and, far from endorsing it, proceed to
complain that it leaves out of account the last part of Article 2 P.M.C., 17th
of the Mandate, which-they say-is the core of the problem." Session,
p. 149.
In other words, His Majesty's Government appear not only
to have overlooked the context of their quotation from the
Mandates Commission's Report, but to have overlooked also
their own comments on the passage in question. Had they
recalled their own letter, they would have realized that, whether
the views of the Mandates Commission are right or wrong, they









are, in fact, quite different from what a reader of the White
Paper would naturally suppose them to be. It may be added
that the letter of August 2nd, 1930, shows that, at that time,
the view of His Majesty's Government was that everything
turned on the construction of Article 2. Nowhere in their
comments on the Mandates Commission's Report is there any
allusion to Article 6, which plays so prominent a part in the
White Paper, but which, it is fair to infer from the letter of
August 2nd, is only introduced as an afterthought.
12. We now pass to paragraph 7 of the White Paper, which
purports to recite those portions of the Mandate relating respec-
tively to Jewish and non-Jewish interests. There are two
observations which will immediately occur to anyone familiar
with the Mandate :
(a) The list of relevant passages completely disregards the
Preamble, implying that no account is to be taken of the fact
that the Preamble emphasises the importance attached by the
framers of the Mandate to the establishment of the Jewish
National Home by including in the Preamble two paragraphs
relating to that subject-the first reciting the Balfour Declara-
tion, and the second referring to the historical connection of
the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for
reconstituting their national home in that country.
It cannot be contended that the Preamble can be properly
disregarded as forming no part of the Mandate. In the first
place, the British memorandum of September, 1922, with
reference to Transjordan, expressly includes among the
"provisions of the Mandate not applicable to the territory
known as Transjordan recitals 2 and 3 of the Preamble. If,
then, these recitals were sufficiently important to be mentioned
as inapplicable to Transjordan, it is difficult to understand on
what grounds His Majesty's Government now regard them as
not sufficiently important to be mentioned as applicable to the
rest of the mandated territory.
In the second place, Article 2 speaks explicitly of "the
establishment of the Jewish National Home as laid down in
the Preamble," thus making a reference to the Preamble
essential to an appreciation of Article 2. The point is of more
than merely formal importance. While Article 2 speaks of the
Jewish national home, the Preamble explains that what is
meant is a national home for the Jewish people." In other









words, the obligations undertaken by the Mandatory in
respect of the national home are obligations to the Jewish
people, and not, as might be supposed from various passages of
the White Paper, merely obligations to the local Jewish
inhabitants as one of the two sections of the population of
Palestine. The distinction was clearly recognized by the
Prime Minister when, speaking in the House of Commons on
April 3rd, 1930, he stated that "a double undertaking is
involved, to the Jewish people on the one hand and to the
non-Jewish population of Palestine on the other." It is
brought out in the Mandate itself in Article 4, which deals
with the functions and status of the Jewish Agency. The
matters in which the Agency is to co-operate with the Adminis-
tration of Palestine are defined as matters affecting the
establishment of the Jewish National Home and the interests
of the Jewish population of Palestine," while the second para-
graph of the Article, which requires the Agency to secure the
co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establish-
ment of the Jewish National Home, clearly conceives of it as a
body qualified to speak on behalf of the Jewish people as a
whole, and not merely on behalf of that part of it which happens
at a given moment to be resident in Palestine. The omission
in paragraph 7 of the White Paper of any reference to the
Preamble to the Mandate is in keeping with the suggestion,
which underlies the whole document, that it is mainly a ques-
tion of balancing one section of the population of Palestine
against another-a suggestion which implies a fundamental
misconception of the real significance of the Mandate.
(b) Not less surprising is the omission from the list of pas-
sages making special reference to the Jewish National Home
and to Jewish interests of the most vitally important of all
such passages apart from the Preamble, namely Article 2. It
is impossible to understand how it came about that Article 2,
which opens by enjoining the Mandatory to create such
political, administrative and economic conditions as will
ensure the establishment of the Jewish National Home," is
referred to only among those Articles bearing upon the
safeguarding of the rights of the non-Jewish community."
This extraordinary anomaly cannot be explained by a desire
to avoid the repetition in the list of Articles affecting Jewish
interests of an Article already quoted, as is conclusively shown









by the fact that Article 6 is included in both lists. It would
almost appear, therefore, as though the only part of Article 2
in which His Majesty's Government are seriously interested is
the part relating to the safeguarding of the rights of the non-
Jewish community."

13. It is now proposed to deal seriatim with the various
Articles of which the White Paper offers an interpretation,
As will be seen, it is characteristic of the White Paper that,
while it is at pains to analyse the Mandatory's obligations in
respect of the non-Jewish population of Palestine, it attempts
no corresponding analysis of its obligations in respect of the
Jewish National Home.

14. Article 2.-As already stated, the White Paper lays the
main stress on the last part of the Article, by which, in addition
to its other obligations, the Mandatory Power is also made
responsible for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of
all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race or religion."
For a variety of reasons, it is obvious that this part of Article 2
has no bearing on the proposals with regard to land and immi-
gration to the discussion of which so large a part of the White
Paper is devoted.
(a) The words used are civil and religious rights." No
question of religious rights arises. As regards civil rights,"
it cannot be seriously contended that the civil rights of any
inhabitant of Palestine include the right to be provided by the
Government with land or with employment, or the right to
require the Government to take any particular action with
reference to land settlement or immigration. No inhabitant
of Palestine enjoys or has ever enjoyed any rights of this kind,
and it is impossible to construe the Mandate as requiring the
Mandatory to safeguard rights which have no existence.
(b) It will be observed that, while Article 6 refers to other
sections of the population," the last part of Article 2 makes no
special reference to the Arabs ; it does not deal with sections
of the population at all, but obviously refers to the inhabi-
tants of Palestine as individuals. His Majesty's Government
would appear to have overlooked the fact that the true intent
and purpose of the last part of Article 2 have been authori-
tatively defined by the highest Court of the British Empire
in District Governor, Jerusalem-Jaffa District v. Suleiman









Murra, in which judgment was delivered by the Privy Council
on February I6th, 1926. Discussing the construction of the
last part of Article 2, the judgment states :
In their Lordships' opinion, the key to the true purpose 1926, A.C.,
and meaning of the sentence quoted from Article 2 of P. 238.
the Mandate is to be found in the . . words ...
'irrespective of race and religion,' and the purpose of
the Article is to secure that in fulfilling the duty which
is incumbent upon every Government to safeguard the
rights from time to time belonging to the inhabitants of
the territory, the Mandatory shall not discriminate in
favour of persons of any one religion or race."
In other words, far from imposing on the Mandatory any
special obligations in respect of the Arabs, the real meaning of
this provision is merely that, so far as their civil and religious
rights are concerned, all inhabitants of Palestine, Arabs and
Jews alike, are to be treated on a footing of complete equality.
This has clearly no bearing on the question of immigration.
So far as the land question is concerned, if the provision is
relevant at all, it can only be relevant in so far as it implies
that any rights of settlement on the land which are, conferred
upon landless Arabs must be equally enjoyed by landless Jews.

15. Article 6.-In paragraph 21 of the White Paper the
meaning of Article 6 is defined as follows :

It is the duty of the Administration under the Mandate
to ensure that the position of the other sections of the
population' is not prejudiced by Jewish immigration.
Also it is its duty under the Mandate to encourage close
settlement by Jews on the land, subject always, to':the
,former condition."

It is submitted that this paraphrase of Article 6 is, on the face
of it, unreasonable and perverse-all the more so in view of the
fact that Article 6 is preceded by Article 2, which, in laying
down the general principles on which the mandated territory
is to be administered, begins by making the Mandatory respon-
sible for placing the country under such political, adminis-
trative and economic conditions as will secure the establish-
ment of the Jewish National Home." If the framers of the
Mandate had thought it possible, without stultifying them-
selves, to say what they are made to say in paragraph 21 of









the White Paper, it was open to them to do so. They have, in
fact, expressed themselves in an entirely different manner, and
have used language conveying entirely different implications.
Where the imposition of a duty is qualified by a proviso, it is
plainly contrary to all reasonable canons of interpretation to
represent the proviso as the paramount obligation and the
positive duty as a mere appendix. It is quite clear that the
main purpose of Article 6 was to impose upon the Mandatory
the positive and affirmative obligation of facilitating the
immigration of Jews and close settlement by Jews on the land.

16. That the construction of Article 6 in the White Paper
had never before occurred to the Mandatory Power, and is no
more than a mere afterthought, is clearly shown by the language
used with regard to this Article by the British Government
itself in the Memorandum which it communicated to the
League .of Nations on July Ist, 1922 (Command Paper 1708,
1922, page 4) :
"The immigration of Jews and their close settlement
upon the land, including State lands and waste lands not
required for public purposes, are integral and indispensable
factors in the execution of the charge laid upon the
Mandatory of establishing in Palestine a National Home
for the Jewish people.
Article 6 of the draft Mandate, which provides for these
measures, and which is quoted by Cardinal Gasparri,
expressly reaffirms that the rights and position of other
sections of the population must not thereby be pre-
judiced."
17. While there can be no reasonable doubt as to the main
purpose of Article 6, it is admittedly qualified by a proviso, the
construction of which must now be considered.
(a) The White Paper admits that the obligations laid down
by the Mandate with regard to the two sections of the popula-
tion are of equal weight. Whatever the precise meaning of
the proviso, Article 6 imposes upon the Mandatory a definite
and positive obligation towards the Jews. It is, therefore,
inadmissible, unless all alternative constructions are plainly
excluded, to construe the proviso in such a manner as to make
it, on the face of it, incompatible with the discharge by the
Mandatory Power of the positive obligation imposed upon it.
There is high legal authority for the view that the interpreta-









tion of the proviso in the White Paper, so far as it relates to
immigration, is inconsistent with the Mandate, inasmuch as Lord Hail-
sham and
it clearly involves a prohibition-or as the White Paper calls sir John
it, a suspension-of all that Jewish immigration and settlement Simon, The
Times,
which Article 6 of the Mandate expressly directs the Mandatory November
to facilitate and encourage." 4th, 1930.
(b) Is it, then, impossible to construe the proviso otherwise
than in a manner which renders nugatory the positive injunc
tions of the Article ? The answer turns on the meaning to be
attached to the words rights and position." It will be
observed that, unlike Article 2, this part of Article 6 deals, not
with the inhabitants of Palestine as individuals, but with
" other sections of the population." It will also be observed
that the words used are "rights and position," and not
" interests." It is, therefore, inadmissible to interpret "rights
and position as though these words were a synonym for
"interests." The framers of the Mandate must be assumed
to have chosen their phraseology with care, and if they had
meant "interests," they would have said so. It is hardly
necessary to explain that it is not, of course, suggested that
in the administration of the Mandate the interests of the
Arabs may, in fact, be disregarded; it is merely pointed
out that, if the proviso to Article 6 is to be strictly construed,
-and His Majesty's Government have themselves raised the
question of its precise construction-it must be borne in mind
that Article 6 carefully eschews the use of the elastic term
" interests," and that some other meaning must be sought for
the words actually selected, namely, rights and position."
So far as rights are concerned, it seems tolerably clear that
the proviso that the rights of other sections of the population
are not to be prejudiced is merely a paraphrase of the proviso
to the Balfour Declaration, which lays it down that nothing
shall be done which might prejudice the civil and religious
rights of existing non-Jewish communities." In other words,
the rights which are not to be prejudiced are the civil and
religious rights of the Arab population, whatever these may be.
The question of religious rights is not relevant to the present
discussion. As for the civil rights of the Arab section of the
population," it is impossible to understand on what reasonable
principles of construction they can be made to include a right
on the part of every Arab in Palestine to be provided with









land or employment, as the case may be, before any Jewish
immigrant is admitted or any land allowed to pass into Jewish
hands, or, for that matter, the right to be prevented from
disposing of his land, if he desires to do so. So far as the word
" rights is concerned, it is submitted that there is nothing in
Article 6 which justifies, still less requires, the action apparently
proposed to be taken by the Mandatory Power with reference
to Jewish land settlement and immigration.
18. We are, then, driven back to the word "position," it
being borne in mind that the reference is, strictly speaking,
to the position of the Arab section of the population, and not of
individual Arabs. Is the reference to the political position of
the Arab section of the population, or to its economic position ?
The meaning of the proviso cannot be that the political position
of the Arab section of the population is not to be prejudiced,
in the sense that there is to be no impairment of its relative
importance as a numerical factor. This construction is ruled
out as inherently inconsistent with the rest of the Article,
since any Jewish immigration at all must, pro tanto, reduce the
relative numerical importance of the Arabs.

19. On the other hand, there is another sense in which
"position may be construed-and, it is submitted, correctly
construed-as having a political connotation. The simplest and
most obvious explanation would appear to be that what is
meant is that the position of the Arab section of the popu-
lation is not to be prejudiced in the sense that, no matter what
may happen in Palestine, the Arabs are not to be relegated to
a subordinate position, or to become, as it were, second-class
citizens. There is to be no domination, either by the Arabs or
by the Jews. One reason for regarding this as the most natural
interpretation of the phrase is that it fits in with the words
"Arab section of the population." While Article 2 refers to
the rights of the Arab (or the Jew) as an individual citizen,
Article 6 refers to the position of the Arab as an Arab in a
State in which the number of Jews is increasing. Inter-
preted in this sense, the Article gives a guarantee that the
status of the Arab section of the population as an integral part
of the population as a whole, on a footing of complete and per-
petual equality with any other section, is not to be impaired.
This, then, is what appears to be, on the whole, the most









reasonable and comprehensible interpretation of an elusive and
ambiguous phrase.
If this be so, the question of the economic position of the
Arabs does not arise at all under this Article, which is, there-
fore, quite irrelevant to such questions as land settlement and
immigration.
20. Let it, however, be assumed, for the sake of argument,
that position does mean-or does include-economic posi-
tion. The Article, even so, is still quite incapable of bearing
the interpretation which it is apparently sought to place upon
it. To say that the economic position of the Arab section of
the population is not to be prejudiced can clearly mean, on a
commonsense view, two things only:
(i.) It may mean that Jewish immigration and settle-
ment must not result in the economic position of the Arab
section of the population being worse than it was when the
Mandate came into effect, or
(ii.) It may mean, on a more liberal interpretation, that
they must not result in the economic position of the Arab
section of the population being worse than it would have
been if Jewish immigration and settlement had not taken
place.
These are the two criteria to be applied in deciding whether
there is any justification for the restrictive measures now
proposed with regard to Jewish land settlement and immigra-
tion, in so far as they purport to be based on Article 6 of the
Mandate.
21. It cannot be seriously suggested that the position of
the Arab section of the population, i.e., of the Arabs as a
whole, is worse than it was before the Mandate came into effect.
Sir John Hope Simpson, for example, states that the position H.S., p. 69.
of the Arab cultivator has always been one of extreme poverty,"
and the Foreign Office Handbook of Syria and Palestine,
referring to the condition of the fellahin immediately before
the British Occupation, states that :
They have for centuries been ground down, overtaxed F.O. Hand-
and bullied by the Turks, and still more by the Arab- book 60,
speaking Turkish minor official, and by the Syrian and PP. 56-57
Levantine land-owner."
Even if a gloomy view be taken of the present condition of









the Arabs, there is no reason whatever to suppose that (to put
it at the lowest) it is worse than it used to be-still less that, if
it is, the Jews are to blame.

22. Similarly, it cannot be seriously suggested that the
position of the Arabs as a whole is worse than it would have
been if no Jewish immigration had taken place. There is not
(to take an obvious test) the slightest reason to suppose that
the position of the Palestine Arabs is in any respect inferior to
that of the neighboring Arabs of Transjordan, Syria or Iraq,
where the question of Jewish immigration has not arisen.
This under-statement of the Jewish case is sufficient for the
present purpose, but it goes without saying that there would
be no difficulty in putting it much higher. It is hardly neces-
sary to labour the incontestable fact that, far from having
prejudiced the position of the Arab section of the population,
the nett result of Jewish immigration has been substantially
to improve it. It would be superfluous to elaborate the point,
P.M.C., 17th in view of the reference in the recent Report of the Permanent
session, Mandates Commission to the undeniable material advantages
p. 143.
which Palestine has derived from the efforts of the Zionists."

23. The only question which still remains to be considered is,
therefore, whether, taking the present position of the Arab
section of the population as a starting-point, there is reason to
believe that Jewish immigration must now be restricted if its
position is not to be changed for the worse. It will be observed
that, so far as the provisions of Article 6 are concerned, what
has to be shown in order to justify fresh restrictions on the
immigration and settlement of Jews, is that these restrictions
are indispensable in order to prevent the position of the Arabs
from deteriorating. The word used is prejudiced," and the
Mandatory Power has no right under Article 6 to place obstacles
in the way of the Jews with a view to effecting an improvement
in the condition of the Arabs. In other words, all that the
Arabs have a right to demand under Article 6 is that their
position shall not be impaired. The White Paper, there-
fore, goes far beyond anything that is either required or justified
by Article 6 in laying down the principle that Arabs who at
present have no land or too little land must be provided with as
much as they require, and that Arab workers must not merely
be protected against the loss of the employment they at present









have, but must be given a prior claim to any fresh employment
which may become available. The Arab section of the popula-
tion has never hitherto had a guarantee either of land or of
employment, and on no reasonable construction of Article 6
can the Government's obligation to ensure that the position of
" other sections of the population shall not be prejudiced
be interpreted as an obligation to suspend or restrict the
immigration of Jews until the requirements of the Arabs, both
with regard to land and to employment, have been satisfied.
It would, indeed, not be difficult to give reasons for believing
that Arab as well as Jewish interests will be adversely affected
by the discouragement of Jewish enterprise which must be
the inevitable result of the measures contemplated by His
Majesty's Government, and that the Arab section of the
population, as a whole, stands to gain by continuing to share
in the "undeniable material advantages" which, as the
Permanent Mandates Commission has pointed out, Palestine
derives'from the efforts of the Jews. It is not, however, neces-
sary, for the present purpose, to dwell on the beneficial effects
of Jewish colonisation on the interests of Palestine as a whole.
The Jews are not called upon to justify their presence in
Palestine by showing that it is of advantage to the Arabs.
They are entitled to the active assistance of the Government
in immigrating and settling on the land so long as the rights "
of the Arab section of the population, whatever these may be,
are not infringed, and their position is not positively
changed for the worse.

24. To sum up, the contention of His Majesty's Government
is, in effect, that they are under a positive obligation, by reason
of Article 6 of the Mandate, to take restrictive measures, on the
lines foreshadowed by the White Paper, with reference toJewish
immigration and settlement on the land. It is submitted
that, even on the broadest and most liberal interpretation of
the proviso that the rights and position of other sections of
the population are not to be prejudiced, there is nothing in
Article 6 which either compels or entitles His Majesty's Govern-
ment to take such measures as they apparently have in con-
templation.

25. In connection with Article 6, the White Paper raises a
question with regard to certain articles of the Constitution of


B2









the Jewish Agency and to certain aspects of the policy of the
Jewish National Fund. The Constitution of the Jewish
Agency lays it down that land acquired with funds provided
by the Agency shall be held as the inalienable property of the
Jewish people, and that in all works or undertakings carried
out or furthered by the Agency, it shall be deemed to be a
matter of principle that Jewish labour shall be employed."
These paragraphs of the Constitution are in harmony with
the policy pursued since its foundation, twenty-eight years ago,
by the Jewish National Fund, which acts on behalf of the
Agency in the acquisition of land for colonisation. In para-
graphs 19-20 of the White Paper, His Majesty's Government
not only take exception to these provisions on more general
grounds, but go to the length of advancing the proposition that
" they take no account of the provisions of Article 6 of the
Mandate."

26. The full text of the Constitution of the Jewish Agency,
including the Articles now objected to, was laid before His
Majesty's Government in September, 1929. After nearly
twelve months' consideration, the Colonial Secretary, on
August 6th, 1930, acknowledged the receipt of a copy of the
agreement embodying the Constitution of the Jewish Agency
for Palestine," and formally intimated that His Majesty's
Government were prepared to recognize the enlarged Jewish
Agency, as constituted by the Agreement, as the Agency referred
to in Article 4 of the Mandate for Palestine." It appears,
therefore, that as recently as August last, it had escaped the
notice of His Majesty's Government that the Constitution of
the Agency contained anything objectionable. It is difficult
to resist the conclusion that this is another example of an after-
thought.

27. As regards the Jewish National Fund, it will be observed
that Article 6 of the Mandate states, not only that the Adminis-
tration of Palestine is to encourage close settlement by Jews on
the land, but that it is to do so in co-operation with the Jewish
Agency referred to in Article 4, the Agency at that time being
the Zionist Organisation. At the time when the Mandate was
framed, His Majesty's Government were well aware of the
existence of the Jewish National Fund, and ot the fact that it
was the land-purchasing agency of the Zionist Organisation.









The National Fund is referred to, and correctly described, in
the Handbook of Zionism prepared by the Foreign Office in
connection with the Peace Conference and published in 1920
(pp. 34 ff). It is also referred to in the Manual on the Jewish
Colonies in Palestine published by the Naval Intelligence
Department in January, 1919. It is there clearly stated
(p. 13)that:
The Jewish National Fund is another important
institution founded under Zionist auspices. . .Its pur-
pose is to acquire land in Palestine and the adjoining
countries, for the Jewish people."

28. With reference to the question raised in the White
Paper as to the employment of Jewish labour, it is interesting
to note that the author of the Naval Intelligence Manual, so
far from considering it desirable that the Jewish colonies should
work with Arab labour, remarks that :
Syrian peasants fellahinn), with rare exceptions, long I.D. 1203.
continued to be the only day labourers employed in the "The Jewish
Colonies in
colonies. Want of housing accommodation and irregu- Palestine"
larity of employment were the chief barriers to the intro- (1919), p. 19.
duction of Jewish labourers. . The establishment of a
Jewish working-class population is one of the best guarantees
for the normal development of the colonies in the future."
From these official documents, it is clear that, at the time
when the Mandate was drafted, the status, policy and methods
of the Jewish National Fund were well known to His Majesty's
Government, and it may reasonably be assumed that, in speak-
ing of co-operation with the Jewish Agency in connection with
close settlement by Jews on the land, the framers of the Mandate
were aware that the Jewish Agency (i.e., the Zionist Organisa-
tion) would continue to conduct its land purchasing operations
through the medium of the Jewish National Fund.
29. Nor can there have been any doubt in the mind of the
Mandatory Power as to the policy which the Jewish National
Fund had consistently pursued. In the Foreign Office Hand-
book of Zionism already quoted it is expressly explained that
land acquired by the Jewish National Fund was "never to be
sold, but let only to Jews upon hereditary lease (page 34).
30. Finally, quite apart from the question whether the
British Government, at the time when the Mandate was framed,









was or was not aware of the existence and policy of the Jewish
National Fund, it was certainly aware of the views and intentions
Statement of the Zionist Organisation. In the statement submitted to the
ofet Or- Peace Conference by the Zionist Organisation on February 3rd,
ganisation 1919, it was proposed that there should be constituted a Jewish
regarding Council to take over all lands available for close settlement
Palestine,
February and intensive cultivation," and it was also expressly proposed
3rd, 1919,
p. 11x-2. that the Jewish Council shall hold all its property and income
in trust for the benefit of the Jewish people."
31. There is, therefore, conclusive evidence that Article 6 of
the Mandate, which expressly requires the Mandatory Power to
co-operate with the Jewish Agency in the matters to which'the
Article refers, was framed with a full knowledge on the part of
the British Government of the intentions of the Jewish authorii
ties with regard to the holding of land acquired with Jewish
public funds as the inalienable property of the Jewish people.

S32. The Jewish National Fund celebrated its 25th anniver-
sary in December, 1926. On this occasion the High Com-
missioner, Lord Plumer, so far from thinking it opportune to
remind the Jewish .National Fund that its operations were
inconsistent with the Mandate, sent the following message
through the Director of Lands:

N.J., Decem- His Excellency has directed me to convey to you,
ber 24th, Mr. Ussischkin, and to this assembly, his greeting and his
j926, p. 130. congratulations on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the
inception of the Jewish National Fund, a practical expres-
sion of the.desire of the Jewish people to revive the land
of their forefathers.
The Government have constantly before them, in new
settlements on the land, visible evidence of the great work
which the Fund has performed during the past twenty-five
years.
"The Government fully appreciate the benefits which
have accrued to the country from the restoration to
cultivation of land that was previously waste, from the
reclamation of malarious swamps, and the settlement of
Jews on the soil of Palestine."

33. Both with regard to the tenure of land as Jewish public
property and to the employment of Jewish labour, it is material
to observe that close settlement by Jews on the land is
expressly mentioned as a matter in which the Jewish Agency








is entitled to expect the active encouragement of the Mandatory
Power. The persons to be settled are Jews, and the words
"close settlement" obviously imply that the Mandatory
Power, in co-operation with the Agency, shall make it its
business to see that as many Jews as possible are settled in a
given area. If, as the White Paper is at pains to point out
the quantity of land available for Jewish colonisation is not
unlimited, it is all the more essential that the Jewish Agency
should utilise to the best advantage whatever land it is able to
acquire. It is equally essential, if the purposes of Article 6
are not to be defeated, that the Agency should take such steps
as it can to ensure that land acquired for Jewish colonisation
at the expense of Jewish public funds shall not become an object
of speculation, but shall continue to be used for the purpose for
which it was intended. If the reference to the matter in the
White Paper has any definite meaning, it can only be that His
Majesty's Government regard it as their duty under the
Mandate to introduce legislation making it impossible for the
Jewish National Fund to hold land on terms not permitting
of its, re-sale, or to insist upon the employment by its lessees
of Jewish labour. Lord Hailsham and Sir John Simon are
clearly right when they say that such legislation, far from
being in harmony with Article 6 of, the Mandate, would
be a contravention of that Article. Lord Hailsham and Sir The Times,
John Simon refer in terms only to the question of the employ- emer
ment of Jewish labour, but it is clear that a similar contraven-
tion of Article 6 would be involved in any legislation designed
to prevent the Jewish Agency or the Jewish National Fund
from taking effective measures to ensure that land acquired
for close settlement by Jews," with the assistance of Jewish
public funds, shall, in fact, continue to be used for this purpose.

34. It is true that no such legislation is actually foreshadowed
in the White Paper; indeed, Lord Passfield, in his letter in
The Times of November 6th, 1930, emphatically denies that
any such legislation is contemplated. If that be so, the point
of the argument in the White Paper is difficult to grasp.
Paragraph 20 of the White Paper points out that, while the
policy of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund in
the matters under discussion is supported by arguments which
are in themselves comprehensible, those arguments take no
account of the provisions of Article 6 of the Mandate." If








words have any meaning, this is tantamount to saying that the
requirements of Article 6 of the Mandate are not being complied
with. The obligation to ensure compliance with the require-
ments of the Article is an obligation clearly resting, not upon
the Jewish Agency, but upon the Mandatory Power. If any
act on the part of the Agency is inconsistent with the provisions
of Article 6, it is plainly not only permissible, but obligatory,
for the Mandatory Power to ensure that these provisions are
respected. If, then, no action on the part of the Government
is foreshadowed by paragraph 20 of the White Paper, one of
two things follows: either His Majesty's Government intend
to be parties to a breach of the Mandate, or they do not seriously
believe that any such breach is being committed. As the first
alternative is inconceivable, it follows that His Majesty's
Government are well aware that in the policies complained of
there is in reality nothing inconsistent with the Mandate, from
which the only possible conclusion would appear to be that
these complaints are merely introduced as matters of prejudice.
35. There is one further question which suggests itself in
this connection. Whether legislation is contemplated or not,
the fact remains that His Majesty's Government have publicly
taken strong exception to the holding of land by Jewish public
bodies as the inalienable property of the Jewish people and to
the principle that, in the cultivation of land or the execution of
works with the assistance of Jewish public funds, the labour
employed shall be Jewish. If these criticisms have any
meaning, they imply, at the least, that His Majesty's Govern-
ment desire and expect them to have some practical conse-
quences. Is it, then, to be supposed that His Majesty's
Government do, in fact, desire that land acquired with Jewish
public funds shall in future be available for sale on conditions
which offer no guarantee that it will not be the subject of
speculation, and will not be used for purposes quite other
than the encouragement of close settlement by Jews on the
land ? Again, do His Majesty's Government desire that Jewish
settlers on Jewish public lands shall, in fact, be deemed to be
under a moral obligation to employ at least a certain proportion
of Arab labour, it being borne in mind that the general prin-
ciple on which the Zionist colonies are founded is that of self-
labour. This is pointed out at p. 42 of the Hope Simpson
Report, where it is explained that the principle implies that








" no settler shall have more land than the area he is able to
cultivate by the unaided labour of himself and his family. It
is only in exceptional circumstances that it is intended that
hired labour shall be employed at all." The implication of the
White Paper would appear to be that it would be better if the
Jewish colonists put themselves in the position of gentlemen-
farmers" exploiting cheap Arab labour. The advice (to put
it no higher) now tendered to the Jewish Agency by His
Majesty's Government is either purely academic, or it is
intended to have practical consequences. If those conse-
quences are not seriously desired, it is difficult to see why the
advice was given. If, on the other hand, they are desired, it is
permissible to inquire how His Majesty's Government suppose
that their advice will facilitate close settlement by Jews on
the land or will contribute to the creation of such economic
conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish
National Home."

36. Article ii.-Article ii is quoted in paragraph 7 of the
White Paper among the provisions of the Mandate relating to
the Jewish National Home and to Jewish interests, but it is
quoted only for the purpose of showing (in paragraph 8) how
little it really means. With regard to the first paragraph of the
Article, it is pointed out that the population of Palestine as
a whole, and not any sectional interest, is to be the Govern-
ment's care," while, with regard to the second paragraph of
the Article, dealing with arrangements between the Adminis-
tration and the Jewish Agency with reference to public works
and the development of the natural resources of Palestine, the
point is emphasised that the language used is only permissive,
and not obligatory.

37. All that need here be said about Article xx is that its
treatment is characteristic of the spirit in which the Mandate
is discussed throughout the White Paper. Here, as else-
where, His Majesty's Government would appear to have been
actuated by a desire to lay all the emphasis on those Articles
of the Mandate which restrict their obligations in respect of the
Jewish National Home, and to place the narrowest possible
interpretation on those which have the opposite tendency.
The words "any sectional interest in paragraph 8 of the
White Paper, are clearly aimed at the Jews, and the suggestion









which underlies paragraph 8 is that the first part of Article II
is mainly designed to protect the population of Palestine from
Jewish exploitation. It is tolerably clear that what the
framers of the Mandate had in mind was something quite
different. They were not seeking to protect the Arabs from the
Jews; the danger against which the first part of Article II
was designed to provide a safeguard was that of the natural
resources of Palestine being allowed to fall into the hands of
concession-hunters, instead of being developed in the interests
of the community at large, and in harmony with a provision
of the Mandate to which His Majesty's Government appear to
have paid singularly little attention, viz., the opening sentence
of Article 2, which makes the Mandatory responsible for
placing the country under such political, administrative and
economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the
Jewish National Home." Dealing as it does with econoi6ic
policy, the first part of Article II must clearly be read in the
light of this part of Article 2, to say nothing of the first para-
graph of Article 4, which expressly empowers the Jewish
Agency to assist and take part in the development of the
country."'
38. That the.spirit of,Article II is misconceived in: the
White Paper is clearly shown by a comparison of paragraph 8
Command with paragraph 5 of the British Memorandum of July Ist, 1922,
17o8, 1922, which was communicated to the League of Nations on the eve
P-4.
of the confirmation of the Palestine Mandate. In this memo-
randum, Article II of the Mandate is referred to as follows :
"His Majesty's Government regard the provision by
which the Administration may arrange with the Jewish
Agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate
upon fair and equitable terms any public works, services
and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources
of the country, so far as these matters are not directly
undertaken by the Administration, as a legitimate recog-
nition of the special situation which arises in Palestine
from the charge which has been laid upon them by the
Principal Allied Powers, and also of the fact that the
Jewish people, in virtue of that policy, are ready and willing
to contribute by their resources and efforts to develop the
country for the good of all its inhabitants."
39. It is, indeed, hardly necessary to argue that it is mis-
'leading to suggest, as it is suggested in paragraph 8 of the









White Paper, that the main point of interest about the reference
to the Jewish Agency in the second part of Article II is that it
is merely permissive. If this were all, there would be no reason
for the Agency to be mentioned at all ; it was not necessary
to empower the Administration to do something that it would
clearly be at liberty to do in any case, especially in view of the
reference to the subject in Article 4. If Article II authorises
the Administration to make arrangements with the Jewish
Agency with reference to the development of natural resources
and the execution of public works, it is because it is thought
appropriate to recognize the special position of the Agency as
a public body closely interested in the development of Pales-
tine, and a body which is not to be classed with mete con-
cession-hunters, seeking personal profit. Nothing could be
more striking or more instructive than the contrast between
the passage already quoted from the British memorandum of
July Ist, 1922, and the anxious care with which the White
Paper, in its comments on Article II, confines itself to ex-
plaining that paragraph 2 is merely permissive, and that para-
graph I is designed to protect the community from exploitation
by sectional interests." The implication is as clear as it is
characteristic.*
40. At this point we conclude our observations on the
construction of the Mandate. We have been primarily con-
cerned with the interpretation of those Articles which are,
from the Jewish point of view, of a restrictive rather than of an
affirmative character. In this we have merely followed the
White Paper. While a considerable portion of the White
Paper is devoted to a discussion of the Mandate, the discussion
is concerned almost entirely with the Government's responsi-
bilities towards the non-Jewish sections of the population.
These are examined in detail, and no ingenuity is spared to
make the most of them. It is for this reason that it has been
felt necessary, on the Jewish side, to subject them to somewhat
close analysis, though it is desired once more to make it clear that
the contention that the Mandatory obligations of His Majesty's
Government towards the Arabs have been seriously over-stated,
does not necessarily imply that the Government should, in the
Jewish view, do no more for the Arabs than the minimum which
Contrast also the interpretation of this Article in the letter from the
Foreign Secretary to the American Ambassador dated December 22nd, 1921
(see Appendix II.).









the Mandate requires of it. The White Paper, however, raises
far-reaching questions of law, and the Jewish Agency cannot
allow to pass without protest an interpretation of the Mandate
which it believes to be in many respects quite untenable. As
for those Articles of the Mandate which are primarily of interest
to the Jews, while explaining in detail how they propose to give
effect to one part of the double undertaking," His Majesty's
Government are singularly uncommunicative as to their
intentions with regard to the other. The only satisfaction that
is offered to the Jews is a vague assurance in paragraph 23 of the
White Paper that Jews as well as Arabs will eventually be
permitted to share in the benefits of more general steps of
development,"-a development requiring years of work and
entailing considerable expenditure," to be provided from
sources which are not disclosed. All that can be definitely
said of these general steps of development is that their
nature is obscure and their execution problematical. The only
proposals with reference to Jewish immigration and settlement
which are clearly envisaged and described are proposals
designed to restrict them.












II. THE WHITE PAPER OF 1922


41. It is true that His Majesty's Government acknowledge
their responsibility in the matter of the Jewish National Home
to the extent of endorsing the policy laid down, though ad-
mittedly only in outline, in the White Paper of 1922, which
paragraph 6 of the new White Paper purports to reaffirm. The
central passages in the White Paper of 1922 are quoted in
paragraph 5 of the new White Paper. Paragraph 4 of this
memorandum contains a series of quotations designed to illus-
trate the significance attached to the Balfour Declaration
during and immediately after the War by statesmen who had
played a leading part in the shaping of British policy in
Palestine. It is not incomprehensible, in the light of these
quotations, that the White Paper of 1922 should itself have been
regarded as a somewhat chilling pronouncement. It hardly
corresponded to the hopes held out to the Jewish people at an
earlier stage. Nevertheless, it was loyally accepted by the
Zionist Executive, and the undertakings contained in their 1922 White
letter of June I8th, 1922, have been faithfully carried out. It Paper, Com-
mand 1700,
would, however, now appear that His Majesty's Government pp. 28-29.
are not content to leave the matter there. The White Paper
of 1922 is ostensibly endorsed by the White Paper of 1930, but
it will be seen on closer examination that, in at least three
important particulars, it has, in fact, been modified to the
disadvantage of the Jews :
(a) The White Paper of 1930 speaks in paragraph 3 of "a
policy which aims at promoting the interests of all the inhabi-
tants of Palestine, both Arabs and Jews." The White Paper
of 1922 speaks of the development of the existing Jewish
community in Palestine in order that it may become a centre
in which the Jewish people as a whole may take an interest and
a pride," and may provide a full opportunity for the Jewish
people to display its capacities." In other words, in dealing
with the Jews, the White Paper of 1930 speaks in terms of the









Jewish section of the inhabitants of Palestine, while the White
Paper of 1922, in the spirit of the Balfour Declaration, speaks
in terms of the Jewish people.
(b) The White Paper of 1922, while recognizing the legitimate
claims of the non-Jewish section of the population, lays stress
on the growth of the existing Jewish community, and the
increase of its numbers by immigration, as essential elements
in the establishment of the Jewish National Home. The White
Paper of 1930 lays all the emphasis on the limitations to be
imposed in the interests--or the supposed interests-of the
Arabs.
(c) The White Paper of 1922 requires that Jewish immigra-
tion should not deprive any section of the present population
of their employment ; the White Paper of 1930 fundamentally
changes the situation by introducing an entirely new principle.
It is one thing to stipulate that Jewish immigration shall not
cause Arabs to lose their employment ; it is quite another
thing to say that the Jews must also prove that it will not
prevent unemployed Arabs from obtaining employment.
42. In all these respects, the White Paper of 1930, while
nominally endorsing the policy of the White Paper of 1922,
marks a definite and disturbing change of outlook.











III. FUTURE POLICY


43, In paragraphs 9 ff. of the White Paper, His Majesty's
Government, after dealing with the question of security, pro-
ceed to outline their proposals with regard to constitutional
development, the land question and immigration. In this
memorandum it is not proposed to deal in detail with the
constitutional proposals, which it will be convenient to reserve
for separate treatment. Attention has already been drawn
(paragraph 8) to a passage in the recent report of the Per-
manent Mandates Commission which has an important bearing
on this subject. The only comment which it is here desired to
add is that the constitutional proposals must be considered,
from the Jewish point of view, in the light of the interpretation
placed by the White Paper on those provisions of the Mandate
which relate to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
Upon this largely depends the value of the assurance in para-
graph 13 of the White Paper that the High Commissioner will
continue to have the necessary power to ensure that the Manda-
tory shall be enabled to carry out its obligations." The Jewish
Agency could not but view with grave misgivings the establish-
ment, as a sequel to the recent disturbances, of a Legislative
Council in which the Jews would be hopelessly outnumbered,
coupled with the announcement by His Majesty's Government
of a policy which, as we shall now proceed to show, reinterprets
the Mandate in a manner highly prejudicial to Jewish interests
in the vital matters of land settlement and immigration.
(i) The Land Question
44. Land policy is dealt with by the White Paper in para-
graphs 15-25. It will be convenient to begin by examining
certain questions of fact with regard to
(a) State lands ;
(b) The area available for the rural population ;
(c) The rural population ;
(d) The lot viable;
(e) The landless class.









45. (a) State Lands.-The White Paper begins by seeking to
dispose of the idea that something might still be done to give
practical effect to that part of Article 6 of the Mandate which
contemplates the settlement of Jews on State lands not required
for public purposes. The White Paper divides the State lands
into two classes-occupied and unoccupied. As regards the
unoccupied lands, Lord Passfield, in his letter in The Times of
November 6th, points out that the White Paper does not
withhold these lands from Jewish colonisation or reserve them
for the Arabs. There is, as. he says, no statement whatever
that it is not possible to make these areas available for Jewish
settlement." The only difficulty is that, according to the White
Paper, the extent of the unoccupied areas of Government
lands is negligible."

46. As regards the occupied lands, we are told that, even
were the Government's title undisputed-and in many cases it
is not-" it would not be possible to make these areas available
for Jewish settlement in view of their actual occupation by
Arab cultivators, and of the importance of making available
additional land on which to place the Arab cultivators who are
now landless." To this question of landless Arabs we shall
return a little later; here it need only be said that this implies
that, not only have the existing cultivators at least a moral right
not to be dispossessed, but, if room can be made for additional
holdings on these lands, such holdings must be reserved for
landless Arabs. This doctrine, which is extremely surprising in
view of the clear intentions of Article 6 of the Mandate, has
implications which are completely absent from the paragraph
of Sir John Hope' Simpson's Report, of which it is apparently
H.S., p. 141. meant to be a paraphrase. What Sir John Hope Simpson says
is that :

Even were the title of the Government admitted, and
it is in many cases disputed, it would not be feasible to
make these areas available for settlement in view of the
impossibility of finding other land on which to settle the
Arab cultivators."

What Sir John Hope Simpson obviously means is merely that,
even if the Government be assumed to have established its
right to any lands in dispute, it would still be impossible to dis-
place the Arabs who are at present cultivating these lands,








since) there are no other lands to which they could be trans-
ferred. Sir John Hope Simpson does not here say a word about
the introduction of landless Arabs from without, and it is
impossible to avoid the conclusion that either his Report has
been carelessly misinterpreted on an important point, or the
White Paper really takes the view (which is clearly inconsistent
with the Mandate) that, even when State lands can be made to
provide for additional cultivators over and above those already
in occupation, they should be used exclusively for the close
settlement, of Arabs.
47. There is a further observation to be made with regard to
the question of State lands. It might be assumed from the
White Paper that the criticisms referred to on the part of
the Jews are wholly misconceived, and that there is nothing
to be said about the State lands, except that the Government
is unfortunately helpless in the matter. It would hardly be
realized from the White Paper that the question of the State
lands has a history, and a history which is more than once
referred to in Sir John Hope Simpson's Report. At p. 83, deal- H.S., p. 83
ing with the Huleh area-which elsewhere in the Report is
referred to as one of the most fertile districts in Palestine-
Sir John Hope Simpson states that

"the property might be a very valuable one, and it is
regrettable that the area owned by the Government therein
has passed almost in its entirety out of the hands of the
Government into the hands of [Syrian] concessionaires."
Sir John Hope Simpson proceeds to deal with another area H.S., p. 84
"which has unfortunately passed from the ownership of the
Government," the allusion being to the Beisan lands, which
form the subject of an agreement concluded by the Palestine
Government with the local Arabs in November, 1921. It is
pointed out that the grant of the lands has led to land specu- Ib., p. 85.
lation on a considerable scale. . It was made in order to
provide the Arabs with a holding sufficient to maintain a decent
standard of life, and not to provide them with areas of land
with which to speculate." These transactions, we are told,
have taken from the Government the control of a large area
of fertile land, eminently suitable for development, and for
which there is ample water available for irrigation." Referring
to the disappointment felt by the Jews at the Government's








failure to implement the relevant provisions of Art icle 6 of th
Mandate, Sir John Hope Simpson observes that had different
action been taken in the case of the Huleh Basin and the Beisan
lands, doubtless some portion of the demand could have been
met." This important sentence immediately precedes the pas-
sage of the Report on which the remarks on State lands in para-
graph 15 of the White Paper are obviously based. Had this
important part of Sir John Hope Simpson's conclusions been
included, the paragraph in the White Paper would have borne
a somewhat different complexion. What has actually hap-
pened is that the Government, having failed to retain control
of the only really promising areas of State lands west of the
Jordan, and the possibilities of Transjordan, either for Jewish
or for Arab settlement, having been placed out of its reach,
the complaints of the Jews are dismissed with the implied
suggestion that they are unreasonable, and that there is nothing
to be, said but that the Government has no State lands to
dispose of.

48. The Jewish Agency is entitled to inquire whether this
is really His Majesty's Government's last word on the matter.
As regards Huleh, its reply can only be to renew its repeated
requests for information as to whether these lands are to be
indefinitely withheld from development by reason of the
existence of a pre-war concession which the concessionnaires
are clearly incapable of carrying into effect, and which would
appear to have little or no value to them, other than what is
popularly known as a nuisance-value." At the present time
H.S., p. 26. Huleh, according to the Hope Simpson Report, is a plague
spot." Is the development of this-potentially one of the most
fertile areas in the country-to be seriously taken in hand, and
if so, is the Jewish Agency to be given an opportunity of par-
ticipating in it with a view to additional land being made
available, in the spirit of Article 6 of the Mandate, for Jewish
colonisation ?

49. As regards the Beisan lands, it is no discovery that the
effect of the 1921 agreement has been to make these lands a
subject of speculation, to the manifest disadvantage, not only
of the Jews, but of Palestine as a whole. Whether the policy
underlying the agreement was in itself right or wrong, it was
certainly no part of the intention of those who were responsible








for it that it should lead to the allotment of land to persons
whose bona fides is at least open to question, and should also
lead, in the case of cultivators who may have some moral claims,
to allotments which, as is shown by the speculation which is
now being indulged in, are manifestly in excess of their bond H.S., p. 84.
fide requirements. Sir John Hope Simpson states that we are
here dealing with a large area of fertile land eminently suit-
able for development, and for which there is ample water
available for irrigation." Here, also, the Jewish Agency is
entitled to inquire whether the state of affairs described in the
Hope Simpson Report is to be allowed to continue indefinitely,
and, if not, what steps it is proposed to take to put an end to it,
and to make these fertile and extensive tracts available for the
intensive development for which they are so eminently suited.
Finally, if it is not intended that the abuses which have arisen
shall remain uncorrected, can it be assumed that the Jewish
Agency will share, as it is clearly entitled to do under Article 6
of the Mandate, in the benefits of any scheme of development
which may be undertaken on these State lands ? Or is the Agency
right in interpreting paragraph 15 of the White Paper as
meaning, as at first sight it would certainly seem to do, that, no
matter what additional land may be made available in the
Beisan area, it will be exclusively reserved for the benefit of the
Arabs ? To this highly practical question the White Paper offers
no reply, and certainly no reply which can be regarded, from
the Jewish point of view, with anything but serious misgiving.
50. (b) The Area Available for the Rural Population.-
Paragraph 16 of the White Paper is designed to show that the
holdings of the fellahin are, on the average, considerably
smaller than they ought to be, and that there is, therefore, no
margin of land available for acquisition by the Jewish Agency
for the purposes of Jewish colonisation. This conclusion is
reached on the basis of certain assumptions of fact as to the
total cultivable area and the size of the Arab rural population.
On both points the figures quoted in the White Paper are taken
from the Hope Simpson Report, and accordingly command
respectful consideration. Nevertheless, they are by no means
beyond dispute. As regards the cultivable area, Sir John
Hope Simpson himself admits that the figures are far from H.S., p. 23.
exact," and there are a variety of reasons for regarding them
as, to say the least, open to doubt :









(1) It is impossible not to be impressed by the startling
discrepancy between the 6,544,000 dunams on which Sir
John Hope Simpson's calculations are based and the figure
of between Io and II million dunams which (as mentioned in
the White Paper) has hitherto been officially accepted. It
H.S., p. 22. appears from Sir John Hope Simpson's Report that the higher
estimate was given as recently as April last by the Commis-
sioner of Lands, while the lower estimate is that of the Director
of Surveys. An estimate which abruptly reduces that of the
Commissioner of Lands, who presumably speaks with some
knowledge, by nearly 40 per cent., is clearly open to doubt,
unless its reliability can be conclusively established.
(2) A closer examination of the figures as given in the' Hope
Simpson Report shows that the discrepancy is most striking
in the case of the hill country ; in the case of the Plains it is
much less marked. The Land Department's estimate of the
area of the Plains is reduced by the Survey Department by
only 23 per cent., whereas its estimate of the area of the hill
country is reduced by no less than 54 per cent. Of the total
reduction of 4,048,000 dunams, no less than 2,926,000 dunams
are accounted for by the hill country. It is, therefore, material
H.S., p. 169. to observe that, as shown in Appendix 3 of the Hope Simpson
Report, 88 per cent. of the coastal plain and 71 per cent. of the
Plain of Esdraelon have actually been surveyed, whereas in the
case of the hill country the percentage is nil. In other words,
where the land has actually been surveyed the difference
between the two estimates is very much less than where there
has been no survey and the Survey Department has reached its
conclusions by other methods.
(3) What, then, are those methods ? This is explained in the
Hope Simpson Report at pages 22-23, from which it appears
that, so far as the hill country is concerned, all that happened
was that aerial photographs were taken of a number of tracts
selected as representative," and that, as a result of the examina-
tion of these photographs, an average percentage of 'cul-
tivable land was calculated." It is obvious that this method of
calculation can only yield very rough-and-ready results. In
H.S., p. 13. the first place, though we are told that about one-tenth of the
hill country was actually photographed, we are not told what
reason there really is to suppose that the earlier photograph
was fully representative of the whole. In the second place,.








it is not clear how aerial photographs can be relied upon to
distinguish cultivable as distinct from cultivated areas, and this
is even assuming that there is no doubt as to what cultivable "
means. Take, for example, the following passage from page 78
of the Hope Simpson Report:
There is a small Jewish village called Motza, close to H.S., pp. 78-
Jerusalem, where a farmer of the name of Broza has 79.
planted an orchard, on what seemed to be sterile and barren
rock. The trees and the vines have flourished, and what
was wilderness without vegetation of any kind is now a fine
orchard producing a large income for its proprietor. The
result is the more praiseworthy in that the planter received
no assistance from any Jewish or other sources, but created
the property by his own exertions. Another instance of
development on the same lines is the orchard planted by
the Zionist Organisation at Dilb (Kiryath Anavim). The
land on which that orchard has been planted was similar
to that of Motza. The trees were not irrigated, but they
have succeeded wonderfully. A similar instance is to be
found in the Jewish suburb of Beth Hakerem, close to
Jerusalem, where a hillside which appeared to be hope-
lessly bare and arid is now covered with gardens containing
trees of every kind."
In all three cases it proved to be possible to cultivate success-
fully land which was obviously unpromising, and which, as
described by Sir John Hope Simpson, would almost certainly
have been dismissed as uncultivable by a superficial observer.
Would land which seemed to be sterile and barren rock"
have appeared from an aerial photograph to be cultivable or
uncultivable ? There can be little doubt as to the answer.
Again, the Hope Simpson Report states at page 14 that even
the most rocky hillsides support trees, especially olives, and,
if capital were available, many of the cultivators of these
exiguous and infertile plots would be able to gain a livelihood
by the cultivation of fruit trees and of olives." Would these
" rocky hillsides be described, as a result of an aerial survey,
as cultivable or uncultivable ? Here, too, the answer
seems almost certainly to be that they would be described as
" uncultivable."

51. For all these reasons it is impossible not to feel very
serious doubts as to the reliability of the figure now accepted '
for the area of the cultivable land.









52. There is one further remark to be made on this question
of area. As is very natural, stress is laid in the White Paper
on the discovery, or the supposed discovery, that the cultivable
area is much smaller than had hitherto been assumed. But the
region mainly affected by this revised estimate is-as has been
seen-the hill country and not the plains, and it is-it may be
added-to the hill country that Sir John Hope Simpson
obviously refers when he speaks of" congestion." At page I44,
for example, he speaks of Arabs from the congested areas in
the hills," and the reference to congestion at page 146 also
relates to the hills. On the other hand, it is not the hills, but
the Plains-the Maritime Plain and the Plain of Esdraelon-
which are the centres of Jewish colonisation, nor is there the
slightest reason to suppose-indeed, it has not been suggested-
that the congestion in the hill country is in any way due to the
migration of Arabs displaced by the Jews from the Plains.

53. The discovery, or the supposed discovery, that the area
of the hill country is smaller than it was supposed to be might
conceivably be prayed in aid as a reason for limiting Jewish
immigration in that region on the ground that it might tend to
prejudice the position of the Arabs. On the other hand, if, as
is obviously the case, any congestion which may exist in the
hill country is due to causes entirely unconnected with Jewish
immigration, it cannot be contended that the Government's
duty to safeguard the rights and position of the Arab section
of the population requires it to place restrictions on Jewish
purchases of land in other parts of the country, in order that
room may be made for the settlement of Arabs from the hills.

54. Again, if congestion exists in the hill country, there is
nothing to show, nor is it suggested by Sir John Hope Simpson,
that this area is any more congested than it was before Jewish
colonisation began. Similarly, there is no evidence, nor has
it been suggested, that the condition of the Arabs in this part
of Palestine compares unfavourably with the condition of .the
Arab inhabitants of similar areas in neighboring countries.
It is, for example, common knowledge that there is a large
emigration from the mountains of the Lebanon, and it appears
P.M.C., 15th from the Minutes of the Fifteenth Session of the Permanent
Session, Mandates Commission that in 1928, 14,000 Arabs emigrated
from Syria. In the same year the total number of Arabs who








emigrated from Palestine is officially stated to have been 954,,
while in the five years' period ending in 1929 the total number
of Arabs who emigrated from Palestine was 7,693, or an average
of about 1.6oo a year. The fact that in 1928, Syria, with a, H.S., p. 184.
population about three times that of Palestine, sent abroad
more than fourteen times as many Arab emigrants suggests
that the.position of the Palestine fellah may not, after all, be
quite as deplorable as is suggested, and that in any case it is
determined by causes quite other than Jewish immigration, and
in no way peculiar to Palestine.

55. It is by no means suggested that no effort should be made
to improve the condition of the inhabitants of the congested
districts;. but the White Paper makes so much in this connec-
tion of the Mandatory's duties under Article 6 of the Mandate
that it is necessary to put in a caveat against an interpretation
of that Article which would imply that the rights to be protected
include a right on the part of Arabs in a congested area hardly
affected by Jewish colonisation to be settled in another part of
the country. It is for this reason that we have thought it right
to draw attention to the fact that the region in which Sir John
Hope Simpson finds congestion, and the region mainly affected
by the drastic reduction in the official estimate of the total
cultivable.area, is the hill country and not the Plains.

56. It may be added that, even with regard to the hill
country, and even assuming that congestion actually exists,
it is by no means obvious that migration is the only solution,
or that if it is, migration can only be effected at the expense
of the area which might otherwise be available for Jewish
colonisation. Referring to the hill country, the Hope Simpson
Report states that:
Even the most rocky hillsides support trees, especially H.S., p. 14.
olives, and if capital were available, many of the culti-
vators of these exiguous and infertile plots would be able
to gain a livelihood by the cultivation of fruit trees and of
olives."
At p. 78 the Report gives three examples of the manner in
which agricultural development has been attempted and
successfully carried out in the hill country by Jews on soil
described in one case as a hillside which appeared to be hope
lessly bare and arid," and in the other two as "sterile and









barren rock." It is true that capital or credit facilities are
required for such development, but they are also required for
the transfer of cultivators from the hills to other parts of the
country, and it is not understood why it should be assumed as
a matter of course that the lot of the hill country Arabs cannot
be improved by encouraging and assisting them to attempt more
intensive methods of cultivation which, as experience has shown,
are quite capable of producing satisfactory results, and that
their problem can only be solved by migration.
57. In the second place, if migration there must be, why must
it necessarily be within the limits of the cultivable area of
Palestine west of the Jordan, and consequently at the expense
of Jewish colonisation ? Why must it be taken for granted
that Transjordan is ruled out ? It will be remembered that it
is Sir John Hope Simpson, and not the Jewish Agency, who
suggests that migration must take place. It is not a question
of any proposal on the part of the Agency to displace hill-
country Arabs for the benefit of Jews, and it is desired to
safeguard the Agency against any such misunderstanding. Sir
John Hope Simpson, however, not only takes the view that
migration should be encouraged, but is careful to point out that
this entails no serious difficulty or hardship, since the fellah (he
says) is always migrating, even at the present time. He goes
H.S., pp. to any spot where he thinks he can find work." Nor, again, is it
146-147. suggested that the Palestine Government should assume the
right to transplant Arabs from Palestine to Transjordan over
the head of the local Administration. In dealing, however,
with the problem of the Arab cultivator, it is the underlying
assumption of the Hope Simpson Report, and of that part of the
White Paper which is founded on it, that public funds will be
available for improving the condition of Arabs who have
too little land. The general question of policy involved is
discussed elsewhere in this memorandum; here it is only
desired to point out that, if such funds are to be provided, it is
difficult to see any reason why the Transjordan Administration
should not be invited to encourage the immigration and settle-
ment of Arabs from the other side of the Jordan, as a matter of
'arrangement between the two Governments. Transjordan has
plenty of room for such immigrants. Its area is not precisely
known, but it is probably not misleading to suggest that the
!cultivable area is at least comparable with the cultivable area









of Western Palestine as now estimated, while certain parts of
Transjordan, including in particular the Jordan Valley and the Luke and
Western hills, are extremely fertile and well-watered. On the Keith-
other hand, while Western Palestine has a population of 900,000, Handbook
and is capable, according to Sir John Hope Simpson, of con- of Plest ne,
training a considerably larger population, the British Official P.G.R.,
Report for 1929 states that the total population of Transjordan 1929, p. 38.
is only 300,000, of whom 120,000 are semi-nomadic, 50,000 are
nomads, and only 130,ooo are definitely settled. There is,
therefore, the strongest frimd facie reason to suppose that
Transjordan is fully capable of absorbing the quite small
number of Arabs of whom it can possibly be said-if it can
really be said of any of them-that migration from the hill
country is essential to their welfare. With this possibility
neither the Hope Simpson Report nor the White Paper appears
to reckon. As a result of the policy announced by His Majesty's
Government in 1922, Transjordan has, rightly or wrongly, been
placed outside the area to which the provisions of the Mandate
relating to the Jewish National Home are applicable, and in
practice, though certainly not in law, Transjordan is closed
to Jewish settlers. It is not understood why it should be
taken for granted that, Transjordan having been cut off
from the area available for the development of the Jewish
National Home, its doors should also be closed to the migration
of Arabs from the other side of the Jordan, and that, in spite
of the infiltration of Arabs from Transjordan into Palestine,
there can be no question of any facilities for the voluntary
settlement of Arabs from Palestine being provided in Trans-
jordan.
58. (c) The Rural Population.-The White Paper states-
here also following Sir John Hope Simpson-that there are
86,980 rural Arab families in Palestine. It appears from the
Hope Simpson Report that, the average family being estimated
at 5'5 persons, this represents an Arab rural population of
478,390. The rural population proper (exclusive of the tribal H.S., p. 158.
population) is given in the Report as 501,698, and the Jewish
rural population as 36,627, the Arab rural population being lb. (At p. 25
thus, in round figures, 465,000. The difference between the the figure
is given as
figure of 465,000 and the figure of 478,000 referred to above is 50o,968.)
accounted for by the fact that only the Beersheba Beduin are
excluded from the 478,000, which thus comprises a certain








number of Beduin belonging to districts other than Beersheba.
Taking the settled inhabitants only, the Arab rural population
of 465,000 in 1930 compares with a Census figure for 1922 of
373,000-an increase of 92,00oo0, or 23-4 per cent. On the other
hand, according to the official estimates, the Arab urban
population rose from 184,000 in 1922 to 206,000 in 1930-an
increase of 22,000, or only 11-2 per cent. It is, on the face of
it, a little surprising that the rural population should have
increased at more than twice the rate of the urban population,
especially in view of the suggestion which is sometimes made
that Jewish colonisation is driving Arabs off the land into the
towns. There may be some explanation of this rather startling
discrepancy, but it seems, on the face of it, to call for some
inquiry.
A further question which arises on these figures is as
to the precise meaning of the term rural population." In
introducing the tables of vital statistics, the Report of the
Palestine Public Health Department for 1924 states (p. 8) that :
In the tables forming part of this Report, the pqpula-
tion is divided into towns and districts.' This is
not to be regarded as a subdivision into urban and rural
population. Only those places are included as 'towns
in which offices of the Department are situated."
So far as is known, the classification has not been changed
since 1924, and some doubt, therefore, arises as to whether
statistics for the rural population, in the ordinary sense of the
term, are available, as distinct from statistics for the popula-
tion of the districts," which, as has been seen, would include
the population of all places in Palestine other than the towns in
which the Public Health Department maintains offices. The
paragraph quoted from the 1924 Report of the Public Health
Department is clearly intended as a warning that the figures
given for the population other than that of the towns should
not be assumed to relate to the rural population in the ordinary
sense of the term, but have a wider range. So much is made of
the calculations based upon these figures that it is obviously
important that this point should be cleared up. It is at least
possible that it may turn out on inquiry that what is nominally
described as the rural population is merely the population
of the districts," and includes large numbers of persons having
no connection with the land.









59. (d) The Lot Viable.-The next element in the calculation
is the size of the lot viable." The White Paper states that
" an area of at least 130 dunams is required to maintain a
fellah family in a decent standard of life in the unirrigated
tracts," and that, if the whole of the cultivable land, other than
Jewish land, were divided among the existing Arab cultivators,
the result would be an average holding of not more than 90
dunams.
60. It should, however, be noted that the figure of 13o dunams,
in itself a rather generous figure, refers-as is stated in the White
Paper-to unirrigated land. Not all the land cultivated by
Arabs is the unirrigated cereal-growing land which Sir John
Hope Simpson has in mind in mentioning this figure. It appears, H.S., p. 64.
for example, that the Arabs own 48,750 dunams of land under lb., p. I8o.
oranges,being nearly 50 per cent. of the total area of the orange-
plantations. Again, a considerable number of Arabs are
engaged in growing vegetables, and Arab market-garden
produce is in steady demand in Jerusalem and other towns.
Arab cultivators are also interested in tobacco, water-melons
and grapes. The Annual Report of the Palestine Government
for 1925 states that the Arab rural community benefits largely P.G.R.,
from the increased immigration and industrial activity, which 1925, p. 38.
create a large demand for all classes of produce," and it can be
taken for granted that the produce in question by no means
consists wholly of cereals grown on unirrigated land. Sir
John Hope Simpson meets this point by suggesting that the
number of Arabs concerned is comparatively small, and may H.S., p. 64.
be set off against the reduction in the area due to the German
villages, and to certain areas of agricultural land held by some
of the churches." This argument, however, would hardly
appear to be conclusive, since, if the land in question is included
in the figure given for the cultivable area, the persons who
cultivate it are presumably also included in the figures given for
the rural population. How many Arab cultivators are, in
fact, engaged in other forms of agriculture than the cultivation
of cereals on unirrigated land is not precisely known, but it
seems at least highly improbable that their number is not
sufficient to vitiate the assumption that the number of dunams
required to provide Arab cultivators as a whole with a tolerable
living is the number of families multiplied by 130.
61. It would, indeed, appear from the Hope Simpson Report









that it is not the case that the Arab rural population as a whole
is congested. As already pointed out, the problem of conges-
tion seems, in Sir John Hope Simpson's view, to arise mainly, if
not exclusively, in the hills; in the plains, the problem seems
to be rather lack of capital than lack of land, and one of the
main objects of the development scheme outlined in the
concluding chapter of the Report is to enable the fellah in the
irrigable areas to gain a reasonable livelihood from a smaller
area of land than that which has been essential hitherto."

62. (e) The Landless Class.-The White Paper states that
" of the 86,980 rural families in the villages, 29-4 per cent. are
landless. It is not known how many of these are families who
previously cultivated and have since lost their land."
The figure of 29-4 per cent. is not based on an actual enumera-
tion. It appears from the Hope Simpson Report that it is
obtained from an.inquiry into the position of 104 representa-
tive ,villages," with a population of 23,573 families. It is,
therefore, a generalisation from data actually covering a little
more than a quarter of the total number of rural Arab families,
according to the official estimate. Too much importance should
clearly not be attached to a rough calculation of this character.

63. In the second place, it is not at all clear exactly what is
meant by landless." The actual position in the 104 villages
where conditions were examined is described in the Report at
p. 64. It there appears that, of 23,573 families, only 5,477
lived entirely from agriculture. The rest of the population
either depended on some occupation entirely distinct from
agriculture, or lived partly by agriculture and partly by some
other calling. The first inference from these figures is that, in
estimating the number of fellah families whose average holding
works out at about go dunams, the White Paper includes among
cultivators who ought to have a full-size holding everyone
who had any land at all; for the figure of 61,408 is arrived at
by deducting 29'4 per cent. from the total of 86,980 rural
families, and the results obtained from the 104 villages show,
as will be seen, that if only full-time farmers were included, the
percentage to be deducted would be very much larger than
29-4. It follows that the calculation as to the inability of the
cultivable area to provide a lot viable for every cultivator im-
plies the inclusion among cultivators of a very large number of









persons who are not in reality entirely, or in some cases even
mainly, dependent on the land for their living. Conversely, it
also follows that it is misleading to speak of the landless "
29-4 per cent. as though they were necessarily, or at all events
probably, persons who ought properly to be cultivating the
soil. They turn out to be the residue of persons who remain
over after the deduction of everyone who has any land at all,
apparently even to the extent of an allotment by which he
supplements his earnings from other sources. It is reasonable
to assume that at any rate a majority of them are either
agricultural labourers, or are persons who, in one capacity or
another, play a part in the life of the village not directly
connected with agriculture, it being borne in mind that, as has
already been seen, rural population would appear in itself
to be a loose and somewhat misleading term.
64. It is not easy to understand why it should be supposed
to be a remarkable and disturbing phenomenon that a con-
siderable proportion of the persons resident in a village are not
owners or cultivators of land. This would appear, on the face
of it, to be a perfectly normal state of affairs, and it is difficult
to imagine any village anywhere in which a considerable part
of the population is not engaged otherwise than in agriculture.
That it is quite normal in Palestine is shown by what is stated
by Sir John Hope Simpson himself with reference to the
situation in that part of the Plain of Esdraelon which has been
colonised by Jews. Referring to the particulars furnished by
the Jewish Agency as to the present condition of the persons
identified as former tenants, the Hope Simpson Report makes
the point that these 688 persons do not represent by any means
the whole of the population whose interests were concerned,
that, in addition to farmers, there are many other residents who
were affected by the change of ownership, and that the total
population of the area is stated to have been 4,900," repre-
senting presumably about I,ooo families. If this figure be
assumed to be approximately correct, the presence in the
average village of about 29-4 per cent. of persons who are not
farming the land would appear to be a perfectly ordinary
phenomenon, and not in any sense a new or disturbing
development.
65. Though there seems to be a vague suggestion, with
reference to the landless, that in principle they should as a class









be provided with land, the White Paper does not clearly explain
what is actually intended. No definite inferences as to the
exact class of person to be benefited can be drawn from the
reference in paragraph 15 to the importance of making
available additional land on which to place Arab cultivators
who are now landless." It is not quite clear whether these are
or are not identical with the persons referred to in paragraph 16
as families who previously cultivated and have since lost their
land." Sir John Hope Simpson's recommendations are also
somewhat ambiguous. So far as can be seen, his concluding
recommendations do not contemplate the provision of land, as
distinct from the provision of facilities for the development of
land already occupied, except in the case of Arabs from the
congested areas in the hills. Here, however, he appears to be
H.S., p. 146. thinking, not of landless Arabs, but of Arabs who must be
transferred from their holdings and settled elsewhere in order
that the holdings of those left behind may be made large
enough to afford a more satisfactory living. The only other
case in which the Hope Simpson Report seems to contemplate
the provision of land is that indicated by its endorsement of
Mr. Snell's remark, in his reservations to the Report of the Shaw
Ib. Commission, that if there are still Arabs who are landless
through the failure of the Palestine Government to apply
administratively the provisions of the land laws in force in that
country, steps should be taken by the Government to settle
them on the land at the public expense."
66. The whole discussion is so confused that it is impossible
to form any exact idea of what His Majesty's Government really
have in mind. But there can be no doubt as to the general
impression conveyed. The underlying suggestion may not
unfairly be summarised as follows :
The rights and position of the Arabs are to be deemed
to be prejudiced if, on a rough calculation in which every
doubtful point is strained to the disadvantage of the Jews,
it can be made to appear that the cultivable area is not
large enough to provide the whole rural Arab population
with a fairly comfortable livelihood. There are some
Arabs in the rural areas (it is impossible to ascertain, and
it is in any case of no consequence, how large a proportion
they include of Arabs who have merely smuggled them-
selves across the frontier) who have no land and would
like to have some; there are other Arabs who have some









land, but would be better off with more. It is not neces-
sary to show that the average holding is any smaller than
it used to be, or that the condition of the Arab section of
the population is any worse than it was before Jewish
immigration began, nor is it merely a case of preventing
the disturbance, as a result of Jewish purchases from non-
resident Arab owners, of Arab cultivators actually in
occupation of land. Jewish settlement can only be
allowed to proceed on condition that it can be shown that
every Arab in the rural areas has as much land as he needs
to make him comfortable, even though he now has as much
as he ever had in the past. Every Arab in the rural areas
is in principle entitled to land, just as every Arab in the
urban areas is entitled to employment, and until these
claims have been attended to, the Jews must wait.
In other words, in speaking of "close settlement by
Jews on the land," what Article 6 really meant was close
settlement by Arabs.
67. Even this is not the whole of the paradox. The pro-
vision of land for the landless will, as the White Paper points
out, involve heavy expenditure. Where is this expenditure to
come from ? His Majesty's Government, in their letter of
August 2nd, 1930, in reply to the Report of the Permanent
Mandates Commission, emphatically point out that if a P.M.C., 17th
Session,
territory is to be developed on sound economic lines, it must ep. I52
be, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, on the basis
that it is self-supporting." It is made clear to the Mandates
Commission that, if the economic resources of Palestine are to
be developed, the Palestine Government must stand on its
own feet, and must not look for any British grant-in-aid.
These expensive schemes for the settlement of the landless
will, therefore, have to be financed from the revenues of
Palestine, or from a loan of which the service is secured upon
those revenues. Nothing is more certain than that there
would not be the slightest hope of the receipts of the Palestine
Treasury being adequate to any such undertaking if it were
not for the presence of the Jews, and, indeed, if it were not for
the prospect of the Treasury being able to count upon a con-
tinuous influx of Jewish capital and a corresponding expansion
of revenue. In other words, the Arab rights which are not
to be prejudiced by Jewish immigration include the right to
something which it would be quite impossible to give the Arabs
if Jewish immigration had not taken place.









68. In introducing their proposals on the land question, His
Majesty's Government begin, in paragraph 21 of the White
Paper, by again referring to Article 6 of the Mandate, on the
provisions of which these proposals purport to be based. That
being so, it is necessary for the White Paper to seek to show
not only that the position of the Arabs leaves much to be
desired, but that it has been prejudiced by Jewish immi-
gration. This would appear to be the explanation of the pains
which are taken in paragraphs 18-20 of the White Paper to
suggest that Jewish immigration has, in fact, been prejudicial
to the Arabs. The modus operandi is to draw a sharp distinction
between the activities of the PICA* and those of the Jewish
Agency. Emphasis is laid on the beneficial results of the
PICA'S operations and on the good relations existing between
the PICA colonists and the Arabs, in order that this policy may
be the more effectively contrasted with that of the Jewish
Agency. We are told, with reference to the PICA, that "rela-
tions between the colonists and their Arab neighbours have
in the past been excellent." It seems to have been forgotten
that Petach-Tikwah, the oldest and largest of the PICA colonies,
was the subject of a violent and unprovoked Arab attack in
the riots of 1921, at a time when not a single colony had been
established by the Palestine Foundation Fund. It also seems
to have been forgotten that the PICA colonies, notwithstanding
the excellent relations stated to exist between the settlers and
their Arab neighbours, were by no means exempt from attack
in 1929. Among the Jewish colonies which were seriously
endangered by the disturbances were, for example, the PICA
settlements of Mescha, Melhamie, and Mismar Ha-Yarden.
This is at least primd facie evidence that the sharp distinction
sought to be drawn between the PICA colonies and the Palestine
Foundation Fund colonies is unreal. The truth is that these
incidents really go to show what the Jewish Agency has always
contended, namely that, when an outbreak of Arab violence
takes place, it is not because the Arabs have grievances-for
in the case of Petach-Tikwah and the other PICA colonies they
admittedly have none-but because they are incited to disorder
by outsiders seeking to serve political ends.
69. At the close of paragraph 18 the White Paper raises the
question of the effect of Zionist colonisation in causing former
Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association.








tenants of land" to join the landless class." It will be observed
that it is not directly stated that any considerable number of
tenants have lost their holdings-still less that there is any
considerable number of persons who have lost their holdings
and have not acquired others elsewhere; on neither point is
there any attempt to give figures from which it would be possible
to judge of the extent of such disturbance, and whether it has
been on a large enough scale to have any appreciable effect on
the general position of the Arab section of the population.
The White Paper contents itself with the implications of the
negative statement that
some of the attempts that have been made to prove that
Zionist colonisation has not had the effect of causing the
previous tenants of land acquired to join the landless
class have, on examination, proved to be unconvincing,
if not fallacious."
While the suggestion is plain, the actual statement is so care-
fully guarded that it might mean almost anything or almost
nothing. It may fairly be assumed that if His Majesty's
Government had, in fact, been in possession of evidence
showing that any considerable number of Arab tenants had
actually joined the "landless class" as a result of Jewish
colonisation, they would have made a definite and positive
statement to that effect.
70. As to the general effects of Jewish colonisation on the
Arabs, the White Paper similarly limits itself to vaguely
invidious suggestions. It would be unjust," we are told, to
accept the contention . that the effect of Jewish settlement
on the Arab population has in all cases been detrimental.
This is by no means wholly true." To say that this is not
wholly true in all cases is obviously tantamount to saying
that it is wholly true in the great majority of cases, and (if
the word wholly has any meaning) at least partly true in
all cases. The suggestion would appear to be that His Majesty's
Government are, indeed, anxious to say all they can for the
Jews, but that the best they can possibly say is that there
may be some cases in which Jewish colonisation has not been
entirely detrimental to Arab interests.
7Il We shall not here pause to illustrate in detail the marked
contrast between the White Paper's method of presenting the
situation and the numerous and emphatic tributes to the advan-









tages conferred by Jewish colonisation upon Palestine as a
whole, which are to be found in the official publications of the
Palestine Government, in the Minutes of the Permanent
Mandates Commission, and, for that matter, in the Hope
Simpson Report. Some of these statements are collected in a
later section of this memorandum (paragraph Ino). It is diffi-
cult to explain the inconsistency except on the assumption
that, in their anxiety to bring their land settlement and immi-
gration policy within the four corners of the Mandate, the
authors of the White Paper have felt it necessary to present the
Jewish effort in Palestine in the most unfavourable possible light.

72. That the White Paper should suggest, without actually
affirming, that the position of the fellaheen is deteriorating and
that Jewish colonisation is at least among the principal causes,
is all the more surprising in view of the fact that there is ample
evidence in the Hope Simpson Report as to the true state of
affairs :

HKS., p. 69. (i.) Has the condition of the fellaheen deteriorated at all ?
There is not the slightest evidence that it has; Sir John Hope
Simpson states that the position of the Arab cultivator has
always been one of extreme poverty," and we have already
quoted (paragraph 21) the testimony of the Foreign Office
Handbook of Syria and Palestine as to the condition of the
Palestine fellahin immediately before the British occupation.
(ii.) In 1925, Sir Herbert Samuel summed up the results of
five years of British Administration. Far from noting any
deterioration in the condition of the fellaheen, he noted exactly
the opposite. His statement is as follows:


The various measures that I have described, together
with the growth of the area under Jewish cultivation to
which I shall refer later, and, not least important, the
recent rise in the general level of agricultural prices, have
combined to rescue the agricultural districts of Palestine
from the depth of depression into which they had fallen.
Large numbers of the Arab peasantry are still exceedingly
poor. . But there is good ground for believing that the
poverty stricken are becoming fewer, and the compara-
tively prosperous more numerous, than they were. There
is no doubt that the area of cultivation in the country as a
whole has extended, and many new houses are being built
in the villages in every part of the country."


Report of the
High Com-
missioner,
1920-1925.
p. I8.









As evidence of the growth of rural prosperity, Sir Herbert
Samuel then goes on to refer to the marked increase in the
number of sheep, goats and camels in the possession of the rural
population.
(iii.) If there has been any change for the worse since 1925,
it cannot be due to Jewish activities in the purchase of land.
The White Paper admits that, so far as the PICA is concerned,
the installation of Jewish colonies has been positively beneficial
to the Arabs, and we are given to understand that the offending
body is the Jewish National Fund. The land in the possession
of the Jewish National Fund at the end of 1925 amounted to
177,000 dunams, while according to the Hope Simpson Report H.S., p. 41.
it now holds approximately 270,000 dunams-an increase of
approximately 93,000 dunams, or about 1-5 per cent. of the
cultivable area of Palestine as estimated in the White Paper.
It is inconceivable that the acquisition of land on this scale
should have been sufficient to bring about a general deteriora-
tion in the condition of the fellaheen.
(iv.) In point of fact, in dealing with the present agricultural
depression, Sir John Hope Simpson lays all the stress on the
recent fall in the prices of local agricultural produce. He H.S., pp. 68-
quotes the Government Committee on the Economic Condition 69.
of Agriculturists as reporting that it may be safely assumed
that with very rare exceptions, every village can provide its
own subsistence," and he then goes on to explain that since the
period to which the Report relates-the middle of 1929-the
whole situation has been transformed by the heavy fall in the
prices of agricultural produce. To this extent it would appear
that we are really dealing with a temporary phenomenon of
quite recent development, just as, in the case of urban un-
employment, it will be shown (paragraph 91) that the state
of affairs which Sir John Hope Simpson describes admittedly
did not exist as recently as May last.
In any case, the Jews can hardly be held responsible for the
abrupt fall in the prices of produce, from which they have
suffered almost as much as the Arabs, though it does not
appear to be proposed that anything should be done by the
Government for the Jewish orange-growers, who have suffered
severely from the fall in the price of oranges.
(v.) If further evidence is needed to show that the depressed
condition of Palestinian agriculture has nothing whatever to


D 2








do with the Jews, it can be found in a comparison of the situa-
tion in Palestine with that in neighboring Arab countries. In
Iraq, for example, we find in the Annual Report of the British
Government for 1929 that:
Report of Unfortunately world conditions were such that an
H.M GA. oni unexpected slump occurred in prices. . The result is
the Adminis- " "
tration of that very poor prices have been realized for Iraq's cereal
Iraq, 1929, crop, and a very much larger proportion than usual
p. 150. remained unsold at the end of the year."

As for Syria, a recent official bulletin states that:
Quoted in The market is in a state of paralysis. . The abundant
Palestine harvests which in normal times are a source of increased
and Near
East Econo- prosperity, represent in present circumstances of world-
mic Maga- wide over-production and consequent fall in prices, an
zine, Oct- additional element of economic dislocation. .. The
tober, 1930. decline in Customs revenue is a sure indication of the crisis
at present experienced by the country."
In the case of Transjordan, the Annual Report of the British
Government for 1929 states that
P.G.R., the long tale of ten years has so impoverished farmers
1929, p. 138. that the collection of taxes is fraught with difficulty."
The inference is irresistible that, if Palestinian agriculture is at
present in the trough of a depression, this is due to causes
which are in no sense peculiar to Palestine, but which are com-
mon to all the Arab countries, and are, indeed, operative
throughout the world.
73. Thus, while the White Paper conveys (intentionally or
unintentionally) the impression that the condition of the Arab
fellaheen has deteriorated, and has deteriorated largely as a
result of Jewish colonisation, the truth is that:

(i.) There is no evidence whatever that in normal times
the fellahin are worse off than they were before Jewish
colonisation began, and there is evidence to the contrary.
(ii.) Any special depression from which the fellahin
may at the moment be suffering is quite plainly due to
causes wholly unconnected with Jewish colonisation.
(iii.) There are, therefore, no grounds for the suggestion
that the rights and position of the rural section of
the Arab population have been "prejudiced by Jewish
colonisation.









74- The White Paper states in paragraph 17 that the con-
dition of the Arab fellah leaves much to be desired." It is by
no means suggested that it does not, but before jumping to
the conclusion that the restriction of Jewish immigration is a
primary essential if an improvement is to be effected, it may
be as well to inquire what the causes of his present condition
really are. His main disadvantages are found by Sir John
Hope Simpson to be as follows :
(a) He has no capital for his farm; H.S., p. 64.
(b) He is heavily in debt; "
(c) The rate of interest on his loans is incredibly high ;"
(d) His rent has risen ; "
(e) He has to pay very heavy taxation ";
(f) Until facilities for ordinary primary education are Ib., p. 8o.
more general than is the case at present, the fellahin will
not be in a position to benefit generally from any agricul-
tural education which may be afforded them."
(g) "There is nothing but co-operation that will save Ib., p. 90.
him (the fellah) from his present depression; he cannot
hope ever to escape from the burden of debt unless cheaper
credit is made available. Only by co-operation can that
object be attained."
75. Certain other important general causes for the unsatis-
factory position of the rural population are mentioned by Sir
John Hope Simpson as follows :
(i.) Mesha'a is described by the Committee on the
Economic Condition of the Agriculturist as 'perhaps the
greatest obstacle to agricultural progress in Palestine.' . .
In the year 1923 a Commission was appointed by the Ib., p. 33.
Government to consider the whole question of Mesha'a.
Nothing appears to have been done as a result of the
enquiries and report of this Commission."
(ii.) The most important condition of agricultural
development is water for irrigation. As a general rule,
irrigation water is wasted. . It is worth while to devote
a considerable sum to a hydrographic survey."
76. It will thus be seen that there is much that could be done
for the fellah without any interference with Jewish colonisation.
It is no fault of the Jews that the fellah is poorly educated;
that nothing has been done, by way of the establishment of
co-operative societies or otherwise, to provide him with capital;
that in consequence he has to pay exorbitant rates of interest
to Arab usurers; that he has to share with the Jews in the








disadvantages of an obsolete system of taxation ; that nothing
has been done to conserve and develop the irrigation resources
of Palestine, and that there is as yet no hydrographic survey ;
that the evils of Mesha'a-" perhaps the greatest obstacle to
agricultural progress "-have not been dealt with, and that
the recommendations of the Committee which reported in 1923
have been pigeon-holed. If it is seriously desired to do some-
thing of practical value for the fellahin, there is here a vast
field of reform in which the Palestine Government can operate
to the manifest advantage of the Arabs without in any way
prejudicing the Jews. It is all the more unfortunate that the
White Paper should lay nearly all the emphasis on the relations
between Arabs and Jews, thus evading the real issue and
creating the entirely false impression that Jewish colonisation
is the main cause of the trouble, and that its restriction is an
essential part of the remedy. If the Palestine Government has
failed to take the measures which it was in its power to take
for the benefit of the fellahin during the past ten years, there is
no reason why the Jews should now be called upon to pay
the price.

77. It is true that in paragraph 24 the White Paper refers to
such matters as the Mesha'a system, irrigation, and co-operative
credit, and to a variety of other practical questions with which
it may be desirable to deal. But these are only vaguely men-
tioned as problems which will have to be considered." All
that seems clearly to emerge is that, whatever else may be
done, it is intended that Jewish colonisation shall be confined
within the area already in Jewish ownership, and shall remain
so confined for an indefinite and incalculable period, pending
the working out of a scheme of development which will (it is
stated) take years to carry through. No details of the scheme
are forthcoming; apart from the restrictions to be imposed
upon Jewish colonisation, the only feature of the scheme about
which there appears to be no doubt is that it will provide land
for the Arabs. It is not merely a question of providing against
the dispossession of Arab cultivators by Jewish purchasers of
the land they occupy. The clear implication of this part of the
White Paper is that, at all events for some time to come, the
Jews are not to buy land at all from private owners, while, as
for State lands, the unoccupied area is (it is stated) negligible,.
and the occupied area is exclusively reserved for Arabs.









78. The White Paper, it is true, so far recognizes Jewish
claims to consideration as to explain that in the benefits of the
proposed scheme of development Jews and Arabs can both
share." But the Jewish Agency can hardly be expected to be
satisfied with this vague assurance that Jews will not be alto-
gether disregarded. There are, indeed, a variety of reasons
for regarding the scheme as inadequate from the Jewish point
of view:
(i.) There is a marked contrast between the tone and outlook
of the White Paper and of the concluding chapter of the Hope
Simpson Report, in which Sir John Hope Simpson sums up his
recommendations. This should not be taken to imply that the
Jewish Agency accepts Sir John Hope Simpson's views as final
and conclusive. Though they undoubtedly command respectful
consideration, there are, as has been seen, a number of impor-
tant points on which they appear to the Agency to be open to
question. Nevertheless, Sir John Hope Simpson's recom-
mendations differ widely from the corresponding paragraphs of
the White Paper, both in their actual contents and in the spirit
in which they are framed.
(a) Sir John Hope Simpson takes it for granted that the
definite and positive encouragement of Jewish settlement on
the land is one of the Government's primary obligations, and
that this must throughout be borne in mind in the framing
and execution of any scheme of development.
(b) He makes it clear that, in his opinion, it is perfectly
possible to make room for a largely increased number of Jewish
settlers on the land; even his conservative estimate contem- H.S., p. 153.
plates the successful colonisation of not less than 20,000
families of settlers from outside."
(c) He proposes the establishment of a Development Com-
mission, one of the three members of which is to be a Jew,
and he assumes that the Development Commission will work
in close consultation and co-operation with the Jewish Agency.
"Any scheme of development should provide for the settle-
ment both of Jews and of Arabs on the developed area and
should take into consideration the plans of colonisation of the
Jewish agencies, in order that development by those agencies
and by the Commission might be co-ordinated. It might well Ib., p. 144.
prove possible to combine two schemes of development in









certain areas with mutual advantage, and with considerable
economy."
(d) He assumes that, not merely in the long run, but from
the outset, the Government will make it its business to see that
the Jews will share directly in the benefits of the development
scheme.
Ib., p. 145. The distribution of developed land should be made to
Jews whose names are borne on lists supplied to the Com-
mission by the Jewish Agency and to Arabs named by the
District Commissioners. The claim of would-be settlers
of both sections of the population should be considered
simultaneously, and the Commission must have the final
decision on the claims. . ."
It is assumed that the average expenditure on settling
one Arab family will be about 60. . If the Jew desires
a more liberal settlement, and he will desire it, clearly he
must obtain its cost elsewhere than from the Development
Commission."
(e) As regards the purchase of land, it is clear that he does
not propose that purchases by the Jewish Agency should cease.
This is clearly implied by his proposal that, in order that there
may not be an artificial inflation of land values, there should
be a gentlemen's agreement with regard to the purchase of
land between the Jewish Agency and the Development Com-
Ib., p. 146. mission. Such an agreement would be meaningless if purchases
by the Agency were not to be allowed. That an embargo on
land purchase is not intended is further shown by the proposal
that:
Ib., p. 143. In any case in which the Government refuses to sanction
a sale of land, the would-be vendor should have the right
to demand that the Government take over that land at a
valuation."
This clearly means that the Government will not impose an
embargo except in the case of land for which it can afford to
pay, and of which it can make immediate use, and that in
cases in which it does not buy, the land will still be available for
purchase by the Jewish Agency.

79. It will be seen that the scheme, as described in the
White Paper, bears quite a different aspect from that which it
presents in the Hope Simpson Report. A very different impres,
sion would have been created if the White Paper had made it








clear that one of the main results of the scheme was expected
and intended to be the settlement in Palestine of a largely
increased number of Jews; that there was every reason to
believe that room could be found for a large number of addi-
tional settlers ; that from the outset Jews would share directly
in the benefits of the scheme and in the allocation of any public
money which might be available for colonisation purposes; that
the authorities in charge of the scheme would work in close co-
operation and co-ordination with the Jewish Agency, and that
Jewish interests would be further protected by direct repre-
sentation on the Development Commission; that there was no
intention of placing an embargo on Jewish purchases of land,
but only of ensuring that such purchases should be made in
harmony with the general policy of the Development Com-
mission, in shaping which the Jews themselves would share.
From a Jewish point of view, the scheme might still have had
its weaknesses, but, thus set forth, it would at all events have
presented the Government's intentions in a very different light.
If the chilling words of the White Paper breathe quite another
spirit, the Jewish Agency can hardly be blamed for reading
some significance into the contrast.
80. It must be frankly stated that there is one further con-
sideration which causes the Jewish Agency to regard the scheme
with misgiving. When a scheme of somewhat similar character
was suggested by the Permanent Mandates Commission in its
recent Report, His Majesty's Government replied that it assumed
"that practically unlimited funds for this purpose are at
the disposal of the Palestine Government. Their resources,
on the contrary, are strictly limited. It implies a
fundamental misconception of the general policy of His
Majesty's Government with regard to the territories for
which they are responsible. . If a territory is to be P.M.C., i7th
developed on sound economic lines, it must be, in the Session,
opinion of His Majesty's Government, on the basis that it p" 152.
is self-supporting."
In other words, as recently as August last, a proposal which, in
general outline, was analogous to that now put forward was
emphatically rejected by His Majesty's Government on the
ground (inter alia) that it was financially quite impracticable.
As already pointed out, if the scheme is practicable at all, it
can only be on the assumption that the Palestine Treasury








will continue to benefit largely by revenues derived from
Jewish enterprise, and for this reason-apart from other objec-
tions and difficulties-the scheme involves a speculative ele-
ment. It is, however, highly problematical whether, in any
case, the heavy expenditure which would be necessary could
be afforded. In that case, the only result of the proposals now
put forward might well prove to be that, while in their positive
aspects they proved incapable of execution, their restrictive
features would remain. In other words, what the Jewish
Agency fears is that the Jews will not even receive from the
scheme the remote and contingent benefits which are held out
to them, but will merely find themselves confronted with a new
and formidable obstacle.
81. It is impossible for the Jewish Agency to commit itself
to a final opinion on a scheme of which the details are so vague
and the practicability so doubtful. The development of
Palestine with a view to promoting the close settlement and
intensive cultivation of the land is one of the primary obliga-
tions of the Mandatory under Article II of the Mandate. If,
after so long overlooking the implications of this Article, His
Majesty's Government now propose to take steps to give effect
to it in the spirit in which it was framed, the Jewish Agency
can only welcome this decision ; but, having regard to the tone
in which the proposals are made and to the context in which
they appear, the Jewish Agency is entitled to ask for a full
assurance that the scheme will be carried out with the definite
intention of facilitating close settlement by Jews on the land,"
and will not be allowed to become a pretext for obstructing it.

(2) Immigration
82. It will be convenient to begin by disposing of certain
preliminary questions which do not require detailed discussion :
(i.) This section of the White Paper begins (paragraph 26)
by referring to certain irregularities in the admission of immi-
grants. As immigration is discussed throughout in terms of
Jewish immigration, these irregularities might naturally be
supposed to relate to the admission of Jews. It would have
been better if the White Paper had explained that, of the
persons irregularly admitted, a considerable proportion are not
Jews, but Arabs. That this is the case is clearly shown by the
relevant passages of Sir John Hope Simpson's Report. At









p. 138 he speaks of illicit immigration from Syria and across
the northern frontier of Palestine and refers in particular to
illicit immigration from Transjordan. At p. 126 he speaks of
immigrants who leave the road before reaching the frontier
and take to the foot-paths over the hills." It is almost certain
that, in both these classes of cases, the persons concerned, or at
least the overwhelming majority of them, are not Jews. At
p. 157 he says explicitly that the illicit immigration consists
in part of Arabs who enter from the neighboring countries."
The point is material, not only because the paragraph in ques-
tion, in the light of its context, is (no doubt unintentionally)
misleading, but because illicit immigration of Arabs-which,
to judge from Sir John Hope Simpson's Report, is clearly on a
considerable scale-is important in its bearing on the question
of Arab claims to land. It is not desired to suggest that there
is not a certain amount of illicit Jewish immigration; we merely
think it right to point out that the immigrants referred to in
paragraph 27 include a substantial number of Arabs.
83. In the same paragraph it is stated that "a further
unsatisfactory feature is that a large number of travellers who
enter Palestine with permission to remain for a limited time,
stay on without sanction." In this case, it is true that the
majority of the persons in question are undoubtedly Jews;
but the statement is misleading in so far as it suggests that the
result is the settlement in Palestine of undesirable persons who
would not have been admitted as immigrants. It may, there-
fore, be as well to point out that Sir John Hope Simpson's
comment is as follows :
In cases of no special flagrancy, and where there is no H.S., p. 126.
objection to the individual, it is probably sufficient to
maintain the present practice, under which he is counted
against the Labour Schedule, though this method does a
certain injustice to the Jewish immigrant outside the
country, whose place is taken by the traveller concerned."
Though irregularities are to be deprecated, it will be observed
that Sir John Hope Simpson does not appear to suggest that
this particular irregularity has in practice had any very serious
results.

84. The White Paper does, it is true, remark that there have
been many cases of persons being admitted who, if the facts









had been known, should not have received visas." These
words are quoted from p. 124 of Sir John Hope Simpson's
Report. In order that it may not be supposed that this refers,
as it might otherwise be taken to do, to the immigration of
undesirables, and particularly of undesirables whose admission
affects the labour-market, it should be noted that the only
cases mentioned by Sir John Hope Simpson under this head are
cases in which duly authorised immigrants have succeeded in
bringing in with them, as wives and children, persons who are
not such in fact. One case mentioned by Sir John Hope Simpson
is that of a man aged 30 with a wife aged 20 and a son "
aged 12. All the other cases he quotes are of a similar descrip-
tion. As Sir John Hope Simpson points out, such cases
" should have been detected by the officer who dealt with the
visa. The facts were not concealed, they were actually stated
on the passport." There is no defence for such irregularities,
which the Jewish Agency has always strongly deprecated, but
it is clear that they have little or no bearing on the problem of
immigration in the sense in which it is commonly understood.
85. (ii.) The next part of paragraph 26 deals with the
" important part at present played in connection with Jewish
immigration by the General Federation of Jewish Labour."
The Federation is presented in a vaguely sinister light, and the
impression conveyed by the White Paper is that it exercises a
detrimental influence. The case against it is not very clearly
set forth, but its main offence appears to be that its policy
"implies the introduction into Palestine of a new social
order." The authors of the White Paper are apparently
seriously disturbed by the inclusion in the programme of the
Jewish Federation of Labour of features savouring of Socialism,
but it will be noted that, neither in the White Paper nor for
that matter in Sir John Hope Simpson's Report, is it attempted
to show that the influence stated to be exercised by the Federa-
tion has, in fact, resulted in the introduction into Palestine of
an undesirable type of immigrant. Sir John Hope Simpson
frequently refers in his Report to the views of the Expert
Advisers of the Joint Palestine Survey Commission. Among
these experts was Sir John Campbell, who has since become
Financial Adviser to the Colonial Office. While in some
respects out of sympathy with the views of Jewish Labour in
Palestine, Sir John Campbell nevertheless states categorically








in his Report that the human material of the movement is J.P.s.c.
mainly of the finest type." In Sir John Hope Simpson's (Experts),
P. 475.
Report there is nothing to suggest that he dissents from Sir
John Campbell's view. That being so, and the quality of the
immigrants being obviously the main consideration, the
immigration section of the White Paper would appear to devote
a somewhat disproportionate amount of attention to the
General Federation of Jewish Labour, and it is a little difficult
to see the exact point of its remarks on this subject. No
conclusion would appear to be drawn from them, except for
the vague and faintly invidious observation that, in establish-
ing a modus vivendi between the Government and the Jewish
Agency with regard to immigration, full account must be
taken of the influence exerted in the policy of the Agency by
the General Federation of Jewish Labour."

86. (iii.) In the paragraph just quoted, the White Paper lays
it down that it is essential that the Palestine Government
. . should be the deciding authority in all matters of policy
relating to immigration." The uninformed reader might
naturally interpret this to mean that some other body than
the Palestine Government is the deciding authority at the
present time. The actual position is, as it is hardly necessary
to explain, that the Palestine Government is, and has always
been, the deciding authority in all matters of policy regarding
immigration-and not only in matters of policy, but also in the
administrative application of the policy laid down, the practice
(as explained by Sir John Hope Simpson at p. 183 of his
Report) being that the Labour Immigration Schedules are
prepared under the direction of the Chief Immigration Officer
of the Palestine Government, and do not come into force until
they have been expressly approved in each case by the High
Commissioner. It may be added that it has never been
suggested either by the Jewish Agency, or, so far as is known
aware, by any other responsible Jewish body, that any agency
other than the Palestine Government should be the deciding
authority in the matter of immigration laws and regulations.
It is possible that the reference in the White Paper is intended
to be to a memorandum submitted to His Majesty's Government
by the Jewish Agency in May, 1930. If so, the allusion is
seriously misleading. In paragraph 5 of this memorandum
(p. 14) the following passage occurs :









In our opinion the time has come to concentrate the
regulation of Jewish immigration in the hands of a single
authority, and we submit that the responsibility for the
control of Jewish immigration should be delegated by the
Government to the Jewish Agency as that authority. The
understanding would be, of course, that the Jewish Agency
exercise its functions within the scope of the immigration
laws and regulations sanctioned by the Palestine Govern-
ment, and that the Government retain the right of scrutiny as
to whether such laws and regulations have been observed
in each individual case."
It will be seen that, far from suggesting that the control of
policy should be vested in any other hands than those of the
Palestine Government, the memorandum assumes as a matter
of course that the immigration laws and regulations, by which
questions of policy will obviously be decided, will be made by
the Government, and that whatever functions may be allotted
to the Agency will have to be exercised within the limits of the
policy thus laid down. This is not the place to discuss in detail
the proposals made in the memorandum just quoted; it is
merely desired to point out that, whatever else the memoran-
dum may say, it definitely does not say that, in the opinion of
the Jewish Agency, the control of immigration policy should
be shared by the Government with any other body; on the
contrary, it says precisely the opposite.
87. We now pass to paragraphs 27 and 28 of the White
Paper, which form the central feature of the section dealing
with immigration. These paragraphs raise important ques-
tions both of principle and of fact. We will deal first with the
questions of fact.
88. It is stated in paragraph 27 of the White Paper that
sufficient evidence has been adduced to lead to the conclusion
that there is at present a serious degree of Arab unemployment."
It is also stated, in paragraph 28, that there are grounds on
which it can be plausibly represented that this unemploy-
ment is largely due to excessive Jewish immigration." The
Jewish contention is that the first of these propositions is highly
questionable, and that the implications of the second are
certainly false.
89. We will begin by examining the evidence of the existence
of a serious degree of Arab unemployment," as disclosed by









Sir John Hope Simpson's inquiries. The evidence is set forth
at pages 133-135 of his Report:
(a) He first quotes Miss Margaret Nixon, a Government
Welfare Worker, who records from her personal knowledge
that there is very serious unemployment among Arabs of the
artisan class in Jerusalem." The importance of this evidence
is, however, somewhat seriously discounted by the sentence
which immediately follows: She suggests that the reason
lies in the refusal of Jewish employers to engage Arab labourers
in view of the riots of last August."
(b) Sir John Hope Simpson next quotes the report of a
British Police Officer, who testifies to the existence of serious
Arab unemployment at Haifa. The importance of this evidence
also is, however, discounted by the statement on the imme-
diately preceding page of the Report that, unsatisfactory as
are the labour statistics collected by the Government Immigra-
tion Department, it is reported that the information collected
by the Police is even less satisfactory. The duty is one for
which Police Officers have no training, no time, and no apti-
tude."
(c) Sir John Hope Simpson states that from Transjordan
it was ascertained that a report that further recruits were
required for the Frontier Force resulted in well over 4,000
men, mainly from Palestine and Northern Transjordan,
besieging the Headquarters of the Force in the hope of employ-
ment." On this point, it may be observed not only that the
word mainly is a little vague, but that there is nothing to
show which of the applicants were, in fact, from Transjordan
and which of them were from Palestine. It would, moreover,
be interesting to know whether there is any evidence that the
number of would-be recruits for the police and kindred forces
is materially larger in proportion to the number of vacancies
than it was in the admittedly prosperous days of (say) 1925.
In the absence of any evidence on this point, the mere fact that
there were a large number of applicants (by no means all from
Palestine) for admission to the Transjordan Frontier Force
seems, to say the least of it, to be a little inconclusive.
(d) The same remarks apply, mutatis mutandis, to the state-
ment that at Ramleh there were 120 applicants for the post of
scavenger-overseer.








(e) The Director of the Public Works Department is quoted
as stating that, even if Jewish immigration were to cease
altogether, he would have no difficulty in obtaining the neces-
sary personnel, while the Resident Engineer of the Haifa
Harbour Works is stated to have reported that the news of
40 additional men having been taken on resulted in four or five
hundred Arabs asking for employment. As regards the last
point, it is relevant to refer to Sir John Hope Simpson's own
remarks on the large amount of casual and temporary
employment of the agricultural labourer, and indeed, of the
H.s., p. 137. small Arab cultivator. Of this class many individuals flock to
the towns to earn something in addition to what is yielded by
the land." The mere fact that, in the agricultural off-season,
Arabs from rural areas seek to supplement their earnings by
obtaining temporary employment in the towns is clearly no
justification for classing them as unemployed in the ordinary
sense of that term. There is nothing to show whether the
applicants referred to by the Haifa Harbour Works Engineer
were or were not of this class. As for the remarks of the
Director of the Public Works Department, it need only be
observed that he appears to have overlooked the material fact
that, but for Jewish immigration, the employment in question
would not be available at all, since it is certain, and has, indeed,
been freely admitted by the Government itself, that without
the revenue derived from the influx of Jews, it would be quite
impossible for capital works to be executed on anything like
the present scale.

90. The only other specific reason advanced by Sir John Hope
Simpson for believing that there is widespread unemployment
among the Arabs is that wage-rates are falling. Sir John Hope
Simpson does not, however, state within what period the fall
is supposed to have taken place. A reference to the Annual
Report of the Palestine Government for 1929 (pp. 126-127)
shows that no such fall of wages was perceptible to the Govern-
ment up to the close of that year. We are there told that :
Wages of skilled workers were firm . with an up-
ward tendency in nearly all branches of the metal trades
. the rates paid in the metal trades were almost
identical for Jews and non-Jews. . Prosperity in the
textile trade brought about an increase in wages in that
industry, and some increase in wages took place also in









the manufacture of foodstuffs. . Although rates for
unskilled urban labour showed no appreciable change . .
there was a slight increase in building-labour wages, more
particularly in regard to non-Jews. The wages of skilled
agricultural labour were unaltered."
As against these actual increases in wages, the only case in
which a fall of wages is reported is that of the coach and
carriage building trade. Broadly speaking, therefore, it is clear
that in 1929, so far as there was any change in wage-rates, the
general tendency was not downwards, but upwards. If, then,
Sir John Hope Simpson is right in thinking that wage-rates
have fallen, this is a phenomenon which must have occurred
during the past few months, and from which it is, therefore,
hardly reasonable to draw far-reaching inferences, more
especially when it is remembered-another material point
which appears to have been overlooked-that, according to the
official Commercial Bulletin, the cost of living in Palestine fell
in the first six months of 1930 by 11I7 points, which is equiva-
lent to a fall of over 16 per cent. In these circumstances, even
if there has, in fact, been some reduction of wages, it is not
necessarily of any significance as evidence of a reduction in the
standard of living. At all events, it is clear that, unless the
information of the Palestine Government is wildly inaccurate,
the fall in the standard of living is a phenomenon peculiar to
1930 and was quite imperceptible in 1929.
91. This is equally true of unemployment itself. While on
some previous occasions the Annual Reports of the Palestine
Government have referred to the existence of unemployment
among the Arabs, the 1929 Report (p. 126), though it deals
in detail with labour conditions, makes no reference whatever
to Arab unemployment. Indeed, in Sir John Hope S mpson's
own Feport there is evidence that no serious unemployment
existed among the Arabs as recently as the end of May, 1930.
Sir John Hope Simpson states at p. 139 of his Report, with
reference to the Labour Schedule sanctioned by the High
Commissioner at the end of May, 1930, and providing for the
admission of a large number of immigrants, that
there is no doubt that the recommendations of the Chief
Immigration Officer and the decision of the High Com-
missioner were justified by the prospects of work in
Palestine."









On Sir John Hope Simpson's own principles it is clear that, in
his opinion, such a schedule would not have been justified if
at that time there had been a serious degree of unemployment
among the Arabs. If, then, such unemployment really exists,
it developed between the end of last May and the end of
August, when Sir John Hope Simpson presented his Report.
Accordingly, the statement in the White Paper that there is
at present a serious degree of Arab unemployment is in any
case misleading, unless qualified by the further statement,
which the White Paper refrains from making, that this is a
phenomenon which was not perceptible until a very recent
date and which has, in fact, only begun to be observed during
the past few months. Add to this that Sir John Hope Simpson
states that the preparation of the estimates of Arab unemploy-
ment is superficial and hurried," and that, on the data
H.S., p. 133. available, it is impossible to form an estimate which would
be even approximately accurate," and it will be seen that the
evidence on the subject is hardly sufficient to form the founda-
tion for any drastic change of policy.
92. We now turn to the second main question of fact.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Arab unemploy-
ment does exist, are there really grounds on which it can be
W.P., p. 22. plausibly represented to be largely due to excessive Jewish
immigration "? No doubt any statement can be plausible
to willing ears, but Sir John Hope Simpson's Report leaves
no doubt as to the truth. Speaking of the Arabs who com-
plained to him of their lot, he remarks :
H.S., p. 135. All of them ascribed their misfortunes, probably quite
erroneously, to Jewish competition."
How greatly in error they were is shown, to say nothing of
other evidence, by Sir John Hope Simpson's own analysis of
the situation. At pp. 133 ff. he enumerates the following
adverse factors :
(a) Motor transport, stated to be largely in the hands
of the Jews, is competing with the Arab-owned camel,
donkey and horse-drawn vehicle. It is pertinent to
observe that the goods and passengers carried by Jewish
motor transport are largely Jewish goods and passengers,
and that there is not the slightest reason to suppose that
the Arabs would be any better off if the motor-vehicles








and the persons who use them were swept out of the
country. It is also pertinent to observe that the camel
and donkey must have suffered quite as severely from the
competition of the railways, the guilty party being in
this case, not the Jews, but the Palestine Government.
To this extent, and it must be a very considerable extent,
any unemployment which may have been caused by the
development of Palestine, as of any other country in the
East, by improved means of transport, is unemployment
of the Government's own creation.
(b) We are next told that a large number of stone-
dressers and stone-masons, nearly all of them Arabs, and
also Arab quarrymen, have been displaced as a result of
the local manufacture by Jews of cement, reinforced con-
crete and silicate brick. This statement is a little sur-
prising in view of the fact that the Palestine Government,
in its Annual Report for 1929, expressly states that in that
year there was a slight increase in building-labour wages, P.G. Report,
more particularly in regard to non-Jews "-a phenomenon 1929, p. rz6.
which, on Sir John Hope Simpson's own showing, is pro
tanto evidence of an increased demand for non-Jewish
building labour. It is further material to note in this con-
nection that, before cement began to be locally manu-
factured, there were large imports of cement from abroad;
these imports have steadily fallen, from P.242,ooo in
1925 to P.i2,ooo in 1929. It is difficult to understand
how, in these circumstances, the Arabs can have been
adversely affected by the substitution for imported goods
of goods locally manufactured, and certainly providing at
least some indirect employment for Arab labour.
(c) It is, however, hardly necessary to labour these
points, since Sir John Hope Simpson himself states quite
clearly that
the most serious cause of additional unemployment "
is-not any factor even remotely connected with the
Jews-but
the cessation of conscription for the Army prevalent H.S., p. 133.
under the Turkish Government."
93. As already pointed out, whatever the weight of these
adverse factors, the fact remains that, at the end of last May,
according to Sir John Hope Simpson, the labour situation was
such as fully to justify the admission of a large number of
additional immigrants, from which it follows that Arab un-
employment-if such there be-is a very recent phenomenon.









If depression does exist, one obvious explanation is the fall in
world prices, which, in the case of Palestine, has been reflected
-as is fully recognized in the Hope Simpson Report-by a
heavy fall in local prices of agricultural produce. To this may
be added one further adverse factor, in which, it is true, the
Ib., p. 139. Jews are involved. As Sir John Hope Simpson points out,
there is weight to be attached to the opinion that the sus-
pension of labour immigration has created the impression that
the British Government is, if not hostile, at least apathetic in
the matter of the National Home. . As a result of the
impression so created, the flow of capital to Palestine, and of
subscriptions for settlement work in that country, have both
been affected." It is undoubtedly true that, during the past
few months, Jewish capital has flowed into Palestine less freely
than before ; the Jews have been discouraged, and it would not
be surprising if the Arabs had had to pay part of the price. The
sense of insecurity created by the outbreak of August, 1929,
the dislocation of trade occasioned by the sustained Arab boy-
cott, and the check which has been administered to Jewish
enterprise, must all be taken into account as factors in the
present situation.

94. As for the general effect of Jewish immigration on the
labour-market, this question is examined by Sir John Hope
Simpson at p. 131 of his Report. His conclusion is that, in
many directions, Jewish development has meant more work for
the Arabs, and it is a fair conclusion that the competition of
imported Jewish labour is equalised by these increased oppor-
tunities." This is, in fact, an obvious under-statement; in
calculating that the favourable and unfavourable effects of
Jewish immigration on Arab unemployment cancel one another
out, Sir John Hope Simpson debits the Jews with the increased
employment of Jewish labour in the Public Works Department
and on the railways, ignoring the fact that, were it not for the
carriage of Jewish goods and passengers, the labour require-
ments of the railways would be very substantially less than
they are, and that-as already pointed out-the Public Works.
programme would have to be largely reduced, were it not for
the revenue derived by the Government from the Jews, who,
according to the official estimate quoted in the Report of the
S.C.R., Shaw Commission, contribute 30 per cent. of the receipts of the
p. 134. Treasury, exclusive of the receipts (to which the Jews also









contribute out of all proportion to their numbers) of the
Palestine Railways and the Post Office. If this material
factor is taken into account, it follows that, even on Sir John
Hope Simpson's calculation, the Jews have, on balance, pro-
vided the Arabs with a good deal more employment than they
have taken from them.

95. We now pass from questions of fact to questions of
principle. The test laid down in the White Paper of 1922 for
dealing with the control of immigration is that the immigrants
" must not deprive any section of the present population of
their employment." What this obviously means is, not that
the Jews must be in a position to show that not a single Arab
has been displaced as a result of Jewish immigration, but that,
taking the Arab population as a whole, Jewish immigration is
not having the effect of reducing the number of Arabs in
employment. The White Paper of 1930 lays down an entirely
different principle. The salient passage is as follows :
If immigration of Jews results in preventing the Arab w.P., para.
population from obtaining the work necessary for its 28.
maintenance, or if Jewish unemployment unfavourably
affects the general labour position, it is the duty of the
Mandatory under the Mandate to reduce, or if necessary,
to suspend, such immigration until the unemployed por-
tion of the 'other sections' is in a position to obtain
work."
96. The practical implications of this statement, as they are
intended to be translated into administrative practice, are
nowhere precisely defined. Lord Passfield, in his letter in
The Times of November 6th, 1930, explains obscurum per
obscurius by remarking that :
The intention of the White Paper was to make the
possibility of the suspension of Jewish immigration con-
tingent upon unemployment upon such a scale as would
have a serious effect in preventing the Arab population
from obtaining the work necessary for its maintenance."
His statement in Reynolds's Illustrated News (November 2nd,
1930) is in quite different terms. What is meant," he says,
is that, if it can be shown that any particular immigration
is calculated greatly to increase unemployment among the
Arabs, then, in accordance with the very words of the








Mandate, that fact must be observed in settling the
numbers to be admitted."

It will be noted that, according to this last statement, the
test is whether Jewish immigration will increase-and, indeed,
greatly increase-unemployment among the Arabs. This is
closely parallel to the principle laid down in the White Paper
of 1922 that the immigrants should not deprive any section
of the present population of their employment." But though
it is in accord with the White Paper of 1922, it is unfortunately
by no means in accord with the White Paper of 1930. To say
that Jewish immigration must not be permitted greatly to
increase unemployment among the Arabs is clearly quite
different from saying that Jewish immigration must not result
in preventing the Arab population from obtaining the work
necessary for its maintenance," and that, in certain circum-
stances, such immigration must be suspended until the
unemployed portion of the other section is in a position to
obtain work." Either the 1930 statement means the same as
the 1922 statement or it does not. If it does-and Lord
Passfield's commentary in Reynolds's News suggests that this
is the case-it is exceedingly unfortunate that the 1922 State-
ment was not merely re-affirmed-a simple solution of the prob-
lem, which would have given rise to no misunderstanding.
As this course has not been taken, and a new and complicated
formula has been introduced, it is impossible to escape the
conclusion that something different is intended. In other
words, Lord Passfield's statement in Reynolds's News, which
might be said to be in keeping with Article 6 of the Mandate,
cannot brush aside the plain implications of paragraph 28 of the
White Paper, which, it is submitted, clearly are not.

97. What, then, are these implications ? They are that the
Arabs are not only to be protected from being thrown out of
work by Jewish immigrants, but are to be deemed to have an
inherent right to obtain the work necessary for their main-
tenance, and that the Government has a duty to see that the
Arabs are provided with employment-a duty taking priority
over its obligation under Article 6 of the Mandate to facilitate
the immigration of Jews. The White Paper, indeed, goes still
further. Not only will the restriction, or even the suspension,
of immigration apparently be held to be justified if the Govern-








ment believes that this will make it easier for unemployed
Arabs to get work; the plain meaning of the latter part of
paragraph 28 is that it will be sufficient if it can be plausibly
represented to the Arabs that this is the case. Finally, even
when these representations are not plausible enough to be
taken seriously, Jewish immigration, in so far as it is permitted,
is still to be subject to the condition that the employment
available for the immigrants can be shown to be permanent.
This would appear to be the plain meaning of the remark in
paragraph 27 that care must also be exercised . to make
allowance for any demand for labour which, owing to increased
circulation of money connected with expenditure on develop-
ment, or for other causes, may be regarded as of a temporary
character." There are thus three obstacles to be surmounted
before Jewish immigration can take place:

(a) The Government must return a favourable answer
to the highly speculative question whether such immigra-
tion will result in Jews occupying positions which might
otherwise be occupied by unemployed Arabs ;
(b) It must not be possible for it to be "plausibly
represented to the Arabs that this will be the case ;
(c) The employment available for the Jewish immigrants
must be permanent employment.
98. On this last point it is obvious that there is unlimited
room for obstruction. There are hardly any constructional or
other capital works of which it could not be said that the
employment they offer is only temporary; and it stands to
reason that, dealing as they are with a country at a primitive
stage of development, the Jews must devote a large part of
their resources to works of this character, if the foundations of
the Jewish National Home are to be laid. Is it to be said that,
in carrying out such works, the Jews must employ Arab labour
in cases in which the Jewish labour available on the spot is not
sufficient or suitable ? It is not suggested that immigrants
ought to be brought in for employment which is obviously of
a purely ephemeral nature; but the language of the White
Paper is capable of an alarmingly wide interpretation, and might
be easily used to exclude Jewish immigrants on the pretext
that it was not positively certain that they would never be
out of work. In this connection, it may be recorded that









Dr. Drummond Shiels, in addressing the Permanent Mandates
Commission, said that:
P.M.c., 17th He would point out one difficulty in regard to the
Session, permanence of the employment offered to new immi-
. grants. It was quite obvious that no guarantee could be
given in that direction."
It is because it appears to demand some such guarantee
that paragraph 27 of the White Paper gives rise to serious
misgiving.
99. As to the stipulations implied both in the earlier and in
the later parts of paragraph 28, it may be doubted whether,
even from the point of view of Arab interests, their implications
have been fully realized. Take, for example, the case of a newly-
planted Jewish orange grove. The orange grove requires a
supply of suitable labour for its development. Let it be assumed
that at the moment Jewish labour is not available in the coun-
try. It might be argued, under the terms of paragraph 28, that
if Jewish immigrant labour is not admitted, the owner of the
orange grove would still be obliged to develop it, and would then
have to employ Arab labour. This, therefore, would be a case in
which it might be said that Jewish immigration would, pro tanto,
prevent unemployed Arabs from obtaining work, since if the
Jews were excluded, the presumption is that Arabs would have
to be employed. It will, no doubt, be replied that there could
be no question of restricting Jewish immigration for the benefit
of a few individual Arabs ; but it is obvious that the larger the
demand for labour provided by Jewish enterprises, the more
advantageous the exclusion of Jewish immigrants might be
made to appear from the point of view of the Arab unemployed.
The Jews are entitled to know whether an argument on these
lines would be regarded as valid under paragraph 28 of the
White Paper, and if the paragraph does not mean this, what it
does mean.
Ioo. We would only point out that, if the implications of
paragraph 28 are what they appear to be, the results would in
the long run be detrimental to Arab as well as to Jewish
interests. If enterprises founded with Jewish capital with a
view to the employment of Jewish labour are to be prevented
from importing such labour on the ground that unemployed
Arabs have a prior claim, some individual Arabs may tem-









porarily benefit, but the Arab population as a whole will
eventually suffer. Jewish capital invested in Palestine is
attracted, in the overwhelming majority of cases, by the
prospect of its providing employment for Jewish labour, and
nothing is more certain than that it will cease to flow in, if the
admission of Jewish immigrants is suspended in the supposed
interests of the Arab unemployed. The fertilising stream of
Jewish capital will be checked ; the Arabs will lose the indirect
employment they derive from the circulation of Jewish money ;
the Government will no longer be able to count on the expansion
of revenue, in the benefits of which the Arabs share out of all
proportion to their contribution; and the eventual result will
be that, in so far as it is designed to further the interests of the
Arab population, the White Paper will defeat its own ends.

Iro. And this brings us to another and a highly material
point. The underlying suggestion in the immigration section
of the White Paper is that Jewish and Arab labour normally
compete for the same employment. This conception is funda-
mentally incorrect. Dealing with the Arab allegation that
unemployment among the Arabs is due to the competition of
Jewish labour, Sir John Hope Simpson states :
"In so far as Jewish labour is employed on works H.S., p. 131.
which are being carried out solely with imported Jewish
capital, there is no ground for the belief."
Sir John Hope Simpson further states that the rapid develop-
ment of industrial enterprise in Palestine since the war is
" almost entirely due to the importation of Jewish capital." lb., p. r1.
So far, therefore, as Jewish labour is employed in industry, it
follows-on Sir John Hope Simpson's principle-that no ques-
tion of competition with Arab labour can be said to arise. On
the same principle, it is also obvious that no such question can
arise in the case of Jewish labour employed in agriculture, the
whole of the agricultural enterprises in which Jews are engaged
being enterprises established with Jewish capital. As for the
building and transport trades, which account for most of the
remaining Jewish manual workers, both these industries owe
their development largely to Jewish capital, and, though no
exact figures are available, it can be stated without fear of
contradiction that, in both cases, the ratio of Jewish workers
employed to the total number of workers does not exceed (to









put it at the lowest) the ratio of Jewish capital to the total
capital invested.
oz2. So far, therefore, as the overwhelming majority of the
Jewish workers are concerned, there can, on the principle laid
down by Sir John Hope Simpson, be no question of the Arab
population having been deprived of employment by Jewish
immigrant labour. It would, indeed, be possible to go further,
and to show, still following the Hope Simpson Report, that the
exclusion of Jewish immigrant labour would not merely not be of
advantage to the Arabs, but would be positively detrimental
to them. Discussing the effect of Jewish immigration on the
labour market, Sir John Hope Simpson states :
H.S., p. a36. "There is one special case to which the principles.
enunciated above will not apply. It has been pointed
out that Jewish capital will not be brought to Palestine
in order to employ Arab labour. It will come in with the
definite object of the employment of Jewish labour and
not otherwise. The principle of 'derived demand'
would justify the immigration of the Jewish labour even
when there are Arab unemployed in the country, if the
newly imported Jewish labour is assured of work of a
permanent nature, through the introduction of Jewish
capital to provide the work on which that labour is to be
employed. It is clearly of no advantage to the unem-
ployed Arab that Jewish capital should be prevented from
entering the country, and he is in no worse position by the
importation of Jewish labour to do work in Palestine for
which the funds are available by the simultaneous im-
portation of Jewish capital. In fact, he is better off, as the
expenditure of that capital on wages to Jewish workmen
will cause, ultimately, a demand for the services of a
portion of the Arab unemployed."
As has been shown above, Sir John Hope Simpson's special
case is, in reality, the normal case; the great bulk of Jewish
immigrant workers are employed on work directly created by
Jewish capital, and capital which would never have been
introduced but for the prospect of its affording employment for
Jewish labour. This does not, of course, connote acquiescence
in the view, which the passage just quoted might seem to
imply, that in order that Jewish immigration may be justified,
it must be shown that it will, directly or indirectly, create
employment for Arabs. As already explained, it is contended








that the only test which is admissible is whether the amount of
employment available for the Arabs will be reduced by Jewish
immigration. There is no obligation on the Jews to show that
it will be increased. At the same time, it is worth remembering
that, in so far as Jewish immigration and the introduction of
Jewish capital go together, as they almost invariably do, the
Arabs stand to lose and not to gain by the discouragement of
that immigration and the interruption of the flow of capital
which would inevitably follow.
103. It has been shown that no question of competition with
Arab labour can be said to arise in connection with Jewish
labour employed in industry or agriculture, or in the transport
and building trades, and that these occupations between them
account for the great majority of the Jewish immigrant workers.
The number of Jews employed on non-Jewish private enter-
prises is insignificant, and even if a refusal to admit the intro-
duction of Jewish labour for this purpose could be justified, its
effect would be inappreciable. The only remaining case of the
slightest importance is that of public works. It should be
realized that the number of Jews engaged in such employment
is relatively quite small; according to figures carefully pre-
pared by the Jewish Agency and quoted at p. 92 of the memo-
randum submitted to Sir John Hope Simpson, during the period
1920-1928, out of a total expenditure by the Public Works
Department of 2,534,825 (exclusive of purely administrative
expenditure), the work executed by Jewish labour represented
an expenditure of only 346,61o. The ratio of Jewish labour
was thus substantially less than the ratio of Jews to the total
population. Corresponding figures for 1929 are not at the
moment available, but they would certainly make no serious
difference to the total result. Nevertheless, it might conceiv-
ably be argued that Jewish immigrant labour ought not to be
employed on public works so long as unemployed Arabs are
available, or, in other words that, to the extent to which Arab
unemployment may exist at the time, public works should be
left out of account in the calculation of the Labour Immigration
Schedule. If Sir John Hope Simpson's principles be accepted,
this is the only question which can really arise. In consider-
ing this point, it should be borne in mind that the Jews who are
in Palestine are there "as of right and not on sufferance ";
they are just as much entitled to be regarded as an integral









part of the population as are the Arabs, and it will presumably
be admitted in any case that if employment on public works is
available, the claims of the Jewish as well as of the Arab
section of the population must be taken into account in the
allocation of such employment. Jewish labour which is
actually in Palestine is fully entitled to share in such work, and
in practice no question can arise in this connection except in
the case of the quantity of Jewish labour available on the spot
being insufficient to fill the Jewish quota.

104. But there is one further point that is material. The
Government can only carry out public works to the extent to
which it commands the necessary revenue, and the Jews-as
already seen (paragraph 94)-contribute to the revenue out of
all proportion to their numbers; indeed, the Palestine Govern-
ment, in its Annual Report for 1926, remarks that :
P.G.R., The accumulation of surplus balances provides a
E926, p. 5. reserve fund from which monies may be available for the
execution of a building programme and other public
works,"
and explains that:
"The expansion of revenue which has enabled the
accumulation of substantial surplus balances is due
mainly (note 'mainly') to items derived from the large
influx of Jewish capital."
It is, therefore, fallacious to argue as though, if Jewish capital
did not flow in from outside, the works would be executed and
the employment would be available just the same. The main
reason why employment on public works is available at all on a
considerable scale is the influx of Jewish capital, and if that be
borne in mind, it will be realized that in the case of public
works, as well as in the case of Jewish agricultural and indus-
trial enterprises, it can be said with perfect truth that the
employment to which the Jews lay claim is employment which
they themselves have created. This should not, of course, be
taken to imply that, in the opinion of the Jewish Agency, the
Jews should have any disproportionate share of the employ-
ment on public works ; its contention is merely that the Jews
are definitely entitled to a reasonable proportion of such
employment, and that the circumstances of the case are such








that this cannot reasonably be regarded as involving the
employment of Jews at the expense of Arabs.
105. To sum up, on the principles laid down by Sir John
Hope Simpson, and nominally followed, but not faithfully
reflected, in the White Paper, it is difficult to understand on
what grounds it is supposed that there is either any need or any
justification for a change in the principles propounded in the
White Paper of 1922. In so far as the new White Paper makes
Arab unemployment the decisive factor in the control of
immigration, it can have no practical effect except to injure
the Jews without benefiting the Arabs, and to play straight
into the hands of Arab politicians, who, as Sir John Hope
Simpson is careful to point out, are sufficiently astute to H.S., p. 136.
realise at once what may appear to be an easy way of blocking
that immigration to which they are radically averse."












IV. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE JEWS


io6. Paragraph 29 of the White Paper dwells upon the
desirability of the closest co-operation between the Govern-
ment and the leaders of the Arab and Jewish communities."
The Jewish Agency earnestly desires such co-operation, but it
must be stated quite frankly that the tone and temper of the
White Paper do nothing to encourage it. It is impossible to
pass over in silence a number of passages in which His Majesty's
Government, in framing the White Paper, would almost seem
to have gone out of their way to make statements which,
sometimes directly and sometimes by implication, tend to
discredit the Jewish Agency, to disparage Jewish achievements
in Palestine, and to embarrass the Jews in their relations both
with the Government and with the Arabs.
107. The following passages, among others, may be cited as
examples of what is meant:
(i.) In paragraph o1 of the White Paper it is stated that
incitements to disorder or disaffection will be severely punished
in whatever quarter they may originate." His Majesty's
Government must be well aware that there is only one quarter
from which incitements to disorder and disaffection have ever
originated in Palestine, and the Jewish Agency is entitled to
protest against the implied suggestion that the Agency or its
leaders are to be placed on the same footing as the persons
responsible for the unhappy events which have recently
occurred in that country.
(ii.) His Majesty's Government have received little assist-
ance from either side in healing the breach between them during
the months of tension and unrest which have followed on the
W.P., para. disturbances of August, 1929." It is to be regretted that it
2. should have been thought necessary to make this implied charge
against the Jewish Agency, whose representatives in Palestine,
so far from being guilty of any provocative conduct, have
exerted themselves to the utmost to relieve the tension created








'by the Arab outbreak of a year ago, while its representatives
in London have on more than one occasion proposed a Round
Table Conference at which Jews and Arabs, meeting under the
auspices of His Majesty's Government, should seek to compose
their differences and to reach a permanent understanding.
(iii.) It is useless for Jewish leaders to press His Majesty's
Government to conform their policy in regard, for example,
.to immigration, and land, to the aspirations of the more un-
compromising sections of Zionist opinion." It is not known
what are the extremist opinions which the Jewish leaders are
supposed to have pressed upon His Majesty's Government.
They have done their best loyally to co-operate with the
Mandatory Power, and it is not understood what useful
purpose can be served by publicly discrediting them as persons
identified with uncompromising views.
(iv.) Claims have been made on behalf of the Jewish
Agency to a position in regard to the general administration
of the country which His Majesty's Government cannot but
regard as going far beyond the clear intention of the Mandate."
It is not known to what this refers. It is not explained in
what connection the Jewish Agency has made claims to
share in the general administration of the country," and it is
unfortunate that it should have been thought necessary to
charge it, in effect, with an attempt to abuse its position
under the Mandate, and with a breach of its undertakings in
connection with the White Paper of 1922.

io8. If these statements have not been introduced with a
view to discrediting the Agency, it can only be supposed that
they are accounted for by a belief that it is not expedient to
make statements reflecting on one side unless balanced by
parallel statements reflecting on the other. Be that as it may,
it is hardly necessary to point out that these allegations, or
implied allegations, can only tend to embarrass the relations
of the Jewish Agency both with the Government and the Arabs.
So far as the Government is concerned, they clearly suggest
that the Government has no confidence in the Agency or its
leaders, and that no value is attached to their sincere attempt
to work loyally with the Mandatory Power in circumstances of
exceptional difficulty. So far as the Arabs are concerned, their
inevitable result must be to impair the status of the Jewish









Agency in Arab eyes, and to strengthen the hands of the ill-
disposed sections of the Arab population.

o09. Nor is it by any means only in these cases that the
White Paper would almost appear to have gone out of its way
H.S., p. 9. to discredit and disparage the Jews. "Nothing is more fatal for
the peace of Palestine," says Sir John Hope Simpson, than
emphasis on the differences rather than on the common
interests of the two constituents of the population." It is
unfortunate that this warning would appear to have been
disregarded by the authors of the White Paper. The White
Paper contains a whole series of statements which, directly or
by implication, emphasise these differences, and can only be
interpreted as meaning that, in the opinion of His Majesty's
Government, the Arabs have, in fact, good reason to regard the
Jews as their enemies. The following passages may be left to
speak for themselves :

W.P., para. (i.) "It would be unjust to accept the contention that
15. the effect of Jewish settlement on the Arab population has
in all cases been detrimental to the interests of the Arabs.
This is by no means wholly true."
lb., para. 18. (ii.) Some of the attempts which have been made to
prove that Zionist colonisation has not had the effect of
causing the previous tenants of land acquired to join the
landless class have, on examination, proved to be uncon-
vincing, if not fallacious."

Ib., para. 28. (iii.) So long as widespread suspicion exists-and it
does exist-among the Arab population, that the eco-
nomic depression under which they undoubtedly suffer
at present is largely due to excessive Jewish immigra-
tion, and so long as some grounds exist upon which this
suspicion may plausibly be represented to be well-
founded. .. "

In the same spirit, paragraph 26 of the White Paper, without
actually saying so, is plainly calculated to suggest that the
Jewish Labour Federation is identified with extremist and revo-
lutionary views, while paragraph 19 goes out of its way to
throw doubt on the sincerity of the Carlsbad resolution of 1921,
in which the Zionist Congress declared the desire of the
Jewish people to live with the Arab people in relations of
friendship and mutual respect."









Iio. It is characteristic of the spirit in which the White
Paper seems to have been conceived that, while straining every
point which can be made to the disadvantage of the Jews, and
making invidious suggestions which in some cases seem to
have been quite gratuitously introduced for their own sake,
the White Paper refrains from giving any prominence to the
positive advantages which Palestine has derived from Jewish
colonisation. Save for a few perfunctory references, which make
no impression whatever compared with the numerous passages
in which the Jews are disparaged, the White Paper gives the
Jews not the slightest credit for their constructive achieve-
ments. It is not over-stating the case to say that the im-
pression conveyed is that the Arabs are merely asked to recog-
nise the presence of the Jews in Palestine as a disagreeable
necessity from which there is unfortunately no escape. That
the value of the Jewish effort in Palestine should pass so com-
pletely unrecognised in a document in which so much stress is
laid upon their failings is all the more remarkable in view of
the numerous tributes which have on other occasions been
paid to the Jews, both by representatives of the Government
and by Sir John Hope Simpson :
(1) Speaking at Geneva at the recent meeting of the Perma-
nent Mandates Commission, Dr. Shiels said :
I wish to take this opportunity, however, of publicly P.M.C., 17th
associating the British Government with the opinion Session,
expressed by the Commission as to the benefits that have P 3
been conferred upon Palestine by the remarkable enter-
prise and devotion of the Jewish people."
(2) The Annual Report of the Palestine Government for
1925 states that :
The increase of commercial activities and building
enterprise and new industrial developments is due almost
entirely to Jewish capital."
The same Report points out that : P.G.R.,
1925, p. 38.
The Arab rural community benefits largely from in-
creased immigration, and industrial activity, which create
a large demand for all classes of produce."

(3) The Annual Report for 1926 states that it is the influx of
Jewish capital









which has made possible the accumulation of surplus
balances "
by the Treasury, thus paving the way for the execution of the
public works of which the country stands in need.

(4) The Report for 1927 speaks of the
P.G.R., "important contributions which Jewish capital and
1927, p. 6. enterprise have made to the general economic progress of
the country."

III. Side by side with these acknowledgments of what post-
war Palestine owes to the Jews, to which many others could be
added from official sources, may be placed a whole series of
extracts of a similar tenour from the report of Sir John Hope
Simpson.
H.S., p. 17. He speaks of the valuable work done by the Jews in the
Ib., p. 26. introduction of improved methods of agriculture; he pays a
tribute to the anti-malarial work of the Zionist Organisation
Ib., p. 74. and other Jewish agencies; he refers to the services rendered
to Palestine agriculture in general by the Jewish Agricultural
Ib., p. 78. Experiment Station; he speaks of the Jews as pioneers in
Ib., p. 80. afforestation ; he mentions that the only agricultural school for
Arabs to be found in Palestine owes its existence to a Jewish
Ib., p. 92. benefaction; he points out that the expansion now attained
by the orange trade is due largely to the scientific methods of
Ib., p. 113. the Jewish colonists; he states that the remarkable develop-
ment of industry since the war is almost entirely due to the
importation of Jewish capital and the immigration of a Jewish
population.

112. Such passages as these find no echo in the White Paper;
it appears to have proceeded on precisely the opposite principle
to that laid down by the Permanent Mandates Commission,
which in its recent Report laid stress on the desirability of
P.M.C., 17th convincing the Arab fellahin of the "undeniable material
esson, advantages that Palestine has derived from the efforts of the
Zionists."












CONCLUSION


113. We have now completed our explanation of the grounds
for regarding the White Paper as unfortunate in its contents
and (it must, unhappily, be added) not less unfortunate in its
tone and outlook. One of its most regrettable features is its
tendency to exacerbate those differences between Jews and
Arabs which it exhorts the two parties to compose. As shown
by the illustrations already quoted, the White Paper repeatedly
suggests, in effect, that Jewish colonisation is a danger to the
Arabs-a danger from which it is the Government's main pre-
occupation to protect them. It consistently presents the Jews
in an unfavourable light, and makes no attempt to show-
what it would have had no difficulty in showing-that Jewish
colonisation has in many respects been of direct material advan-
tage to Palestine as a whole. This can hardly be said to be
the happiest way of improving Arab-Jewish relations.

114. And in another respect also the White Paper is unfor-
tunately conceived from this point of view. The restrictions
which are proposed to be placed on Jewish immigration and
settlement purport to be based on the Mandatory's obligation
under the Mandate. Faced with a construction of the Mandate
which it believes to be mistaken, the Jewish Agency cannot
silently acquiesce in the straining of the Mandate to its disadvan-
tage, and is obliged to place its protest on record. It is, there-
fore, driven, however unwillingly, into a close examination of
those Articles of the Mandate to which His Majesty's Govern-
ment more particularly refer. It is, in other words, placed in
the position of having to choose between seeming to acquiesce
in a construction of the Mandate which it believes to be strained
to its disadvantage, and giving the impression that it is wholly
unconcerned with the interests of the Arabs, and claims that
nothing should be done for them beyond the minimum which
the Mandate requires. It must, therefore, be made clear that,
while the Jewish Agency does not pretend that the advance-








ment of Arab interests is in itself the main ground for the
establishment of the Jewish National Home, or must be pleaded
to justify it, it is and has always been the sincere desire of the
Jewish people that their activities in Palestine should contri-
bute to the welfare of the population as a whole, and their firm
conviction that this will prove to be the case. It is emphati-
cally denied that there has at any time been any departure on the
part of the Jews from the spirit of the Carlsbad resolution of
1921 which the White Paper so gratuitously seeks to discredit.
It remains true, as it has always been true, that the Jewish
people desire
to live with the Arab people on terms of concord and
mutual respect, and together with them to make the
common home into a flourishing Commonwealth, the
upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an
undisturbed national development."

115. But the Jews, too, have their rights, and the White
Paper represents the latest stage in what the Jewish Agency
cannot but regard as a continuous whittling down of the Balfour
Declaration as originally framed. How the Jewish people and
the world at large were invited to interpret the Declaration at
the time it was issued, and in the period which immediately
followed, has already been abundantly illustrated. The policy
of the White Paper of 1922 was loyally accepted and has been
faithfully complied with, but it. cannot honestly be denied that
the Jews had some grounds for the view that in some respects it
hardly corresponded to the expectations which they had been
invited to form. Nevertheless, they accepted the situation,
and confidently counted upon the active co-operation of His
Majesty's Government in furthering the development of the
Jewish National Home, as the White Paper defined it.

116. The next step was to limit the area within which the
development of the Jewish National Home might proceed, by
cutting off Transjordan, thus seriously prejudicing the economic
interests of Western Palestine by depriving it of its natural
hinterland. In the area which still remained available for the
settlement of Jews, there were two fertile and extensive tracts
of State lands which Jewish enterprise might have helped to
make productive, and which might, in turn, have been enabled
to make room for large numbers of Jewish settlers. In both








cases the opportunity has been thrown away. After the lapse
of ten years, Huleh remains a swamp, while the agricultural
resources of Beisan have been distributed among the Arabs
with such lavish generosity that the beneficiaries themselves
are unable to make use of their unmanageable holdings and
are in many cases throwing their land on to the market.
117. Thus obstacle after obstacle has been set up to the
building of the Jewish National Home, and step by step the
area available for Jewish settlement has been more narrowly
circumscribed. In these circumstances, it might have been
expected that His Majesty's Government, within the limits of
the possibilities which still remain, would actively exert them-
selves to facilitate the establishment of the National Home,
and, in particular, to encourage Jewish immigration and close
settlement by Jews on the land. The Jewish Agency has always
unreservedly acknowledged the important advantages which
Palestine as a whole has derived from the British Mandate, and
the progress which it has made in a variety of directions under
the British Administration. If Jews throughout the world were
from the outset unanimous in asking that the administration
of Palestine should be entrusted to Great Britain, it was because
of their deep admiration for British administrative methods,
and their confident belief in British goodwill. Despite many
disappointments, they have never lost that faith. Shocked
though they were by the painful events of 1929, deeply as they
were discouraged by the failure of the Palestine Government
to give Jewish life and property the protection to which they
were manifestly entitled, the Jews still clung to the conviction
that Great Britain would not fail them. When it was announced
a year later that a fresh statement of British policy was about
to be issued, they looked forward to the announcement of a
policy which would make it clear that a new and more hopeful
chapter was about to open, and that the repeated acknow-
ledgments by His Majesty's Government of their responsi-
bilities in the matter of the National Home were to be
translated into practical measures designed to further that
object. It did not occur to them that the only measures
affecting the National Home would prove to be measures
designed to impose further restrictions on Jewish immigra-
tion and settlement, if not, indeed, to bring them to a stand-
still.







118. Nothing could be more distressing to the Jewish Agency
than to find itself in a position in which it must either protest
against the White Paper, or mislead His Majesty's Government
as to the feelings of those for whom it speaks. Nothing would
have been more welcome to the Agency than to be able whole-
heartedly to co-operate with the policy which His Majesty's
Government have announced. The Agency is deeply conscious
of its duty to the Mandatory Power; but it has also a paramount
duty to the Jewish people, and it is bound to make it clear that
Jews throughout the world are unanimous in the belief that the
policy of the White Paper is not in harmony with the spirit of
those provisions of the Mandate which make the Mandatory
responsible for creating in Palestine such political, economic
and social conditions as will secure the establishment of the
Jewish National Home.

77 Great Russell Street,
London, W.C. i.
November 12th, 1930.











APPENDIX I


Al-Jamea,
August 22nd, 1930,
Jerusalem.
STATEMENT FROM THE ARAB EXECUTIVE TO THE NOBLE ARAB
POPULATION OF PALESTINE
O Palestinians, some time ago you have celebrated one of
your memorable days. To-morrow, you will meet another
similar day. This is the 23rd day of August. On the same
day in the last year your blood was made licit and to violate
your sanctuaries was made lawful and 120 of your children
died as martyrs. You waited for the sentences of the courts
concerning them (the Jews ?) and you never imagined that they
would have two weights and two measures. They inflicted
punishment upon you and not on your behalf. Thus the blood
of your martyrs was shed with impunity and their lives were
lost in vain. The gallows testify to the sentences of the courts
and the prisons are witnesses against them. Their secret
designs are by far more serious. Do you know this ?
O Palestinians, woe unto the plan which has been arranged
and drawn up with a view to persecuting you, and driving
you out from your houses, so that they may be occupied by
others and that a people concerning whom the Almighty
said, Humiliation and poverty have been bestowed upon
them and they are confronting God's anger may be fortified
Lo, this is the well-known offensive and traditional policy
aiming at humiliating Arabs and Moslems, at replacing the
Arab domination by the English and the language of the Koran
by the English language.
0 compatriots, your sacred cause is the offspring of the Arab
movement, the fruit of great sacrifices and efforts. Relying
on the clear pledges and the definite promises given by Great
Britain concerning the realisation of your independence and
your liberation, you had unsheathed the sword before the
Ottoman Government, the State of the Caliphate and Islam.
You never imagined that she would violate her pledges and









break her promise and that she would launch against you
criminal Zionism to invade your country and combat you
with money and men. In the meantime that you were busy
repulsing the attacks of Zionism, she consolidated the foun-
dations of the direct British rule, sweeping out your liberty
and independence and destroying every manifestation of your
sovereignty and self-government.
O Palestinians, what has befallen you is the greatest calamity
and the most serious danger. It is neither a Mandate nor a
protectorate, but it is purely English Administration. The
Government is from the English and for the English. Judg-
ments are issued in their name.
The flag flying is theirs. Nothing is left to you, as if you
were strangers in your country, outcasts in your own home.
This is, by God, a pure injustice and a rare calamity, like which
you have never experienced since the days of Saleh Eddine who
rescued the East and Islam from their hands.
O Palestinians, your cause is a sacred trust upon your
shoulders. Your forefathers kept it before you by the force of
their faith, and the loyalty of their intentions. It would be
unworthy on your part to forsake or abandon it. Do carry
it as they did. The way to liberty is full with obstacles and
dangers. Step into it with patience and heroism, as your
brethren of the neighboring Arab countries do.
This movement is a wide and long ended one. Join it for
the sake of liberty. Peoples cannot have dignity without liberty
and nations cannot enjoy respect if they are not independent.
O Palestinians, you shall strike to-morrow, Saturday, the
23rd day of August. Let your strike be general, peaceful and
quiet. Remember your martyrs and arrange religious services
in your Mosques and temples in their memory.
Protest against the stealing of your liberty and independence.
Show to-morrow that you love peace and respect order, that
you know the way how to control your passion and master
your feelings, and that you re-affirm your rights in a silent and
peaceful way.
Trust upon God's justice and look for it with hearts full with
faith and energy.
The power of tyranny lasts for one hour and that of right
shall last for ever.
JERUSALEM,
Friday, August 22nd, 1930.











APPENDIX II
FROM "MANDATE FOR PALESTINE" PREPARED IN THE
DIVISION OF EASTERN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, 1927, pp. 56-57.

Extract from letter dated December 22nd, 1921, from the
British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the American
Ambassador:
His Majesty's Government report that they cannot see their
way to adopt the suggested introduction into the Palestine
Mandate of the provision of Article 7 of the British Mandate
for East Africa, on the subject of concessions quoted in your
Memorandum of August 2Ist. The suggestion appears to His
Majesty's Government to overlook the peculiar condition
existing in Palestine, and especially the great difference in the
natures of the task assumed in that country and undertaken
by them in East Africa. So far as Palestine is concerned,
Article II of the Mandate expressly provides that the adminis-
tration may arrange with the Jewish Agency mentioned in
Article 4 to develop any of the natural resources of the
country in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken
by the administration. The reason for this is that in order that
the policy of establishing in Palestine a natural home for
the Jewish people should be successfully carried out. It is
impracticable to guarantee that equal facilities for developing
the natural resources of the country should be granted to
persons and bodies who may be actuated by other motives.
The general spirit of the Palestine Mandate, in the view of
His Majesty's Government, seems to render unnecessary the
insertion of any especial provision preventing the Mandatory
trom developing natural resources of the country for his own
benefit."




THE WHITEFRIARS PRESS, LTD., LONDON AND TONBRIDGE








ERRATA.


Page.
14, para. 17 (a)
line I
36, last line but
one
61. eight lines
from bottom .
73, last line of


qu
89, 1


Read


" admits "


" states."


" earlier photograph areT

Omit aware at beginning of line.


photographed"


rotation ." ground "basis."
ine Io British B."
,, 13 condition conditions."
15 task "tasks."
,22 natural" national."
23 ". carried out. It is .. . carried out, it
is . ."
,, 25 resources resources."
30 developing natural re- "developing the na-
sources tural resources . "




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs