Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1938, The British Commonwealth, Europe, Near East, and Africa, Volume II

867N.01/1295

The Consul General at Jerusalem (Wadsworth) to the Secretary of State

No. 752

Jerusalem, October 26, 1938.
[Received November 19.]

Sir: I have the honor to enclose a copy of an open letter addressed to the London Times (published in the paper’s issue of September 22, 1938),⁹¹ signed by the Bishop in Jerusalem for the Anglican Church, George Francis Graham-Browne; W. H. Stewart, Anglican Archdeacon in Jerusalem; C. T. Bridgeman, American Chaplain and Canon, St. George’s Cathedral, Jerusalem; and Miss Mabel C. Warburton, Christian educator in Palestine. Canon Bridgeman, in addition to his religious duties, acts as Palestine correspondent for the London Times and is the author of a number of interesting despatches which have received considerable attention (e. g. that reported in despatch No. 654 of July 8, 1938⁹²).

It will be observed that the communication is an appeal to the British authorities and public to consider the Christian interests in Palestine, and is at the same time a denial that the country is capable of solving the European Jewish problem. I believe it merits careful reading by the Department. To recapitulate the letter, it has as its major premises:

1) Palestine is incapable of absorbing enough immigrants to solve the European Jewish problem, and this problem, moreover, should be solved by the Christian powers at their expense and not at the expense of the Arabs of Palestine.

2) The Jewish claim to Palestine on the basis of prophecy is declared in the New Testament to have been abrogated.

3) The Balfour declaration was inconsistent with itself and with the theory of Mandates, and, originally vague in its form of expression, has never been given an interpretation that was final.

4) Palestine is the Holy Land of three faiths, not two.

Its principal conclusions are:

1) Partition can only be a temporary settlement of the Palestine problem, whose permanent solution should be based upon the development of cooperation between the races.

2) If partition, even temporary partition, is decided upon as an administrative necessity at this time, it must be a partition which recognizes the inalienable rights of the people who inhabited the land at the beginning of the Mandate, follows present ethnic groupings, provides a Mandatory Area large enough to accommodate those who do not wish to remain either in the Arab or Jewish state, and affords opportunity to the Christian churches to preserve their respective inheritances and to continue their activities in the Holy Land in the interests of 500 million Christians.

For some time, the Christian point of view toward the Palestine problem has been engaging my attention as an aspect of the subject which appears to have been neglected by most commentators, who confine their discussions largely to the Arab and Jewish sides of the question. Local representatives of Christian bodies and institutions have often expressed to me their opinion that more attention should be given to the important interests in Palestine of the world’s large Christian population and to the manner in which these interests may be affected by partition or other proposed measures. Many of these Christian leaders are opposed to partition because they fear that the scheme will result in a decline in the importance of Christian influence and institutions in the Holy Land and will diminish opportunities for Christian missionary work and other activities.

While a few of the Christian leaders gave evidence, for the most part in camera, before the Palestine Royal Commission, they have made little or no effort to give general public expression to their views. Nor, to my knowledge, has there been any formal consultation on the subject between Christian leaders of different denominations. The publication of the letter signed by the Anglican Bishop and his colleagues is, therefore, a significant first attempt to arouse public opinion to the importance of Christian interests in Palestine, and has given these interests a prominence which they have not had before.

In December 1937, I discussed this subject at considerable length with Bishop Graham-Browne, who gave me a copy of a memorandum which he has prepared “regarding the universal religious significance of Palestine”. He told me that the memorandum embodied views on local Christian interests given in his testimony before the Royal Commission and later before the Partition Commission. A copy of the memorandum and a copy of a personal letter⁹³ on the subject written me by the Bishop on January 28, 1938, are being forwarded herewith for comparison with the letter recently published in the London Times. The memorandum, as will be noted, is chiefly concerned with expressing objections to partition, holding that guarantees (as referred to in the Mandate and in the Royal Commission’s report) as to “the protection and rights of the Christian Holy places” will not satisfy the Christian’s conscience “regarding the treatment of the Holy Land and the preservation of its unique position in the world”, and implying that the whole of the country, in view of its importance as the Holy Land of three faiths, should continue to be administered “by a Government at the request of an acknowledged international body and subject to its ultimate authority”.

By and large, the Christian clergy in Palestine, of all denominations, tends to sympathize with the Arab cause, at least in so far as the Arab grievances concerning Jewish immigration and fears of Jewish domination are concerned. The reason for this sympathy is partly that nearly all members of the Christian religious communities are Arabs, whose views naturally influence the clergy and missionary workers. Most important, however, is the general view that if Jewish ambitions are realized, it will be at the expense of Christian privileges and influence in the Holy Land. Thus, sympathy of the Christian clergy with the Arab cause is founded on the common ground which they have with the Arabs, namely, fear of Jewish encroachment in the country. It does not go so far, however, as to support Arab ambitions for independence. On the contrary, Arab rule of the entire country is regarded, from the Christian point of view, as being almost as much to be avoided as Jewish rule.

The partition scheme is disapproved by the Christian clergy and by the Christian community on the grounds that the scheme does not provide sufficient safeguards for the Christian inhabitants of the country, particularly those who would be left residing in either the Jewish or the Arab state as proposed by the Royal Commission. Further, it is felt that Christian rights and privileges, now extending to the whole country, will be much reduced by restriction to the proposed Jerusalem corridor area and certain isolated localities to remain under British Mandate. On the whole, it may be said that the Christians in the country, clergy as well as laity, are hoping that the British Mandate over all of the country will be continued.

Although the majority of Christian Arabs are making a common cause with the Moslem Nationalists agitating for independence, it is generally recognized that their attitude is due in large measure to the fear of the consequences if they should do otherwise. It is well known that most Christian Arabs, while professing to espouse the Arab independence movement, are apprehensive of the treatment they might receive in a Moslem state and would prefer that the Mandate be continued for the whole of the country.

As of possible interest in this connection, there is enclosed a copy from the Palestine Post, October 14, of a summary of an article⁹⁴ entitled “Distortion of History—Plea for Arabic Speaking Christians”, originally published in the Church Times, London, of September 30, and written by that journal’s Jerusalem correspondent. After a complaint that the history and interests of “110,000 Arabic speaking Christians” in Palestine were given insufficient attention in the Royal Commission’s report, the correspondent asserts “it is a mistake to assume that the political interests of the native Christians necessarily coincide with those of the Moslem Arabs merely because they are at present afraid not to make common cause with them”. Continuing, figures are given showing the proportion of the Christian population which “will be given over to non-Christian rule” in the Jewish and Arab states proposed by the Royal Commission; and, in conclusion, a reminder is given “that international Christian interest has done much for Palestine and that the country’s first modern schools and hospitals owed their existence to Christian charity”.

Among the Christian groups in Palestine, the Roman Catholics, (“Latins” in local usage) are recognized to be the most important from the point of view of political influence. Although the Greek Orthodox church has the largest number of adherents among the native Christians, the Roman Catholic Church has been more active in educational work and in the operation of hospitals and other charitable endeavor. Members of the Christian clergy in Palestine (priests, monks, nuns, missionaries, and others) number about 3,500 persons, of whom nearly one-half are Roman Catholic. It is estimated that the Christian population of the country is divided approximately as follows:

	Number	Percentage of total
Roman Catholic (including Uniats)	43,000	39
Greek Orthodox	48,000	49
Anglican and other Protestants	9,000	8
Armenian and minor Eastern churches	5,000	5
Others	5,000	5
	110,000	100

Of the approximately 22,000 students attending the Christian schools in the country (compared with 43,000 students at Government schools for Arabs), nearly 20 per cent are Moslems and about 5 per cent are Jews. At secondary Christian schools, the attendance is almost three times as large as in Government schools, i. e., 1400 against 500. There is almost no non-Jewish attendance at Jewish schools, which have approximately 58,000 students. The importance of Christian hospitals is even more outstanding, as shown by the following statistics from the Palestine Government’s Blue Book for 1936 (the large number of Moslems and Jews admitted to Christian hospitals will be noted):

	No. of Beds	Admissions
		Moslems	Christians	Jews	Others	Total
Christian Hospitals	1,126	7,872	4,373	2,091	1,729	16,068
Jewish Hospitals	769	22	12	13,377	–	13,411
Government Hospitals	844	7,724	2,409	8,552	129	18,814
	2,739	15,618	6,794	24,020	1,858	48,293

As explained previously, local Christian leaders have been reluctant to express publicly their views on the country’s political situation, or to recommend political measures which they believe should be taken to protect Christian interests. This reluctance is apparently due in part to a feeling that it is inappropriate that Christian clergy should intervene in politics. There are, however, other reasons, applicable especially to the more influential groups, the Latins and the Greek Orthodox.

With respect to the Greek Orthodox, the clergy is under the influence of the laity which is composed largely of Arabs who sympathize with the Moslem Nationalists. I am reliably informed that the members of the Greek Orthodox community have made it known to their religious leaders that pronouncements on their behalf as Christians would be prejudicial to them because of the possible effect upon their future relations with Moslems. The Greek Orthodox clergy is also apprehensive, for its own sake, of taking any steps which might be harmful to the future relations of the Church with Moslems in the event an Arab independent state should be established.

As to the Roman Catholics, the local clergy takes the stand that any intervention in the country’s political problem should come from the Vatican. In my Press Review No. 644 of June 27, 1938,⁹⁵ mention was made of my conversation with Cardinal Dougherty, Archbishop of Pennsylvania, during his brief visit to Jerusalem. From this conversation, I gathered that the Vatican is concerned particularly with the preservation of its rights in connection with the Christian holy sites, but is postponing any formal intervention until a more definite line of political settlement is proposed by the British Government.

To return to the letter recently published in the London Times, its general tenor is, I believe, approved by most of the local Christian leaders (not only by Anglicans and other Protestants but also by Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Armenians, and others), especially with respect to the implications that Jewish immigration should cease and the general principle that in seeking a solution more consideration should be given to the Christian interests in the country. With the details given in the letter for a proposed plan of partition, there is perhaps considerable difference of opinion, but general agreement on features which support Christian rights and influence.

No comment regarding the letter has been observed in the Arab press. Obviously, the views expressed meet with general approval among the Christian Arabs. Moslems undoubtedly welcome the declaration that Palestine is incapable of absorbing large numbers of Jewish immigrants, but, being opposed to partition in any form, find little to please them in its style of presentation, i. e. suggested amendment of the partition plan.

The Jewish press naturally considers that the arguments presented in the letter are directed against Jewish interests. Typical of Jewish criticism is an editorial in the Palestine Post of September 30 (copy enclosed)⁹⁶ which characterizes the communication as an elaborate argument aiming at closing to the Jews “the gates of the only country to which they were solemnly assured by His Majesty’s Government, with the support of the League of Nations, that they would be entitled to enter ‘as of right and not on sufferance’”. The weekly Palestine Review of October 7 says that acceptance of the Bishop’s proposals would be “tantamount to a rescinding of the Mandate”. Particular umbrage is taken by Hatzofe, Mizrahi organ, which expostulates: “As if others were the rightful owners of Palestine, and not the Jews, its historical owners”.

I have thought it desirable to submit the above comment and the enclosed documentation in the belief that the information thus presented may be of interest to the Department, and also to Christian leaders in the United States, in connection with the forthcoming publication of the report of the Palestine Partition Commission and such subsequent action as may be taken by the British Government. To Consul A. W. Scott should go the credit for the drafting and for much of the research on which it is based.

Respectfully yours,

George Wadsworth

91. Not reprinted.
92. Not printed.
93. Neither printed.
94. Not reprinted.
95. Not printed.
96. Not reprinted.