867N.01/1563: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Kennedy) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 25—9:08 a.m.]
736. Your 387, May 24, noon. The following references to the United States were made by spokesmen of the British Government in the Palestine debate in the House of Commons of May 22 and 23.
[Page 766]Mr. MacDonald, Colonial Secretary, in Ms opening speech of the debate of May 22 stated in connection with his analysis of British commitment to the Arabs and to the Jews:
“Let us look at these two sets of promises, the purpose of which was afterwards enshrined in the Mandate. First, there was the promise to the Jewish people. In November 1917 Mr. Balfour who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, addressed to the Zionist organization in the name of the British Government, a historic Declaration. The Declaration had already been approved by President Wilson on behalf of the United States of America79 and it was afterwards supported by others of the Allied and Associated powers. It promised that His Majesty’s Government would use their utmost endeavors to see established a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.”80
Mr. MacDonald made the following further reference to the United States.
“Then there is another set of interests which we have to protect; there are certain common [foreign] interests in Palestine. In a motion which appears on the Order Paper in the names of some of my right honorable and honorable friends mention is made particularly of the Anglo-American Convention of 1924. We are of course anxious that the interests of America referred to in that convention shall be properly assured at all times in the future. This statement on policy does not propose any alteration at all regarding the protection of those interests during the period while we retain mandatory control. The same is true of other foreign interests. Therefore, this question does not arise at all on the present White Paper. It is true that when Palestine becomes an independent state some new security for those interests will have to be given, but we state specifically in this Paper that before we can agree to the constitution and the treaty with the state, we shall have to be satisfied that the interest of foreign countries in Palestine for which we are at present responsible are being adequately safeguarded.”81
No further references to the United States were made by spokesmen of the Government during the remainder of the debate. However, in addition to the foregoing references, the following questions were asked and answers given at question time in the House of Commons on May 22.
“Mr. Hammersley asked the Prime Minister whether, in accordance with the Convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America respecting the rights of the two countries and their respective nationals in Palestine, 1924, the United States of America have approved of the modifications in the terms of the Mandate proposed in Command Paper 6019?
[Page 767]Mr. Butler (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs): No immediate modifications in the terms of the Mandate are proposed in Command Paper 6019. His Majesty’s Government have kept the United States Government fully informed of their proposals regarding the future status of Palestine, and will certainly inform them of any proposals it may eventually be intended to put before the Council of the League of Nations for the termination of the Mandate.
Mr. Hammersley: Is it not the fact that substantial amounts of American Jewish money are invested in Palestine, and will their interests be vitally prejudiced by the proposed new policy?
Mr. Butler: No sir. I cannot accept that. There is a provision in the White Paper which draws attention to the need for the consideration of foreign interests in Palestine.”82