867N.01/1627
The Consul General at Jerusalem (Wadsworth) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 17.]
Sir: Since the submission of my last political despatch, No. 967 of June 13,95 reporting a hardening of initial Jewish and Arab reactions to the new British Palestine policy, the most significant political developments in this country, I have the honor to report, have centered on what appears to be a clear determination on the part of the British Government to put that policy promptly into effect insofar as may be possible in the light of the still troubled state of the country and of the unwillingness of either Jewish or Arab (except Nashashibi) leaders to cooperate therewith. Two items were outstanding, namely:
- 1)
- The promulgation by the High Commissioner (in the Palestine Gazette of June 15) of immigration quotas for the semester ending September 30, next—thus, in line with the new policy, fixing the “regular” Jewish half-yearly quota at 5,000 and permitting the early immigration of a slightly larger number of Jews to be charged against the special “refugee” quota of 25,000 to be admitted during the next five years; and
- 2)
- The promulgation (in London under date of May 25 but made public only today by publication in the official Palestine Gazette) of a “Palestine (Amendment) Order in Council, 1939” authorizing inter alia the making by the High Commissioner of “regulations prohibiting, restricting or regulating transfers of land in Palestine”—thus permitting, also in line with the new policy, the prohibition of further Jewish purchases of Arab land.
A full discussion of the new immigration quotas is given in my current despatch No. 978 of June 2695 which, I venture to note with special commendation, was prepared in large measure by Consul H. B. Minor who is in direct charge of the immigration and citizenship work of this office.
As to the second item: First indication of the British Government’s early intentions in this matter of the control of land transfers was given in a brief officially-inspired news bulletin carried on June 10 by the British Broadcasting Company and the Palestine Broadcasting Service. As reproduced in the local press of the following day it referred to the issuance of the Order in Council in question as one of the “steps being taken to put into force the new British policy for Palestine in those particulars in respect of which immediate action is possible.” Six days later the Palestine Attorney General had [Page 782] published in the local press a “Warning” addressed to “intending purchasers or vendors of land and any other persons concerned in any dispositions of land” advising them to refrain from carrying out such transactions since it might be found that they would be prohibited retroactively to May 18 under contemplated regulations. In informal conversation, the Attorney General added that such regulations had already been drafted by him and forwarded to London for approval. Further details as to their nature are indicated in the Order in Council published today which declares that they may:
- 1)
- Be made applicable only to transfers of land from Arabs to Jews or to other persons not being Arabs; or from Jews to Arabs or to other persons not being Jews; or from Arabs or Jews to any bodies of persons corporate or incorporate; and
- 2)
- Invalidate, or otherwise determine the effect of, any transfers made in contravention of the provisions of the regulations.
Further confirmation of British intentions in this matter of the enforcement of the new policy is to be had from press reports of the proceedings of the current June session of the Permanent Mandates Commission. Although necessarily brief and unofficial in character, these reports emphasize the strong stand taken by the British Colonial Secretary, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, in insisting that the new policy was consistent with the obligations assumed by Great Britain as Mandatory. He appeared before the Commission on June 15–17 and 20, following presentation by other British officials of the Mandatory’s “Annual Report on the Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the Year 1938.”
The Mandatory Government, Mr. MacDonald was reported as saying, was “entitled to receive from others who supported the objects of the Mandate, but risked no responsibility, a ready understanding of the practical difficulties which had arisen in the execution of the peculiarly difficult task.” His exposition followed the lines of that given in the British Parliamentary debate of May 22–23.97 The Jewish National Home was “established” and, “given reasonable and peaceful conditions, was secure and would grow”; but its “extension into a Jewish national state” would be resented “most bitterly” by the Arabs.
The recent hostilities in Palestine, he added with much force, “threatened to become the cause of permanent unrest throughout the Near and Middle East.” The new policy envisaged the eventual establishment of an independent state, perhaps “on a unitary basis” or “it might be a federal state” or—and here Mr. MacDonald spoke in full accord with the burden of local British official opinion—”maybe the best arrangement would be to establish a predominantly Arab [Page 783] province or provinces and a predominantly Jewish province or provinces and to give each of these political units a large measure of local autonomy under a central government dealing with matters of common concern.”
Reaction to these various developments in Arab circles, I am reliably informed, has been “generally favorable.” A cross-section of that reaction, I believe, may be expressed as follows:
Political discussion of, and opposition to, the new policy has diminished. The popular view is, generally, that the next move, or moves, is up to the Government. Britain must show its bona fides, reestablish confidence.
The new immigration quotas are reassuring only in principle. It is in September only, when we shall hear announcement of those for the year’s second semester, that we shall know whether the Administration really intends to penalize the Yishuv (Palestine Jewry) on account of the extensive current illegal immigration. More than 2,000 “illegals” are already known to have entered the country since the current quotas were fixed on May 24. Their total number is probably twice as large. By September their number will probably equal, if not exceed, that entering under the legal quotas. If the Administration does not deduct these illegal immigrants from the new quotas, we shall be disillusioned, and rightly so, on this score.
As to land sales, we are assured that satisfactory regulations have been drafted. But we want to see them and how they are applied. Again, while we would like to believe in British good faith, we have been so often disillusioned in the past that we feel it is only reasonable we should, before committing ourselves, be permitted first to observe whether Jewish pressure in London brings about any modification.
Generally speaking, we see that Mr. MacDonald has taken a firm stand at Geneva. But, certainly, there is nothing in the recently announced Alexandretta “arrangement” with Turkey to reassure us as to either French or British bona fides. What, notably, will the British do to put into effect the so-called constitutional provisions of the new policy if the Jews remain adamant, as they apparently will, in their opposition?
Further, we see no let-up in the despicable campaign of Jewish terrorism. The last fortnight was ushered in by the ghastly bomb outrage in Haifa which killed a score of innocent Arabs and wounded as many more. And this morning, after a fortnight of lesser incidents, we hear of six separate synchronized murderous attacks in and near Tel Aviv resulting in 13 Arab deaths and three serious woundings. What are the British authorities going to do to stop this?
Finally, it cannot be before September that the British Government will obtain, as it presumably will obtain, though one cannot be certain, the approval of its new policy by the League Council. Therefore, we want, in short, to “wait and see” before committing ourselves to anything.
This symposium of Arab views which I had obtained during the last few days was confirmed to me this evening at a small dinner at Government [Page 784] House by the two British officials closest to responsible local Arab circles, i. e. Mr. Justice Greene and Mr. A. L. Kirkbride who, since the flight of the Mufti in October 1937, have directed the affairs of the Moslem Awkaf (Pious Foundations) Administration. It gives one to hope, as the High Commissioner suggested more than a fortnight earlier, that, with the passage of time, a substantial portion of the Arab population and their leaders may be brought to cooperate with the Administration under the new policy.
On this latter point, I have reported in current Press Reviews the persistent anti-Mufti campaign of the National Defence (Nashashibi) party. And there now appears to be some ground for believing that other factions represented on the Arab Higher Committee may be considering the possibility of joining the “opposition”, notably Auni Bey Abdul Hadi, leader of the Istiqlalist (Independence) Party, and Dr. Hussein Khalidi, former Mayor of Jerusalem and leader of a second important “family” faction. Their defection, however, if it come to that, while materially weakening the Mufti’s claim to paramount leadership, would, to quote Mr. Kirkbride, be but a first step towards reestablishing a state of political normalcy. There can be but little hope, then, that the coming summer will witness more than the beginning of Anglo-Arab rapprochement.
Meanwhile, in local Jewish circles, the new policy—which the Jewish-Agency-controlled Palestine Post of June 26 described as “threatening their interests, indeed their existence, while paying lip service to the Mandate”—continues to meet with unabated opposition. And press cables, notably those reporting the current annual convention in New York City of the Zionist Organization of America, indicate the existence of wholehearted support throughout the Diaspora. There is no withdrawal from the basic position that the new policy is flatly inconsistent with the Mandate, a position argued with elaborate detail in the Jewish Agency memoranda enclosed with my despatches Nos. 967 and 984 of June 13 and 28.99
Specifically, the threatened Jewish campaign of “non-cooperation” shows signs rather of stiffening than of abandonment, in spite of some official British comment to the effect that “it is only a question of time before the Jews will have to fall in line.” Notably, the projected Buy-Palestine-Products campaign has been well launched; as witness my telegram of June 22 [23],1 reporting inter alia the pressure brought to bear on the leading Jewish importer of (chiefly American) apples and pears to curtail his foreign purchases. Under Jewish Agency aegis, also, a United Front of Jewish Youth organizations has been founded (at Tel Aviv on June 25) reputedly “to conduct joint action for the purpose of defending immigration, colonization, [Page 785] the maintenance of Jewish rights, Jewish labor, the Hebrew language and national discipline and to place the youth at the service of the National institutions.”
To Consul Scott, who is in charge of the Consulate’s economic reporting work, Mr. David Ben-Zvi, Chairman of the Vaad Leumi (National Council of Palestine Jews) and a leader of the dominant Jewish Labor Party, said early this week that the Buy-Palestine-Products campaign would be carried through to success in spite of any opposition from business interests dealing in imported “luxury” articles. “If this means the bankruptcy of shop-keepers and others,” he insisted, “it will be all for the best in the broader economy of the Yishuv. We shall be able to place the failures in the agricultural colonies. We want, as a matter of fact, to raise our percentage of Jews who live off the soil from the present 25 per cent to at least one-third.”
On the subject of the current Jewish terrorist campaign, I find general acceptance of the view that the actual acts of sabotage and murderous violence are the work of a small group of extremist youth, presumably of or affiliated with the Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization) under Revisionist inspiration. Responsible leaders are strongly opposed to this form of “direct” action, realizing that it is seriously prejudicial to their plea for foreign (notably British and American) support.
But, as recently phrased by a leading Jewish-American professor of the Hebrew University and confirmed by my well-informed Hebrew interpreter and others, “while individually very few Jews could be brought to perpetrate or would condone such acts, there are many who understand and cannot but sympathize with the feelings of those who are led to commit them.” These more objective observers view the future with misgiving, fearing that the responsible leaders will be unable to restrain the extremists and that the cause of Zionism will progressively lose that measure of foreign sympathy without which the effectiveness of its campaign against the new policy will be materially weakened.
A simple instance to point this generality, taken from yesterday’s official press releases: An Arab villager entering the city by way of an outlying Jewish quarter was shot in the leg by a Jew. He “grappled with the Jew and took the pistol from him.” Other Jews “attracted by the shots” came to the scene but “instead of assisting in the capture of the would-be murderer they assisted him to escape and returned his pistol to him. As a punishment for this flagrant case of aiding and abetting terrorism the Military Commander ordered that all Jewish shops in the area be closed for 48 hours.”
Among British officials it is accepted as axiomatic that no Jew can be brought to lay information against a co-religionist. So long as [Page 786] this is true and Jewish public opinion or leadership is unable to restrain the extremists, they hold, there can be no peace in Palestine. Thus, I close this despatch on a generally pessimistic note. To quote one more optimistic: “Appeasement, if possible of realization, will be, at best, a long and difficult business.”
Respectfully yours,