Palestine Arab Delegation - Correspondence Regarding Balfour Agreement III lyrics

No. 3. The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. HOTEL CECIL, LONDON, W.C. 16th March, 1922. SIR, We have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your favour of 1st, March, 1922,* [* No. 2.] to which we hereby reply. (1) With reference to Articles 2 and 3 of your reply, we beg to state that the Delegation represent the mind of the whole Moslem and Christian population of Palestine. While we have never pretended to represent the Jews, still we would point out that a large section of the Jews in Palestine and the majority of the Jews of the world are not in favour of the Zionist Movement. (2) Our statement that the People of Palestine cannot accept the creation of a National Home for the Jewish People in Palestine as a basis for negotiation, is due to the following reasons :— (a) In 1915, before the Balfour Declaration was published, His Majesty's Government made a pledge to the Arabs in which it undertook to recognise the independence of those Arab States which had formerly belonged to Turkey. Palestine is one of these States as is clearly seen by reference to King Hussein's letter dated 14th July, 1915, in which the Western boundary is denoted by "the Red Sea and the Mediterranean." There can be no question that Palestine comes within these boundaries. (b) The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is "the well-being and development of the people" of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their a**ociation with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant. (c) Article XX of the Covenant reads: "The Members of this League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof. "In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations." The promise to the Zionists is not in keeping with the terms of this Article. (d) Great Britain and her Allies declared their aim in carrying on the war in the Near East to be "to a**ure the complete and final liberation of the people so long oppressed by the Turks, and the establishment of governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the native populations." (3) A.—At the end of Article 4 of your letter under reply you say: "There is no question of treating the People of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria ; the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge, which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies." The above statement constitutes the strongest proof that the Jewish National Home undertaking is the cause of depriving us of our natural right of establishing an independent government the same as Mesopotamia and the Hedjaz. The Delegation cannot, however, but feel that the traditional sense of justice inherent in His Majesty's Government will induce it to cancel an unfair promise and to carry out its pledges to King Hussein which are at the same time in keeping with the spirit of the Covenant. B.—As to your reference in the same paragraph to Articles 94 to 97 of the Treaty of Sevres as interpreting Article 22 of the Covenant in so far as it applies to territories severed from the Ottoman Empire, we would state that the Treaty of Sevres has not as yet been ratified by all the Powers concerned. Further, a conference is soon being held in Paris of the Foreign Ministers of the Allies to revise those of its provisions dealing with the Near East, since it has long been evident that the Treaty, as it now stands, is impossible of execution. This being the case we cannot see how the Secretary of State can legally base any of his arguments on the Treaty of Sevres. 4. We confirm your diagnosis in Articles 6 and 7 of your reply of the feelings of the People of Palestine, in that they are not satisfied with the interpretation of the Jewish National Home and the safeguards to the Arabs contained in the High Commissioner's pronouncement of 3rd June, 1921, and endorsed by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons in his speech of 14th June of the same year. It is an incontrovertible fact that public security in Palestine has been greatly disturbed by those Jews who have been admitted into the country from Poland and Russia, that arms are continually being smuggled in by them, and that their economic competition with the Arabs is very keen. The Delegation are, therefore, convinced that nothing will safeguard their interests but the creation of a National Government on the lines laid down in No. 2 of our demands found at the close of our letter to you dated 21st February, 1922. A National Government is the only authority that is competent to decide what is good and what is bad for these people. 5. The Delegation would point out in reference to paragraph (8) of your communication under reply, that the recognition of the Zionist Organisation as a "public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine" on no matter what question is totally illegal. Jews dwelling in Palestine will have their share of representation in proportion to their numbers. As regards the Draft Mandate for Palestine on which the policy of the Jewish National Home depends for its execution, this has not yet been considered by the League of Nations. Moreover, the Arabs of Palestine do not accept it but protest, and have always protested, against it. 6. With regard to the proposal for the "formation of an immigration board" contained in paragraph (9) of your communication, the Delegation are glad to know that the Secretary of State looks upon immigration as "of vital concern to all sections of the population," and that this proposed board "should be representative of Palestinians of all cla**es." We note, however, that the Zionist Organisation will also have a point of view with regard to immigration which must be considered, and that the capacity of this proposed board will be in effect consultative. This cannot dispel the apprehensions of the Arabs. The best safeguard is the creation of a National Government which will consider the question of immigration in so far as it is compatible with the interests and capacity of the country. 7. The Secretary of State declares in Article 11, paragraph (b), that "the majority of Colonies are in the same position that Palestine would enjoy under the draft Constitution," implying that Palestine is a British Colony. We are surprised that the Secretary of State should include Palestine in this category, when in reality it is one of those "communities which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, whose independence can be provisionally recognised" as in paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant; while the Allies so often declare that they had not entered the war for self-aggrandisement and colonisation. Since representative government is not foreign to the People of Palestine, and since the power of legislation should be circumscribed to the Legislative Council, the introduction into this body of official and nominated members places these members in the awkward position of Legislators, and at the same time responsible to the Legislative Council. We therefore ask that all the Members of the Legislative Council be elected so that they may exercise the power of supervision and control over the actions of the government whose creation we ask. 8. In describing the High Commissioner as Zionist, to which the Secretary of State takes objection in Clause (ii) of Article 11, the Delegation were simply repeating the words of the Colonial Secretary which appeared in his speech of June 14th, 1921, in the House of Commons, when he referred to Sir Herbert Samuel as an "ardent Zionist." 9. Referring to Clause (iv) of Article 11 of your communication, the Delegation cannot agree to the provision giving the High Commissioner the right to veto measures pa**ed by the Legislative Council dealing with local matters. Should, on the other hand, any difference arise between this Legislative Council and the National Government, there can be found expedients to hold the scale evenly between the two. With regard to differences arising concerning the Mandate, these might be referred to the Mandatory Power, once the terms of the Mandate are laid down in a manner that would safeguard the interests of the People of Palestine. 10. In Article (f) of our reply dated 21st February, 1922, we explained fully our grounds for objecting to the recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the Government. The Delegation cannot but see in this an expedient to further the Jewish National Home idea which the People of Palestine refuse to recognise. This novel introduction of Hebrew has had a bad effect on the feelings of the People. 11. We think that the power of altering, cancelling, explaining or adding to any Article in the Order in Council as dealt with under Paragraph (h) of your letter, should be relegated to the Legislative Council rather than to the High Commissioner. 12. The Delegation see no objection to the publication of this correspondence, but remark that hitherto they have only seen a precis of the Secretary of State's reply in the Press, and not their own letter. 13. The Delegation would here observe that the allowing of Jewish immigration into Palestine and the attempt at carrying out the Zionist policy is in direct contravention of Article 3 of the Hague Convention, which clearly states that a Power occupying a country should, as far as possible, carry out the laws and regulations of the preceding Government and should effect no vital change until the final status of that country had been regularized. The Delegation would beg the Secretary of State to look with sympathy and consideration at the bad conditions to which Palestine has arrived owing to this policy. 14. The Delegation further are fully convinced that the traditional sense of justice of His Majesty's Government must finally lead it to redress the injustice to the People of Palestine of such a policy. We would also here take this opportunity of a**uring the Secretary of State that the sole aim and object of this Delegation is to safeguard the rights and interests of the People of Palestine who have entrusted us with this sacred mission, and to arrive, in working harmoniously with His Majesty's Government, at a solution that would safeguard these interests and ensure the peace and happiness of the Holy Land. To this end the Delegation are most happy to negotiate with the Secretary of State or with any of his delegates. It is a subject of deep regret to the Delegation to seem so irresponsive to the Secretary of State's continued courtesy in considering our representations. The Delegation would, however, desire to remind the Secretary of State in this connection that the cause which has been entrusted to us is nothing less than the salvation of our small country, which has been handed down to us by our fathers and forefathers from time immemorial, from the aggression of the alien Jews. It might be remarked in conclusion that the Delegation has not entered into the details of the Constitution since no object could be gained in discussing details when the foundation on which these details are built is a subject of disagreement. We beg to remain, etc., MOUSSA KAZIM EL HUSSEINI, President. SHIBLY JAMAL, Secretary.