695
Foreign Affairs
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. R. A. Butler indicated dissent.
Mr. Janner: With great respect, it was not because of the actions of the Israeli Government, it was in spite of the fact that the Israeli Government was function- ing that the terrible incident of the lamented death of Count Bernadotte occurred, and the Israeli Government are trying now-and the right hon. Gentle- man knows it-to root out those respon- sible, and are doing all they can to see that such incidents shall not occur in the future.
I should like my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to tell me why he has suddenly decided on the Bernadotte plan being sacrosanct when hitherto in respect of every other plan we decided that we could not accept it unless both Jews and Arabs agreed to the proposals. The Government would not support the resolution on partition on the grounds that, although the United States of America, Russia and the Dominions had accepted it, they could not accept anything unless both Arabs and Jews agreed. They would not accept any other suggestion that came forward on the same grounds. Yet immediately the Bernadotte proposals come forward, they are prepared to accept them, in spite of the fact that neither Jew nor Arab want them.
I will ask my hon. Friend another question. Why do we not encourage, instead of taking every step we can to discourage, conversations between those who are mainly interested in this matter
-the Jews and the Arabs? We have heard this afternoon that if they were left alone, they would come to a satisfactory settlement. That is well known. They are bound to come to a satisfactory settle- ment because, in fact, the Jew and the Arab in Palestine got on well together unless and until interfered with.
Statements are made that the Arabs were driven from Palestine to become refugees after the Mandate was termin- ated. This is not true. The case of Haifa is a good illustration of what hap- pened. Those of us who have the facts almost at first hand know that 30,000 Arabs had left Haifa by April and the rest who left did so before the Mandate was terminated. My hon. Friend knows very well that the British representative in Haifa, after the Haganah had come
109 N 36
Postal Packets
696
into Haifa, attended meetings of e Haifa Municipality where every conceiv- able request was made by the Jews to the Arabs who were there to remain. He knows very well that the British Autho- rities there advised them to remain. Why does he not say so?
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."- [Mr. Snow.]
10.0 p.m.
POSTAL PACKETS
(EXAMINATION)
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon- Thames): It has become increasingly well known to the public outside this House during the last few months that letters entrusted by them to the Post Office have been opened in transit for a variety of purposes. The apprehension to which this interference with mails in transit has given rise has been somewhat accentuated by the mystery with which the Postmaster-General has tried to cloak this proceeding. Certainly, that disquiet and apprehension outside this House was in no degree diminished by the reply which the Postmaster-General gave to a Parliamentary Question on 3rd Novem- ber. On that date-at Column 838 of the OFFICIAL REPORT-I asked the Post- master-General:
'How many letters in transit have been opened by, or with the connivance of, his Department since 1st January, 1948.”
In his reply the Postmaster-General said this:
The information desired is not available and, if it were, publication would not be in the public interest.”
In the days when I used to practise in the courts of law it was generally accepted that if a defendant put in two quite separate defences it usually meant that he was not particularly confident about either. That is precisely what the Postmaster-General tried to do on that occasion. His defences, moreover, are quite inconsistent. If he really does not know how many letters he opens, how can he form an opinion that it would be dangerous to tell the public how many he opens? If he does not know the figure, how can publication of it be
Page 105Page 106