CO537-3702 — Page 37

719

Foreign Affairs HOUSE OF COMMONS

[MR. CHURCHILL.] right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secre- tary which I will read. No doubt he has it in mind. On 13th November, 1945, in reply to a question from behind him, he said:

"I give my hon. Friend my personal assur- ance, as I gave it to one of the Jewish leaders the other day, that I will stake my political future on solving this problem, but--"

he added-

14

not in the limited sphere presented to me now."-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 1934.]

That was England only, without Ameri- can aid. I am sure nobody wishes to take the right hon. Gentleman too seriously or too strictly at his word-1 do not know who would be his successor-but I must say that no part of the Govern- ment's policy has been more marked by misjudgment and mismanagement than Palestine.

It is my belief that in the months immediately following the German capi- tulation we had the power and the chance to impose and enforce-I must use that word-a partition settlement in Palestine by which the Jews would have secured the National Home which has been the declared object and policy of every British Government for a quarter of a century. Such a scheme would, of course, have taken into account the legitimate rights of the Arabs, who, I may say, had not been ill used in the settlements made

in Iraq, in Transjordania and in regard to Syria.

I always had in my mind the hope that the whole question of the Middle East might have been settled on the largest scale on the morrow of victory and that an Arab Confederation, comprising three or four Arab States-Saudi-Arabia, Iraq, Transjordania, Syria and the Lebanon— however grouped, possibly united amongst themselves, and one Jewish State, might have been set up, which would have given peace and unity throughout the whole vast scene of the Middle East. As to whether so large a policy could have been carried into being I cannot be sure, but a settlement of the Palestine question on the basis of partition would certainly have been attempted, in the closest possible association with the United States and in personal contact with the President, by any Government of which I had been the head. But all this opportunity was lost.

110 A 10

Foreign Affairs

720

The Socialist Party gained votes at the Election by promising greater concessions and advantages to the Jews than any- thing to which Britain had formerly been committed. Then, when they came into office, they turned their backs on it all, raising bitter feelings of disappointment and anger. Their whole treatment of the Palestine problem has been a lamentable tale of prejudice and incapacity. When, after a year and a half of growing dis- order and detestable murders of British soldiers who were only doing a philan- thropic duty, it was evident that nothing could be evolved by the Government, in spite of the very large army maintained at the expense of well over £100 million a year in Palestine, I then suggested to the Government that if they could not make up their minds upon any effective policy or coherent scheme they had better return the Mandate.

They took another year, with further terrible episodes and disgraceful murders of our troops, before they acted in accord- ance with this advice. Then they did. leaving the country was a trial of strength The obvious consequence of the British

between the Arabs and the Jews. It seems to me very likely, although I cannot, of course, prove it, that the Foreign Secre- tary misjudged the relative power of the two sides, and it certainly looked on paper as if the Syrians, Egyptians and Arabs, invading from so many quarters, would win. That was not my view. During the war Lord Wavell was asked by me to express an opinion as to which side was the stronger in Palestine and unhesitatingly he said that if both sides were left to themselves the Jews would win. This is what, in fact, has happened, and it only proves how easy it would have been to have enforced an effective parti- tion after the German defeat.

The

We now have a new situation. Palestine problem is not a party question. Both parties are divided upon it. Both parties have their own views about it and it is natural, at any rate while we are in opposition, that there should be a certain latitude of opinion upon it. But whatever party we belong to, and whatever view we take, we must surely face the facts. The Jews have driven the Arabs out of a larger area than was contemplated in our partition schemes. They have estab- lished a Government which functions effectively. They have a victorious army

721

Foreign Affairs

722

every reason, therefore, it is our interest to be represented at Tel Aviv as we are at Amaan. It is lamentable in my opinion that this should have been so long delayed.

Foreign Affairs 10 DECEMBER 1948 a their disposal and they have the sup- port both of Soviet Russia and of the United States. These may be unpleasant facts, but can they be in any way dis- puted? Not as I have stated them.

It seems to me that the Government of Israel which has been set up at Tel Aviv cannot be ignored and treated as if it did not exist.

I entirely support my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington that we should send representatives to Tel Aviv without further delay. The Russians have a very large representa- tion, the Americans are fully represented and other countries are represented-19 countries altogether have recognised either de facto or de jure this new Govern- ment which has been set up and whose setting up is an event in world history. Other countries are represented, and we, who still have many interests, duties and memories in Palestine and the Middle East and who have played the directing part over so many years, would surely be foolish in the last degree to be left maintaining a sort of sulky boycott.

There is a special reason in addition, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend. We have a Treaty with King Abdullah which would pledge us to come to his aid if he were attacked in Trans-

jordania-and Transjordania goes right down, not according to the Jordan, but according to the interpretation, to the Gulf of Akaba. We have a duty to King Abdullah. It is 27 years since I proposed and supported his appointment as Emir of Transjordan. During all that time-and what a time; very few institu- tions are remaining which stood 27 years ago-he has acted with wisdom to his own people and with fidelity to the Allies, irrespective of the fortunes of war. We cannot remain indifferent to his fate, and treat him as we have treated the Nizam of Hyderabad.

But, if Transjordania is attacked and we are drawn in, this might bring us into direct dispute with the United States. After all the good work we did over 20 years in Palestine-and all the progress that was shown there--it would indeed be tragic if the only result we carried away, apart from the hatred and abuse of Jews and Arabs, was a deep diverg- ence on a critical issue between us and the United States. That, indeed, would be a sorry reward for all our efforts. For

110 A 11

This question of official representation in countries with whom we have diffi- culties is not confined to Palestine. There is also Spain. My right hon. Friend yesterday made a constructive suggestion of high interest for including Italy in Western Europe and of an arrangement about administering the Italian Colonies, which would be under the Trusteeship of Western Europe, and settling that issue in a manner favourable to Italy. I agree with that, or some of it, but why should the Spaniards be regarded as pariahs? Italy was our foe in the war and many scores of thousands of British lives were lost at Italian hands. Immense labours were expended by us to force Italy out of the war.

I am strongly in favour of reviving our traditional friendship with Italy, but what is to be said about Spain? No British or Americans were killed by Spaniards and the indirect aid we re- ceived from Spain during the war was of immense service. Trade was precious. The use of the Algeceiras anchorage and the use of the neutral ground around Gibraltar were invaluable to us, especi- ally in the crisis preceding the operation known as

"Torch." Spain refused to facilitate the movement of Germans to take Gibraltar and enter Africa, and the way in which Hitler and Mussolini were treated by General Franco is a monu- mental example of ingratitude. We can not say that Spain injured us or the United States at all in the late war. Why, then, should we be told that the Spanish people must be treated as outcasts just because they are governed by General Franco-whose Government, incident- ally, have, I believe, prohibited for the time being the publication of my book in Spain, so that we are by no means joining a mutual admiration society?

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker (Brentford and Chiswick): Has the right hon. Gentleman quite overlooked the fact that thousands of Spanish troops and airmen fought against our then Allies on the Eastern Front?

Mr. Churchill: One division was, in- deed, sent to fight in Russia, but, so far as Britain and America were concerned,