CO537-3702 — Page 83

611

Foreign Affairs [MR. DAVIES.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS

is a territory certainly as well defined as was the territory of the United States of America when that country was first recognised as a State, and as well defined as the territory of the United States of America was for many, many years after the Declaration of Independence, and after the United States had been recog- nised by all the other States. It has a revenue out of taxation of £15 million, double, as I understand it, the amount that was received during the period of the Mandate. It has an Army of 100,000, out of a population of 700,000, which completely routed the Egyptian Army. It has an air arm which has gained superi- ority over the Egyptian, and a tiny Fleet which sank the Egyptian flagship and broke the blockade.

Economically, agriculturally and in- dustrially, in spite of the fact it has had to carry on a war against Egypt in the south and against the Arabs in the north, it has made extraordinary progress. Since May it has absorbed something like 115,000 immigrants. The right hon. Gentleman made one reference to one Holy Place, Jerusalem. It has cleaned, maintained and protected the Holy Places without exception, and that is testi- fied to by the Franciscan and other friars and other people in charge of these Holy Places. Then one comes to this new factor, namely, that a great number of Arabs are willingly co-operating now with Israel.

The Druses, numbering some 20,000, have in the north fought, not against Israel, but with Israel and the Bedouins of the Nagev are now co- operating with Israel. But throughout this period our policy has been non co- operative and, indeed, constantly hostile to the Israeli Government. What is more, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that attitude has been maintained not only in the Assembly but maintained against the United States of America.

There are four principal aspects of this problem. One is, should the Bernadotte Report be the basis for determining the boundaries? Here we have been in con- flict not only with the United States of America but also with Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The second one is, should a conciliation commission be ap- pointed to bring about direct negotiations between Arabs and Jews? Here, again, we have been in conflict with the same Governments who wanted to encourage

109 M 42

Foreign Affairs

612

direct negotiation. We resisted them, and we wanted a commission subjected to strict injunctions. What makes our atti- tude all the more absurd is that, in spite of it, direct negotiations have been taking place and are taking place even now between the leaders of Israel and the leaders of the Arabs. The third one is, should Israel be admitted to the United Nations now? Other Governments have urged it. We have opposed it, even on the Council itself. In spite of our oppo- sition, if there are two more votes today against our view then the Council will have the necessary two-thirds majority in order to send in their report. The final one is, should Israel be recognised before her boundaries are fixed? We have said "No," but 19 nations have already said "Yes."

64

What is the result of all this? We have quarrelled with the policy of the United States of America. That, I should have thought, at this time is most undesirable. For the first time also we have openly quarrelled with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, carrying our own family disputes, as it were, out to the open for the first time. Anything more derogatory to our position it is difficult to imagine. We are in the meantime, in spite of the fact that we have done so much for the Jewish race throughout all these years, and in spite of the fact that we have done more for their welfare and to encourage them than any other people, succeeding, by proceeding in the way we have in recent years, in alienating the sympathies of even the best and most moderate. One might think that while we were alienating the Jewish people we were becoming more and more friendly with the Arabs, but the contrary is the exact truth. We have succeeded now in irritating and alienating every one of the Arab representative Governments, not merely Egypt, but Transjordan and Iraq. Every one of them, rightly or wrongly, is able to blame this country for the disasters which have overtaken them.

There can be no going back to 29th November. It seems to me that now the Bernadotte Report, upon which the Foreign Secretary seemed to base the whole of his policy, is hopelessly out of date. There is no Palestinian State, and there is not likely to be one. What is

to prevent direct negotiations, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington referred,

613

9 DECEMBER 1948

6.2 p.m.

Foreign Affairs taking place here and now? The only thing that is preventing it from happening is our opposition. I agree we have occupied a prominent part with regard to the establishment, according to the original words, of a "Jewish Home" in Palestine; and every other country, natur- ally, wants to know what is the attitude of this country. In spite of our oppo- sition, 19 countries, as I have said, have taken a decision. Nevertheless, many still hesitate, wondering whether possibly we might not be right and the other 19 wrong.

If we show ourselves more prepared to be forthcoming to help, it would help all the other countries, and especially the two contending parties of today. There is a real opportunity even now at this late hour to bring about the peaceful settle- ment which everybody desires. The Arabs do not want war. They are sick of it, and King Abdullah of Transjordan not only says so but broadcasts so- broadcasts it daily. The Jews, of course, want peace. Granted that, they will un- doubtedly settle down at once to convert the desert into a fair and flowery land. They have, without a doubt, accomplished miracles there already.

This problem has troubled the world now for 2,000 years. It has been a problem for every people since the great Battle of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the de- fence of which is still one of the epic defences in the history of any race. It has been a problem worrying people for 2,000 years. Let us, who have done so much for the Jewish people in these last 100 years, who have done more than any other Government or people for their welfare and for the achievement of their desires-let us now drop this- what I may call-peevish attitude on the part of the Government, and take a broader and better course; recognise the facts, get the United Nations as a whole, including ourselves, to recognise Israel, and admit her to the Council of Nations. We shall, in doing that, not only help these two peoples, but go a long way to settle the world's problem of peace, and to bring about peace in the Eastern Mediterranean and in all that part of the world. We shall go a long way, in doing that, to heal a sore, and to help to bring about peace throughout the world.

109 M 43

Foreign Affairs

614

Mr. Zilliacus (Gateshead): I want to issue what is in effect a fundamental chal- lenge to the very principles of the foreign policy we are pursuing, and to try to indicate an alternative. What we are drifting to war against, and what we must learn to make peace with, is nothing less than the Socialist quarter of humanity- the countries stretching from the middle of Europe to the Pacific Ocean, embrac- ing Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and most of China, and, in addition, the greater part of the working class leader- ship of France and Italy. Those countries, and those sections of the popu- lations of France and Italy, have been for several years-in some cases for many years-under Communist or near-Com- munist leadership. They are there as a fact as a solid, established, and formid- able fact.

Now, there are three possible attitudes to take when faced by that vast fact. The first is to try to deal with it by ultimatums and going to war. The second is to try a policy of half-war. The third is what I call the policy of Carlyle's young lady, who, it will be remembered, said that she accepted the universe; to which Carlisle said, rather grimly, that she had better.

The policy of war is, in fact, the policy of the Leader of the Opposition. He has advanced towards this position by several stages: first at Fulton, then in this House on 23rd January last, and finally at the Llandudno conference. I think it is not unfair to sum up his position as being the following: it is idle to attempt to use reason or to discover common interests in our relations with the Soviet Union in particular and the Socialist quarter of humanity in general. That is practically what he said on 23rd January last. He says that the only method of dealing with this rather large section of humanity is in terms of force, imposing solutions under the threat of war. intellectual foundations of this policy are, first, the belief, as he put it in an article in "Collier's Magazine," of 4th January, 1947, that

The

"The schism between Communism on the one hand and Christian ethics on the other is the most deadly, far-reaching and rending that the human race has known."

Now, I never like these rather vague and violent definitions of large subjects,