CO537-3702 — Page 91

639

"This

new

Foreign Affairs

640

is largely a conflict between order which the Jews stand for in Palestine and the old, crumbling feudal system for which a few rich Arab landlords stand.

Those of us who have seen the great achievement of the Jews on the spot have realised that the key principles of our great movement have been worked out by the Jews. There you have had co-operation, extension of the social services, reclamation of marshes, the planning of forests, the con- struction of great public works, all in the interests of the Palestine people, whether Jews or Arabs, and we feel it would be a great betrayal for that experiment to be brought to an end."

Foreign Affairs HOUSE OF COMMONS

[MR. COCKS.] them to be in a more chaotic state than they are at present. Everything is on the move. As a result of two world wars in one generation, the framework which held Europe together in much the same pattern since the Battle of Waterloo, has broken and new forces are emerging in every direction and are struggling for existence and power. Some of those forces are good, some are evil, and in some those particular principles are mixed. They are all intensely vital and fully alive, and like maggots, removing corruption and then changing to some- thing else, some of these movements which are causing so much excitement and unrest may assume different forms before they have finally completed their work.

The main difficulty about the present situation is that all plans for action in the foreign field are distorted, by the growing antagonism between Russia and the West. The Government, for example, may say that, according to the lessons of history and the dictates of justice and common sense,

a certain policy should be laid down towards a particular country. But, having drawn up their plan, the lines of that plan are pulled out of shape by this powerful con- tention, just as the course of a comet is affected by the pull of some other celestial body. When, as sometimes happens, the Foreign Office plan in the beginning is defective, the complications become even greater.

I want tonight to give two examples of this. One is Palestine and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and to the right hon. and learned Mem- ber for Montgomery for mentioning it. My other example, before I come to the question of Anglo-Soviet relations, is Greece. When I first entered the House of Commons nearly 20 years ago, prac- tically every Member of the Labour Party was pledged to the Zionist cause.

Mr. Janner (Leicester, West): And most Members of the Conservative Party also.

Mr. Cocks: Certainly, almost the bulk of the Conservative Party and of the Liberal Party also. And rightly so be- cause, as the Secretary of State for the Colonies said in 1939:

109 N 8

Eleven Labour Party annual confer- ences voted in favour of Zionism and at the London Conference, at which I was present, in December, 1944, just seven months before the General Election, a declaration

was adopted which the House will be interested to hear stated:

"There is surely neither hope nor meaning in a Jewish National Home unless we are prepared to let Jews. .. enter this tiny land in such numbers as to become majority.

and adding,

the

"Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out, as the Jews move in.. The Arabs have many wide territories of their own; they must not claim to exclude the Jews from this small area of Palestine, less than the size of Wales. Indeed, we should re-examine also the pos- sibility of extending the present Palestinian boundaries, by agreement with Egypt, Syria or Transjordan.”

In that declaration partition was not contemplated. The Jews were to have the whole of Palestine, including Jeru- salem, and, if possible, to have more if by peaceful negotiation the boundaries could be extended. That declaration was moved by the present Prime Minister and carried by an overwhelm- ing majority, just before the General Election-

Major Beamish : Hence all troubles.

our

Mr. Cocks: --but the Foreign Office have completely ignored that declara- tion. They have not encouraged the Arabs to move out, but have supplied the arms which have enabled them to march in. Mr. Morgenthau, who was formally Secretary of the United States Treasury, said the other day that with- out British arms the Arab forces could not last a minute. Last October the Egyptian forces, who had previously in- vaded the Negeb, attacked a Jewish

9 DECEMBER 1948

641

Foreign Affairs convoy and in a short and brilliant cam- paign the Israeli Army completely de-. feated the Egyptian Army, reduced it to scattered bodies of demoralised troops and occupied the Northern Negeb. I am glad they did so and I hope they will defeat all hostile forces brought against them.

But, in Paris on the Council of U.N.O., the British representative demanded, not that the defeated Egyptians should retire across the Egyptian frontier, and go back to the Pyramids, or the slums of Cairo, but, that having been defeated, they should advance under the banner of U.N.O. to the positions occupied before they were defeated and that the victorious Israeli Army should evacuate the terri- tory they had won and retreat to the line held before the battle. That ridi- culous suggestion was adopted by U.N.O. It and is embodied in a declaration. remains a dead letter or, as the spokes- man of Israeli said, its fulfilment awaits more peaceful conditions." Whilst the Arab leaders continue to say they will never agree to the State of Israel holding a foot of land in Palestine, Israel has a natural right to make its defensive lines as strong as possible.

I want to know why this country is so interested in the Negeb. We are often told that it is a very barren country and that even the Jews would not be able to develop it, although they do not think so themselves. Why are we so interested in the Negeb, which by the way, was alloted to Israel by an Assembly Resolu- tion of last year? Is there any truth in the rumours in Cairo, printed in today's "Times," to the effect that there is a secret agreement we have made to give the Negeb to King Abdullah and as a result we are to have the right to con- struct a canal from Gaza to the Dead Sea and from the Dead Sea to the Port of Akaba?

Mr. Bevin: That has never been discussed.

Mr. Cocks: That is suggested from Cairo in the "Times" today. The Foreign Secretary says it has not been dis- cussed and I take it that he means that it is untrue. If so, I am glad to hear it. If a canal could be constructed in that way, it would be better to co-operate with the engineering skill of the State of Israel, because the Arabs have no skill of that sort. Fundamentally this is a struggle

109 N 9

642

Foreign Affairs

between the 10th and 20th centuries, and the Foreign Office are supporting the 10th century because, I suppose, they think the Arab princes and sheiks, not the down- trodden fellaheen, could hold the Middle East against Russia. I believe that is the Foreign Office point of view and I have no doubt that many inhabitants of Colney Hatch share that view. The support which Arab princes could give in a modern militarised war is negligible and their supposed friendship is non-existent. In the last war, we had to force Egypt to be neutral, Iraq rebelled against us. and the ex-Mufti was in Berlin with Hitler. If the Transjordan Government friendly today we pay them £2 million a year and it would be rather odd if they were not friendly for that.

are

On the other hand, the State of Israel represents the scientific achievements of the 20th century. As the U.N.O. Mediator "vibrant said the other day, it is a reality." And Michael Davidson writing in "The Observer said that she is trans-

77

forming thousands of scattered, frightened people into a responsible, happy nation, and will soon be making an impressive contribution to world production. I per- sonally believe that the science and engineering skill of Israel will be able to restore, not only to Palestine, but to the whole vast area of the Middle East, some of that great agricultural pros- perity they possessed in the ancient world. Up to now the Foreign Office have been backing the wrong horse, or rather they have been backing a camel against an aeroplane, and it is time they abandoned an anti-Semitic policy which, in my view, does not represent the views of this party, nor of the House of Commons, nor of this country.

Major Beamish: I wish to understand the argument of the hon. Gentleman properly. Do I understand that because, in his opinion, the Zionists in the Middle East are more advanced than the Arabs in the Middle East, the Arabs in Palestine and Transjordan should leave and make way for the Zionists? Is that the argument?

Mr. Cocks: Yes, in a way. I said the Labour Party resolution was to that effect.

Major Beamish: Would the hon. Gentleman apply that argument to all parts of the world?