Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎189r] (377/544)

[365—40] F
17
the Committee or the persons who drafted this treaty i am at a loss to imagine. 1
would not have spent five seconds in thinking or talking about it.
Under the same Agreement we come next to the brown area of Palestine. Here,
again, the most ridiculous and unfortunate boundaries seem to have been drawn for
that area. 1 wdl come to the boundaries in a moment. As regards its future, Great
Britain and Fiance—Italy subsequently agreeing—committed themselves to an inter
national administration for Palestine, in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at
that time, a belligerent Ally, and with our other Allies and the representatives of the
Sherif of Mecca. A new feature was brought, into the case in November 1917, when
Mr. Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to
the Zionists that Palestine should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that
nothing should be done—and this, of course, was a most important proviso—to
prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in
Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we
entered with regard to Palestine.
Now, as regards the facts, thev are these. First, Palestine has been conquered by
the British, with only very insignificant aid from small French and Italian contingents,
and it is now being administered by the British. The Zionist declaration by our
Government has been followed by a very considerable immigration of Jews. One of
the difficulties of the situation arises from the fact that the Zionists have taken full
advantage—and are disposed to take even fuller advantage—of the opportunity which
was then offered to them. You have only to read, as probably most of us do, their
periodical “ Palestine,” and, indeed, their pronouncements in the papers, to see that their
programme is expanding from dav to day. They now talk about a Jewish State. The
Arab portion of the population is well-nigh forgotten and is to be ignored. They not
only claim the boundaries of the old Palestine, but they claim to spread across the
Jordan into the rich countries Iving to the east, and, indeed, there seems to be very
small limit to the aspirations which they now form. The Zionist programme, and the
energy with which it is being carried out, have not unnaturally had the consequence of
arousing the keen suspicions of the Arabs. By “the Arabs” I do not merely mean
Faisal and his followers at Damascus, but the so-called Arabs who inhabit the country.
There seems, from the telegrams we receive, to be growing up an increasing friction
between the two communities, a feeling by the Arabs that we are really behind the
Zionists and not behind the Arabs, and altogether a situation which is becoming rather
critical. In one of the telegrams that reported the views of Faisal we were told that
he is strongly of opinion that if a Great Power remains in the background of Palestine
it should be ourselves; and if he is assured it will be Britain he would be prepared to
support what I think he describes as the infiltration of the Zionists on a reasonable
scale ; but otherwise, if we are to go out of the matter and some other protecting
Power is to come in, he will back the Arabs by all means in his power. We can imagine,
therefore, a difficult situation arising in Palestine itselt out of these circumstances. If
we were supposed to have identified ourselves with the Jews, and the whole Arab force
backed by Faisal on the other side were thrown into the scale against us, that would
produce complication. We have difficulties with our European Allies as it is, and we
do not want to have complications in Palestine itself. Upon both these parties
beginning to feel these suspicions there falls the bombshell of the Anglo-French declara
tion. You can understand at once how the suspicions and, indeed, the activities of both
parties are fomented by that, because once you appeal to the principle of self-determination,
both Arabs and Zionists are prepared to make everv use of it they can. No doubt we
shall hear a good deal of that in the future, and, indeed, in it we may find a solution of
our difficulties.
Now, as regards the future of Palestine. I said just now that one of the blemishes
of the Sykes-Picot Agreement was the imperfect and unscientific manner in which
the boundaries bad been drawn. I imagine that, whatever arrangements we make
about Syria in the future, we must put right and define upon some scientific basis the
boundaries of Palestine itself. If you look at the Sykes-Picot map you will see a
purely arbitrary line is drawn in the north which runs from a place on the coast
southwards through the Sea of Galilee to the Jordan frontier. I imagine we shall all
agree that we must recover for Palestine its old boundaries. The old phrase “ Dan
to Beersheba ” still prevails. Whatever the administrative sub-divisions, we must
recover for Palestine, be it Hebrew or Arab, or both, the boundaries up to the Litani
on the coast, and across to Banias, the old Dan, or Huleh in the interior. So much
for the northern boundary. Then we must have some definition of “ eastern boundary.”
The Zionists are naturally looking eastwards to the trans-Jordan territories, where