Palestinian Arab Grievances Against the British for Supporting the Jewish National Home 
Arthur Wauchope, the British high commissioner for Palestine who received Arab grievances in 1935 and 1936, speaks to a gathering at Kfar HaHorech in 1936. (credit: Jewish National Fund Archive)

January 1936

Source: HMG Cabinet Papers CAB 24/259, Printed for the Cabinet. 

PALESTINE –  Arab Grievances

Memorandum by the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

After four years of continuous increases in Jewish immigration to Palestine and an upsurge in Arab land sales to Jewish buyers, the Palestinian Arab political elite, however fragmented by their own family and political jealousies, submitted a detailed set of grievances against the growth of the Jewish National Home and British support of it. The memorandum acknowledges essentially that they as political leaders cannot halt Arab lands to Jews and place the blamed for continued Jewish immigration at the feet of the British administration. The memorandum’s contents were a formal expression of deep-seated frustrations that the Arabs were increasingly marginalized because the British supported  the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In the context of the previous 16 years of British rule in Palestine, the Palestinian Arab leadership repeatedly marginalized themselves by refusing to cooperate with Palestine’s administration, including the establishment of a small self-governing body made up of British, Arabs and Jews. The Arab political elited in Palestine boycotted engagement with the British because London supported for the development of the Jewish national home, a perfectly legitimate political stance, but claiming to be marginalized was not exactly accurate.

The Arab leaders warned that unless their demands were met, their influence over their followers would diminish, leading to increased instability and potential unrest. The memorandum outlined three principal demands. Firstly, it called for the establishment of a democratic government in Palestine, in line with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Palestine Mandate. The Arabs argued that the current British administration was effectively disregarding these international obligations, depriving the Arab population of self-governance and rights. While the desire for self-determination was a high moral principle to advocate, it is less certain that the self-anointed Arab political elites in Palestine were truly open to see democracy evolve that might challenge their leadership and the controls of influence of the majority peasant population across Palestine. 

Secondly, the memorandum demanded an immediate halt to Jewish immigration, which the Arabs believed was destabilizing the region. The Arab leaders were particularly concerned about the economic and social consequences of the rapidly increasing Jewish population, which they feared would eventually lead to the dispossession of the Arab community. The memorandum emphasized that the unchecked immigration was creating economic uncertainty and social tensions, with the potential to exacerbate unemployment and strain resources.

Thirdly, the Arab leaders demanded the prohibition of land transfers from Arabs to Jews. They argued that the continuous acquisition of Arab land by Jews was not only economically damaging but also threatened the social fabric and future stability of Palestine. The Arabs were particularly concerned that the process of land transfer would eventually lead to the complete alienation of Arabs from their lands, turning them into a landless, urbanized population facing significant economic challenges. While their demands were sincere, all evidence points to some of these very leaders who were boldly and loudly demanding land sales restrictions had themselves, along with peers and family members been engaged in Arab sales to Jews. The Palestinian Arab press of the 1930s is replete with anger and criticism against Palestinian Arabs selling to Jews and the leadership sitting quietly on the sidelines.  

In response, Sir Arthur Wauchope, the British High Commissioner, acknowledged the seriousness of the situation but expressed doubts about fully meeting the Arab demands. He recognized the potential dangers posed by the growing tensions and proposed measures to slow down Jewish immigration and restrict land transfers, while also maintaining the British government’s commitment to supporting the Jewish national home. Wauchope emphasized the need for careful consideration of these issues to avoid further destabilization but also highlighted the difficulties in balancing the conflicting interests of Arabs and Jews under the British Mandate.

In a broader context, Wauchope’s predecessor, High Commissioner John Chancellor had requested vigorously that the British Colonial stop the Jewish National Home in is dead tracks in 1930. But the Colonial Office ruled against him. In 1937, after the outbreak of the Arab riots and disturbances against the Jewish National Home and British policies, the British suggested that Palestine be partitioned into two states; that idea lasted a year when the British took it off the policy table and in 1939-1940 severely limited Arab land sales and Jewish immigration in Palestine, a policy that stood until the British left Palestine in 1948. 

Ken Stein,  August  2024

Palestinian Arab Grievances against the British for supporting the 

establishment of the  Jewish National Home

January 1936

Source: HMG Cabinet Papers CAB 24/259, Printed for the Cabinet.  

PALESTINE –  Arab Grievances

  1. CIRCULATE as Appendices to this memorandum—

A memorandum submitted jointly by five Arab political parties in Palestine to the High Commissioner setting out their grievances against His Majesty’s Government and their demands for measures to be taken to safeguard the interests of the Arab community. (Appendix I.)

Three despatches in which Sir Arthur Wauchope comments on the general situation in Palestine and on the demands made by the Arabs in their memorandum. (Appendices II, III and IV.)

At the interview on the 25th November, 1935, when the Arab leaders submitted their memorandum, they informed the High Commissioner that, unless they received a reply to their memorandum which could be generally regarded as giving satisfaction to their requests, they would lose all influence with their followers, extreme and irresponsible counsels would prevail and the political situation would rapidly deteriorate. The High Commissioner has himself emphasized the importance of receiving at the earliest possible moment such a reply as will enable him to give some satisfaction to the Arab leaders, as he thinks that they are right in saying that otherwise they will lose such influence as they now possess, and that the possibility will then disappear of alleviating the present situation by means of the measures which the High Commissioner recommends should be taken.

  1. The leaders of the Arab parties have arranged to meet again on the 15th January, and unless they

can be sufficiently reassured as to the attitude and intentions of His Majesty’s Government, the High Commissioner considers that there is every indication that trouble will occur at some time after the date of that meeting. Though he does not at present fear riots on a large scale, Sir Arthur Wauchope thinks it right to say that in the present state of tension untoward incidents might cause considerable disturbances.

  1. The principal demands made by the Arab leaders in their memorandum fall under three heads.
  2. “The establishment of a democratic government in the country in accordance with the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations and in execution of the second part of Article 2 of the Palestine Mandate.”
  1. As to this, I am circulating to the Cabinet a separate memorandum dealing with the proposals 

for setting up a Legislative Council in Palestine.

  1. That Jewish immigration should be stopped immediately.
  1. Clearly no such demand can be entertained, but it is a fact that the economic future of Palestine 

is becoming more and more obscure and the difficulty of forecasting the consequences of the remarkable increase in recent years in Jewish immigration is enhanced by the present uncertainty as regards the international situation. In Sir Arthur Wauchope opinion, it is necessary on economic grounds alone that there should be some slowing down in the pace of Jewish immigration, which has risen from about 30,000 in 1933 to about 60,000 in 1935. The High Commissioner has accordingly felt it necessary to aim at a total immigration for 1936 of about 14,000, although this figure may, in his opinion, well prove too high if even a small economic set back should occur. He has in consequence, decided to authorize a labour schedule (i.e., for wage earners) for the current half year ending the 31st of March next of 3,250 immigration certificates. Application by the Jewish Agency for this schedule had been considerably delayed owing to the temporary economic dislocation and unemployment arising from the bank panic last autumn but 1,000 certificates on account of this schedule were issued in advance during November last.

  1. The High Commissioner also proposes to impose certain restrictions on the immigration of 

dependants in order to check the inflow of unselected and unskilled immigrants, who would be among the first to suffer unemployment in the event of any economic set-back.

  1. A third measure which Sir Arthur Wauchope has in mind is to increase from ￡1,000 to

￡2,000 the qualifying capital, the possession of which enables an immigrant to enter the country without any quota restriction. Sir Arthur Wauchope considers that, owing to the abnormally high cost of land the rise in rents and labour charges, an immigrant cannot now count upon an assured prospect of permanent establishment in the country with so small a capital as ￡1,000. On this point I informed him by telegraph on the 2nd January that I approved of his discussing the proposal with the local representatives of the Jewish Agency, and that while I was disposed to agree with his proposal. I should prefer not to take any final decision pending receipt of a further report from him after his discussion with representatives of the Agency.

  1. The prohibition by law of the transfer of Arab lands to Jews.
  1. Leaving aside the political motives which have led to this demand, the High Commissioner,

who has been feeling anxiety on the subject for some time past, has reached the conclusion that an economic situation is rapidly being created by the progressive transfer of agricultural land from Arab to Jewish hands, which, if no remedy is applied, will lead to very undesirable consequences.

  1. Measures have already been taken to prevent agricultural tenants from being evicted when the 

estates of which their holdings form a part change ownership. There are, however, now strong indications that the Jews are to an increasing extent buying land in comparatively small plots from owners who cultivate their own land. The Arab agriculturist is notoriously improvident and tends, after squandering the purchase money of his land, to seek employment in the towns. Under present economic conditions no serious ill-effects of this tendency are yet visible, but, unless there should be some fundamental change of Jewish policy, the process of land purchase may be expected to continue, if it is not checked, until practically the whole of the agricultural land of the country which it is profitable for the Jews to buy has passed into Jewish hands, with the exception of the citrus estates of relatively large Arab landowners, with the result that the urban population will be increased by many thousands of Arabs seeking employment as wage earners who would constitute a serious social and economic problem in the event of any considerable check to the possible abnormal prosperity which the country is at present enjoying. (Vital – KWS note)

  1. The High Commissioner urges that it is the duty of Government under the Mandate to take some 

positive action which will have the effect of protecting the small Arab landowner, and he recommends that he should be authorised to enact legislation to that end. He proposes that this legislation should not apply to—

  1. The Beersheba Sub-District, where land is comparatively plentiful and the population comparatively scanty;
  2. Urban areas;
  3. Land already planted with citrus.
  1. Information is not yet available as to the extent to which such a restriction would limit the 

further purchase of agricultural land by the Jews, as the minimum subsistence area will naturally vary in extent from one locality to another and the details of the scheme have yet to be worked out. It would, however, I think, be wise to assume that the imposition of such a restriction would result in withholding from the market a very considerable proportion of agricultural land at present in Arab ownership.

  1. In any event the High Commissioner’s proposals will be strongly attached by the Jews as 

imposing an artificial check upon the development of the Jewish National Home, and it may even be contended that to do so would be a violation of the terms of the letter written to Dr. Weizmann by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, as Prime Minister, on the 13th February, 1931. Apart, however, from the fact that important areas of Palestine would be expressly excepted from the scope of the proposed legislation, it must be borne in mind that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald’s assurances were given with specific reference to the policy of land settlement and development referred to in the White Paper of October 1930. In fact, the whole letter is described in the opening paragraph as “the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper on the matters with which this letter deals.” In the relevant paragraphs of his letter Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was concerned to reassure the Jews on one special point, viz., that such a policy of land settlement would not be used as an excuse for imposing for an ulterior purpose restrictions upon land transactions which would be more than what was required for the purposes of carrying out that policy. His assurances could not be interpreted as debarring His Majesty’s Government indefinitely from taking any action which, even if no development or resettlement were in view, might be considered necessary in the general interests of Palestine at some future date and in the fact of developments which had not then assumed any serious prominence. (Passfield White Paper. See page 94 in White Paper folder – KWS note)

  1. It will be observed that the High Commissioner’s proposal introduces an entirely new principle. 

The legislation which has been enacted to protect tenants can be justified by the practice at home; whereas legislation to protect owners against themselves is an entire innovation. But the answer given by Sir Arthur Wauchope is that the Mandate demands that he should protect the interests of all sections of the community, and he believes that this proposal is necessary in order to do so. (Vital – KWS note)

(Initialled) J. H. T.

Colonial Office, Downing Street

January 10, 1936 (12550)

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

CAB24/259 2116

APPENDIX 1.

Translation of the Arab Memorandum handed to the High Commissioner 

for Palestine on November 25, 1935.

His Excellency the High Commissioner, 

Government Offices, Jerusalem.

Your Excellency,

THE British Government announced recently, through its Representative at the League of Nations, that it was prepared to use all the forces at its disposal in order to uphold the Covenant of the League of Nations. It has expressed its eagerness before the public opinion to protect the independence of Abyssinia and its preparedness to defend that independence, in furtherance of the cause of right and justice, as an act of support to weak nations which have been the object of aggression. It even expressed its willingness to embark, if necessary, on any adventure in defence of the principles of humanity which are represented in the League of Nations.

But in Palestine, the contrary has been the case. Here the British Government disregarded the pledges which were made to the Arabs, did not take the Covenant of the League of Nations into account and overlooked the principles of humanity which are based on justice and equity. It exceeds every limit in depriving the Arabs of Palestine of the right of independence and trespasses upon their economical and administrative rights in order to facilitate the establishment of a National Home for the Jews.

It will be recalled that the British Government undertook in 1915, through its Representative, Sir Henry McMahon, ‘to recognize and support the independence of Arab countries, including Palestine, within the limits which were laid down at the time by the late King (then Sherif) Hussain in his capacity as representative of the Arabs, in consideration for the heavy blood which was shed by the Arabs, including Palestinian Arabs, during the Great War on the side of the Allies.

The Great War did not come to an end except after the Allies have acknowledged for all nations the principle of self-determination as was announced recently by His Majesty’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs before the League of Nations. In the case of Palestine, however, Great Britain not only failed to apply this principle but completely ignored it in furtherance of the establishment of the National Home for the Jews.

Even if we disregard all these factors and take into consideration the Covenant of the League of Nations, for the maintenance of which His Majesty’s Government has expressed its preparedness to make every sacrifice, it will appear, beyond doubt, that as regards Palestine, His Majesty’s Government has dishonestly infringed that Covenant. Article 22 of the Covenant recognized the independence of such countries which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire subject to a temporary Mandate in the form of advice and assistance to be rendered by the Mandatory until such time as these countries, within which Palestine was included, are able to stand alone. The British Government, inconsistent with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which is, in itself, repugnant to the Article of the Covenant quoted above. That Declaration should have been abrogated by virtue of Article 19 of the Covenant, under which members of the League severally accepted the Covenant as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with its terms. On the contrary, the British Government has gone as far as to trespass on the rights of the Arabs which were fully safeguarded, both in the Balfour Declaration and in the Mandate and which were interpreted by the Mandatory Power, through Sir Herbert Samuel, the ardent Zionist in its Report on the Administration of Palestine for 1920-1921 in the following terms:—

“The measures to foster the well-being of the Arabs should be precisely those which we

should adopt in Palestine if there were no Zionist question and if there had been no Balfour

Declaration.”

He also added: —

“In a word, the degree to which Jewish national aspiration can be fulfilled in Palestine

is conditioned by the rights of the present inhabitants.”

Taking the present form of Government which exists in Palestine, it will be found that it consists of a British Government which is under the Mandate of another British Government in London. There does not exist in the country any form of independence of whatever nature, the establishment of which is required by the Covenant of the League of Nations and the terms of the Balfour Declaration which restrain the British Government, in the application of the Declaration, from doing anything which may prejudice the rights of the Arab and from taking any step which may be inconsistent with their interest.

For the last eighteen years the Arabs have been demanding a fair and equitable treatment. They entertained the hope that His Majesty’s Government will ultimately realize the futility of its policy and its consequences and will abandon such policy. But all these hopes were frustrated as this wrong policy are persistently ignored or violated. The present form of Government may serve as the best example. After all this long period that has already passed, the inhabitants of the country have no effective say in the Administration which is maintained, as it does by the bayonets of the Mandatory Government, irrespective of the will of the people and in a manner inconsistent with their interests. In these circumstances, while not recognizing the Mandate which was imposed upon us, we demand the establishment of a democratic Government in the country in accordance with the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations and in execution of the second part of Article 2 of the Palestine Mandate.

Lands.

Sir John Hope Simpson, the British Expert, who was delegated by the British Government in 1930 to investigate into Immigration, Land Settlement and Development, and whose views were corroborated by Mr. Lewis French in his report for 1931, calculated the lot-viable for an Arab family at 130 dunams. He found out that the cultivable land which was in possession of the Arabs at the time (i.e., 1930) would not afford an average lot in excess of 90 dunams. Since that time, the number of the Arab population has increased by not less than 150,000 and the area of land in possession of the Arabs decreased, through acquisition by the Jews, by not less than 600,000; thus the area of the average holding of an Arab family was greatly reduced.

As the best illustration of the precarious position of the Arabs, notwithstanding the insufficiency of the land in their possession, the letter which Mr. Hankin, a Jewish Land Expert and agent of the Palestine Land Development Company, addressed to Mr. French in July 1930 may be quoted. Mr. Hankin admitted this fact in the following terms: —

” . . . . but we have possibility of acquiring 100,000 dunams without having to make any

settlement for the tenants, since the acquisition of such an area will not cause harm to anybody

and will not oust anybody from his land; only after this area has been acquired we shall have to 

see to a proper settlement for the tenants . . . .”

Since that express admission was made, an additional area of 600,000 dunams was acquired by the Jews. It will be seen that taking the admission of the Jews themselves Government is under duty to stop any further transfer of lands from the Arabs to Jews.

Any person who studies the conditions of Palestine and the speedy developments which are taking place whereby the Arabs are continually dispossessed of their land and Arab villages supplanted by Jewish Settlements (the names of some of which were published at occasions in the Palestine Gazette, while the names of others were deliberately not published) will come to the conclusion that the Arab people of Palestine, as a whole, would not be dissimilar to that of the inhabitants of these villages who were dispossessed of their land and whose villages were supplanted by Jewish Settlements in which the Arabs have no traces.

The acquisition of such large areas of land by Jews and the eviction of the people therefrom does not only prejudicially affect the owners of the lands who are displaced; it also destructively affects the neighbouring Arab towns which, before the eviction of the inhabitants of the villages, are usually flourishing and exchange with the neighbouring villagers the sale of all kinds of goods, commodities and trade and live in co-operation with one another. Nazareth may be quoted as an example. Most of the places of business in this town were closed and its trade became stagnant as soon as the Jews acquired the plain of Esdraelon and its villages, evicted the Arab inhabitants therefrom and established for themselves special markets from which the Arabs derive no benefit.

It is the practice of Jewish organizations to create the lands which they acquire as a trust to be held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people. They impose on the cultivator a condition not to employ on the land but Jewish labour, failing which he will be liable to various penalties. These facts were confirmed by evidence, by Sir John Hope Simpson in his Report and admitted by the Jewish Agency.

That this is the case is shown by paragraph 19 of the White Paper, 1930, which reads, in part: —

” . . . . Moreover, the effect of Jewish colonization on the existing population is very 

intimately affected by the conditions on which the various Jewish bodies hold, utilize and lease

their land. It is provided by the Constitution of the Enlarged Jewish Agency, signed at Zurich 

on the 14th August, 1929 (Article 3 (d) and (e)), that the land acquired shall be held as the 

‘inalienable property of the Jewish people’ and that in ‘all the works or undertakings carried out 

or furthered by the Agency, it shall be deemed to be a matter of principle that Jewish labour 

shall be employed.’ Moreover, by Article 23 of the draft lease, which it is proposed to execute 

in respect of all holdings granted by the Jewish National Fund, the lessee undertakes to execute 

all works connected with the cultivation of the holdings only with Jewish labour.”

Under the circumstances described above, every plot of land in Palestine which is transferred to Jewish bodies is definitely extra-territorialized. It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advantage either now or at any time in the future, nor can he ever hope to cultivate it, but he is deprived for ever from employment on that land and from purchasing or acquiring it at any time. It follows, therefore, that if alienation of Arab lands continues and the Jews were able to acquire the largest part of all of the lands of Palestine, that will definitely mean that Palestine, as a whole, would be alienated for ever and the Arab people will not be able, under the stringent conditions laid down by Jewish bodies, either to reacquire any part of such land or to derive any advantage therefrom through employment or otherwise.

It will appear from the above that the position of the Arabs in Palestine, from the land point of view, is very precarious and threatened with danger. Any person who carefully studies the situation will necessarily come to the conclusion that the question of land in Palestine is governed by an oppressive and premeditated policy which will result, sooner or later, in the expropriation of the Arabs from their lands, in their dispersion, and in the undermining of their national structure in order to instal on their ruins a national home for the Jews. (Who says the Arabs were politically inept? or not politically perspicacious? – KWS note) It is a matter of surprise that Government should have failed to enforce the recommendations of the Commissions of Enquiry and British experts who were delegated by the Mandatory Government to enquire into the land problem, although they have all shown at least implicitly, that the Arabs were facing such a danger. Failure of Government to enforce these recommendations shows that it follows a laid down policy which is calculated to annihilate the Arabs and to expropriate them, for ever, from their country.

This situation prompts us to strongly assert the demand which has been repeatedly made that a law be issued prohibiting the transfer of Arab lands to Jews, and that a further law be made, similar to the Five Feddans Law of Egypt, which should also be made applicable to transactions between Arabs themselves. (Five Feddans Law was made based on all land in Egypt of similar cultivatable quality while in Palestine the number of dunams required determining a lot viable for an Arab family varied from the Hill County and the Coastal Plain. Another variable was the presence or more importance absence of irrigation. – KWS note)

Immigration.

The British Government declared its intention, in the White Paper of 1922, to regulate immigration so that—

  1. Immigration will not exceed the economic absorptive capacity of the country.
  2. Immigrants will not become a burden of the country as a whole.
  3. Immigrants will not deprive any of the existing population of his employment.

The number of immigrants who entered Palestine in that year (i.e., 1922) amounted to 6,341, but by 

1925 their number reached the high figure of 33,000, on the assumption that such number of immigrants was not in excess of the economic capacity of the country. But the crisis which prevailed in the country in 1926 and the following years has shown that this assumption was unfounded. Sir John Campbell, an acknowledged authority on economics, who was delegated by the Zionist organization to report on the economic conditions in Palestine, stated in his report that the crisis of 1927 and 1928 was due “to the fact that immigrants have come into Palestine in excess of the economic absorptive power of the country.” Again, in the Annual Report on the Administration of Palestine for 1928, it was stated that—

“Palestine still suffered . . . . from the repercussions of the uneconomic immigration of 1925 . . . . . “

Referring to the period between 1922-1929, during which period the annual average of Jewish 

immigrants was 8,000 only, the Parliamentary Commission of Enquiry of 1929 confirmed in its report that—

” . . . . there is incontestable evidence that in the matter of immigration, there has been a 

serious departure . . . . from the doctrine accepted . . . . in 1922, that immigration should be

regulated by the economic capacity of the country to absorb new arrivals.”

In its recommendations the Commission said—

“Immigration should be reviewed with the object of preventing a repetition of the excessive immigration of 1925 and 1926.”

But notwithstanding all this evidence, which proves beyond any doubt the futility of the policy which was adopted during that period during which the average number of Jewish immigrants was not more than 8,000 per year, the Palestine Government, acting again under the assumption that the economic capacity of the country can absorb new immigrants, opened the gates of the country, before the immigrants to the extent that the number of immigrants, which according to the statement made by His Excellency the High Commissioner in a speech which he made at Nablus, in 1933, is not much less than that of legal immigrants. The admission of such a large number of immigrants will not only place the country in a difficult position as a result of the wrongful policy of Government, but is inconsistent with rules (i) and (ii), quoted above, which were laid down by the British Government in 1922 for the purpose of regulating immigration.

Furthermore, the attitude taken by Jewish immigrants in compelling Arab labourers through their pickets and organizations to leave their employment in Jewish Settlements and places is sufficient to show that such immigration has resulted in the violation of rule (ii) referred to above.

This immigration is not only in contravention of the doctrines laid down in the White Paper of 1922, but is also inconsistent with Article 6 of the Mandate, which imposes that the “administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions.” This provision means that not only the economic and administrative rights of the original inhabitants should not be prejudiced, but also their general position as constituting the overwhelming majority of the population. Indeed, Government statistics show that this “Arab majority” is being continually affected by the increase of Jewish immigration, and, should immigration be not stopped, it will disappear altogether.

The difficulty of the present position and the bad consequences which may ensue in future may be illustrated by the statement contained in the Report on the Census of Palestine, 1931. This is a scientific and economic fact which has no bearing on politics. It was stated in that Report that—

“Without these proportionate increases in imported invisible value (foreign contributions) 

and in internal production of special supplies, surplus to the internal requirements of the country, and so available for sale abroad, it is difficult to see how the rate of increase of subsistence for the population is to keep pace with the growth of the population.”

“It is, therefore, of interest to imagine Palestine as maintaining a population at its present rates of increase, but linked to the world only by its small export trade and by its large imports of value . . . . before the population overtakes its means of subsistence.”

It may be observed in this connection that the Policy which has been applied by Government in recent years with regard to immigration is calculated to accelerate the prevalence of such a difficult situation.

There is another proof which shows the leniency of Government and its desire to overcrowd the country with Jewish immigrants in order to enable them to become the majority of the population. Government has failed, until now, to take any action with regard to the 6,000 Jews who entered the country in connection with the Macabiad, and although they delivered their passports to Government and paid the necessary deposits, they remained in the country and failed to leave it until now. We understand that the passports of these persons are still in the Departments of Police and Immigration, who appear to have failed to discover their countries of origin and to repatriate them.

In these circumstances, we demand—

  1. That Jewish immigration be immediately stopped, and that a committee be formed of the

competent elements to study the absorptive capacity of the country and to lay down a principle for immigration, as is the case in most countries of the world.

  1. That a law be made requiring every lawful resident in Palestine to hold an identity card to be issued by Government, and to produce such card on demand by any officer of Government in order to ascertain whether or not he was lawfully admitted to Palestine.
  2. That effective immediate investigations be made into the question of immigrants who illicitly entered the country or who entered on valid endorsements for a limited period, but remained in the country.

Effect of Immigration on Public Morality.

This immigration has enabled vagabonds and outcasts to enter Palestine, the Holy Land, the land of peace and the birthplace of religions, and to spread in this country their strange doctrines and destructive practices in a manner which reflects on the sanctity of this country. This country is not used to such frightful incidents which daily emanate from Jewish centres, such as the organized acts of brigandage, fraud and forgery, in which some Jewish officers either take a direct part or are responsible for their commission or concealment. There is no doubt that Your Excellency shares our view that this immigration has enabled Communists and Bolsheviks to propagate and disseminate their doctrines not only in Palestine, but to use Palestine as a centre for their activities amongst the Arabs in all parts of the Near East. The manner in which the settlers live in some of the Jewish settlements such as Ain Harod and other settlements is a clear indication that the Jews, headed by the Socialist Party, which has overpowered all the other Jewish Parties, intend, at the end, to overflow this country with subversive doctrines which are inconsistent with religious principles and doctrines of morality.

We take this opportunity to draw Your Excellency’s attention to that strange spirit which the Jews propagate amongst the population, and in which they encourage the violation of the law, the defeat of public authorities and the escape of the requirements of the law. The best example which would prove this view is the manner in which they secure the illegal admission of immigrants and thereafter oppose the Police Authorities, whenever they seek the arrest of such immigrants. Individuals as well as bodies co-operate in concealing all such immigrants, as was the case with those persons who entered Palestine as travellers in connection with the Macabiad, which took place at the beginning of this year, and remained in the country, as was admitted by the Department of Immigration. We also wish to refer, on this occasion, to the smuggling of arms and ammunition by Jews which has taken place for some time and which has recently been carried out on a larger scale, challenging as they did the authority of Government and threatening the lives of the Arabs.

In order that a check be put to such activities, we persistently demand that Government should apply the Ordinance which it enacted to meet such cases, such as the Criminal Law (Seditious Offences) Ordinance and the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance, the application of which has hitherto been restricted to the Arabs in unjustifiable cases.

Conclusion.

The Arabs have entertained great hopes when His Excellency Sir Arthur Grenfell Wauchope was appointed as High Commissioner about four years ago. They expected that His Excellency will embark on the application of the reports and recommendations of the various Commissions of Enquiry without any discrimination and in such an equitable manner as may be dictated by his military honour. Unfortunately, their hopes were not realised, for during all these four years of his office, His Excellency continually spoke of self-government, but never fulfilled anything. He opened the gates of the country before Jewish immigration, utterly ignoring the previous experience of the Government and its painful consequences. He facilitated, during that period, the admission of a large number of Jewish immigrants, which exceeds the number which was admitted by his predecessors during fourteen years and enabled the Jews, during his short time of office, to acquire land which is larger in area than the land acquired by them since the British Occupation, and in so doing he ignored the recommendations of commissions and experts on these matters.

For that reason, we feel ourselves compelled, in our capacity as representatives of the various Arab Parties which represent the Palestine Arab Nation, to express our deepest regret at the frustration of the hopes which we entertained and the non-realization of our expectations and hopes which we had in His Excellency, and at the loss of confidence of the Arabs who have reached a state of despondency through Your Excellency’s policy, although they were inclined to co-operate with you in such a manner as will protect all their rights had they seen a keen desire towards that end of Your Excellency’s part.

With highest respects,

(Signed) MOHAMMAD ISHAQ BUDEIRI, (Signed) RAEHIB NASHASHIBI,

On behalf of the Islah Party. President, the, National Defence Party.

(Signed) ABDULLATIF SALAH, (Signed) JAMAL HUSSEINI,

President, National Block. President, Palestine Arab Party.

(Signed) YACOUB GHUSSAIN,

President, Executive Committee,

Arab Youngmen Congress.

November 25, 1935.

(12550)