(March 1946)

Laqueur, Walter, and Barry Rubin. “The Arab Case for Palestine: Evidence Submitted by The Arab Office, Jerusalem, to the Anglo- 

American Committee of Inquiry, March 1946.” The Israeli- Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict. New York: Penguin Books, 1991. 94. Print.

Evidence Submitted to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry

The Problem of Palestine

The context: Subsequently to the British government administering Palestine after World War I, whenever violence or a review of British policy was considered required, the British created offered either Arabs or Zionists to convene meetings or conferences in London, have one person look at a particular problem, and other times it set up inquiry commissions to clarify reasons for disturbances, riots, or what were considered policy failures. Major commissions of inquiry about were set up in 1921, 1928, 1929, 1937, along with The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946. This was a joint British-American commission established to examine political, social, and economic conditions in Palestine. It aimed to address the conflicting Jewish and Arab claims, particularly regarding Jewish immigration after the Holocaust, and proposed solutions for the future governance of Palestine. 

Arab opposition to Zionism in Palestine and among Arab leaders in the Middle East was emphatic after World War II, as it had been for two decades. Arabs made their claims based on claimed historical rights and practical concerns. The Arab case noted that Arab were the  demographic majority in Palestine. They feared that continued Jewish immigration would turn them into a minority, undermining their right to self-determination. They made the case that resistance to Zionism emerged for what was termed a “disruptive impact on Palestine’s political, economic, and social fabric,” because it detached Palestine from its Arab neighbors and hindered its progress towards self-governance. 

The Arab perspective is that Zionism, supported by Western powers, suggested that Palestine had stagnated under the British mandate and that Zionist immigration and land acquisition have destabilized the economy. The Arab view correctly stated that there were deep tensions between Arabs and Jews, with the expectation that if Jews approached majority status, further economic and political marginalization would occur.

The Arabs demanded “a democratic government in Palestine representing all citizens equally, the cessation of Jewish immigration and land transfers until such a government is established, and the eventual integration of Palestine into the United Nations and the Arab world.” They categorically rejected the partition of Palestine or the establishment of a bi-national state, viewing these as unjust and impractical solutions that would only perpetuate conflict and instability in the region. The Arabs believed that any lasting solution must respect their right to maintain the traditional Arab character of Palestine and ensure democratic governance free from Zionist ambitions.

When the Arab case is closely scrutinized, there was no validity that the Jewish presence hurt the Palestinian economy, on the contrary the economy in Palestine from 1920 through 1948 was the strongest of all economies of countries surrounding Palestine; that the political elite in Palestine had benefitted economically and financially by Jewish presence in land sales to Zionists, and the health care and wellbeing of the Arab population was among the best in the Middle East.  During the three decades of British presence, the Arab political elite had lost their overwhelmingly dominant control over the majority impoverished Palestinian peasantry. 

Finally, in the context of seeking self-determination for the Palestinian (Arabs) , no country in the Middle East at the time was practicing self-determination for all its inhabitants.  The Arab case notably did not call for a Palestinian state, only self-determination. That was due in great measure to the Jordanian and Egyptian leadership seeking to have portions of Palestine appended to their countries respectively if the Mandate were to end and the British leave. Finally, the Arab case against Zionism was promoted to deny at all costs the establishment of a Jewish state in any of the lands west of the Jordan River. 

Ken Stein, July 2024

The Arab Case for Palestine, The Arab Office

(March 1946)

  1. The whole Arab people is unalterably opposed to the attempt to impose Jewish immigration and settlement upon it, and ultimately to establish a Jewish State in Palestine. Its opposition is based primarily upon right. The Arabs of Palestine are descendants of the Indigenous inhabitants of the country, who have been in occupation of it since the beginning of history; they cannot agree that it is right to subject an Indigenous population against its will to alien immigrants, whose claim is based upon a historical connection which ceased effectively many centuries ago. Moreover they form the majority of the population; as such they cannot submit to a policy of immigration which if pursued for long will turn them from a majority into a minority in an alien state; and they claim the democratic right of majority to make its decisions in matters of urgent national concern….
  1. In addition to the question of right, the Arabs oppose the claims of political Zionism because of the effects which Zionist settlement has already had upon their situation and is likely to have to an even greater extent in the future. Negatively, it has diverted the whole course of their national development. Geographically Palestine is part of Syria; its Indigenous inhabitants belong to the Syrian branch of the Arab family of nations; all their culture and tradition link them to other Arab peoples; and until 1917 Palestine formed part of the Ottoman Empire which included also several of the other Arab countries. The presence and claims of the Zionists, and the support given them by certain Western Powers have resulted in Palestine being cut off from other Arab countries and subjected to a regime, administrative, legal, fiscal and educational, different from that of the sister-countries. Quite apart from the inconvenience to individuals and the dislocation of trade which this separation has caused, it has prevented Palestine participating fully in the general development of the Arab world.

First, while the other Arab countries have attained or are near to the attainment of self-government and full membership of the UNO, Palestine is still under Mandate and has taken no step towards self-government; not only are there no representative institutions, but no Palestinian can rise to the higher ranks of the administration. This is unacceptable on grounds of principle, and also because of its evil consequences. It is a hardship to individual Palestinians whose opportunities of responsibility are thus curtailed; and it is demoralizing to the population to live under a government which has no basis in their consent and to which they can feel no attachment or loyalty.

Secondly, while the other Arab countries are working through the Arab League to strengthen their ties and coordinate their policies, Palestine (although her Arab inhabitants are formally represented in the League’s Council) cannot participate fully in this movement so long as she has no indigenous government; thus the chasm between the administrative system and the institutions of Palestine and those of neighboring countries is growing, and her traditional Arab character is being weakened.

Thirdly, while the other Arab countries have succeeded in or are on the way to achieving a satisfactory definition of their relations with the Western Powers and with the world-community, expressed in their treaties with Great Britain and other powers and their membership of the United Nations Organization, Palestine has not yet been able to establish any definite status for herself in the world, and her international destiny is still obscure.

  1. All these evils are due entirely to the presence of the Zionists and the support given to them by certain of the Powers; there is no doubt that had it not been for that, Arab Palestine would now be a self-governing member of the UNO and the Arab league. Moreover, in addition to the obstacles which Zionism has thus placed in the way of Palestine’s development, the presence of the Zionists gives rise to carious positive evils which will increase if Zionist immigration continues.

The entry of incessant waves of immigrants prevents normal economic and social development and causes constant dislocation of the country’s life; in so far as it reacts upon prices and values and makes the whole economy dependent upon the constant inflow of capital from abroad it may even in certain circumstances lead to economic disaster. It is bound moreover to arouse continuous political unrest and prevent the establishment of that political stability on which prosperity and health of the country depend. This unrest is likely to increase in frequency and violence as the Jews come nearer to being the majority and the Arabs a minority.

Even if economic and social equilibrium is reestablished, it will be to the detriment of the Arabs. The superior capital resources at the disposal of the Jews, their greater experience of modern economic technique and the existence of a deliberate policy of expansion and domination have already gone far towards giving them the economic mastery of Palestine. The digest concessionary companies are in their hands; they possess a large proportion of the total cultivable land, and an even larger one of the lands in the highest category of fertility; and the land they possess is mostly inalienable to non-Jews. The continuance of land-purchase and immigration, taken together with the refusal of Jews to employ Arabs on their lands or in their enterprises and the great increase in the Arab population, will create a situation in which the Arab population is pushed to the margin of cultivation and a landless proletariat, rural and urban, comes into existence. This evil can be palliated but not cured by attempts at increasing the absorptive capacity or the industrial production of Palestine; the possibility of such improvements is limited, they would take a long time to carry out, and would scarcely do more than keep pace with the rapid growth of the Arab population; moreover in present circumstances they would be used primarily for the benefit of the Jews and thus might increase the disparity between the two communities.

Nor is the economic evil only. Zionism is essentially a political movement, aiming at the creation of a state; immigration, land-purchase and economic expansion are only aspects of a general political strategy. If Zionism succeeds in its aim, the Arabs will become a minority in their own country; a minority which can hope for no more than a minor share in the government, for the state is to be a Jewish state, and which will find itself not only deprived of that international status which the other Arab countries possess but cut off from living contact with the Arab world of which it is an integral part.

It should not be forgotten too that Palestine contains  places holy to Muslims and Christians, and neither Arab Moslems nor Arab Christians would willingly see such places subjected to the ultimate control of a Jewish Government.

  1. These dangers would be serious enough at any time, but are particularly so in this age, when the first task of the awakening Arab nation is to come to terms with the West; to define its relationship with the Western Powers and with the westernized world community on a basis of equality and mutual respect, and to adapt what is best in Western civilization to the needs of its own genius. Zionist policy is one of the greatest obstacles to the achievement of this task; both because Zionism represents to the Arabs one side of the Western spirit and because of the support given to it by some of the Western Powers. In fact Zionism has become in Arab eyes a test of Western intentions towards them. So long as the attempt of the Zionists to impose a Jewish state upon the inhabitants of Palestine is supported by some or all of the Western Governments, so long will it be difficult if not impossible for the Arabs to establish a satisfactory relationship with the Western world and its civilization, and they will tend to turn away from the West in political hostility and spiritual isolation; this will be disastrous both for the Arabs themselves and for those Western nations which have dealings with them….
  1. In the Arab view, any solution of the problem created by Zionist aspirations must satisfy certain conditions:
  1. It must be recognized the right of the Indigenous inhabitants of Palestine to continue in occupation of the country and to preserve its traditional character.
  2. It must be recognized that questions like immigration which affect the whole nature and destiny of the country should be decided in accordance with democratic principles by the will of the population.
  3. It must accept the principle that the only way by which the will of the population can be expressed is through the establishment of responsible representative government. (The Arabs find something inconsistent in the attitude of Zionists who demand the establishment of a free democratic commonwealth in Palestine and then hasten to add that this should not take place until the Jews are in a majority.)
  4. This representative Government should be based upon the principle of absolute equality of all citizens irrespective of race and religion.
  5. The form of Government should be such as to make possible the development of a spirit of loyalty and cohesion among all elements of the community, which will override all sectional attachments. In other words it should be rooted in their consent and have a moral claim upon their obedience.
  6. The settlement should recognize the fact that by geography and history Palestine is inescapably part of the Arab world; that the only alternative to its being part of the Arab world and accepting the implications of its position is complete isolation, which would be disastrous from every point of view; and that whether they like it or not the Jews in Palestine are dependent upon the goodwill of the Arabs.
  7. The settlement should be such as to make possible a satisfactory definition within the framework of UNO of the relations between Palestine and the Western Powers who possess interests in the country.
  8. The settlement should take into account that Zionism is essentially a political movement aiming at the creation of a Jewish state and should therefore avoid making any concession which might encourage Zionists in the hope that this aim can be achieved in any circumstances.
  1. In accordance with these principles, the Arabs urge the establishment in Palestine of a democratic government representative of all sections of the population on a level of absolute equality; the termination of the Mandate once the Government has been established; and the entry of Palestine into the United Nations Organization as a full member of the working community.

Pending the establishment of a representative Government, all further Jewish immigration should be stopped, in pursuance of the principle that a decision on so important a matter should only be taken with the consent of the inhabitants of the country and that until representative institutions are established there is no way of determining consent. Strict measures should also continue to be taken to check illegal immigration. Once a Palestinian state has come into existence, if any section of the population favours a policy of further immigration it will be able to press its case in accordance with normal democratic procedure; but in this as in other matters the minority must abide by the decision of the majority.

Similarly, all further transfer of land from Arabs to Jews should be prohibited prior to the creation of self-governing institutions. The Land Transfer Regulations should be made more stringent and extended to the whole area of the country, and severer measures be taken to prevent infringement of them. Here again once self-government exists matters concerning land will be decided in the normal democratic manner…

  1. The Arabs believe that no other proposals would satisfy the conditions of a just and lasting settlement. In their view there are insuperable objections of principle or of practice to all other suggested solutions of the problem.
  2. The idea of partition and the establishment of a Jewish state in a part of Palestine is inadmissible for the same reasons of principle as the idea of establishing a Jewish state in the whole country. If it is unjust to the Arabs to impose a Jewish state on the whole of Palestine, it is equally unjust to impose it in any part of the country. Moreover, as the Woodhead Commission showed, there are grave practical difficulties in the way of partition; commerce would be strangled, communication dislocated and the public finances upset. It would also be impossible to devise frontiers which did not leave a large Arab minority in the Jewish state. This minority would not willingly accept its subjection to the Zionists, and it would not allow itself to be transferred to the Arab state. Moreover, partition would not satisfy the Zionists. It cannot be too often repeated that Zionism is a political movement aiming at the domination at least of the whole of Palestine; to give a foothold in part of Palestine would be to encourage it to press for more and to provide it with a base for its activities. Because of this, because of the pressure of population and in order to escape from its isolation it would inevitably be thrown into enmity with the surrounding Arab states and this enmity would disturb the stability of the whole Middle East.
  1. Another proposal is for the establishment of a bi-national state, based upon political parity, in Palestine and its incorporation into a Syrian or Arab Federation. The Arabs would reject this as denying the majority its normal position and rights. There are also serious practical objections to the idea of a bi-national state, which cannot exist unless there is a strong sense of unity and common interest overriding the differences between the two parties. Moreover, the point made in regard to the precious suggestion may be repeated here: this scheme would in no way satisfy the Zionists, it would simply encourage them to hope for more and improve their chances of obtaining it…