Evening star., 1945-11-03
Letters to the Editor
The Palestine Controversy a.
Seen by a Zionist
To the Editor Of The Star

Wr1tlng In Inc Star, MISS Sakran
protests against statements that Arab
opposition to the free admission Of Jews
into Palestine can easily be put down
by force. She believes that this form
of argument is contrary to the spirit OF
America and to the United Nations. I
fully agree with her in disliking the
argument of force, but don't think she
got her facts right. 1t was King Ibn
Saud and other spokesmen for the
Arabs who have threatened large-scale
violence and war on the Jews of Pales-
tine and on those supporting them. I
admissible in these days of a United
Nations Organization and, frankly, I
do not understand how the governments
Of the United States and of the other
permanent members of the Security
Council could avoid advising the rulers
of the Arab states accordingly.
AS long as this argument is used. 1t is
necessary to point out that the military
strength of Arab opposition is so small
as to be negligible and, therefore, need
not be considered factor in the situ-
alton.
Asks for Dictates Of Justice.
Essentially, of course, the solution of
the Palestine question should follow the
dictates Of justice. On this basis, the
problem was thoroughly examined a.
generation ago by all the principal
governments Of the world. Though fully
aware of the Arab claims to Palestine,
the governments decided in favor of the
Jewish National Home policy. The
Balfour declaration, the Palestine man
date and the numerous official and
semiofhcial American pronouncements
on the subject all subscribe to this
thesis. Briefly stated, the reasoning
that dictated this solution was as fol-
lows: Small nationalities and oppressed
groups deserve their right to indepen-
dent existence. This is especially true
in the case of the Jews, often victims
Of deep-rooted hostility, and a great
many of whom are known to be anxious
to settle in Palestine, there to live as
a free nation. When enough Jews have
come to Palestine to form a majority
OF its population, that country would
become a democratic commonwealth.
1t would be Jewish in the sense that
most Of its inhabitants would be Jews,
but it would assure full equality of
rights to all its citizens, whether Chris
tian or Jewish or Moslem. In the
mentime, Great Britain was to admin
lister Palestine under international
supervision.
Whether this solution was Just after
the First World War and whether it
remains just today, is question which
any one can examine and answer to his
own satisfaction. I submit that both the
justice and wisdom OF this solution
are even more apparent today than
before. On the one hand, the pledges
made to the Arab peoples have been
kept, and they are now independent
or on the road to independence in
number of countries; on the other hand,
the appalling tragedy that befell the
Jews Of Europe, coupled with the in
creasing reluctance of the former coun-
tries Of immigration to admit further
sary it was to provide a national home
where every Jew desiring to settle would
be entitled to do so; finally, the fact
that 600 1000 Jews were able to settle
and prosper in Palestine.
Rights" Of Others in Palestine.
I would have preferred to end the let
ter here. were it not for the need to
deal with some specific points raised by
Miss Sakran, within the limits of the
space available. There is the point that
neither Britain nor the United States
had the right In 1919 or has it today to
dispose of Palestine. An odd argument:
In 1919 the principal Allied and asso-
ciated powers had the responsibility for
settling territorial and political questions
arising out of the World War. They did
so to the best of their wisdom, and their
decision as far as Palestine was con-
cerned, was approved by the League of
Nations. Today the major powers have
likewise undertaken the responsibility
for settling controversial questions In
the interest of peace and justice, and as
a preliminary step to the functioning
OF United Nations Organization. To
deny to them this responsibility in the
specific case Of Palestine is rather q
strange attitude to take.
Miss Sakran herself does not seem to
be too sure of this argument, for she
speedily shifts her ground to argue that
under the Balfour declaration and the
Palestine mandate, the Jews are entitled
only to home in Palestine-which she
construes as something else than
Palestine as home. Under this specious
Interpretation, 1t is sought to justify
the prohibition to Jews to enter and
buy land in Palestine This would furnish
the English language with new defini-
ton: A Jewish National Home" would
be place which Jews may not enter,
Finally, there is no need for Miss
Sakran to bolster her case by a
grotesque historical essay which makes
Arabs out of the Canaanites, confuses
Byzantines with Romans and otherwise
plays havoc with history. readily grant
that the majority of today's inhabitants
OF Palestine are Arabs and that they
press with all arguments-threats of
war included-for change Of policy.
This is the natural reaction of a party
in dispute whose claims have been
rejected by a judge-h this case, the
principal governments of the world
in favor of a better claim. What is less
natural and far less justifiable is the
position of the British government
which, having accepted an international
trust, is subvesting its meaning by
unilateral action. What the .Jews orc