Papers written by Curzon on the Near and Middle East [‎169r] (337/348)

SECRET
CABINET.
PALESTINE COMMITTEE.
The Future of Palestine.
REPORT.
THE Committee of the Cabinet, who were appointed to examine and advise
upon the policy of His Majesty’s Government in relation to Palestine, have held
several sittings, and now T present the following Report :—
We have had the advantage of hearing a full exposition of the present situation
in Palestine from the High Commissioner, Sir H. Samuel, who answered all our
questions with great readiness. We have not taken any other outside evidence,
mainly from the difficulty of discriminating between the witnesses who might desire
to be heard, still more because the time at our disposal before the end of the Session
« fias been short and because we felt that the most urgent need is a prompt and final
decision by His Majesty’s Government, whatever be the form that it assumes.
It is not necessary to analyse here the contents of the various papers which have
been submitted to and studied by the Committee. Many of them raise issues upon
* which wide differences of opinion have at different times been held, but which are
in a sense obsolete, because no one now seriously advocates a complete reversal of
policy on their account. Of such a nature are the promises or pledges, not always
clear or consistent, which have been made to the Arabs and about which a wordy
warfare can easily be w^aged. I his question may be said to have been finally disposed
of in the White Paper of last summer, and unless it is proposed to tear up in toto
that declaration of Government policy, it is unnecessary to revive it. Br o adl y
speaking, we can claim with justice to be innocent of any conscious breach of faith
either to the Arabs or to anyone else.
Similarly, it is no longer pertinent to discuss the policy oi the immai
Declaration of 1917. There are some of our number who think that that Declaration
was both unnecessary and unwise, and who hold that our subsequent troubles have
sprung in the main from its adoption. But that was nearly six years ago. We
cannot ignore the fact that ever since it has been the accepted policy of His Majesty s
' Government, that it was also accepted, not indeed without some reluctance, ov the
whole of our Allies, that it met with especial favour in America, that it was officially
endorsed at San Remo, that it figured in the original Treaty of Sevres, and that it
• was textually reproduced in the Mandate for Palestine, which was officially submitted
» to and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. Further,
it has been the basis upon which Zionist co-operation in the development of Palestine
has been freely given and upon which very large sums of Jewish money have since
been subscribed. . . , . .. ...
Whether this policy has been wise or unwise, the above considerations, whicr
cannot be disputed, possess a cumulative weight from which it is well-nigh impossible
for anv Government to extricate itself without a substantial sacrifice of consistency
^ and self-respect, if not of honour. Those of us who have disliked the policy are not
prepared to make that sacrifice. Those of us who approved the policy throughout
would, of course, speak in much less equivocal terms.
v [10390]