Palestine: A Modern History (ص 38)

غرض

عنوان

Palestine: A Modern History (ص 38)

المحتوى

78 Polarisation: The Military Administration 1917-1920
of Jerusalem; Musa Kazem was dismissed because of his participation in
the demonstration against Zionist policies. Musa Kazem inforced Storrs
that under these circumstances no’ Arab will dare take my place.’*° As
it turned out, a rival notable Ragheb Bey Nashashibi accepted the post
the moment it was offered to him, thus d&monstrating a lack of solid-
arity and resolution among: the notables vis-d-vis the British
Administration.
The Palin Commission Report was suppressed and until recently
(1968) treated confidentially. Violent Arab opposition failed to
introduce any fundamental changes in the overall British policy in
Paléstine. Quite the contrary, His Majesty’s Government were contem-
plating a switch from military administration to ‘civil Mandatory
Government incorporating in its provisions the Balfour Declaration,
despite the delay in concluding the peace treaty with Turkey. Moreover,
the British Gévernment proposed to appoint Herbert’Samuél, a
well-known Jewish politician, as the first British High Commissioner in
Palestine.'*! The risks involved in appointing a wéll-khown Zionist Jew
were promptly pointed out by the British Authorities in the area. Both
Samuel and the Cabinet were well aware of the nature of these risks. In
a letter to Lord Curzon, Samuel reported the gist of a conversation with
a deputation from the Council of Jews of Jerusalem:
I told them that the Government had received a grave warning. ..
that the appointment of any Jew as the first Govetnor of Palestine
would likely to the signal for an outbreak of serious disorder, that
there was a danger of widespread attacks upon the Jewish colonies
and upon individual Jews; that raids might take place across the
border; and further, that important Christian elements in the
population, whose co-operation was necessaty for thé effective
conduct of the Government, might withdraw their support. It had
been represented that Mohammedan opinion was already in an
excitable state, owing to the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in
the Turkish Treaty, and tHat such an‘ appointment would be
regarded as the transfer of the whole country to the Jews.'*?
In his published memoirs, Samuel contended that he had been
appointed ‘With full knowledge on the part of'His Majesty’s Govern-
ment of my Zionist sympathies, and no doubt largely because of
them’. 43
On 31 May following the announcément of the Palestine Mandate,
the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in its articles, and the appoint-
Polarisation: The Military Administration 1917-1920 79
ment of Samuel as the first High Commissioner for Palestine, a number
of leading Palestinian political personalities met at the Nadi-al-‘Arabi in
Damascus where they resolved to form ‘The Palestinian Arab Society’.
The officers of the Society were Haj Amin Husseini, ‘Izzat Darwaza and
‘Aref al-‘Aref. The society urged all Palestinian societies and clubs to
work together for the common good. Moreover, the Society protested
against the San Remo Conference’s decision to grant Britain a mandate
over Palestine and against Samuel’s appointment. It also appealed to the
Muslims ‘of India and to the Pope, drawing attention to the Jewish
danger in.Palestine.™
The appointment of Samuel came as a severe blow to the Palestinian
Arab masses, who, nevertheless, seemed determined to resist Zionism
and the Balfour Declaration as their struggle against them entered a new
stage.
Notes
1. Memorandum of the Jewish*Palestinian Question, Arab Bureau, 5 February
1917, FO 822/14, p.16.
2. He played an important role in Palestinian affairs later on when he assumed the
post of Secretary of State for the Colonies.
3. Ormsby-Gore, ‘Palestine Political’, 12 January 1917, FO 822/14.
4. See Antonius, p.187. Also see ‘al-Thawra al-‘Arabiyya al-Kubra’ (‘The
Great Arab Revolt’), Mulhaq al-Hayat, Beirut, 22 November 1966, p.41.
. For the Hussein-McMahon correspondence’ see Correspondence between Sit
Henry McMahon and the Sharif Hussein of Meéca, July 1916-March 1917,
Cmd. 5957 (Miscellaneous No.3) 1939, HMSO London.
. For an early confidential discussion of the ‘subject Asserting the inclusion of
Palestine in the proposed Arab state see*Memorandum on British Commit-
ments to'King Hussein, Political Intelligefice! Department,5 November 1918,
FO 371/3384. For other documents written at the time the McMahon pledge
was given, see McMahon to FO, 26 October" ‘1915, FO 371/2486. Also see
Grey to Buchanan, 30 November 1915, FO 3741/2767. Also see Grey to
McMahon 20 October 1915, FO 371/6237 and FO 141)461.
. See FO 371/4368. The text of the Agreethent also appears in E.L. Woodward
and R. Butler (eds.) Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939. 1st
ser., VOLIV, p.241-51.
. The original letter ‘deposited by Lord Rothschitd’ in {tie British Museum: addl.
Ms.41178 folios 1 and 3; for a reproduction of the letter anda full discussion
of the efforts and negotiations leading to the Declaration, see Leonard Stein,
The Balfour Declaration, London 1961, passim;'J.M.N. Jeffries, Palestine:
The Reality, London, 1939, pp.88-186 passim; and Chaim Weizman, Trial
and Error, London 1950, pp.223-52, passim.
. As early’as March 1916 Sir Mark Sykes of the FO reported that: ‘When in
Cairo Dr Feris Nifnr and (Major) Faruki, poles asunder on the political
question, both told me that Arabs, Christians and Moslems alike would fight
in the matter to the last man against Jewish Dominion in Palestine’. See Sykes
to Buchanan, 14 March 1916, FO 371/2767.

تاريخ

1978

المنشئ

Abdul-Wahhab Kayyali

مجموعات العناصر

Generated Pages Set