British Policy in Palestine — British White Paper of June 1922

Summary

The June 1922 White Paper statement of British policy in Palestine: His Majesty’s Government’s authoritative interpretation of the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917, drawn up by the Secretary of State for the Colonies after consultation with the High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, and summarising correspondence with a delegation from the Moslem Christian Society of Palestine. It denies that the Declaration contemplates a wholly Jewish Palestine or the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture; defines the Jewish National Home as the further development of the existing Jewish community of 80,000, in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance, with immigration limited by the country’s economic capacity to absorb new arrivals (about 25,000 immigrants since the British occupation); holds the whole of Palestine west of the Jordan to have been excluded from Henry McMahon’s 1915 pledge to the Sherif Hussein of Mecca; and sets self-government by gradual stages, the second step being a Legislative Council of the High Commissioner as President, twelve elected and ten official members (British Policy in Palestine — British White Paper of June 1922, lines 27-53).

What the file is

• The White Paper statement as reproduced by the Avalon Project at Yale Law School, downloaded from https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp (access basis: public-domain). The original is the HTML page; the supplied text copy (about 2,102 words, lines 1-98) is a plain-text rendering with no page markers, so locators are line numbers. Avalon page furniture occupies lines 1-25 and 55-98; the statement is lines 27-53.
• The file gives the date only as June 1922, in its title; no day, command-paper number or signature appears. The statement nowhere names the Secretary of State; it speaks for “the Secretary of State” and “His Majesty’s Government” throughout. Its attribution to Winston Churchill rests on the office he held: Annex A of the 1939 committee report attributes the 1922 vilayets argument to Churchill as Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1922 (Report of a Committee set up to consider certain correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca, lines 340-352), and The Question of Palestine and Perceptions of Palestine both call the June 1922 paper Churchill’s.
• Bracketed insertions in the reproduction: “[Sir Herbert Samuel]” after “the High Commissioner for Palestine” (line 27) and “[Balfour]” in “the [Balfour] Declaration” (line 29).
• Text quality: the statement is clean and complete as a continuous text. Slips in the Avalon reproduction itself, present in the HTML original as well as the text copy (checked against the original): “deegation” (line 31), “re affirmed” and “the Principle Allied Powers” (line 35), “Sir. Henry McMahon’s pledge” (line 47), “His Majesty’s overnment” (line 49) and “Deparments” (line 51), and mixed quotation marks in “`in Palestine.’” (line 31). Each is held as printed, under Open questions.

Section by section

• Introduction (line 27): the Secretary of State has given renewed consideration to the political situation in Palestine, seeking a settlement of the questions that have caused uncertainty and unrest; after consultation with the High Commissioner the statement is drawn up, summarising the essential parts of the correspondence with a delegation from the Moslem Christian Society of Palestine, in England for some time, and stating the further conclusions reached.
• The two apprehensions (line 29): Palestine’s tension is mainly due to apprehensions among sections of both the Arab and the Jewish population; the Arabs’ are partly based on exaggerated interpretations of the Declaration of 2 November 1917 favouring a Jewish National Home in Palestine.
• What the Declaration does not mean (line 31): unauthorised statements claim the purpose is a wholly Jewish Palestine — Palestine to become “as Jewish as England is English.” Any such expectation is impracticable and is not His Majesty’s Government’s aim; nor have they at any time contemplated the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. The Declaration does not contemplate Palestine as a whole being converted into a Jewish National Home, but such a Home being founded in Palestine. The Zionist Congress at Carlsbad in September 1921, the Zionist Organization’s supreme governing body, is quoted with satisfaction for its resolution of unity and mutual respect with the Arab people (quoted under Key passages).
• The Zionist Organization’s position (line 33): the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired and does not possess any share in the general administration; nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate imply any such functions — it relates to measures affecting the Jewish population and to assisting the country’s general development, not to sharing in its government in any degree.
• One juridical status, and the Declaration unchangeable (line 35): all citizens of Palestine are to have the single juridical status of Palestinian; no other was ever intended for any section. Jewish fears of departure from the 1917 policy are unfounded: the Declaration, reaffirmed at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, “is not susceptible of change” (line 35).
• The existing community and the meaning of the National Home (line 37): over the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated a community of 80,000, about one fourth farmers or workers on the land, with an elected assembly, elected town councils, a schools organisation, an elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council, Hebrew as a vernacular language and a Hebrew Press, and a distinctive intellectual and economic life — a community with, in fact, “national” characteristics. The National Home’s development is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality on Palestine’s inhabitants as a whole, but the further development of this community, assisted by Jews worldwide, into a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take an interest and a pride on grounds of religion and race. It must know it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance; hence the Home’s existence must be internationally guaranteed and formally recognised to rest on ancient historic connection.
• The interpretation stated (line 39): so understood, the Declaration contains or implies nothing to cause alarm to the Arab population or disappointment to the Jews.
• Immigration (lines 41-43): the Jewish community must be able to increase by immigration, limited by the country’s economic capacity to absorb new arrivals at the time; immigrants must not burden Palestine’s people as a whole or deprive any section of the present population of employment; hitherto immigration has fulfilled these conditions, and the number of immigrants since the British occupation has been about 25,000. Persons politically undesirable are to be excluded, and every precaution has been and will be taken to that end.
• Immigration committee and appeal to the League (line 45): a special committee, consisting entirely of elected members of the new Legislative Council, is to confer with the Administration on regulating immigration; differences go to His Majesty’s Government for special consideration. Under Article 81 of the draft Palestine Order in Council, any religious community or considerable section of the population may appeal, through the High Commissioner and the Secretary of State, to the League of Nations on any matter on which they consider the Mandate’s terms are not being fulfilled.
• The McMahon letter and the constitution (line 47): it is not the case, as the Arab Delegation represents, that Britain undertook during the war that an independent national government should be at once established in Palestine. The representation rests mainly on McMahon’s letter of 24 October 1915 to the Sharif of Mecca, now King Hussein of the Hejaz; its promise to recognise and support Arab independence was subject to the reservation excluding the portions of Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus, a reservation His Majesty’s Government have always regarded as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem, so that the whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was excluded from the pledge.
• Self-government by stages (line 49): a full measure of self-government is intended, by gradual stages. First step: the nominated Advisory Council set up with the Civil Administration. Second step: a Legislative Council with a large proportion elected on a wide franchise; the published draft’s three High Commissioner-nominated non-official members are to be omitted after representations against the provision, leaving the High Commissioner as President, twelve elected and ten official members. Control of the Executive by the Assembly comes only after time has elapsed, institutions are established, financial credit is firmly founded and Palestinian officials have gained experience; after a few years the situation will be reviewed.
• Communal administration already transferred (line 51): the Administration has transferred to a Supreme Council elected by the Moslem community the entire control of Moslem religious endowments (Waqfs) and Moslem religious Courts, and voluntarily restored considerable revenues from ancient endowments sequestrated by the Turkish Government. The Education Department is advised by a committee representative of all sections; the Department of Commerce and Industry has the co-operation of Chambers of Commerce in the principal centres; similar representative committees are to be associated increasingly with the Government’s departments.
• Close (line 53): the policy, with the fullest religious liberty and scrupulous regard for each community’s Holy Places rights, is commended to all sections as the basis for the spirit of co-operation on which the Holy Land’s progress and prosperity largely depend.

Key passages

• “as Jewish as England is English.” (line 31; from the statement’s sentence on phrases that have been used)
• “the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development.” (line 31; the Carlsbad resolution, quoted by the statement)
• “it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community” (line 37)
• “it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance” (line 37)
• “This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals.” (line 41)
• “The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir. Henry McMahon’s pledge.” (line 47; “Sir.” as printed)

Evidence the work relies on

• The statement is a policy declaration, not an evidential work. The material it presents as its basis: the correspondence with the Moslem Christian Society delegation, summarised but not reproduced (line 27); the Zionist Congress resolution at Carlsbad, September 1921, quoted (line 31); Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine and Article 81 of the draft Palestine Order in Council, cited for the Zionist Organization’s position and the right of appeal (lines 33, 45); the McMahon letter of 24 October 1915, characterised and partly quoted (line 47); and its own two figures — a Jewish community of 80,000, about one fourth on the land (line 37), and about 25,000 immigrants since the British occupation (line 41) — given without a cited source or an as-of date beyond the statement’s own June 1922.

Analysis

• Form and method: an interpretive ruling issued as a statement of conclusions. It settles the Declaration’s meaning by assertion from the issuing government — what the Declaration “does not contemplate”, what has “never been intended”, what “has always been regarded” as the 1915 reservation’s scope — rather than by argument from the texts it construes; the McMahon letter and the Declaration are characterised, not set out in full, so the reader cannot test the readings from this file alone.
• The statement holds two reassurances together: to Arabs, no wholly Jewish Palestine, no disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture, and immigration capped by economic capacity; to Jews, the Declaration is not susceptible of change, the community is in Palestine as of right, and its National Home is to be internationally guaranteed on its ancient historic connection. Its own definition of the Home — development of the existing community into a centre for the Jewish people as a whole — is the measure it offers for both.
• Limits, on the file’s own terms: it gives no figure for Palestine’s total or Arab population against which the 80,000 and 25,000 figures could be set; it does not say who is to judge economic capacity, beyond the elected-members’ committee conferring with the Administration and referral of differences to London; and its exclusion of Palestine from the 1915 pledge rests on the District of Damascus reservation read as vilayets, a reading other ingested sources record as contested (see How it relates).

People, organizations, places and events

Winston Churchill, Herbert Samuel, Henry McMahon, Sherif Hussein of Mecca, Britain, Balfour Declaration, British White Paper of June 1922, Zionist Commission, World Zionist Organization, League of Nations, Supreme Muslim Council, Treaty of Sèvres, San Remo Conference

Concepts

Jewish National Home, Economic capacity, Waqf, Mandate system

How it relates to other sources

• It is an interpretation of the Balfour Declaration as ingested at The Balfour Declaration: where the 1917 letter speaks of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, the White Paper glosses it as a Home founded in Palestine, not Palestine as a whole converted into one, and supplies the definition the letter lacks.
• Its exclusion reading of the McMahon letter is the position the 1939 committee examined and could not jointly accept: the Arab representatives held Palestine included, the United Kingdom representatives held it excluded, while conceding the Arab district-phrase contentions had greater force than had appeared and that the exclusion’s language was not so specific and unmistakable as it had been thought (Report of a Committee set up to consider certain correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca, lines 153-290). Annex A of that report attributes the vilayets reading of “districts” to Churchill’s public sponsorship in 1922 and calls it untenable (lines 340-352). The letters themselves are at Correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sherif Hussein of Mecca, July 1915–March 1916; Palestine is named nowhere in them.
• The phrase it disowns — Palestine “as Jewish as England is English” — is the same phrase the Haycraft Commission quoted from the Jewish Chronicle of 20 May 1921 as an instance of the Zionist exposition from which the Arabs derived their conception of Zionist policy (Palestine. Disturbances in May, 1921. Reports of the Commission of Inquiry with Correspondence Relating Thereto, PDF p.54, 58).
• The Question of Palestine quotes the Arab delegation’s 1922 reply to this White Paper as holding that the intention behind creating the Jewish National Home was to cause the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, culture and language — the very outcome line 31 of the White Paper says was never contemplated; the reply is quoted verbatim on British White Paper of June 1922 (The Question of Palestine, PDF p.104).
• Perceptions of Palestine records the divergence between the declaration’s text and its later United States reading, against this paper’s clarification that Britain had not contemplated Palestine as a whole being converted into a Jewish National Home (lines 447-463).
• The Draft Mandate it cites at Article IV was confirmed the following month as the Mandate for Palestine: its Article 4 recognises an appropriate Jewish agency, the Zionist organisation so long as its constitution is appropriate — a public-body advisory and co-operating role, as the White Paper reads it, not a share in government (Mandate for Palestine (1922), PDF p.9).

Open questions

• The file gives no day in June 1922, no command-paper number and no named author; the Secretary of State is identified only by his office, and the High Commissioner and Balfour only by bracketed insertions in the reproduction.
• Slips in the reproduction, held as printed and checked against the HTML original: “deegation” (line 31), “re affirmed” and “Principle Allied Powers” (line 35), “Sir. Henry” (line 47), “overnment” (line 49), “Deparments” (line 51). Whether they stand in the 1922 original cannot be settled from this file.
• The correspondence with the Moslem Christian Society delegation is summarised, not reproduced; the delegation’s own representations appear only as the statement characterises them (lines 27, 47).
• The statement says the 1915 reservation “has always been regarded” by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem; it gives no source for that regard, and the 1939 committee’s record of disagreement on the point stands at Report of a Committee set up to consider certain correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca.
• No total population figure is given, so the 80,000 community and the 25,000 immigrants cannot be proportioned from this file.

Coverage

lines 1-98 of 98, read in full.