web analytics
July 29, 2015 / 13 Av, 5775
At a Glance
Blogs
Sponsored Post


Hankey, Hogarth and the ‘Arab People of Palestine’

What British officials were thinking about the "Palestine problem" before World War II.
Lieutenant Colonel Lawrence (L) with officers of the Arab Bureau in Cairo: Commander D G Hogarth (M), an Arabic scholar who was Director of the Arab Bureau in Cairo, and Lieutenant Colonel Alan Dawnay, one of the Bureau's officers.

Lieutenant Colonel Lawrence (L) with officers of the Arab Bureau in Cairo: Commander D G Hogarth (M), an Arabic scholar who was Director of the Arab Bureau in Cairo, and Lieutenant Colonel Alan Dawnay, one of the Bureau's officers.
Photo Credit: Imperial War Museum

I didn’t say this:

At the time of the Hogarth negotiations, the Arab people of Palestine were a backward, primitive sort of people without political consciousness.

Those words were spoken at the meeting of the League of Nations Mandates Commission, Friday, June 16th, 1939, at 10.30 a.m. They are Lord Hankey’s words.  He was Secretary of the Imperial War Cabinet 1916-1918 and then Secretary to the Cabinet for the next nineteen years.

As for that Hogarth Message:

The following are the terms of the message which [British] Commander Hogarth was instructed to deliver to King Husain when he visited Jedda in January, 1918:

“(1) The Entente Powers are determined that the Arab race shall be given full opportunity of once again forming a nation in the world. This can only be achieved by the Arabs themselves uniting, and Great Britain and her Allies will pursue a policy with this ultimate unity in view.

“(2) So far as Palestine is concerned we are determined that no people shall be subject to another, but

(a) In view of the fact that there are in Palestine shrines, Wakfs and Holy places, sacred in some cases to Moslems alone, to Jews alone, to Christians alone, and in others to two or all three, and inasmuch as these places are of interest to vast masses of people outside Palestine and Arabia, there must be a special regime to deal with these places approved of-by the world.

(b) As regards the Mosque of Omar it shall be considered as a Moslem concern alone and shall not be subjected directly or indirectly to any non-Moslem authority.

“(3) Since the Jewish opinion of the world is in favour of a return of Jews to Palestine and inasmuch as this opinion must remain a constant factor, and further as His Majesty’s Government view with favour the realisation of this aspiration, His Majesty’s Government are determined that in so far as is compatible with the freedom of the existing population both economic and political, no obstacle should be put in the way of the realisation of this ideal.

In this connexion the friendship of world Jewry to the Arab cause is equivalent to support in all States where Jews have a political influence. The leaders of the movement are determined to bring about the success of Zionism by friendship and co-operation with the Arabs, and such an offer is not one to be lightly thrown aside.

And since we’re in a historical ‘mood’, here is Lord Samuel suggesting an alternative solution back on May 23, 1939:

I see that four surviving members of the Peel Commission have written a letter in which they advocate again the federal solution, but they use the federal solution on this occasion in a wider sense as involving a possible union of Palestine with neighbouring Arab States. That is a different matter. I have myself advocated that in this House and elsewhere on various occasions. I think it is highly desirable that the venue should be changed, that the whole conception should be altered, and that could be done if Palestine were not considered merely as a small State by itself but as a member of a possible confederation of States which would include not only Trans-Jordan and Syria, but also some of the remoter Arab Principalities. If that were done then the whole question would wear a different aspect, because, if Arab federation came into being, there would not be the same fear and resentment felt at a great increase of the Jewish population in Palestine West of the Jordan. On the contrary, it might be welcomed as a most useful economic and financial element in the whole of the Federation and might possibly tend to bring about that co-operation between the Jews and Arabs which led to the glories of Islam in the days of their illustrious Empire.

But if this is to come about, if there it to be an interim period pending a development of that kind, or pending a change of atmosphere, it is absolutely indispensable that both sides, for the sake of peace, should consent to some modification of their full demands. Both sides must be pressed to make some sacrifice, and on the Jewish side the sacrifice could only be consent to a limitation of immigration, not only on economic grounds, but also definitely and avowedly on political grounds, in order to gain peace and in order to secure a time for passions to quieten down and for co-operation to grow.

About the Author: Yisrael Medad resides in Shiloh and is a foreign media spokesperson for the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities.

The author's opinion does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Jewish Press.

If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Hankey, Hogarth and the ‘Arab People of Palestine’”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
The White House will free Pollard but bar him from traveling to Israel for five years.
US Won’t Let Pollard Out of Country for Five Years
Latest Blogs Stories
Doug Goldstein

Meet Republican US presidential candidate Kerry Bowers & listen to his message to the Israeli public

palestinian children songs

Amongst the Palestinians (sic) what is promoted and praised for its young people? Terror & martyrdom

Peres' 90th Birthday

“If you can’t negotiate with your enemy, why negotiate at all?” Great sound bite. The press loved it

Woman_rabbi

The phenomenon pushing limits of Orthodoxy to the extreme left has no chance of becoming mainstream

Discussing, what should you do if you are feeling overstressed in your job and are tempted to quit?

Considering Esther Pollard’s group mismanaged his case, Pollard’s chances of parole are slim

Detention Camps for US Jews? Sounds farfetched but it did to Japanese-Americans during WW II as well

We asked the soldiers, what will you tell your children you did during the Disengagement?

The Arab terrorist murderer who murdered Malachi Rosenfeld,(HY”D)last month, was an American citizen

The “Stop Iran” rally was a voice of sanity coming from the American people, and directed at Senator Chuck Schumer who holds the keys…

Shalit Deal advocates: “Israel must do whatever it takes” to free Gilad; This proved deadly nonsense

Learn how modern technology can be used to foster personal development in life as well as in finance

Dear CNN: When hypocrisy rules a media outlet, its mandate to call what they do “journalism” expires

With it seems more lives than a cat, I now recognize Hasgacha Pratis is HaShem’s involvement in life

There needs to be clarity about what is & isn’t acceptable in Orthodoxy; That should be the debate.

Obama, Kerry etc are promoting their “deal” like it’s the genuine article, not a cheap “knock-off”

More Articles from Yisrael Medad
US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki.

The answers could make you “puke.”

State Dept. Spokesperson Jen Psaki (R) with Secretary of State John Kerry. Psaki revealed Kerry himself has no trust in the promise of regional acceptance he's been lavishing on Israel.

MS. PSAKI: He asked me if we thought he (molotov-cocktail throwing Arab-US citizen was a terrorist, and I said no.

Is the EU “Jewish challenged”?

There was a problem: A different speech, in part, was delivered on September 27

” the Americans mistakenly led Israel to believe that Hamas accepted an unconditional 72-hour cease-fire “

If anyone can claim that what Prof. Shindler asserted and what Netanyahu said are similar, I guess there is something wrong with their reading glasses.

The U.S. recognizes the “West Bank” as having “sovereignty” for passport purposes, but not Israel?

Polls relied on to “prove” Palestinian Arabs want peaceful solution were anomalous and incomplete.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/my-right-word/hankey-hogarth-and-the-arab-people-of-palestine/2012/11/05/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: