The previous article tackle the Palestinian protest against all the support Britain is offering to Jews and the cancellation of British Foreign Secretary Balfour’s promise, which he sent to the leaders of the Zionist movement, declaring his government’s position on the Zionist movement, to establish a national home for the Jewish people in “Palestine”.
As for the political stance of Britain, they kept ignoring the Palestinian requests leading to tension in the Britain-Palestinian relations especially after Churchill’s confirmation that Britain would not cancel the “Balfour Declaration” promising a national home for the Jewish people.
Thus, the Palestinians and Arabs lost all hope of positive steps from Britain. As the Al-Quds newspaper mentions that as a result of this British intransigence, the Arabs lost all hope that could be placed in Britain. Therefore, in July 1922, the Arab Executive Committee sent a letter asking the Palestinian delegation negotiating with the British in London to return to Palestine, after announcing to the British Crown Government the nation’s complete rejection of the mandate and its determination to continue the struggle to achieve independence. As a result, the arena ignited with Arab resistance and a harsh British response.
The Palestinian Question document file mentions a grievance submitted by the ‘Third Arab Palestinian Congress’ to the British government and its parliament, denouncing the Balfour Declaration on the grounds that it violates both divine and secular laws. It stated:
“The Third Arab Palestinian Congress, representing all segments of the Islamic and Christian people, is protesting against the ‘Balfour Declaration’ regarding the establishment of a national home for the Jews; and no matter how much they have tried to soften it and reassure us against its harm, it is contrary to all divine and secular laws for the following reasons:
-
An aggression against our natural rights, as our homeland has been our exclusive possession, where we have multiplied and built for centuries, inheriting it from our ancestors who bought it with their blood.
-
A violation of the sanctity of international law, which the Allies claimed to have fought for, and which does not permit depriving the citizens of a defeated state of their right to settle in their homeland, nor can this right be considered a spoils of war to be given by the victorious powers to whomever they please. Indeed, even the rights of conquest in past centuries did not go so far as to expel the defeated people from their land.
-
A violation of the sanctity of civil laws that consider a people’s homeland as a private residence, in which no one else has the right to share unless they prove their nationality by a majority or by geographic boundaries. And the Jews in our country do not exceed seven percent of the population and two percent of the wealth.
-
A mockery of the pledges made by the Allies to liberate the peoples from “Turkey” and a scorn for the “pledges and covenants” and for the blood of the war martyrs that was shed in loyalty to those pledges, especially the Arabs who gave the Allies their blood and swords. The nations of the “League of Nations,” especially those with interests in the East, are wiser than to shoot this arrow into the East and strike the Islamic and Christian worlds in their sensitive spot of religion and holy sites, and to leave us to turn our faces toward these two worlds to arouse their zeal. And we will not be responsible for the consequences of this declaration and its effects in the East, the first of which is the importation of Bolshevism, as has been evident in Palestine through Jewish Bolshevik activities and publications. Palestine is overcrowded with its own people, so how can it accommodate a foreign people who are flooding into it like a raging torrent? We draw your attention to the fact that England is proceeding with the implementation of the Balfour Declaration, despite our opposition.”
