Throughout the 1930’s a small but resolute group of British activists campaigned and lobbied on behalf of the rights of the Palestinians and passionately but unsuccessfully fought against an unrelenting process that ultimately led to the eviction, forced dispossession, and exile of 750,000 Palestinians during the Nakba of 1948 – the Catastrophe - a consequence of the deceitfully worded Balfour Declaration of 1917, the “most discreditable document to which a British Government has set its hand within memory” (Jeffries).
This determined but fragmented group of activists gathered mostly in London, and with limited resources but with extensive personal knowledge they attempted to push back against a robust and well-organised Zionist narrative. Their strong views and opinions were acquired from first-hand experience and long association with the land of Palestine and its people. Wherever they could, they added their voices, their arguments, their testimonies, and their recommendations to what remains an endless cycle of Palestinian victimisation and resistance – a desperate situation that resonates more powerfully today than at any other time in Palestinian history since the Nakba.
British activism in support of Palestine did not start in the 1930’s – it will be seen that Stewart Newcombe’s involvement began much earlier - but it came to a head in 1939 with the publication of the Peel Commission in 1937 and the 1939 White Paper, an inquiry and a policy paper that were set against the backdrop of the Great Arab Revolt in Mandatory Palestine, a popular uprising that was then in its third year. This article explores just a few of the key British personalities that were there at the birth of the pro-Palestinian movement.
This is their one-hundred-year-old story.
A TIME OF RECKONING - Post war years
In 1921, Colonel Stewart Newcombe was tasked with delineating the northern borders of Palestine, Lebanon and a small but significant corner of Syria with his French counterpart, Lieutenant Colonel Maurice Paulet, on behalf of the British Mandate of Palestine and Iraq and the French Mandate of Lebanon and Syria.
The physical process of surveying the proposed border had followed nearly two years of protracted negotiations between Whitehall and the Quai d'Orsay, with considerable influence injected into the British argument from the Zionist Organisation, aided by Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, a Zionist sympathiser who had recently been appointed Chief Political Officer for Palestine at the urging of Chaim Weizmann, leader of the newly founded World Zionist Organisation. With the French growing increasingly suspicious of the British using Zionist claims as a pretext to penetrate further into the Middle East, Prime Minister Lloyd George needed all of his wily negotiating skills to overcome the basic problem that the British Government, under pressure from the Zionist Organisation, had been independently advised by Jewish experts who had already carried out their own boundary surveys to revise the borders as set out in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. Their aim was to take advantage of several water sources in the north and the east of the proposed mandate in order to electrify the future Jewish homeland.
 |
| Pinhas Rutenberg |
The previous year, renowned Jewish engineer Pinhas Rutenberg had arrived in a country impoverished by the Ottoman war machine and neglected by decades of misrule with a grand scheme to electrify and transform the country. For his plan to be successful, Rutenberg needed water, and so he turned his attention to the marshland of the upper Huleh Basin, a finger of land in the far north-east of the country extending beyond the proposed boundary of the mandate for Palestine. His scheme was so far removed from the ‘spiritual’ dimensions of the “promised land” that the issue of water now became central to the protracted negotiations. Newcombe’s explorations had identified the Huleh as land traditionally administered by Syrian sheikhs and their communities. From a military point of view, the wetlands of the Huleh would be difficult terrain to defend. Newcombe proposed including the region within the French sphere of influence as a fair compromise if concessions to control the railways connecting Deraa, Hejaz and the future Baghdad routes were ceded by France to Britain in exchange for the water. His recommendations were accepted by leading military advisors in Egypt and at the War Office in London on strategic grounds but would prove to be a point of contention that threatened wider discussions at government levels.
Soon, everyone was weighing in on the border question. Zionists in the US were especially vocal on the subject and were able to persuade President Woodrow Wilson to lobby the British government to include the Litani River and tributaries from the Jordan to be included in Palestine. Rutenberg wielded considerable influence and had powerful friends and later claimed that he was able to convince the French to modify the northern boundary to “conform with the economic and topographic requirements of Palestine.”
Newcombe fought back on his own terms. During his survey, the absence of negotiations with representatives from the Palestinian Arabs was a glaring omission not lost on Newcombe, despite several group petitions from tribal leaders asking for their needs to be considered. His experience on the ground and in heated discussions with his own government over Zionist demands, and pressure from Rutenberg and Weizmann in particular, would ultimately bring matters to a head. Newcombe informed the Colonial Office that he would refuse to sign any agreement “unless British interests are fully protected”. They promptly responded by dispatching an old colleague, Major Hubert Young, to inform Newcombe that in fact all the details had already decided behind the scenes and that he was duty-bound to accept the boundary as proposed by Rutenberg and the Zionists.
Much to Newcombe’s chagrin, his own carefully considered recommendations based on personal observations were set aside in favour of water for Palestine at any cost, irrespective of British or Arab interests. It was a matter of such deep concern to Newcombe that he took the highly unusual step of resigning from his post. As he claimed, “I had been brought up in the Sudan to consider natives’ interests and that the methods being employed were entirely against my principles”.
Young was quick to point out that the decision had come from the Cabinet and not the Colonial Office, and so after consultation with General Congreve, his GOC in Cairo, Newcombe had no option but to withdraw his resignation. He did so “with deep regret”, for as a serving officer he could not go against the Cabinet’s decision.
But if Rutenberg’s proposal for electrifying Palestine alleviated the problem of the country’s overdue development, it further reinforced Palestinian concerns, seeing the proposal as “not just a power system but also the base plate of a future Jewish state.” The seeds of discontent had been sown; this was electricity as power politics and the Palestinians were not fooled, condemning the network of high-tension cables and hydropower stations that delineated new borders and chanting in protest: “Rutenberg’s lampposts are the gallows of our nation!”
If Newcombe suspected that the electrification of Palestine by the Zionist movement was one of the chief vehicles of Jewish state building, then his role as a British officer meant that he had to hold his personal views in check, at least for now. However, at this defining moment in his career, where he had clearly wrestled with his conscience in the face of unrelenting Zionist pressure, he chose to pledge his unwavering support to the Palestinians and their goal of achieving self-determination and statehood. Thereafter, his stance as a British Arabist would mark him out as a troublemaker within Zionist circles.
The Paulet-Newcombe Boundary Line was eventually ratified in March 1923 and included the Rutenberg extension into the Huleh Valley as physical evidence of the depths of Zionist influence to achieve their own political aims over local interests and British military considerations. The electrification of Palestine by the Zionists had become crucial to its conquest and the future dispossession of the Palestinians. Arab leaders clearly understood the significance of what they saw as the encroachment of Jewish nationalism upon their own aspirations. In a letter sent to the British government in 1922, they protested that "the Zionists, through Mr. Rutenberg, are aiming at getting a stranglehold on the economics of Palestine, and once that is in their hands they will become virtual masters of the country."
In 1917, with the backing of Christian governments employing the Bible as supporting evidence, the Zionists had wasted no time in utilising religious, spiritual and cultural themes for its own end. But by the mid-1930’s, even David Ben-Gurion, then Chairman of the Executive of the Jewish Agency and later first Prime Minister of Israel, disabused anyone who claimed there was any connections between political Zionism and those who saw Palestine as a spiritual centre for world Jewry: "I never believed and do not believe now in a spiritual centre and if I thought that that was all it was possible to achieve in Palestine, I would not advise even one Jew to come here." Having exploited the support of Christian Zionists, the scene was set for the forced dispossession of the Palestinians from their own land.
In the years before his retirement, Newcombe began to develop his own ideas on Jewish immigration with numbers to be limited by the economic absorptive capacity of the land. He favoured Jewish immigration that was supported by a cultural and spiritual connection to the land; political Zionism was anathema to his principles, suggesting that the role of the Zionist Commission should be limited to a philanthropic immigration agency. He fought tirelessly for a just solution to the establishment of a viable sovereign state for the Palestinian people in the face of significant Zionist advances into the country and remained a steadfast advocate on behalf of the Palestinians for the rest of his life. He became most politically active during the years prior to the Second World War.
After 34 years of military service, Newcombe's retirement in 1932 came in like a storm, with plans and schemes in hand that indicated that this next stage of his life was going to be far from the quiet retreat he deserved after years of strenuous physical exertion. Empires were shifting and the whole world was in a state of flux; Germany's war machine was on the move once again, and the Middle East was set to erupt in violent protest over an uncertain future.
BRITISH ACTIVISM IN SUPPORT OF THE PALESTINIANS IN THE 1930’S
“I was one of the instruments through whom promises were made to the Arabs. We have broken faith with them. I feel very deeply in this matter and ashamed to have taken so little part in rectifying matters.”
S.F. NEWCOMBE
THE PALESTINE INFORMATION CENTRE – 1937
 |
| The committee list |
The timing of Newcombe’s retirement coincided with a critical stage in Palestinian history, when the outcome of vigorous negotiations and lobbying on both sides would determine its future. Among the many clubs and societies that he was involved with - The Royal Central Asian Society, The Royal Geographical Society, the Palestine Exploration Fund, and others - Newcombe unhesitatingly became an enthusiastic member of a coalition of Muslim and non-Muslim campaigners advocating for Palestinian self-determination through an organisation he helped form called the Palestine Information Centre (the PIC), whose stated object was "To uphold the rights of the Arab population".
With no fewer than seven groups active in London countering the Zionist project on behalf of the Palestinians, the PIC attracted a group of men and women who kept the Arab cause alive despite firm opposition from persistent and persuasive lobbying that had grown in strength since the formation of the English Zionist Federation in 1899 and the emergence of political Zionism, reinvigorated by the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the war.
The depth of experience and dedication to the cause is evident in the list of committee members of the Palestine Information Centre, which can be seen on a letterhead dated 8 May 1937. Among the names that stand out alongside Newcombe are Mrs Steuart Erskine (Beatrice Caroline Strong) and Francis Emily Newton, both long-standing committed activists, and Joseph Jefferies, a respected world-affairs journalist.
“I think it is right that the public should know the names of some of those who have kept the cause of the Arabs alive in Great Britain in the teeth of overwhelming opposition. Two motives have maintained their courage, when hope seemed farthest away. One was that a small country should never be downtrodden if they could help it. The other was that their own country should be true to her vows and to herself.”
J.M.N. JEFFRIES
Mrs STEUART ERSKINE (1860-1948) – Assistant Secretary. Beatrice Erskine was an accomplished travel writer and biographer who among her many works had written Trans-Jordan (1924), The Vanished Cities of Arabia (1925), and the authorised biography King Faisal of Iraq (1934), the latter producing an appreciation by Field-Marshal Viscount Allenby, and a foreword by his excellency Ja'far Pasha al Askari. With the publication of her book Palestine of the Arabs in 1935, she was one of the first members of the PIC to support the cause. The title itself was a lesson towards understanding the problem. As Secretary of the Centre, she worked tirelessly and brought a depth of knowledge and understanding to her role, as well as an impressive and influential list of contacts.
 |
| Published in 1948 |
Both Erskine and Newton were fervent anti-Zionists.
COLONEL STEWART FRANCIS NEWCOMBE (1878 -1956) - Honorary Treasurer
"Above all there is Lawrence's old companion, Colonel S.F. Newcombe, whose courteous and conciliatory manner, expressed in plans of his own for a settlement, has never hidden his firm espousal of justice for the Arabs."
J.M.N. JEFFRIES
Newcombe’s expressions of support for the Arabs and his proposals for a lasting settlement of what was then known as the "Palestine Question" will be discussed in my next post. In 1941, he helped establish the first permanent mosque in London, the East London Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre, becoming its first non-Muslim Honorary Secretary.
J.M.N. JEFFRIES (1880-1960) was a highly respected journalist from the Daily Mail who was best known as a war correspondent who had set a record during the four years of the war by sending dispatches from 17 different countries. The contribution of Joseph Mary Nagle Jeffries to Palestinian politics and history is so significant that it warrants deeper examination.
 |
| J.M.N. Jeffries |
Few people will be familiar with his name, even those with a knowledge and interest in Palestinian affairs, but his contribution cannot be overlooked. His 750-page magnus opus, Palestine: The Reality, is largely unknown due to the bombing of a publishing house in London during the German blitz of 1940. Only 20 copies were known to be in circulation until a recent reprint in 2017 by Skyscraper Publications brought Jeffries' work back into wider public accessibility and with it his 12 years of meticulous research into the primary source material, historical documents, debates, and dispatches from Palestine. The result produced a critical assessment of the Balfour Declaration and its legacy and is an invaluable resource providing a persuasive argument for historians studying the Palestine question in the years 1917 to 1938.
“Palestine: The Reality is the most important study of Palestine yet published. As such it deserves to be in the hands of every man who cares for justice and peace”.
SIR ARNOLD WILSON, 1939
Jeffries recognised that for the Zionist project to succeed, the Palestinian people, their national identity, culture, and history would need to be concealed, dehumanised, or reduced to a condition that could easily be swept aside, or as he put it “vanish like the mist before the sun of Zion”. To this end, Zionists sought to establish a framework that Palestine was "a land without a people, for a people without a land", a slogan that Zionists like Israel Zangwill had adopted from early Christian restorationists. It was picked up and paraphrased by Chaim Weizmann, later president of the World Zionist Congress and the first president of the State of Israel, who said at a meeting in Paris in April 1914: "In its initial stage Zionism was conceived by its pioneers as a movement wholly depending on mechanical factors: there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without a people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country?"
Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, thought that if Palestine could be positioned as an “outpost to civilization as opposed to barbarism,” it might be a more desirable destination for colonisation than Argentina, one of the many options then under discussion. These arguments were clearly designed to negate the validity of Palestinian Arab nationalism. In Ben-Gurion's view, there was no apparent contradiction between upholding the rights of a re-emerging nation in its ancient homeland and rejecting the legitimacy of the political demands of a people whose national instincts had been roused by contact and encouragement from Western governments and by the clash with Zionism itself.
Weizmann’s shuttle diplomacy to promote a Zionist wish list prior to the publication of the Declaration in 1917 betrays the fact that the authors were not British officials at all, but an influential group of some 20 Zionist leaders on both sides of the Atlantic tasked with composing a formula that would give them an unarguable right to the country and that it was Britain’s obligation to assist them in the endeavour. To provide this assistance it was necessary for the British Mandate to use coercion and brute force against an unwilling indigenous population in achieving these goals.
When Britain discarded the rights of the Arabs of Palestine in their quest to achieve self-determination and self-governance, and substituted it with the “rights” of a foreign community, they did so in the full knowledge of the facts. This was no honest mistake. To achieve Zionist goals, the Palestinians had to be erased. After killing 13,000 Palestinians during the Nakba of 1948, destroying 531 towns and villages and with 85% of the population banished and displaced, Ben Gurion endorsed this triumphant moment for the Zionist movement with the words: “We must do everything to ensure that they never do return!”
It was against this ill-conceived and deceitful perspective that Jeffries began to compile the source material, much of it previously unpublished, that forms the bulk of the case against the Balfour Declaration in his book, Palestine: The Reality. Throughout the 750-pages of his monumental work, Jeffries is clear, insistent, and outspoken in who is primarily responsible for the circumstances imposed upon Palestine. With each page being a damning criticism of the Declaration, Jefferies sums up his argument this way:
“More than anything else, we in Britain must keep clear in our minds today that we are the accused.”
Over eighty years have passed since Jeffries wrote these words in 1939, yet how many more countries share the responsibility for the current assault upon Palestine, “this small and wronged country”?
Today, this one-hundred-year-old story of the Palestinian struggle has found a new voice, originating from the ruins of Gaza, chanted on the streets of our capital cities, and echoed by young people in universities around the world. Above all, it is a story of resilience, perseverance, and resistance. The Palestinians have a single word for these traits, it is “sumud,” and the olive tree, ubiquitous throughout the land, is the symbol of sumud, reflecting the Palestinian sense of being rooted in their homeland.
CASUALTY UPDATE
As of 17/05/2024, the Gazan health ministry confirms that over 35,272 Gazans have been killed by the Israeli Defense Force. Of those, 24,686 are people whose identities that have been fully verified. There are 79,205 wounded. Two thirds of all casualties are women and children.
The Health Ministry says that there are more than 10,000 people that have been killed but it does not have their full names, official ID numbers or other information it needs to be certain of their identities.
