The Pittsburgh Press (February 24, 1945)
Background of news –
Pan-Arabia and Palestine
By Bertram Benedict
Following President Roosevelt’s conference with two Arab leaders, Kings Farouk of Egypt and Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia, the Pan-Arab conference at Cairo resumed its meetings. At Cairo, foreign ministers of seven Arab states are trying to lay the groundwork for a later meeting to organize an actively functioning Pan-Arab Federation.
The so-called Arab states are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. To these may be added Palestine, although Zionists would dispute the listing; Transjordan, which is a British mandate; and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, which is a co-dominion of Great Britain and Egypt. Altogether they have a population of about 30 million, more than one-half of it in Egypt.
The term “Arab” is a loose one, sometimes denoting race, sometimes religion, sometimes language. Some of the nine states listed above as Arab are independent, while Egypt is semi-independent, and others are British or French mandates.
Many if not most of the Lebanon Arabs are Christians. Also, there are many Arabs in Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and French West Africa. If an effective Pan-Arab Federation should be organized, Italy and France might have on their hands a revolt of their Arabs demanding affiliation with their brethren, under the principles of the Atlantic Charter.
Importance to U.S.
The Pan-Arab movement affects the United States because of the strategic importance of the Arab states for air bases and the considerable oil deposits of Saudi Arabia. A dispatch to The New York Times quotes with approval a prophecy that “except for the Philippine Islands, Saudi Arabia may well prove to be the most interesting foreign area to the United States in this century.”
The Arabian states in conference at Cairo naturally tend to give support to the Arabs in Palestine hostile to further Jewish immigration to that country. It is probable that the problem of Palestine was discussed in President Roosevelt’s conference with Farouk and Ibn Saud. Last month, the Emir of Transjordan called Palestine the “key to the cooperation of the Arab states with the Western democracies and therefore the key to peace.”
Both the Republican and the Democratic platforms of 1944 called for unrestricted Jewish immigration to Palestine. The Republican platform condemned President Roosevelt for not having insisted that Great Britain carry out the provisions of the Balfour Declaration and of the British mandate over Palestine “while he pretends to support them.”
Three weeks before the 1944 elections, the President publicly endorsed the Democratic plank on Palestine and added: “If reelected I shall help to bring about its realization.”
The Jewish immigration issue
In Washington, it is believed that American Zionists are planning to interview the President immediately after his return on what, if anything, was agreed about Palestine at the Crimea Conference and at the talks with Farouk and Ibn Saud. If the Zionists remain dissatisfied, Congress probably will see a new drive for the passage of resolutions supporting Jewish immigration to Palestine and condemning British restriction of such immigration.
At the close of World War I, the Arabs outnumbered the Jews in Palestine by more than eight to one, now by less than two to one. The Arabs, to whom Palestine is as holy as to the Jews, claim that their long settlement and their numerical superiority there make it an Arab state, with as much right to restrict or prohibit immigration as has the United States or any other state.
The Zionists, calling Palestine an international responsibility because of its sacredness to three great faiths, point out that the distressed Jews left in Europe have no other haven of refuge, and insist that the Arabs themselves have prospered, and will continue to prosper, from the impressive economic advance of the Holy Land as a result of Jewish immigration.