Proceso de Extracción.

219

Molinaro, ibid, 65 and fn.410 at 157.

220 _{Segev, One Palestine, Complete, 334-335.}

221 _{Fuad Issa Shatara MD, President of the Palestine National League [formerly called the Palestine}

we regret present situation in Palestine. Zionism is responsible for these conditions. Present form of government deprives Arabs of all their political and national rights. Abrogation of Balfour Declaration is only solution to ensure permanent peace. Arabs world over look to Your Holiness and Catholic world for sympathy and support in their cause.222

On the same date Barlassina also wrote to Gasparri to give him a comprehensive briefing on the causes of the disorders in Palestine, concluding with the plea that the Holy See “bless and take in hand our cause”.223 Barlassina wrote again to Gasparri on 10 September 1929 about the recent inter-communal violence, observing that “for us Catholics this is a most grave question that outweighs anything else: the unbelievable and exorbitant immorality brought here by the Jews”. He deplored the miserable lot of the Christians, and particularly the Catholics, of Palestine who were caught between the British, guilty of “culpable negligence concerning the Jews, and the fanatical Muslims on the other side”. Barlassina expressed the view that Britain would not change its position in Palestine because it was necessary for its global strategic interests; and concluded with a word of caution to the Holy See that any benevolent act on its part towards the Jewish community of Palestine was likely to be dangerous to the Catholics of Palestine becaue of possible adverse Muslim reaction.224

Valeri, the Apostolic Delegate, wrote to Gasparri on 18 September 1929 about the violence in Palestine in late August, reporting that calm had now been restored on the surface, but that below the surface there still ran “the most bitter passion and the most profound divisions of race and of religion”. He said that the question of the Wailing Wall was only a pretext for the riots, whose real causes were political and economic, inextricably connected with the rise of the Zionist project and the dissatisfaction of the Arab population. He did point out that no one could deny “the

222

F.34. ff.12-13, cable of 29 August 1929 from Fuad Shatara, Abbas W. Abushakra and Abd. M.

Katefb to Pope Pius XI.

223_{F.34. ff.21-29, at f.28, Protocollo No.279/29 of 29 August 1929 from Monsignor Barlassina to}

Cardinal Gasparri.Cardinal Gasparri simply thanked Monsignor Barlassina for the report, see F.34.

f.30, dispatch 2065 of 23 September 1929 from Cardinal Gasparri to Monsignor Barlassina.

224_{F.34. ff.44-46 at ff.45r-46, Protocollo No.312/29 of 10 September 1929 from Monsignor Barlassina}

great progress that have been made by the Jewish agricultural colonies which are turning Palestine into an agricultural field, and that if the Zionists abandoned the countryside as a boycott against the Arabs it would take years for Palestine to recover.225

On the same date Monsignor Maglione, Papal Nuncio in France, forwarded to the Holy See a report in French from the Greek-Melkite Archbishop of Caesarea, Archbishop Rizk,226 which deplored the actions of the Zionists in Palestine, whom he strongly differentiated from the non-Zionist Jews whom he assessed to be numerous and unsupportive of the Zionists and their conduct, acknowledging the right to a Jewish national home in Palestine. He suggested that the solution was for the League of Nations to give an official explanation of the Balfour Declaration and its application by the Mandatory Power with impartiality and at the same time to deal with the question of the Wailing Wall.227 It may thus be seen that, in contrast to Monsignor Barlassina, both the Apostolic Delegate and the Greek-Melkite Archbishop of Caeserea provided information to the Holy See which was supportive of the Jewish national home and the continuance of the Balfour Declaration in the face of strong Arab demands for its repeal. Yet again, this highlights the different sources of information which flowed through to the Holy See, often unsolicited, and the very different opinions formed by those sources from the same sets of facts.

Valeri suggested to the Holy See that, in his opinion, “England will have to withdraw little by little from the Balfour Declaration in order not to experience more serious woes”.228 Whilst most of the opinions from Catholic sources furnished to the Holy See at this time were disapproving of extreme Zionism, none of it appears to have been anti-Semitic and much of it remained supportive of the Balfour Declaration and

225

F.34. ff.52-56, at ff.52, 56, Protocollo N.15 of 18 September 1929 from Monsignor Valeri to Cardinal Gasparri. Gasparri acknowledged receipt without further comment on 10 October 1929, see

F.34. f.57, Despatch 2242/29.

226 _{See Appendix 5 for biographical details of Archbishop Cyrille Riza/Rizk/Rizq [1863-1954].} 227

F.34. f.59. Protocollo No.8234 of 18 September 1929 from Monsignor Maglione to Cardinal

Gasparri, and F.34.ff.61-68, Les evenements sanglants de Palestine by Archbishop Rizk at ff.66-67.

228_{F.34. ff.75-76 at f.76, Protocollo No 72/SP of 15 October 1929 from Monsignor Valeri to Cardinal}

the Jewish national home in Palestine. In this they differed from the opinion now held by the incumbent British High Commissioner of the Palestine Mandate, Sir John Chancellor, who privately believed the Balfour Declaration should cease to underpin British policy in Palestine.

The visits of British officials involved in these various enquiries raised the issue of the proper role of the Latin Patriarch and whether he should be met with along with other local religious leaders in Palestine. Monsignor Barlassina now sought guidance from the Holy See on this question.229 Cardinal Gasparri’s response on 6 December 1929 reveals the view of the Holy See as to the precise nature of Monsignor Barlassina’s area of responsibility within the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which was that:

the mission entrusted to Your Excellency, as Latin Patriarch, is a pastoral mission similar to that of bishops and parish priests, and which does not involve getting involved in political questions. These latter matters pertain to the role of the Apostolic Delegate to whom the Commission from London must refer itself.230

There could be no doubting the clarity of these instructions: the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem was confined now to a purely pastoral role and must have no involvement in political matters, which would be dealt with by the Apostolic Delegate to Palestine, including and specifically meeting with the members of the Shaw Commission.

Valeri wrote to Gasparri on 22 December 1929 to report on his official entry to Haifa on 9 December 1929. He was greeted by Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim notables as the representative of the Holy Father and he found that “Christians and Muslims wished it to be seen that they were perfectly united in the struggle against Zionism and in the defense of their rights they hoped to have the support of the Holy See”.

229

F.34. f.86, Protocollo No.420/29 of 28 November 1929 from Patriarch Barlassina to Cardinal