Says Britain Regards Mandate As Eternal; Anglo-jewish Press Joins in Protest

The British government acts as if the Palestine Mandate is eternal for while the Palestine government is trying to create a Palestine nation, the British government is inclined to conceive of the interests of the Jews and Arabs as radically opposed, declares “Near East and India” today. “The British government will not entrust either Jews or Arabs independently with the executive power and a parliament whether the Arabs forms a majority or if and when the Jewish majority is established in Palestine. The only safe assumption is that the Mandatory regards the Mandate as eternal,” says “Near East and India”.

In another editorial the same magazine points out that the deadlock with the Arab delegation is so complete that “over the political future of Palestine the darkness is impenetrable. Nobody can say how things will shape themselves.” In a third editorial “Near East and India” does not share the hope of the British government in connection with the mission of Sir John Simpson that “economic ointments will in time cure political sores”. The paper concluded by saying that “politically the lot of the Palestine administration for the next few years will be far from happy”.

Asking whether “we Jews can longer agree to hold part or lot in Great Britain’s monkeying, as this government is monkeying with the Mandate”, the “Jewish Chronicle,” pro-Zionist says, “We doubt whether other peoples of the world represented at the League of Nations will look favorable on this exhibition of Great Britain’s idea of national honor. The government’s action suspension of immigration) has left the Jews no alternative than to consider whether or not to leave Palestine to be dealt with the Great Britain without further Jewish responsibility for its development”.

The non-Zionist “Jewish Guardian” also adds its voice to the chorus of protest, saying that “in order to achieve Sir John Simpson’s impartial inquiry, the status quo ante should have been maintained pending his report. To introduce a political factor into a matter governed by economic considerations is contrary to the real intentions conveyed in the Mandate”.