ferred to a country which will carry it out more boldly.
NO RIVALRY IN TRUSTS
“The terms of trust under which the British government holds Palestine were defined at San Remo, but there is a marked tendency to represent this trust as a double trust, partly for the Jews. It is unfortunate that the Mandatory has shown a disposition to use the Arab trust to whittle away its obligations to the Jewish trust. There needn’t be rivalry but if one is created by the government’s action it is necessary to insist that the only trust created at San Remo was for a Jewish National Home.
“The other provisions do not constitute an independent trust but merely directions for the execution of the Jewish trust. It is right that the non-Jews of Palestine should feel that the Mandatory is ‘equally solicitous for their welfare’ but it is not less important that Jewry the world over have the same feelings. Judging from meetings in America and elsewhere the government, whether or not it succeeded in giving the Arabs the best and desirable feeling, certainly did not succeed in giving it to Jewry despite all efforts of Jewish leaders in the government’s defence.”
The British-Palestine Committee, recalling that Dr. Shiels told the Arab leaders that “the scenes of last August must never be repeated” asks “should the Arab leaders be told not to do it again when the Inquiry Commission acquitted them of blame? Can it be that the whitewash has already peeled off from the report?”
JEWISH LEADER BACKED GOVERNMENT
Referring to Dr. Shiels’ advice to the Jewish leaders regarding unwise and unfair criticism of the government, the Committee points out that the Jewish leaders, notably Dr. Weizmann, “trusted the British government, frequently defending both acts and omissions of the government which they believed wrong. In consequence they were accused by their people, especially in America, of having shown too much trust. Their position is consequently becoming insecure in the international Zionist Council.”