English Press Differs on Report but “news” and “times” See Commission As Overstepping Terms of Refer

Conflicting editorial views, on the report of the Palestine Inquiry Commission are expressed today in the British press, with the “Daily News” and the “Times” taking the stand that the Commission overstepped its terms of reference in probing into matters of major policy, while the “Morning Post” is in general accord with the recommendations of the report and the “Daily Mail” goes a step further and declares that the commission had not the power “to advise the government to cut its losses and get out of Palestine before the trouble begins.” “The Telegraph” devotes considerable space to the report editorially but does not take any definite stand, while curiously enough “The Herald”, the organ of the Labor Party, does not mention the report at all.

Commenting on the report “The Daily News” says, “The not very impressive Commission appointed to investigate the immediate causes which led to the recent outbreak in Palestine, has taken a somewhat wide view of its reference and issued quite a bulky little volume, much of which is concerned with problems and events that certainly cannot be described as among ‘the immediate’ causes of the Arab attacks on Jews. There is no particular grounds to complain of the general conclusion, which is that the government should issue without delay a clear statement of their policy regarding Palestine and its government.

“But we cannot help feeling that its eagerness to probe for the ultimate causes, which is the business of much higher authorities, has led to the Commission to take a rather too slighting view of its immediate mission. Whether Snell is right in laying a far greater degree of blame for the outbreak than his colleagues do on the Arabs and their leaders, may be a matter of opinion, but we are sure he is right in the graver view which he takes in the responsibility of the British officials.

“They are the persons responsible for the maintenance of order in Palestine. That is what they are there for, and from whatever cause, they failed. No purpose is served by glossing this fact or seeking other scapegoats. ‘Don’t you worry about responsibility,’ Lord Plumer told the deputation; ‘I’ll take the responsibility. That’s my affair.’ That’s the proper spirit and it was lamentably little in evidence in August, 1929.”

“The Times” writes, “It may seem regrettable, from some points of view, that the Commissioners should so far exceed their terms of reference and reopen the whole question of the interpretation of the Mandate.” “The Times” devotes two columns on its editorial page chiefly to a summary of the report, although the report itself is more than fairly completely reproduced in more than five columns on the front page.

The editorial also points out one omission in the list of recommendations “which surprised those acquainted with Palestine conditions, viz., that the disarmament of the country is notoriously incomplete and the unlicensed possession of fire arms and explosives has not been visited with sufficiently severe penalties and fines, which should be imposed collectively on villages where hidden stores and weapons are detected. The fact that the Palestine frontier is not easily closed against smuggling makes it the more necessary to deal rigorously with gun runners and their clients.

“To sum up the contents in a phrase the report makes a strong case for a definition of the practical limits of Zionist colonization in Palestine, if it is not to result in ‘a poor Arab’ problem, but it also suggests that the first and most obvious duty of the Mandatory is to leave no doubt whatever in the mind of either race that this country intend to retain the Mandate with which the League of Nations has entrusted it, and to maintain law and order throughout the country.

“So long as that is clearly understood there is everything to be said for a clear restatement of the terms of the Mandate and of the policy by which it is to be carried out in practice, but it would be a most profound misfortune if any delay in discovering and interpretation or in working out a formula were to arouse the slightest suspicion that the retention of the Mandate itself was at all uncertain.”

“The Morning Post” says it “can hardly think it wise in the Zionists to rest their policy on the support of British bayonets. It is not a good precedent for people to be placed, as their people are placed, either in Palestine or elsewhere. If they are to establish themselves in the country, it must be with the good will of the local inhabitants, nor can they contest in logic or in justice the demands of the Arabs for a certain measure of self-government. How can Jews, who everywhere claim to be in the van of liberal and democratic movements, resist the principle of majority rule in this special case.

“The Commission asks of the government a declaration of policy which will help remove these Arab apprehensions. There should be some assurance on these points, in particular that the rights of non-Jewish communities would be safe-guarded, that immigration should not be forced, and that the peasantry should not be dispossessed. The Zionists may be tempted to oppose these reasonable requests, but before they commit themselves let them well consider the alternative. They may force their people upon Palestine but they cannot keep them there nor can they protect them against the animosity of a turbulent and powerful race which has its main strength outside the borders of the country. The only way to success is to reduce their ideas to the level of what is reasonable and possible and to base their hopes upon the goodwill of those who must be their neighbors.”

Urging that the only way out of the business is to clear out of Palestine now and without delay, the “Daily Mail” says, “The Commission had not the power to advise the government to cut its losses and get out of Palestine before trouble begins, but it almost plaintively urges the government to make up its mind to supplement that policy.”