The Jews were prepared for the worst and the Arabs were expectant of the beginning of a new regime before the report was published, cables the “London Times” correspondent from Jerusalem. It was under such an impression that the Arab delegation timed its visit to arrive in London at the right moment, so as to benefit from such pro-Arab public opinion as might be stimulated by the report.
Thus the first reaction to the actual report is surprise at its mildness and balance, says the “Times,” causing comparative relief to the Jews and a slight disappointment to the Arabs. The feelings of those outside the parties to the report is that generally the report emphasizes the obvious, that the suggested drastic land policy legislation is impracticable and that the proposed clear definition of the various clauses of the Mandate will be useful for the purpose of strengthening the hands of the Palestine government, whose policy hitherto has been even more negative than neutral, according to the “Times” correspondent.
“Interest is naturally concentrated in Snell’s reservations,” says the “Times,” “the Arabs feeling that this may reflect the Labor government’s sympathies, which it is supposed will be a decisive factor in reshaping the policy, following the publication of the report. The Jews argue that Snell’s sentiments prove a more clear penetration of the facts of the situation and are due to his freedom from the other commissioners’ natural sense of social solidarity with the official governing caste which caused them unconsciously to tend to justify the officials, thus implying that the Zionists were to blame.”
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
