tion the passages in the rapporteur’s report which indicate that the difficulties of the task of the Mandatory Power are realized, and is glad to note the view which he has expressed that these difficulties, aggravated by the entirely novel character of the task to be performed, were bound to embarrass even a power with the widest experience in governing peoples with diverse characteristics.
“The British Government is also pleased to note that the rapporteur shares the view of the Mandates Commission that the statement issued by Great Britain explaining the suspension of immigration certificates to certain classes of Jewish immigrants should allay any anxiety the Jewish communities might have felt regarding the intention of the Mandatory Power to carry out in full its obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration.”
Mr. Henderson also noted that M. Procope had emphasized the point that the remarks made by the Mandates Commission on the proper policy to be followed in the future must not be looked upon as an attempt on the Commission’s part to surplant the mandatory power in the exercise of the duties vested in the latter under the Mandate. Mr. Henderson pointed out, though, that the British government “in its own defense before the world, and feeling the importance of removing any ground for misunderstanding that might exist, felt it necessary to comment at some length upon the various detailed criticism advanced by the Mandates Commission.
ADMITS RIGHT OF CRITICISM
“The British government, nevertheless realizes that it is the duty of the Mandates Commission to criticize and it fully appreciates the Commission’s attitude in this respect. The British government does not wish to dwell upon the differences of opinion on certain points which are dealt with in the Mandates Commission’s report. In light of the observations contained in the rapporteur’s report, who has shown a deep insight into the complexities of the difficult problem of the Palestine Mandate, Great Britain does not hesitate to associate itself with the terms of the resolution with which his report concludes.”
The report of the Mandates Commission regarded as unjustified the view that the Palestine outbreaks were not directed against British authority or that they were unexpected disturbances. The report also blamed the inadequacy of the police force and the weakened garrison for the spread of the riots and the serious events which followed.
The Mandates Commission took sharp issue with the Palestine Inquiry Commission’s findings that the riots were not premeditated and that the attacks were not aimed at British authority. The Mandates Commission found that the British government should have foreseen the trouble. The British Government was also taken to task for its failure to suppress inciting Arab and Jewish papers and for not having carried out the terms of the Mandate, particularly in connection with social and economic welfare, and with having failed to better relations between Arabs and Jews. The British government was also criticized for having failed to solve the Wailing Wall question.
The Mandates Commission’s important reservations on the report of the Palestine government for 1929 were inquiries whether it was possible for the government to devote additional funds to public health undertakings, the expressed hope that the next report would contain some indication that the government was developing a policy of labor legislation suited to the increasing industrialization of the country, and a request for information as to what was being done to control the trade in ammunition from Transjordania.
Two of the four petitions considered by the Commission were from the Moslem Supreme Council on the Wailing Wall and from the Zionist Organization on the development of the Jewish National Home. On the first the Commission took no action because the subject is being considered by the Wailing Wall Commission. The Commission, in connection with the Zionist memorandum, pointed out that it did not give occasion for a recommendation to the Council.