Search JTA's historical archive dating back to 1923

Palestine Hebrew Press Unit in Approving Mandates Body Report; Raps British Reply

August 28, 1930
See Original Daily Bulletin From This Date

Unanimous approval of the report of the Mandates Commission on the Palestine riots of 1929 is voiced in editorials in the three Hebrew daily papers published in Palestine. On the other hand they are a unit in condemning the reply of the British government to the Mandates Commission’s criticisms of the British policy in Palestine.

The “Ha’Aretz terms the report the most important event in the history of Palestine policy since the approval of the Mandate. The paper points out that the Mandates Commission has for the first time voiced “a clear opinion of he Mandatory Power’s policy and the Mandatory Power is clearly charged with not fulfilling its undertaking to encourage the establishment of the Jewish National Home and with not assisting in a rapprochement between the Jews and Arabs.” The British government’s reply, according to the “Ha’Aretz,” puts the Mandatory Power in the position of the Shaw Commission “appearing as a party against the Jews.”

The “Doar Hayom,” organ of the Revisionists, sees in the Mandates Commission’s report what may be the turning point in the fight for “our rights if we conduct the right policy. The Mandatory Power’s reply to the Commission’s criticism is animated by enmity toward the Jewish aims. Her only reasonable argument is that the Commission never expressed its dissatisfaction before but why should the Commission have done so if it heard from the English and the Jews alike that everything was all right.”

The “Davar,” the spokesman for the Jewish labor groups, finds in the Mandates Commission’s stricture against the British policy: “An indictment against the Mandatory Power and a call upon her to fulfill her international undertakings. The Mandatory Power could have accepted it (the criticism) and retreated from its pernicious position of the last few months in an honorable manner, she chose another way, using the strangest arguments. The allegation that the question of safeguarding the rights of the non-Jews is the core of the Mandate reverts the situation first to the fact that the Mandate was created for the Jewish National Home and secondly, that the Jewish National Home in no way affects the rights of the non-Jews. Why then, does the Mandatory Power justify its lack of assistance to the Jewish National Home by these rights?”

Recommended from JTA