Claiming that the Mandates Commission’s disapproval of Great Britain’s Palestine policy is “undoubtedly due to the effectiveness of Jewish propaganda at Geneva, both verbal and written which was successful this year,” “Near East and India,” a magazine reputedly close to the Colonial Office, in commenting on the Mandates Commission’s report, says that the “criticism of Geneva is not a bad thing but it is not helpful. The art of government is better inculcated through the medium of experienced counsellors than through doctrinaire schoolmasters which the Mandates Commission on this occasion has shown itself to be. It is hoped that the Council of the League of Nations will realize this.”
“Near East and India” is annoyed because it feels that “much of the Mandates Commission’s criticism rests apparently on statements emanating from the Jewish Agency. These statements were known to the British government. They had been carefully weighed and some discounted. It is with a certain dismay that the Mandatory Power sees the Mandates Commission accepting ex parte statements as the final truth.”
Taking issue with this view, Leonard Stein, a member of the Council of the Jewish Agency, points out, in a letter to the “London Times,” that the Memorandum of the Jewish Agency was not a mere piece of partisan rhetoric but a serious attempt to draw attention to certain gaps in the report of the Shaw Commission.
Mr. Stein declares that the Jewish Agency’s memorandum showed, by quoting chapter and verse of the Shaw report, on some highly material points, that “its findings were inconsistent with the evidence presented at the inquiry, with the official statements of the British and Palestine governments and in some cases with relevant passages in the report itself.”
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.