PALESTINE DISTURBANCE

Taranaki Daily News, 27 August 1930, Page 9

PALESTINE DISTURBANCE

C-RTTICLSM OF MANDATORY

BRITAIN DEFENDS CONTROL REPORT OF COMMISSION British Wireless. Rugby, Aug. 20. The disturbances in Palestine in August and September of last year are the subject of comments in the general report of the Permanent Mandates Commission to the Council of the League of Nations, which was published in Geneva this morning. The report contains criticisms on the mandatory Power (•Britain) respecting its policy during the past five years, and these are dealt with in a memorandum by the British Government, which has been published simultaneously with the report. The latter document, analysing the report, says it is divided into three parts. The first contains a commentory on the nature of the outbreak and on the attitude and conduct of the mandatory Power before the outbreak. The second deals with the stops taken by the mandatory Power to restore and maintain order, and the third deals with the future policy. . ' As regards the second ami third parts the British Government notes with satisfaction that the measures taken by it to restore and maintain order m Palestine last August appear to have met with the tacit approval. of the Mandates Commission. The British Government is also glad to note that the Commission considers that the statement of its accredited representations regarding the suspension of certain immigration permits should dispel the fears which have been expressed in Jewish circles as to the mandatory Power's inclination to discharge in full its obligation to encourage Jewish immigration and to ensure the establishment of a Jewish national home under the conditions stipulated in the mandate. ACQUITTAL OF THE JEWISH. It is also, noted that the Commission appeared disposed to acquit the Jewish Government of any charge of failure in its obligation or its immediate duties in regard to the establishment of a regime of self-government in Palestine. In the first part of the report, however, it is observed that numerous and in some cases somewhat serious criticisms are levelled against the' mandatory Power in respect of its policy during the past five years. Perhaps the most important criticism is that the partial inaction of the mandatory Powei, as regards its obligations to the Palestinian population, both Arab and Jewish, is the fundamental cause of the friction which eventually culminated in the serious disorders of August. Particular emphasis is laid upon the alleged failure to promote agricultural and educational development, a more extensive programme of public works, and to encourage co-operation between Jews and Arabs, which is the cause of dissatisfaction on the part of Arabs with the mandatory regime. This criticism is more alarming in view of the fact that since the British acceptance of the mandate the comment of the permanent Mandates Commission cannot be said to have foreshadowed in any way the charges now brought. It is argued that a more active policy on the part of the British Government in promoting the interests of the Arabs in social and economic spheres and in bringing the tvzo sections of population, Jewish and Arab, into closer association would have blunted the edge of the antagonism. Such an argument fails to take account of the paramount importance hitherto attached by the Arab leaders to the political issue, and it ignores the fact that the demands of the Arabs have always been for a particular form of representation which would be plainly incompatible with the execution of the mandate. ATTEMPT TO ASSOCIATE RACES • Repeated offers of the British Government to associate Arabs and Jews in the form of a representative Government which would be compatible with the mandatory obligations have always been rejected by the Arab leaders. The difficulties created for the mandatory Power by this attitude on the part of the Arabs seem to be inadequately appreciated by the Commission, although they were more than once brought to its notice by accredited representatives. Moreover, the British Government desires . to emphasise the fact that the obligation imposed on it by tlie mandate W’as of a complex character: “The mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under .such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure, firstly, the establishment of a Jewish national home as laid down in the preamble; secondly, the development of self-governing institutions,' also safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race or religion.” Nevertheless in its report the Commission in summarising the immediate obligation of the mandatory Power makes no reference to the important qualification that the mandatory shall also be responsible for “safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.” This, in the opinion of the British Government, is the -core of the problem. Although the difficult nature of the task is elsewhere to some extent recognised the bearing of this particular obligation upon the problem of devising measures which ■would admit of increasing development of the two races side by side is largely ignored. THE SHAW COMMISSION. Surprise is expressed that the findings of the Shaw Commission on questions of fact such as causes and responsibility for the outbreaks have been in some cases ignored and in others called in question, while criticisms were taken from the Jewish memorandum and other sources which reached the mandatory Power too late foi’ inclus»ion. Comments have been adopted preferring to dissent from the definite conclusion of the Shaw Commission that the outbreaks were not premeditated. Thet memorandum states that the British Government cannot but feel that. ’’ the grpiinds whereon the Mandates Com-

mission differs from its conclusions are scarcely adequate. The British Government does not find any evidence of the view taken in the report that the Shaw Commission was wrong in holding that the outbreak was not an outbreak against British authority. Protests by various Arab authorities quoted in support arc, it is stated, directed against the fundamental position in Palestine as fixed by the mandate itself. They are protests not against British authority but against the mandate and the action of the League o-f Nations.

“Whatever may have been the attitude of the Arab leaders the significant fact remains that during the disturbances no attack was made or attempted on local representatives of British authority,” says the memorandum. “This fact, which speaks for itself, which was directly brought to notice by the accredited representative, finds no place in the report of the Permanent Mandates Commission.” Regarding the conclusions in the report as to the inadequacy of the armed forces at the disposal of ■ the local Administration it is not denied that the forces immediately available were inadequate to deal with the sudden and widespread disturbances, but the satisfaction expressed by the commission in 1925 that the peace and order existing had enabled the mandatory Power to maintain only a very small armed force in the country is recalled, and it is noted that the Commission, when considering the Palestine report only a month before the outbreak, gave no indication that it regarded those forces inadequate. The commission has all along known the composition of the Palestine force and the various changes which have taken place in it. If, as stated in the report, it was to be expected that such a force would prove to be unreliable when tested it is to be regretted that the commission did not warn the mandatory Power .of the danger it was incurring.

To maintain order in the territory by a police force from which the inhabitants of that territory are excluded is a policy which the British Government, in the light of long and varied experience, is unable to view with favour and which is open to objection on political, administrative and financial grounds. The Government feels it was justified in adopting, in the case of Palestine, a system which has been attended with success in many other territories and which it has still reason to hope will prove successful in Palestine.” The memorandum deals at length with the charge that the British Government has failed in its mandatory obligations by neglect of agricultural and other developments, and particulars are given of the measures taken by the Mandatory Power for the development of Palestine’s resources in various directions. In view of these the British Government feels that it may justly be claimed that it has not been neglectful of its obligations.