Palestine: A Modern History (ص 96)

غرض

عنوان

Palestine: A Modern History (ص 96)

المحتوى

202 The Great Palestine Revolt: 1936-1939 \
collective fines, demolition of houses and what was euphemistically
termed “excesses” added to Arab resentment against the Government.
According to O.G.R. Williams of the Colonial.Office, these measures
‘provoked a very considerable amount of ili feeling :not unmixed, I
think, with contempt for His Majesty’s Government’.°”
The Peel Commission
The reasons that induced the Higher Committee to call off the:strike
and the rebellion were connected with their assessment of the.serious-
ness of the military situation after the arrival of the new British division.
In view of the destitution caused by the rebellion and the.arrival of the
citrus:season, which touched-on,the interests of many. members of the
political notability, any decision to extend the Strike was bound to be
controversial as was bore out by the opposition to boycott the Peel
Commission shortly afterwards. ’
SimuJtaneous with the departure of the Royal Commission of
Enquiry to Palestine on 5 November, the Colonial Secretary announced
in the House of Commons the Government’s decision that there would
be no spspension on immigration during the course ,of the Royal
Commission’s,investigation. '
On the, following day the Higher Committee denounced in vigorous
terms the Colonial Secretary’s statement which they viewed as a breach
of faith and as contrary to what they had been expecting. As a result
of this,affront, the Committee declared its resolve not to co-operate with
the Royal Commission and asked all the Arabs of Palestine to abide by
itsidecision.
The decision to boycott the Peel Commission exposed the inherent
weaknesses of the Palestinian national movement. Although the
National Committees were strongly in favour of a firm stand, the
Nashashibi faction: resented the tough lines represented by the boycott
decision. ‘Abdullah went out of his way to have the-decision rescinded
and Ibn Sa‘ud threatened that he would sever all relations with the
Higher Committee if the latter did not appear before the Rayal
Commission .*® ,
Encouraged by the attitude of ‘Abdullah and Ibn Sa‘ud, the
Nashashibi opposition to the’boycott of the Peel Commission began to
make itself felt. On 24 December, Falastin, the organ of the Nashashibi
Party, criticised, the Higher ‘Committee’s decision to boycott the Com-
mission and a few days later Hasan Sudki Dajani, a prominent member
of the Nashashibi faction, announced his intention of giving evidence
before the Royal Commission. Behind the increasingly bold dissident
The Great Palestine Revolt: 193641939 203
stand of the Defence Party lay the apprehensions of the propertied
classes which were largely identified with it, that the new radicalism
of the Mufti and the growing power of the extremists would inevitably
lead to a total armed confrontation with the British aimed at achieving
national independence. The expected upheaval would inflict severe
losses to their interests and properties and should the impending
rebellion achieve its :aims Hajj Amin would, no doubt, reign supreme.
Faced‘with a lack of consensus inside their own shaky ranks and
with strong pressures from the Sa‘udi-monarch, the Higher Committee
had to succumb once more to the good offices of the Arab rulers. The
decision to boycott the Peel Commission was abandoned on 6 January
1937, and the Arab case was largely presented by members of the Arab
Higher Committee. Unlike Jewish and British evidence before the Royal
Commission, Arab evidence was presented in‘the course of a few days
in a manner not altogether appealing to\a Western ‘political tribunal.
The Arab Demands
In their statements before the Commission the Arab leaders asserted
the inclusion of Palestine in the: McMahon pledge to King Hussein,
denied the validity of the Balfour Declaration and held that they never
admitted the right of the powers to,entrust a Mandate to Britain, which
was inconsistent with the principle of self-determination embodied in
the League of Nations.
The Higher Committee demanded the removal of the Mandate and
the establishment of a national independent government. In their con-
clusions about the ‘underlying causes of the disturbances’ of 1936, the
Royal Commission stated that the desire of the Arabs for national
independence and their hatred and fear of the establishment of the JNH
were the basic causes of all the Palestine disturbances. Additional
causes were provided by the fact that the neighbouring Arab countries
had attained national independence while the no less deserving Palestine
had not. ‘The intensive character of Jewish nationalism’®’ accentuated
‘Arab fears of Jewish domination in Palestine.
Unlike the Arabs, the Zionist were opposed to Palestinian inde-
pendence ‘since a free Palestine in present circumstances means an Arab
State’. Jewish nationalism, the Commission Report stated, could not
refuse ‘allegiance to the British Government, which alone protects it
fromthe enmity of the Arab world’.
On 29 December Wauchope reported that the situation in Palestine
was one of political tension and that
A pati, aha aE Rg eee sam aa IB
mee SAO aa Om aE em a ig eT OR A YO tt
wee

هو جزء من

Palestine: A Modern History

تاريخ

1978

المنشئ

Abdul-Wahhab Kayyali

مجموعات العناصر

Generated Pages Set