A brief, but essential document from the time. In addressing the findings of the Labour government’s Shaw Commission (…the British and their commissions) investigating August, 1929’s ‘Arab Revolt,’ Berger succinctly describes the Empire’s policy in Mandatory Palestine.

‘MacDonald’s Palestine Report’ by Joseph Berger from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 10 No. 18. April 10, 1930.

Over seven months passed before the Shaw Commission, appointed by the MacDonald Government, completed it; report on the “Disturbances in Palestine and the Means to Avoid their Repetition”. By the very fact of its occupying so much de the Commission fulfilled an important part of its task: events developed very rapidly, ever fresh struggles, revolts are taking place in various parts of the globe and thus the bloody August days in Palestine are forgotten by the general public.

The report of the Commission is full of superfluous and unimportant details, and in its investigations deals with things which have no bearing on the matter. On the other hand, however, it draws a picture which would never be “recognized” by those who actually experienced the August revolts in Palestine. Seven months have been employed in intensive elaboration of this work in order to furnish the necessary prerequisites for the conclusions which had been decided on beforehand.

What are these conclusions? Firstly, there was no revolt against the English in Palestine. Secondly, the savage Arabs attacked and slaughtered the peaceable Jews, as a result of which some of them were in turn killed by the Jews and by the British expedition troops. Thirdly, in this fight between races and religions, the British Government did everything possible to restore peace: it had however not enough troops. Fourthly, the policy of the British Government must be more definitely defined (particularly in regard to the immigration and colonial question) in order that the Arabs shall not feel that they are threatened by the Jews, for which purpose increased military forces are necessary.

In other words that means: the Arab population is blood-thirsty, Jews and Arabs slaughter each other, only the English Tommy Atkins, who can keep in check all savage instincts, is a blessing to the country.

The lying character of this representation of the matter is only surpassed in its baseness by the intention to conduct imperialist policy in Palestine in a more scheming manner in the future. Silence is preserved regarding the role of the British government in stirring up religious fanaticism. While the report speaks of provocation of the Jews, it does not mention that these provocations are only due to the fact that the British Government prepared the ground for them by the Balfour Declaration. There is no mention of the Arab freedom movement, of the many demonstrations under the slogan “Istiklal Tam” (complete independence), the revolts of the peasants against imperialism, the attacks on British government buildings etc. All this is hardly in keeping with the political conception of a religious fight, therefore the Commission simply takes no notice of it. But in order to supply the Arab clergy and the Arab bourgeoisie, who have gone over to national reformism, with arguments for “British objectivity and justice”, the report speaks of the necessity of more carefully controlling Jewish immigration and colonisation.

The Shaw Commission has thereby supplied MacDonald with the scheme according to which the strategic bridgehead on the Eastern bank of the Suez Canal is to be controlled: in the first place, reinforcement of the military occupation, police, air fleet, in order that every revolt may be nipped in the bud. Secondly, maintenance of the Balfour Declaration as a means of stirring up the hatred of the Arabs against the Jewish minority, to rouse to the highest point the national-religious antagonism, and to keep in check the Jewish minority itself by fear of massacres by the Arabs on the one hand, and by holding out the hope of a “national home” on the other. Thirdly, to grant certain economic privileges to the Arab feudal lords and the bourgeoisie in order to obtain their assistance in suppressing the popular movement against imperialism: Compensation of the Arab aristocracy at the cost of Zionism. Such a carefully spun net, which places a sling round the neck of all sections of the population of Palestine, cannot be turned asunder by persuasion, by negotiations, or by well-meaning advice which certain “pacifists” freely give now to the Jews, now to the Arabs, now to the English. This net can only be broken through by force by the union of the Arab and Jewish workers for joint active revolt against British imperialism in Palestine itself, by the active ass stance of the proletariat in Great Britain, as well as in the other European and American countries.

It is very significant that in the Palestine question Baldwin and Lloyd George expressed their complete agreement with MacDonald and his Shaw Commission. It is therefore all the more necessary to expose to the proletarian masses the real content of the British Palestine policy and to destroy the web of lies of the imperialists and social imperialists.

International Press Correspondence, widely known as”Inprecorr” was published by the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) regularly in German and English, occasionally in many other languages, beginning in 1921 and lasting in English until 1938. Inprecorr’s role was to supply translated articles to the English-speaking press of the International from the Comintern’s different sections, as well as news and statements from the ECCI. Many ‘Daily Worker’ and ‘Communist’ articles originated in Inprecorr, and it also published articles by American comrades for use in other countries. It was published at least weekly, and often thrice weekly.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1930/v10n18-apr-10-1930-inprecor-Virginia.pdf