After a thorough examination of the legal document outlining the British Mandate of Palestine under the auspices of the League of Nations, a crunch question arises: How did Britain manage Palestine during this mandate period? Was it handled as a sacred trust in accordance with Article 22 of the League of Nations, or was it overlooked in favor of the Allied document of Mandate for Palestine and the Declaration of Balfour?
In the preceding chapter, we discovered that Article 2 of the Allied Mandate for Palestine bestowed upon the United Kingdom the duty to take three crucial steps in establishing Palestine as the national home of the Jews: political, administrative, and economic. Uncovering how Britain executed these steps and how it violated legal and moral standards in relation to the Palestinian issue is a critical aspect of this chapter.
Britain’s political choice to appoint Herbert Samuel, a Zionist, as the first Commissioner of Palestine, can be viewed as a betrayal of the “sacred trust” of the “civilized” world. Prior to delving into the specifics of Samuel’s commission, it is imperative to comprehend his background and how British officers perceived his appointment at that time.
Herbert Samuel, an active Zionist, played a key role in shaping the Balfour Declaration. In January 1915, he authored a pamphlet titled “The Future of Palestine,” in which he advocated for Britain to occupy Palestine, declare it as its territory, and establish a Jewish state. These proposals, which urged Britain to go to war to establish a Zionist state, were presented to the British Cabinet and ultimately influenced the Balfour Declaration. Samuel detailed the advantages that Britain could gain from establishing a Zionist state in Palestine, which eventually became British policy through the Balfour Declaration. However, the appointment of Samuel, a Zionist, to govern the affairs of Palestine raises concerns, especially considering that the Jewish population in Palestine was only 2%. It’s evident that the primary reason for Samuel’s appointment was the desire to establish a Zionist state in Palestine. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, Samuel’s arrival in Palestine marked the first time in 2,000 years that a Jewish leader had resided in the region.
The appointment of Herbert Samuel is hailed as a pivotal step in honoring Britain’s pledge to establish a Zionist state, garnering significant support within Zionist circles. Nonetheless, the decision has sparked criticism from influential figures such as British General Edmund Allenby and the Muslim Christian Association. This move is widely regarded as a breach of Article 22 of the League of Nations Charter. Despite the fact that Jews make up only 2% of the Palestinian population, Hebrew has been designated as the official language. Consequently, this decision has tilted political power in favor of the Zionists, undercutting the traditional process for appointing the Grand Mufti of Palestine. It is imperative to grasp the far-reaching implications of these actions and contemplate their enduring effects on the region.
It is an indisputable historical fact that the appointment of the Grand Mufti of Palestine, Amin al-Husseini, was officially sanctioned by the Zionist Commissioner, Herbert Samuel. Despite the unwavering commitment of Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini to his principles, the endorsement by a Zionist figure marked a pivotal shift in the political landscape. Under the cloak of terms like “sacred trust,” Britain was actively promoting Zionism, blatantly disregarding its own League of Nations charter.
During his tenure as the Commissioner for Palestine, Samuel, the British official, wielded substantial authority, empowering the Zionist Organization with responsibilities in sectors such as education and agriculture. This led to the influx of Jewish immigrants who received financial support to develop the land. On the contrary, heavy taxation burdened the Arab population, and their lands were unjustly confiscated. Furthermore, violence against Arabs erupted in multiple areas, with the Zionists being armed while denying the same rights to Muslims. The Arab population faced severe consequences even for possessing daggers.
