Shaw Commission

While the violence was the direct result of an ongoing dispute over the Jews' ability to worship freely at the Western Wall, the Commission concluded that the conflict was not religious in nature, and that the holy site had become a "symbol of racial pride and ambition.

"[1] It determined that the cause of the violent outbreak was "racial animosity on the part of the Arabs, consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future.

In the words of Naomi Cohen: ‘Delving beneath the immediate causes – i.e., the Western Wall dispute, inflammatory publications on both sides, the enlargement of the Jewish Agency, inadequate forces to maintain order, the report called attention to the underlying causes of friction in England's wartime pledges and in the anti-Jewish hostility that had resulted from the political and economic frustrations of the Arabs.

[8] [Material not in brackets is verbatim][9] The Commission recommended that the Government reconsider its policies as to Jewish immigration and land sales to Jews.

The value of this statement would be greatly enhanced if it defined the meaning they attached to the passages in the Mandate safeguarding the rights of non-Jewish communities, and if it laid down more explicit directives on such vital issues as land and immigration.

(iii) A scientific enquiry should be made into the possibilities of land development in Palestine, having regard to "the certain natural increase in the present rural population."

(iv) While making no formal recommendations on constitutional development, the commission observed that the difficulties of the administration were greatly aggravated by the absence of any measure of self-government.

[12] Furthermore, he agreed that the "animosity and hostility toward the Jews were the fundamental cause of the outbreak," but he blamed this attitude on the campaign of propaganda and incitement, and not on the economic situation.