PALESTINE.

Evening Star, Issue 22955, 12 May 1938, Page 12

PALESTINE.

Tetb “ technical ” commission appointed by the British Government to negotiate with Arabs and Jews regarding partition and advise on the division of the country arrived in Palestine at the end of last month. This week it was. reported that the Arab National Defence Party is refusing to take part in any discussions on partition. Prospects for the success of that solution of the problem cannot, therefore, be considered bright. Except that Italian propaganda for the fomenting of Arab hostility has presumably ceased under Mr Neville Chamberlain's new agreement, the factors that obstruct any sort of settlement by consent in Palestine appear to be little better now than they have been for the last twelve months. The partition plan of the earlier commission, involving abandonment of the mandate except for a special zone including the holy places, failed to promote joy in any quarters. The Mandates Commission of the League of Nations approved it without enthusiasm, and with counsels of delay. Many Jews were disappointed. The Arabs were resentful of the boundaries suggested on the ground that they gave “ the- richest lands to the Jews, the holiest to the English, and the most barren to the Arabs.” It will he for the new commission, if it can, to adjust these points of disadvantage, but it can hardly do so without Arab co-operation. The main case for division into a sovereign Jewish and a sovereign Arab State, both of which, for a beginning, would require British assistance and protection, was that no one, for a long time, was able to propose any better plan. More recently there have been attempts to suggest some alternative, and it would not be surprising if the new commission had to abandon partition as a basis for its recommendations, which it is understood it has power to do. The complications of the position are most intricate from whatever point of view it is regarded. The greatest weakness of the division plan as it stands now appears to be that the Jewish State, apart from mandated towns, would contain 225,000 Arabs and only 267,000 Jews. Would Jewish rule be practicable in these conditions? The relief that might be sought by transfers of population presents difficulties of its own. There would be sharp limits to Jewish immigration in a State containing so many Arabs, hut the suggestion has been made that the sub-district known as the Nejeb, in the neighbourhood of Beersheba, which is barren and useless now, might be irrigated and reclaimed for and by Jewish settlers. The question has naturally been raised whether Great Britain would not be worse off, financially and otherwise, with obligations, for first years at least, to three new States, than controlling one general mandate. The Arab has never been so well off as he is to-day ; the kingdoms he has acquired, for which he owes thanks to the British, represent an expanse of independence which before the war would have been something too good to dream of. But all that is forgotten in. the fear of Jewish settlers overcrowding one small corner of his vast domains, and the need for Jewish immigration has been multiplied by now, anti-Semitic barbarism in a large part of Europe. The “ technical ” commission, it has been suggested, may yet advise that better than partition would bo a continuance of the mandate on new lines. The only other solution would be for Great Britain to be asked to take over Palestine and Transjordan lock, stock, and barrel. In some quarters, at least, the conviction is firm, based on inquiries, that that course would give satisfaction to both Arabs and Jews.