Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, MAY 20, 1939. PLAN FOR PALESTINE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 144, 20 May 1939, Page 8

Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, MAY 20, 1939. PLAN FOR PALESTINE.

Ix accordance with its promise, the Jews and Arabs having failed to reconcile their grievances at the round table conference, the British Government has produced its own plan for the future government of Palestine. Nearly two years ago the League Mandates Commission, a body generally highly critical of the efforts of Mandatory Powers, proffered a friendly report on Britain’s fulfilment of the mandate, at a time when brutal violence was much in evidence. At the same time it noted a “certain fluctuation of policy.” That tendency—it could not very well be avoided in the circumstances must again be noted, and the Commission may once more pass uncomplimentary remarks. It is now proposed that following a transitional period, in which the people of Palestine will be given an increasing share of government, an independent State should be established within ten years, with treaty relations with the United Kingdom governing the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries. When the Peel Report recommending partition oi the State between the Jews and Arabs was accepted by the British Government in principle, the Jews reluctantly and with substantial qualifications gave their support. The Arabs, however, remained firm in their opposition. Then the Wood head Commission, charged with the duty of defining the boundaries and reporting on Palestine’s economic and fiscal position, found such insuperable difficulties that it advised the Government not tp proceed with partition, and tins policy was abandoned. Britain, with this vexatious problem still far from solved, gave Jews and Arabs the opportunity to reconcile their grievances and they failed. That caused no surprise. What is wanted in Palestine is simply peaceful .government. The League Council when endorsing the principle of partition admonished both Jews and Arabs against intransigence, but such helpful and constructive advice fell on deaf ears. Now Britain proposes to establish a State in which the “Jews and Arabs will share in the government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community arc safeguard-

ed.” In oilier words Britain is accepting- tiie proposition that these two races which have shown the bitterest antagonism towards each other are prepared to cooperate tor Palestine's future welfare. But that seems too much to expect, and the reactions to the White Paper make it clear that the Jews are determined to show the sternest opposition. They charge the British Government with a breach of faith and a surrender to Arab terrorism. They see nothing more in the proposal than that the promise in the Balfour Declaration of a national home will be nullified, and by reason of the restriction of immigrants the Arab majority will hold the Jews at their mercy. But there is much to say for the British view that the framers of the mandate, which embodied the Balfour principle, hardly intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population. Neither can Palestine be wholly an Arab State. Por twenty years the British Government has loyally sought to equitably discharge the terms of a 'responsible and difficult mandate, and often at a great deal of cost lo its taxpayers whose interests lie nearer home. An independent State would mean the termination of the mandate, and the opportunity is offered once again to the Jews and Arabs to govern the country they share so that the deplorable conditions, enmities, and bitterness now rampant can be overcome. But the most optimistic can hardly see in this scheme the way out of Palestine’s troubles