THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1938 THE PALESTINE PROBLEM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23111, 9 August 1938, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1938 THE PALESTINE PROBLEM

Curiosity is aroused by news of the general belief that Mr. Malcolm Mac-Donald's visit to Palestine foreshadows a decisive turn in British policy there. The visit itself was unusual. No notification of it was given, and he is reported to have spent two days there without being recognised by the populacs. It is not customary for the Colonial Secretary, upon whose shoulders rests directly the responsibility for administration of a mandated territory, to enter it secretly and to go about his official business, even as a mere observer, without being himself observed. Possibly the state of tension dictated some such precaution, but this explanation is inadequate. Naturally Jews and Arabs, having become aware of his presence after the event, are disappointed that he did not meet their respective leaders. The facts suggest that he wished to see for himself something of 'the unrest now creating widespread anxiety. If so, • the conditions prevalent at the time of his visit must have deepened his conviction that the problem of Palestine is becoming perilously complex by reason of the racial antipathies that threaten to make a speedy solution impossible. At Jerusalem, it appears, he committed himself no further than to say that Britain was concerned about restoring peace to Palestine on the basis of justice to both its peoples; this would be the Government's constant future endeavour. That is a statement purely formal; except for its mention of restoring peace, which may be taken to include a continuance of firm measures against lawlessness, it contains nothing beyond what was promised years ago.

More than twenty years have passed since the Balfour Declaration announced a policy of even-handed justice for Jew and Arab. It pledged Britain to establish in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people, "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." These words were extended in the terms of the mandate, the mandatory Power being held responsible "for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of a Jewish national home." Further, these terms provided that the administration, "while ensuring that the rights and privileges of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish Agency, close settlement of Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes." All seemed set for a happy ending to what was even then becoming a tale of bitter perplexities. But the hope has been sadly falsified and seems to-day no nearer fruition than when the mandate was allotted. It cannot be said that Britain has not tried to achieve the declared purpose. Right up to the ' moment of the Colonial Secretary's visit the effort has been maintained, only to be dogged by difficulty after difficulty. The present phase of the task is made doubly exacting by the outbreak of an inter-racial feud more intolerant than any in the past, and by an accompanying foreign intrigue quick to turn the occasion into a means of embarrassing Britain. To overcome these obstructions to a settlement has now to be an urgent care, but with it must go a tactful testing of methods designed to ensure a just solution of the problem itself. An assurance of final satisfaction of all legitimate claims to occupancy is an essential'element in dealing with disorder. That assurance involves definite plans. A Royal Commission proposed partition of the territory into three zones—one, including the Holy Places venerated by Jew, Moslem and Christian, to remain under the British mandate, and the large remainder to be created by treaty with Jews and Arabs into two independent States. This scheme, although seeming to be a "Solomon's judgment," failed to promote a settlement; Jewish approval was lukewarm, Arab response unhelpfully negative. Through successive stages of examination and debate the proposal ran a gauntlet of criticism, by Mandates Commission, Political Commission, League Council, World Zionist Congress and British Parliament. Instead of helping to check the riot of feeling, it provoked a renewal of violence, necessitating measures to cope severely with disorder. Suggestions for a tentative trial of the idea have been equally unacceptable, as has been a proposal for a number of temporary Jewish and Arab cantons. The total result so far has been unpromising; the British Government has laid itself open to charges of promise-breaking and of weaknesses, and Palestine is still the scene of defiant lawlessness. So | long as Mr. Ormsby-Gore's word "exploratory" continues to be applicable to projects of appeasement there seems to be little prospect of outgrowing the regrettable need for stern dealing. But what other approach to the vexing problem is possible in the circumstances? Mr. Mac Donald's words offer no alternative to feeling the way. His consultation with officials in Palestine had little to do, probably, with anything but the disturbances there, and nothing more than his vague and non-committal statement is to be expected until the British Cabinet is ready with a practicable scheme doing justice to both peoples concerned. Yet 1 another mere pi*omise of that may exasperate rather than, appease*