Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, SATURDAY, JULY 10, 1937. FUTURE OF PALESTINE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19373, 10 July 1937, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, SATURDAY, JULY 10, 1937. FUTURE OF PALESTINE

The report and recommendations of the Palestine Royal Commission epen up questions of widespread importance, and at first glance it is not easy to agree with the conclusion that the proposals offer the best and most hopeful solution of the deadlock. The controversy, which came to a head with the riots which commenced in April of last year, centres around the question of whether the Jews or the Arabs shall be the dominating influence in Palestine. There is a great deal to be said on behalf of both races, and it cannot be denied that each has substantial justice on its side. This fact alone invests the position with unusual difficulty, for where two claimants are able to establish a right to certain territory any tribunal must find it almost impossible to give an equitable decision. The ideal arrangement would be for the territory to be occupied jointly and equally, and it was this development which the Palestine mandate had in mind—that the Jews and the Arabs would live and work together in harmony and peace. That they failed to do so was due to the rapid growth of the Jewish population and the not unnatural fear of the Arabs that they would gradually be swamped and dominated by the more enterprising new arrivals in the country. • Were it possible, as had been hoped, to assure the masses of the Arab population that such an eventuality would not be permitted and that their rights would be protected, peace might have been restored, but the factors militating against such a logical and pacific settlement were too great. The commission, therefore, has endeavoured to compromise, and its recommendations are based, almost solely, on a plan for the partition of the country into separate Arab and Jewish States. This plan, it is reported, has been approved, in principle, by the British Government, but other reports suggest that it will not be acceptable to the people directly concerned.

The greatest credit must be given to the commission for the careful and painstaking manner in which it carried out a peculiarly difficult and complicated task, and, in the meantime, at least, it must be assumed that it has proposed the most practicable way .out. of the impasse.. This, however, does not dispose of the fact that the suggested solution is anything but satisfactory. The commission may be right in asserting that it. is the most hopeful procedure, but it is definitely wrong when it declares that it is the best. The best solution would have been a settlement of the grievances and the development of the country by both races for their mutual benefit, but since this has been ruled out as an impossibility the commission has been forced to adopt the next best alternative. That the suggested partition of the territory should meet with objections from both parties is inevitable, since both consider that they have legitimate claims to the whole of it. This, then, is the first and most apparent obstacle to the whole plan. But even could the parties be persuaded to agree to the principle of partition, it is clear that there would be differences as to how partition should be effected. Already there is evidence of this. The suggested Arab State will have an area of 1.7,000,000 acres while the Jewish State will consist of only 1,250,000 acres. On the bare figures there is a prima facie case of injustice, because the Jews, with one-third of the population, have only one-thirteenth of the territory. On the other hand, the Arabs contend that they have been unfairly treated because the Jews are to be given the most fertile agricultural areas. Thus it is that this bold attempt to satisfy the rival claims actually is not likely to satisfy either, and even if it did the successful carrying out of the plan would require, as the commission states, the highest statesmanship on the part of all concerned. In the light of past experience it is expecting too much to look for the highest statesmanship from those concerned in the dispute over Palestine’s future. Under the best of conditions, it would mean that the existing rivalry and friction within the mandated territory would be displaced by rivalry and friction, possibly no less acute, between neighbouring States, each having a grievance with the other. It is certain that Jewish enterprise will make rapid progress in the new Jewish State, and equally certain that the Arab State, in comparison, will remain undeveloped and unproductive. From this position further jealousies and bitterness will inevitably arise. The Jews will be dissatisfied because the smallness of their territory will not permit of the continuance of immigration at the former rate: indeed, the commission actually proposes that it should be restricted to 1000 a month compared with 5000 a month last year. On the other hand the Arabs will contend that their seeming stagnation is accounted for by the fact that the Jews have been given the pick of the territory. These are only some of the difficulties inherent in the partition plan, and although it cannot be said that the commission has not adopted the most hopeful solution in the circumstances, the report will leave the feeling that if this is the best that can be suggested for the future Palestine, then the future of Palestine will be little brighter or moic settled than its immediate past.