BRITISH END SEARCH

Southland Times, Issue 23648, 25 October 1938, Page 5

BRITISH END SEARCH

CURFEW RELAXED IN JERUSALEM

REBELS LOSE 40 MEN AT WEEK-END ARABS BOYCOTT IDENTITY CARDS (United Press Assn.—Telegraph Copyright) (Received October 24, 9.15 p.m.) LONDON, October 24. The search of the Old City is completed, says the Jerusalem correspondent of The Daily Telegraph. Hundreds streamed out after the lifting of the curfew. The rebels suffered 40 casualties during the week-end, half of which occurred during skirmishes in the Nablus Area. One British soldier was killed and two were wounded in an ambush of a rations convoy. The Arab rebels threaten to kill any Arab applying for the identity cards which the Government is issuing to distinguish innocent people from terrorists; consequently few Arabs are applying. Kakhry Bey, the sole remaining leader of the Arab moderates, accuses the Grand Mufti of using funds which had been. collected for the relief of Arab sufferers for the purchase of arms to advance his own ambitions. \

Kakhry Bey is convinced that a programme of terrorism is futile and that the Grand Mufti will certainly, sooner or later, be obliged to realize the wisdom of moderation.

PALESTINE’S FUTURE UNCERTAIN FINDINGS OF COMMISSION SENT BY BRITAIN Palestine is very much in the news at present, says a correspondent in The Herald (Melbourne). It may be that its fate for centuries is about to be determined, but in what manner, and wether peacefully or by the sword, still remains to be seen. The immediate interest in Palestine has two causes; the Arab revolt, which large British forces are now endeavouring to suppress; and the report of file Woodhead Technical Commission. The commission was sent out to Palestine to ascertain, on the spot, the best method of carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Palestine, the chairman of which was Lord Peel. This Royal Commission was appointed two years ago, to go out to Palestine for the following specific reasons:— (1) To ascertain the causes of the ever-recurring disturbances in that country. (2) To inquire how the British mandate was being worked as it affected the Arab and Jewish problems. (3) To ascertain what legitimate grievances both parties had. (4) To make recommendations for the removal of those grievances and

for a prevention of their recurrence. In short, the Royal Commission was sent out to clean up the Palestine mess. It was a very competent commission of experienced men; it spent a long time in the country; it heard evidence from nearly 100 witnesses; it toured the land in every direction, and examined and explored every possible factor in the situation.

Consequently, the report which it issued, a Blue Book of more than 400 pages, may be taken as an authoritative “Guide to Palestine,” and an expert report on the Arab-Jewish problem. BALFOUR DECLARATION The crux of the Palestine problem today lies, of course, in the celebrated document known as the Balfour Declaration. That document was published at the height of the Great War, after Lord Allenby’s conquest of Palestine and the ejection of the Turks. The Zionists saw in this victory a way to a Jewish return to Palestine on a far larger scale than had hitherto been thought practicable. They incorporated their ideas in a definite scheme, the chief point of which was that the new Palestine should become a national home for the Jewish people, not, by the way, “the” national home. The project was approved by Britain, France and Italy, and by President Wilson, and <sn November 2, 1917, Lord Balfour wrote a letter to Lord Rothschild:

“His Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use its best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of

existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

In return, the Zionist leaders promised to rally Jewish' sentiment and support throughout the world for the Allied cause—no small contribution, particularly during the dark days of 1917 when the outcome of the war was in the balance. ARAB HOSTILITY The beginning of the establishment of the Jewish national home and its very successful growth at once excited the hostility of the Arabs of Palestine. They fought the British mandate, the national home, and everything else, claiming the right of self-determination: “Palestine for the Palestinian Arabs!”

They foresaw, or feared, that in the end .they would be submerged, and brought- into a state of helotry by the superior enterprise, brains, skill and activity of these new competitors. As the Jewish settlements waxed and flourished,' so the Arab hostility increased, until, at length, it flamed out into open warfare, rebellion, terrorism, and the general breakdown of the orderly government of the country. In its report, the commission traverses the whole story, and devotes separate chapters to every aspect of the subject—the operation of file British mandate, the British administration, public security, financial questions, the problem of the land and land settlement, immigration, education, local government, and so on. It explores also the problem of a lasting settlement. “An irrepressible conflict has arisen between 1,000,009 Arabs and some 400,000 Jews within the narrow bounds of a small country no larger thpn Wales. There is no common ground between them. The Arab is Asiatic; the Jew predominantly European. They differ in religion and language, and their cultural and social life. Their ways of thought and conduct are as incompatible as their national aspirations. These last are the greatest bar to peace.” What, then? The problem cannot be solved by giving either the Arabs or Jews all they want Britain cannot hand to the Arabs over 400,000 Jews, whose entry into Palestine has been facilitated by fire British Government, and approved by the League of Nations. “Nor, if the Jews should become a majority, do we think that 1,000,000 or so Arabs should be handed over to their rule.” The commission decided that the only feasible way out was partition; and it drew a map showing how, in its view, that partition could best be made, the two separate States to be separated by a British corridor. The British Government accepted the plan for partition, and sent out a technical commission, known as the Woodhead Commission, to study on the spot the details of such a plan, and how best it could be put into effect. Unofficial accounts of the report of this technical commission assert that it opposes partition as impracticable.