NEW PATHS FOR PALESTINE
THE New Zealand representative in the General Assembly of the United Nations said in the debate which preceded last Saturday's vote in favour of the partition of Palestine that any scheme was better than none at all. This counsel of despair, for it is nothing more, could be accepted with greater resignation if the drawing of lines on a map could be properly described as a scheme. The thirty-three States who voted with varying degrees of misgiving for the division of Palestine into seven parts—three Jewish, three Arab and one International—made no provision what- ever for the proper observance of boundaries beyond appointing a commission of five members to take over the government of the whole country when the British withdraw and to exercise all powers until the Jewish and Arab States become independent. There are no arrangements for meeting and ending the force with which many Arab leaders swear to resist the partition. The existence of the Haganah, the defunct American proposal for the recruitment of a volunteer force, and the recommendation of Dr. Howard Ralbag that the Jewish War Veterans of America be mobilised and transported to the Holy Land all enjoy equal status not as schemes for keeping the peace, but as methods of ensuring that violence, if it comes, will be welcomed and propagated. Now that partition has become the official policy of the United Nations it would be completely improper for the British Government to impede it, more especially since many responsible observers in this country have already decided that partition is inevitable and would have accepted it more willingly, though still with many misgivings, had it been proposed at a better time and in a better manner. But it cannot be said that this particular scheme is likely to be successful. It ends a process in which too many false steps have been taken and too many chances missed. The result is a desperate second best.
Nobody comes out of the process leading up to the present scheme with any great credit. Certainly the Americans do not. For as long as possible they kept their faces turned away from the growing confusion promoted by criminal Jewish elements and controlled with increasing difficulty by British men and British money. When the United States Government entered the scene it was only to upset Mr. Bevin's carefully matured policy at a critical moment when, so the Foreign Minister claimed, there was some hope of a viable compromise between Jews and Arabs. Too often American influence has been exerted in favour of irrespon- sible Jewish propaganda, or at any rate not exerted against it. At all points it has been unwilling to face the commitment of troops to Palestine, while simultaneously underlining the British duty to do so and criticising the performance of that duty. At the last moment pressure was brought to bear on countries lying within the scope of the Monroe Doctrine to get them to vote for partition. And it is impossible to ignore the fact that the final decision was forced through, in New York, in an atmosphere whose impartiality must have been affected in some degree by the presence and avid interest of that city's two million Jews.
These facts must be stated. But above all they must be stated without bitterness. There is enough anti-Semitic and anti- American sentiment in the world, and the evidence is sufficient that it is no part of the policy of this journal to foster either. If the Americans come out badly from this episode, it is at least due to a great and peaceful nation that it should be pointed out that they erred through ignorance, and that they can still retrieve their errors by applying their minds and their resources to the policy which they have sponsored. It is possible to detect in American actions an element of that uncritical acceptance of the argument that the Jews must return to the Promised Land, which comes perfectly, naturally to any schoolboy whose education has been in some degree influenced by the Bible. But there need be no element of smug- ness in the assertion that the informed British attitude is more mature, since it has been formed by actual contact for more than thirty years with the problems and peoples of Palestine. The same argument weakens the force of the decision of 33 out of the 57 members of the United Nations, for very few of the States voting for partition have had much direct knowledge of the actual government of Palestine. Yet the decision lies with that majority. And the responsibility for handing the decision to the United Nations rests with the British Government. We must now make the best of it.
While there is no point in looking for scapegoats, it is essential that the attitude of those who must now undertake the difficult task of working out a permanent regime for Palestine should be investigated. As little is known about Russian reasons for supporting partition as about the motives behind any other feature of Russian policy, but realism requires the recognition of the fact that many Russian and Communist actions are completely con- sistent with a simple desire to make mischief or to fish in troubled waters. The hope can only be expressed for what it is worth and it is not worth very much—that Russian policy in Palestine will in future be directed to the attainment of a peaceful solution. Of British policy little more need be said. It has often been hesitant and there was a fatal ambiguity at its origin, in that it favoured the establishment of a Jewish National.Home while trying to favour at the same time the legitimate claims of Arab nationalism. But in its last phase it has been completely unswerving. Once the Government had handed the question to the United Nations, each later step followed inevitably. It would help enormously towards a sensible solution if the other Powers were to realise that when the British Government said it would only use its forces to implement a plan acceptable to both parties it meant what it said. The British Government has always wanted an acceptable compromise between Jews and Arabs, wants it now, and will no doubt continue to work for it inside the United Nations.
As to the people who really matter—the inhabitants of Pales- tine—they have many mistakes to retrieve. The utterly uncompro- mising attitude adopted by the Arabs towards the efforts of the United Nations right up to the eleventh hour, when the change came too late, was wrong. The attacks upon the British and the persistent suspicions of their motives were wrong. The hatred for the Americans which achieves a sharper expression every day will do no good whatever. And the threat of open war, besides being criminal in itself, takes no real account of the wishes of the Arab peasants, who, like peasants everywhere, want peace above every- thing. As to the Jews, it will be best to forget if we can the horrible crimes committed by a minority, the inadequate efforts made by their responsible leaders to control the criminal element, and even the hysterical attacks of those who, in the United States and else- where, incited their fellow Jews to violence and provided the money, to send one stinking cargo of misery after another to be turned back within sight of the Promised Land. It will be best to forget all this, for a good half of the hope for the future of Palestine lies in the possibility that, now they have received a reasonable concession to their claims, the Jews will perform with moderation. the new duty laid upon them, even though their own population policy and the present mood of the Arabs bode no good. It is also within their power, with a little preparation, to let loose more terrible war in the Middle East than can all the Arab States together, whatever the immediate balance of force may be.
It is impossible to prophesy the future of Palestine, but it is easy enough to state the alternatives. On the one hand forbearance and toleration can lead towards a unified Palestinian community in which the partition which looks so sinister today can be reduced to the importance of a municipal arrangeinent. On the other hand the mere pursuit of present Jewish policy can lead as inevitably to war as the excited threats of the Arabs. The myth that the water of the Jordan can make the whole of Palestine blossom into fertility has been well and truly exploded, even though Mr. Henry Wallace and his friends in this country cling to it with a faith which is more reprehensible than pathetic. The defensive argument that pros- perity can be built on new industries rather than agriculture takes no account of the fact that most of such artificially planted schemes will be at a disadvantage in world competition and that the day may come when, whether their economy is based on agriculture or industry, the Jews will turn to the relatively empty surrounding lands. After that a major conflagration would only be a matter of time. This is a dark picture to paint of the possible future of Pales- tine and the Middle East, but in the long run it can only be pre- vented from becoming a reality by a sustained effort of Jews and Arabs to overcome the immediate disadvantages of partition. In the short run, a major part can also be played by the members of the• United Nations, particularly by Britain, which knows the ropes, and by the United States, which had better learn them quickly.
Previous page
