Abandonment of Illusions: Zionist Political Attitudes Toward Palestinian Arab Nationalism, 1936-1939 by Yehoyada Haim

Author:Yehoyada Haim [Haim, Yehoyada]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: History, General, Middle East
ISBN: 9780865319714
Google: XoFtAAAAMAAJ
Goodreads: 909064
Publisher: Westview Press
Published: 1983-09-08T00:00:00+00:00

4

Partition and Other Proposed Solutions

Partition

The Royal Commission discussed both cantonization and partition in private sessions with Weizmann.1 Cantonization, especially the Cust plan, was discussed in the session of 23 December 1936. Weizmann argued that the Cust scheme was unworkable, but he did not completely rule out cantonization. When asked if any such plan could be acceptable to the Zionists, he answered that careful attention would be given "if a definite proposal was put forward which would allow immigration to go on... [and] if Transjordan was included in some form."2

It seems that Zionist leaders, fearing that the Royal Commission would recommend a cantonization scheme, did their utmost to prevent such a development.3 In the end the Commission stated a preference for partition over cantonization.4

In a private meeting on 8 January 1937 Weizmann was asked about partition. Not fully grasping the implications of this new idea, his answer concerned cantonization. When, toward the end of his testimony, the question was repeated, Weizmann replied: "Permit me not to give a definite answer now. Let me think [about] it."5 But he quickly became convinced that partition was the best possible solution. On 2 March he received confirmation that the Royal Commission would recommend partition as one of its proposals.6

By early April Zionist leaders in Palestine became aware that partition was highly favored by the Commission, But the details of the scheme were still unknown when the debate among Zionists began. All factions, including supporters of partition, considered it wise to reject the plan publicly, so that it would not be viewed as Zionist-inspired. Top Zionist leaders, most of whom supported partition, did not even show enthusiasm for it in private, for that could have been interpreted as unconditional acceptance of the principle of partition, whatever its details; it was precisely the details that would determine their final decision.7

The Royal Commission's report, based on what was probably the most thorough and penetrating investigation ever conducted by the British in Palestine, was published in July 1937. Accepting the premise that the conflicting national aspirations of Palestinian Arabs and Jews were irreconcilable, the Commission proposed certain immediate palliative measures — the curbing of land purchase and immigration - and recommended partition as the best possible long-term solution.

The restrictions on Jewish land purchase were designed to guarantee the needs of the growing Arab population, and probably also to satisfy political considerations. On immigration, the Report proposed replacing the economic absorptive principle by the "political high level" principle, which would take into account "political and psychological factors."8 The Commission suggested that Jewish immigration in all categories be fixed at a maximum 12,000 per year for the following five years. Some think that this figure was proposed in order to maintain the proportion between the Arab and Jewish populations.9

The Royal Commission argued that "if [partition] offers neither party all it wants, it offers each what it wants most, namely freedom and security."10 The scheme divided the area of Palestine and Transjordan into a Jewish state, an Arab state and a British enclave.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.