The Grey River Argus TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1948. HOLY LAND HOSTILITIES

Grey River Argus, 13 April 1948, Page 4

The Grey River Argus TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1948. HOLY LAND HOSTILITIES

MiASSACRES, such as the latest reported in Palestine, or battles like that developing outside Jerusalem, lend no credence to the idea of the U.N.O. Commission that the country can be divided up between the Zionists and Arabs. There have been many accounts of Zionist determination and of Arabic reaction, with a suggestion that conflicting attitudes are reconcilable if only a truce could be arranged. On the basis of eventually making acceptable a partition any truce would be no more than a delay of hostilities. The division within which it is proposed that the Jews should be autonomous would con sist of three distinct areas, which would require to be strung together, their selection being de-

termined by their superior rainfall and productivity, whilst the majority of the inhabitants, the Arabs, would be obliged to inhabit the remaining largely drier areas, or serve as workers in the Zionist ones. Britain’s approaching exit is heralded only by expanding strife. The United States, after favouring partition, has revealed no disposition to join in enforcing partition, because it would undoubtedly entail warfare with the Arab population. The next step seems to be for the United Nations to reverse its decision. and seek a solution which will leave the Holy Land as much a unit in future as it always has been with its population preponderantly Arabic. Self determination, if invoked in the manner adopted elsewhere, would see a

large majority against partition. It is significant that the imposition of partition is reckoned by its advocates themselves as requiring outside intervention. What has been indicated is that it is a false plea when defence of the Holy City is described as obliging Christians to side, with partition. There is. on the contrary, evidence that on the spot the Christians have no sympathy with Zionist ascendancy, and regard the unity of the Holy Land as historically right. The campaign, for Zionist ascendancy is carried on chiefly by migrant Jews, not the eJews who have been long resident in Palestine, who had always recognised territorial unity as advantageous for the inhabitants generally. The Zionist adventure has been troublesome for Britain, and the surest testimony of this is the fact that in a month’s time, her forces will have departed, and that she is now leaving a decision of the problem either to the wisdom of the United Nations or the abitrament of strife on the spot. It is to be anticipated, however, that if the partitionists are once convinced they must rely entirely on their own resources, they will far more speedily enter a truce and seek an alternative settlement than if they are encouraged to expect outside support in imposing their will. \