Peel Commission

The commission was created during the period of growing violence that accompanied the first stage of the Arab uprising of 1936-1939 . On November 11, 1936, the commission arrived in Palestine to investigate the causes of the uprising. The commission had to determine the causes of the riots and evaluate the grievances of the parties. Chaim Weizmann spoke on behalf of the Jews. On November 25, 1936, speaking to the commission, Weizmann said that there are 6,000,000 Jews in Europe ... "for whom the world is divided into places where they cannot live, and places where they cannot enter. ^{[6] [10 ] ]}

Initially, the Arabs boycotted the commission. Only the intervention of the leaders of the Arab countries helped convince the Arab leaders to announce their complaints to the commission. Mufti of Jerusalem , Haji Amin al-Husseini , stated that he is against any division of land. He demanded a complete cessation of Jewish immigration. There was a sense of urgency to answer Weitzmann's call in order to restore calm. The former mayor of Jerusalem, Ragheb Bey al-Nashashibi, the rival of the Mufti in the intra-Arab struggle for this place of honor, was to explain to the Arabs the British position through unofficial channels.

Members of the committee left the country on January 18, 1937.

Reasons for the Arab Rebellion

The desire of the Arabs to fight for national independence and the impossibility for them to come to terms with the idea of ​​creating a Jewish national center in Palestine increased their fear of Jewish domination. Among the important reasons were the influence on the Arab opinion of other countries that had achieved national independence - Iraq , Transjordan , Egypt , Syria and Lebanon ; an increase in the number of Jewish immigrants fleeing Central and Eastern Europe ; the unequal accommodation opportunities enjoyed by the British government and the public by Arabs and Jews; growing Arab distrust; Arab concern over continued intensive buying up of Arab lands; "Modernism" of Jewish nationalism; and finally, general uncertainty, emphasized by the ambiguity of certain phrases in the mandate. ^[eleven]

The commission found that the drafters of the mandate might not have foreseen mass Jewish immigration, which increased due to “a sharp restriction on immigration to the United States , the emergence of the National Socialist government in Germany in 1933, and increased economic pressure on Jews in Poland .” ^{[12 ]} , the Commission found that "the continuation of a very intelligent and enterprising race, supported by large financial resources could lead the Jews over time and relatively poor indigenous people, located on the other cult polar level, a serious confrontation. " ^[13]

The Commission noted that “although the Arabs benefited from the country's development as a result of Jewish immigration, this did not produce any conciliatory effect. On the contrary, improving the economic situation in Palestine meant worsening the political situation. ” ^{[13] The} Arab accusations that “the Jews received too much share of good land were not confirmed,” since “most of the land currently covered with orange groves at the time of acquisition was uncultivated sand dunes or swamps. ^[14] “The lack of land, we believe, is rather associated not with a large part of the land acquired by the Jews, but with an increase in the Arab population.” ^[14] “The efforts to control the Arabs over the alienation of the land to the Jews were unsuccessful. In the mountains there is no more room for further settlement by Jews; on the plains, residence is permitted only under certain restrictions. " ^[eleven]

The commission stated that the government tried to fulfill conflicting obligations with great difficulty, trying to maintain a balance between Jews and Arabs. Repeated attempts to reconcile them only increased the problem. The situation in Palestine is at an impasse. ^[11] The development of local government and the formation of non-subordinate institutions also prevented this. ^[eleven]

Conflict Conflict Resolution Summary Report

Insoluble conflict arose between two national communities within the narrow borders of one small country. There are no common ground between them. Their national aspirations are incompatible. Arabs want to revive the traditions of the Arab Golden Age. Jews seek to show what they can achieve when they are restored to the land on which the Jewish people were born. None of the two national ideals allows the creation of a single state. ^[15]

Recommendations

The Commission concluded that the mandate had become inoperative and should be revoked. ^[1] Separation was defined as the only solution to the Arab-Jewish “dead end”. Ten directions have been proposed for the work of the commission, wishing to achieve a normal relationship between the parties: Agreements between the Arab and Jewish states and the new binding government; Mandate for holy places; borders; interstate subsidies; UK subsidies tariffs and ports; nationality; public service; industrial concessions; land and population exchange. ^[sixteen]

Section Suggestions

The Jewish state would include Galilee , the Jezreel Valley , Beit Shean , the coastal valley from Mount Carmel to the settlement of (the region of present - day Kiryat Malachi ).

The Arab state should become part of Transjordan , which will include the western side of the Jordan River, the southern coastal plain, the Gaza Strip and a significant part of the Negev desert .

The government mandate will remain a narrow corridor starting in Jaffa , which includes Jerusalem , Lod and the nearest airport. In addition, such mixed cities as Safed , Tiberias , Haifa and others should remain under British control. ^[17]

Conclusions

The commission concluded that Jews, more than Arabs, contributed to Palestinian income growth, and the government thus supported a higher level of public services for Arabs. The section will mean that, on the one hand, the Arab territory will no longer profit from taxes in the Jewish region. On the other hand, the first is that Jews will acquire an additional right of sovereignty in the Jewish region; the second - the area, according to the proposals of the commission, will be larger than the existing Jewish territories and settlements; third, Jews will be released from liability in matters of material assistance to Arabs outside this zone. Therefore, the Agreement proposed the Jewish state to pay a subsidy in favor of the Arab state after the entry into force of the Agreement. An example was the financial arrangement for the separation of Sindh from Bombay and Burma in British India . ^{[17] [18]}

The agreement stated that separation would be more effective for a final settlement if it was not limited to declaring two states and defining their borders. Sooner or later, land transfer and, as much as possible, population exchange should take place. ^{[17] [19]} As an example, the Greek and Turkish exchanges of 1923 were proposed, which turned into constant friction between minorities. The lack of arable land for the resettlement of Arabs required the implementation of large-scale plans for irrigation, water storage and development in Transjordan, Be'er Sheva and the Jordan Valley. ^{[17] [19] An} exchange of population, if implemented, would result in the transfer of up to 225,000 Arabs and 1,250 Jews. ^{[17] [19]}

Arabs' reaction

Arab leaders condemned the possibility of separation and reiterated their demands, ^{[1] [20] [21]} arguing that Arabs were promised independence, and granting rights to Jews was a betrayal. Arabs categorically rejected the principle of giving Jews any territory. ^[22] Hundreds of delegates from around the Arab world convened at a conference in the city of Bloudan in Syria on September 8 completely rejected the possibility of dividing and creating a Jewish state in Palestine. ^[23]

Jewish reaction

On August 20, 1937, the Twentieth Zionist Congress announced that “the proposal of the Peel Commission is unacceptable, but negotiations should continue to clarify the recommendations of the British government to establish a Jewish state in Palestine.” Among the opponents of the proposed section were Menachem Ussishkin, Tabenkin and Berl Katznelson . They claimed that the area of ​​the alleged Jewish state was too small to satisfy the needs of the Jewish diaspora. ^[24]

Congress decided to reject the specific boundaries recommended by the Peel Commission, but authorized its leader to agree on more favorable plans for a Jewish state in Palestine. ^{[25] [26]} As a result, the Jewish Agency created state planning committees. At this time, a complete administrative apparatus was created representing the government. ” ^[26]

At the same Zionist congress, David Ben-Gurion, then chairman of the executive committee of the Jewish Agency of Palestine, told the audience that although "there was no question ... giving up any part of the Land of Israel .., we can safely say that the ultimate goal can be achieved, Accepting Peel’s proposals without delay. ” ^[27] Professor Charles D. Smith of the University of Arizona suggests that“ Weizmann and Ben-Gurion did not feel that they were bound by the boundaries proposed by the Peel Commission. They saw them as temporary boundaries that would be extended into future m ".." ^[27]

The two main Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and Ben-Gurion, persuaded the Zionist Congress to endorse Peel's ambiguous recommendations as the basis for further negotiations. ^{[28] [29] [30]} Ben-Gurion wrote: “A mandatory transfer of Arabs from the territory of the proposed Jewish state could give us what we never had, even while we were standing on our own land in the days of the First and the Second Temples : [Galileo, almost free from non-Jews] ... We are given the opportunity that we painted in our wildest fantasies. It is more than a state, government, sovereignty, it is a national consolidation. ... If, due to our weakness, neglect, or negligence, we do not take advantage of this and lose the chance that we never had before, we may never get it again. " ^[31]

Advantages of the Jewish Community Section

• The creation of a Jewish state in Israel on the basis of the “partition” will create the basis for the political revival and emergence of a sovereign state.
• The creation of a Jewish state in Israel on the basis of the “partition” will allow the continued immigration of Jews into the Jewish state without restrictions.
• The creation of a Jewish state in Israel on the basis of a “partition” would help to immediately save the Jews of the diaspora, especially tens of thousands of refugees fleeing anti-Semitic Europe.
• The creation of a Jewish state in Israel on the basis of the “partition” is the basis for the borders of an independent Jewish state.
• The creation of Jewish and Arab states on the basis of the “partition” will allow reaching agreement and reconciliation between the two neighboring peoples. This will reduce Arab hostility, and will ensure the most complete use of natural, economic and social resources.

Twenty years later, Ben-Gurion wrote: “If the separation [of the plan for the division of the Peel Commission] were made, the history of our people would be different, and six million Jews in Europe would not be killed, most of them would live in Israel.” ^[32]

Peel’s plan, which many scholars argue, has become the main division plan on which subsequent proposals are based and compared, clearly showed the British perspective on Palestine’s future. ^[2]

After the publication of the report, the British government issued a statement agreeing with the findings of the Peel Commission and suggesting that the League of Nations resume work on the separation plan. ^[1] In March 1938, the British organized the Woodhead Commission to "study the Peel Commission plan in detail and make recommendations on the actual partition plan." The Woodhead Commission reviewed three different plans, one of which was based on the Peel Plan. In 1938, the commission rejected Peel's plan, primarily on the grounds that it could not be implemented without a major forced displacement of the Arabs (an option that the British government had already ruled out). ^[33] Instead, the commission recommended a plan according to which Galileo remained under the British mandate, but which emphasized serious problems, primarily the lack of financial independence of the proposed Arab state. ^{[33] The} British government in a published Woodhead report virtually rejected the possibility of separation due to “political, administrative, and financial difficulties.” ^[34]