Earlier Proposals For Partition
In 1937, the Peel Commission had proposed a Palestine divided into a small Jewish state (about 15%), a much larger Arab state, and an international zone. The Arab leadership rejected the plan, while the Jewish Agency rejected the plan's borders and established its own committees on borders and population transfer, drawing up alternative proposals. These proposals contained provisions for the relocation of Arab population to areas outside the borders of the new Jewish state, modeled on the population exchange between Greece and Turkey; they were also rejected by the Arab side.
The British Woodhead Commission considered several additional plans for partition. In 1938 the British government issued a policy statement declaring that "the political, administrative and financial difficulties involved in the proposal to create independent Arab and Jewish States inside Palestine are so great that this solution of the problem is impracticable". Representatives of Arabs and Jews were invited to London for the St. James Conference, which proved unsuccessful.
The MacDonald White Paper of May 1939 declared that it was "not part of policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State" and sought to eliminate Jewish immigration to Palestine. The Jewish Agency hoped to persuade the British to restore Jewish immigration rights, and cooperated with the British in the war against Fascism. Aliyah Bet was organized to spirit Jews out of Nazi controlled Europe, despite the British prohibitions. The White Paper also led to the formation of Lehi, a small Jewish terrorist organization which opposed the British, and fought on the side of the Axis, throughout the war.
Read more about this topic: United Nations Partition Plan For Palestine
Famous quotes containing the words earlier and/or proposals:
“If in the earlier part of the century, middle-class children suffered from overattentive mothers, from being “mother’s only accomplishment,” today’s children may suffer from an underestimation of their needs. Our idea of what a child needs in each case reflects what parents need. The child’s needs are thus a cultural football in an economic and marital game.”
—Arlie Hochschild (20th century)
“One theme links together these new proposals for family policy—the idea that the family is exceedingly durable. Changes in structure and function and individual roles are not to be confused with the collapse of the family. Families remain more important in the lives of children than other institutions. Family ties are stronger and more vital than many of us imagine in the perennial atmosphere of crisis surrounding the subject.”
—Joseph Featherstone (20th century)