dissent note, Rahman elaborated his reasons for rejecting the majority
suggestions. His arguments can be broadly summarized as follows:
- Palestine was a predominantly Arab country, and any resolution of
the confl ict should not be to the disadvantage of the native Arabs; - Palestine was not a solution for the Jewish problem;^59
- it was not possible to create two viable states in Palestine;
- it was not possible to create a Jewish state without a very large Arab
minority;^60 - Palestine was too small to bear the burden of two governments;
- the Jewish state would be surrounded by hostile Arab states, which
would only increase the possibility of war; - the likelihood of Arab- Jewish cooperation would become remote;
- the division of Palestine would make the transportation of goods
impossible, since commerce was already handicapped by Palestine’s
artifi cial borders with its Arab neighbors; - the proposed distribution of land and resources between the two
states under the partition plan were inequitable and strongly biased
against the Arabs;^61 - partition would create problems for Jews everywhere since they
would be accused of practicing dual loyalties;^62 - enforcement of the partition plan would require the use of force,
since Arab- Jewish relations would deteriorate; and - partition was against the principle of self- determination.
Critiques of partition were not new. The Woodhead Commission set up
in 1938 to examine the division of Palestine was unsuccessful. Likewise
commenting on partition, in 1946 the twelve- member Anglo- American
Committee of Inquiry observed: “Partition has an appeal at fi rst sight as
giving a prospect of early in de pen dence and self- government to Jews and
Arabs, but in our view no partition would have any chance unless it was
basically acceptable to Jews and Arabs, and there is no sign of that today.
We are accordingly unable to recommend partition as the solution.”^63 Even
within the U.S. State Department, there were diff erences over the feasi-
bility of the majority plan of the UNSCOP.^64
Abdur Rahman also used his dissenting note to challenge some of the
positions held by the great powers vis-à- vis Palestine. He argued, inter
alia, that the Balfour Declaration should not have been made;^65 that the
mandate was incompatible and inconsistent with the Covenant of the
the partition of palestine 99