 In the decade between 1945 and 1955, there were many countries that saw their split from a single nation into many, due to the start or conclusion of one war or another. In 1945, Germany split into East and West and was divided along longitudinal axis. In 1950, Korea into North and South along the 38th parallel, and in 1955, Vietnam into North and South, splintering the nation along a latitudinal divide. Another major partition plan came in the Indian subcontinent. In 1947, when the British Empire finally surrendered to reality that its control had long overstayed its welcome. The basis for the geographic divide was mainly structured on the existing religious denominations located in the various parts of the subcontinent. And as such, this exercise resulted in the formation of two independent nations, India and Pakistan. All in all, the historic partitioning of nations during that decade was fairly simple in its attempt to break down one country into two. The lines were drawn were pretty straightforward, as was the practical logic applied. One particular partition plan, though, didn't follow any such simplicity, but followed a complex concoction of historical analysis, unnecessary assumptions and unsolicited fortune telling, resulting ultimately in the foundations for eventual regional instability for decades to come. And that's the partition plan for Palestine. In 1947, a fledgling United Nations, two years old, and at that point 57 countries strong, established the Special Commission on Palestine. Onscop, as it was referred to, had a single mission. To listen, analyze, and put forward a proposal for the United Nations General Assembly that will put into action the British promise for the establishment of an independent Jewish state in Palestine. This committee included 10 member nations, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. Five Eurocentric nations, two Asians, and three South American. None Arab. Now I'm not sure how many people have read Onscop's report or who might have some understanding of how Onscop went about its business and how best to geopolitically divide Palestine into smaller pieces. Not to worry, I've done the reading for you. And what a nice long read it was, 87 pages long. So Onscop's strategy was simple, to break down the numerous factors that contribute to the fabric of nations and reduce them to their bare minimum. And the result of this dilution of factors were as follows. Number one, demographics. Number two, geographic. And number three, economic. Now let's review together the various recommendations found within the final report that were concluded along these lines. Let's start with demographics. The numbers are the numbers and there's no room for any contention here. In the census of 1946, the population of Palestine was 1.85 million people. The breakdown was approximately 1.24 million Arabs and 610,000 Jews. This meant that of the overall population in Palestine, 67% were Arabs and 33% were Jewish. Based upon the suggestions of the partition plan, the eventual Arab state would become 95% Arab and 5% Jewish. However, the Jewish state would have a more even breakdown of 52% Jews and 48% Arab. Independent Jerusalem and its suburbs would become a virtual 50-50 split of Jewish Arab inhabitants. The proposal also analyzed the future growth of the two distinct populations over the next decade and a half and projected that Arabs would form an even larger percentage of the overall population. Hence potentially justifying a larger allocation to the Arab state. Yet this logic was not followed in the recommendation of the Onscop report. The second point was geography. So let's start with the absolute basics. Land. The partition plan allocated approximately 55% of the land of historic Palestine to the Jewish state and 42% to the Arab state. The city of Jerusalem and its outskirts were to be removed from both nations jurisdiction and placed under a neutral international administration. An added complexity in the partition plan was the small territory of Jaffa that would also be allocated to the Arabs even though it would become an isolated Arab state town within the Jewish state. Regarding coastlines, 170 kilometers were carved out for the Jewish state while the Arab state coastal access was limited to 100 kilometers. A 70% extra allocation for the Jewish state. This included exposure to the Red Sea of which the Arab state was totally excluded from. In terms of access to fresh water, the Jewish state had access to all the main bodies of water. Major rivers and lakes were fully incorporated within the Jewish state such as Lake Tiberias, Lake Hula and the Qishan River. The river Jordan was shared between both states but the Jewish state had a strategic advantage in the fact that it would control the northern territories that were the source of the river flowing south into the Arab state. The Jewish state was also granted longer frontage on the Dead Sea. And the third element providing rationale for the partitioning of Palestine was economy. The factor of economy in Ansqab's report and recommendation was extremely unclear in how it translated its factual economic findings towards the physical split of Palestine into two nations. There seemed to be a greater role of intangible assumptions and interpretations to drive the justifications for a more favored outcome towards the Jewish state. In 1947 the economy of Palestine was overwhelmingly based on agriculture. Industry was virtually non-existent. Annual agricultural revenue was at around 21.8 million Palestinian pounds of which 23% was generated by the Jewish population and the remaining 77% by the Arabs. On the industrial front the report cites that the Arab population was not conducive of industrial growth. As they were mostly an agrarian society and that the Jewish population was better suited to develop industry due to its western origin experience. As well as the fact that they can introduce the necessary investment capital into the region and hence the partition plan would consider the Jewish industrial potential in its land allocation. A full chapter in the Ansqab report that seems out of place is devoted to the historic concessions granted by the British to various parties and lists them in full detail. First we have the Jerusalem Electric and Public Service Corporation granted to Mr. Euripides Mavromatis that was the sole supplier of electricity to Jerusalem and its suburbs. The second was the Palestine Electric Corporation granted to Mr. Minhas Rutenberg that was the sole supplier of electricity and water throughout various areas of Palestine. The third concession was the Palestine Potash Company and it was granted to Mr. Moshe Novameski that extracted minerals from the Dead Sea. Oil exploration, refining and power plant concessions were originally granted to the Anglo-Iranian Company and Iraqi Petroleum Company. Then in 1937 sold to consolidated refineries limited. All these concessions recorded were either British or Jewish. Not one concession granted to the Arabs was mentioned. That is partly due to the fact that previous to 1947 no concessions were granted to Arabs towards utilities infrastructure or the exploration and distribution of natural resources. Palestine and its variations is mentioned 677 times in the 87 page Ansqab document. Israel only once and that's not even referring to the future nation but to a political party in Palestine at the time. If you know you know and if you don't then join the Chronicles where we present content about Middle Eastern history culture and heritage. So in summary Arabs being 67% of the population were allocated 42% of the land. An Arab population that was generating 77% of the national income in agriculture was apportioned 42% of the land. As well as an unfavorable lopsided allocation of freshwater resource. An Arab population that was at its very lowest ratio numerically spread equally amongst Jews were granted 39% of shorelines on the Mediterranean Sea and zero access to the Red Sea. So let us recall again the lines drawn along countries that were divided into two during the mid 20th century. And now compared to how Ansqab based on its discipline fair and systematic research and analysis of facts and conditions provided its solution to the partitioning of a nation. This is what Ansqab could come up with virtually a slice of Swiss cheese with newly forced internal borders that were in excess of 800 kilometers long with weak control points that would challenge authority and jurisdiction on a daily basis. This naive partitioning method laid immediate ground works for future conflict but it also led to the Arabs vehemently disagreeing with the partition plan feeling totally abandoned by the United Nations. Removing any emotions the numbers were clear on every front the numbers and allocations favored the Jewish state. Even if we remove the overall history of the immigration and violence that happened before this moment there was evident and unapologetic favoritism in the Ansqab report. A simple demarcation line and eventual borderline running from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea could have been a much better solution regardless of how tough the displacement of peoples would be. All partition plans were tough in every aspect people would end up suffering. Ansqab simply wasn't brave enough to make the righteous call and represent the facts on the ground to represent the fair and even handed split between the eventual Arab and Jewish states. And if the United Nations did act bravely and impartially maybe just maybe we wouldn't be in the harsh reality we live in today.