The HyperTexts
How Palestine Became Divided
by Michael R. Burch, an editor of Holocaust and Nakba poetry
The gist of this article has been taken from the Wikipedia
article "United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine," which is copiously
footnoted. For purposes of brevity, I will stick to the primary facts. I have
reworded the Wikipedia article slightly, for purposes of clarity, but the facts
remain basically the same. Where I have made any comments of my own, I have
enclosed my comments in italicized square brackets, like [this]. Now, here goes . . .
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine or United
Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 was a resolution adopted by the UN
General Assembly. It was approved by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions on
November 29, 1947. The resolution recommended the division of the British
Mandate of Palestine into two provisional states, one Jewish and one Arab, with
a framework for economic union.
[The Palestinians have never had their own state; as a consequence millions of
Palestinians now live in a stateless political limbo in the West
Bank where more than a million of their valuable olive trees have been destroyed (think of the movie "Avatar"), in the walled concentration camp of Gaza
(think of the movie "District 9"), in various refugee camps around the Middle
East (think of varying degrees of hell in Dante's poem "The Inferno"), or as
"citizens" of the "democracy" of Israel (think of the black "citizens" of the
Deep South during the days of Jim Crow laws and public lynchings).]
The resolution reflected two competing nationalist expressions embodied in
Palestine, one emanated primarily from Europe [Jewish], the other from the
then-present majority [Palestinian]; both had been accepted as legitimate a
quarter century earlier by the UN's precursor, the League of Nations. The
resolution was passed to [ostensibly] help resolve both the recent humanitarian
disaster befallen the European Jews [the Holocaust] as well as the long-running conflict between
Zionist ambitions to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and the competing
civil and religious rights of the Arab majority there.
The General Assembly also recommended that the City of Jerusalem be placed under
a special international regime, a corpus separatum, [to be] administered by the United
Nations and outside both states; this was to preserve peace, given the unique
spiritual and religious interests in the city among the world's three great
monotheistic religions [Judaism, Christianity, Islam]. A transitional period
under UN auspices began with the adoption of the resolution and was scheduled to
last until the two states were established. Although the resolution contemplated
a gradual withdrawal of British forces and termination of the Mandate by August
1, 1948, and full independence of the new states by 1 October 1948, this did not
happen; the passage of the partition plan immediately instigated a civil war in
Palestine.
[It is important to note that the UN did not "create" the state of Israel or
"give" the land owned by individual Palestinians to Israeli Jews. Obviously the UN has
no right to "give" my house to you, or vice versa. The purpose of the UN was,
primarily, to create two states where the populations could vote democratically
for governments of their own choosing. However, as we will see, the Palestinians
had an overwhelming majority of the population, and the Zionist leaders among the Jews
were intent on controlling all the land, as the founding father of Israel, David
Ben Gurion said himself. The Palestinians were in the same position as Native
Americans who heard George Washington and other prominent white settlers talking
about "democracy" while publicly claiming the right to take their land and
control their lives. In both cases, for millions of native people, this was not
"democracy" but ethnic cleansing and genocide.]
With the fighting continuing and the planned British
withdrawal approaching, the United Nations Security Council reached an impasse
on March 5, 1948. The Partition Plan called on the Security Council to use its
Chapter VII powers to prevent the parties from using force to alter the boundary
settlement. There was no consensus among the members of the Council regarding
the use of force to impose the partition. The United States subsequently
recommended a temporary UN trusteeship for Palestine "without prejudice to the
character of the eventual political settlement" and the Security Council voted
to send the matter back to the General Assembly for further deliberation. In May
1948, the simultaneous British withdrawal [from Palestine] and Israel's unilateral Declaration of
Independence, which cited the UN resolution as recognizing the right of
the Jewish people to establish a state, led to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The
General Assembly decided to appoint a Mediator, and relieved the established
Palestine Commission from any further exercise of responsibility under
Resolution 181 (II). Although the original mediator was assassinated, continued
UN mediation efforts resulted in the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which
temporarily delineated borders and greatly quieted the fighting between the
parties.
[The mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden, was assassinated on
Friday 17 September 1948 by members of the Jewish militant Zionist group Lehi,
whom the British called "the Stern gang." A three man center of this extreme
Jewish group had approved the killing: Yitzhak Yezernitsky (the future Prime
Minister of Israel Yitzhak Shamir), Nathan Friedmann (also called Natan
Yellin-Mor) and Yisrael Eldad (also known as Yisrael Scheib). A fourth leader, Emmanuel
Strassberg (also known as Emmanuel Hanegbi) was also suspected by Israeli prime minister David
Ben-Gurion of being part of the group that had decided on the assassination. The
assassination was planned by the Lehi operations chief in Jerusalem, Yehoshua
Zettler. By most accounts, it was carried out by six young members of the Lehi
group: Yehoshua Cohen, Shmuel Rosenblum, David Ephrati, Yitzhak Markovitz,
Yehoshua Zettler, and Meshulam Makover. A three-man team
ambushed Bernadotte's motorcade in Jerusalem's Katamon neighborhood. Two of
them, Yitzhak Ben Moshe (Markovitz) and Avraham Steinberg, shot at the tires of
the UN vehicles. The third, Yehoshua Cohen, opened the door of Bernadotte's car
and shot him at close range. The bullets also hit a French officer who was
sitting beside him, U.N. Observer Colonel André Serot. Both were killed. In the
immediate confusion, Col. Serot was mistaken for Dr. Ralph Bunche, the American
aide to Bernadotte. Meshulam Makover was the driver of
the getaway car. General Åge Lundström, who was in the UN vehicle, described the
incident as follows:
“In the Katamon quarter, we were held up by a Jewish
Army type jeep placed in a road block and filled with men in Jewish Army
uniforms. At the same moment, I saw an armed man coming from this jeep. I took
little notice of this because I merely thought it was another checkpoint.
However, he put a Tommy gun through the open window on my side of the car, and
fired point blank at Count Bernadotte and Colonel Serot. I also heard shots
fired from other points, and there was considerable confusion… Colonel Serot
fell in the seat in back of me, and I saw at once that he was dead. Count
Bernadotte bent forward, and I thought at the time he was trying to get cover. I
asked him: 'Are you wounded?' He nodded, and fell back… When we arrived [at the
Hadassah hospital], … I carried the Count inside and laid him on the bed…I took
off the Count's jacket and tore away his shirt and undervest. I saw that he was
wounded around the heart and that there was also a considerable quantity of
blood on his clothes about it. When the doctor arrived, I asked if anything
could be done, but he replied that it was too late."
The following day the United Nations Security Council condemned the killing of
Bernadotte as "a cowardly act which appears to have been committed by a criminal
group of terrorists in Jerusalem while the United Nations representative was
fulfilling his peace-seeking mission in the Holy Land." After his death,
Bernadotte's body was returned to Sweden, where the state funeral was attended
by Abba Eban on behalf of Israel. Folke was survived by a widow and a 14 year
old son. He was buried at the Northern Cemetery in Stockholm.
Lehi leaders initially denied responsibility for the
attack. Later Lehi took responsibility for the killings in the name of Hazit
Hamoledet (The National Front), a name they copied from a war-time Bulgarian
resistance group. The group regarded Bernadotte as a stooge of the British and
their Arab allies, and therefore as a serious threat to the emerging state of
Israel. Most immediately, a truce was currently in force and Lehi feared that
the Israeli leadership would agree to Bernadotte's peace proposals, which they
considered disastrous because they allowed the return of displaced Palestinian
refugees, who had every right to return to their native land and homes. They did not know that the Israeli leaders had already
decided to reject Bernadotte's plans and take the military option.
Lehi was forcibly disarmed and many members were
arrested, but nobody was charged with the killings. Yellin-Mor and another Lehi
member, Schmuelevich, were charged with belonging to a terrorist organization.
They were found guilty but immediately released and pardoned. Yellin-Mor had
meanwhile been elected to the first Knesset (the Israeli Parliament). Years later, Cohen's role was
uncovered by David Ben-Gurion's biographer Michael Bar Zohar, while Cohen was
working as Ben-Gurion's personal bodyguard. The first public admission of Lehi's
role in the killing was made on the anniversary of the assassination in 1977.
The statute of limitations for murder had expired in 1971.
The Swedish government believed that Bernadotte had been
assassinated by Israeli government agents. They publicly attacked the inadequacy
of the Israel investigation and campaigned unsuccessfully to delay Israel's
admission to the United Nations. In 1950, Sweden recognized Israel but relations
remained frosty despite Israeli attempts to console Sweden such as the planting
of a Bernadotte Forest by the JNF in Israel. At a ceremony in Tel-Aviv in May
1995, attended by the Swedish deputy prime minister, Israeli Foreign Minister
and Labor Party member Shimon Peres issued a "condemnation of terror, thanks for
the rescue of the Jews and regret that Bernadotte was murdered in a terrorist
way," adding that "We hope this ceremony will help in healing the wound."
In 1998, Bernadotte was posthumously awarded one of the
first three Dag Hammarskjöld Medals, given to UN peacekeepers who are killed in
the line of duty.
While future national leaders of Israel like Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin
committed acts of terrorism, most Americans consider them "democrats" and
"freedom fighters," while Palestinians who use force are routinely called
"terrorists." Why are American taxpayers shelling out trillions of dollars to
fight a war against terrorism, when Israel's terroristic policies were prime
factors in Americans being attacked on 9-11? American victims of terrorism,
American soldiers and American taxpayers have paid an immense price to protect
Israel's terrorists, while waging war against the men who oppose Israel's
injustices.]
Both the League of Nations, as well as the terms of the
various League of Nations Mandates, had their origin at the Paris Peace
Conference, 1919 and were drafted within the councils of the victorious Allies
of World War I. The League of Nations could not alter the terms of a mandate in
any substantial way. It was the original intention of the League of Nations that
the Mandatory regime would lead toward their eventual independence.
[People
interested in understanding the truth about where things started to go wrong
should study the imperialistic attitude, hubris and wild blunders of Winston
Churchill during his brief stint as the British Colonial Secretary in charge of
the region in the early 1920's. The claim that Zionism was a reaction to the
Holocaust doesn't hold water, because Jews were being given preference over
Palestinians long before Hitler came to power in Germany. This preferentialism
was demonstrated at a time when there were very few Jews in Palestine, and the Zionist
movement was having a hard time convincing Jews to move there. Churchill favored Jews over Palestinians, and wanted to cut the
budget for the region in half, so he strolled into the region for a few days,
set up puppet rulers who were war buddies of T. E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of
Arabia"), then took off to
paint pictures of the pyramids (he was an amateur artist). This attitude of
Western politicians (Truman would do something similar in 1948) would convince
Arabs they were sure to get the shaft, and they were right. Americans who act
as if Arabs are "religious fanatics" who hate Americans and Jews on general
principle, are clueless. If anyone had done to our loved ones what Jews,
Americans and Brits did to Arabs, we would blow them to atoms, until they
desisted. In other words, the 9-11 attacks, as terrible as they were,
wouldn't hold a candle to what Americans would do to Arabs, if Arabs treated
American women and children the way Americans have treated Arab women and
children. Until Americans stop contributing to the suffering and premature
deaths (i.e., murders) of innocent Arab women and children, our reaction to 9-11
is sheer hypocrisy. If it is wrong for Arab men to kill our women and children,
then obviously it was wrong for Americans to abet the murders of Arab women and
children.]
In 1937, members of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the
League of Nations had privately informed the leadership of the Jewish Agency
that the Palestine Mandate could not be implemented according to the Agency's
wishes. Faced with the prospect of remaining a minority in greater Palestine,
the Jewish Agency Executive decided that partition was the only way out of the
impasse.[7] The principle of partition was placed on the agenda of the Twentieth
Zionist Congress. In a 15 July 1937 editorial, David Ben-Gurion implied that
partition could never be an acceptable long-term solution: 'The Jewish people
have always regarded, and will continue to regard Palestine as a whole, as a
single country which is theirs in a national sense and will become theirs once
again. No Jew will accept partition as a just and rightful solution.'[8] During
the Congress, Ben Gurion supported the proposal to partition Palestine into a
Jewish and an Arab state.[9] At the same time, he delivered speeches which made
it clear that he did not accept partition as a final solution: 'If I had been
faced with the question: a Jewish state in the west of the land of Israel in
return for giving up on our historical right to the entire land of Israel I
would have postponed the establishment of the state. No Jew is entitled to give
up the right of the Jewish nation to the land. It is not in the authority of any
Jew or of any Jewish body; it is not even in the authority of the entire nation
alive today to give up any part of the land'... ...'this is a standing right
under all conditions. Even if, at any point, the Jews choose to decline it, they
have no right to deprive future generations of it. Our right to the entire land
exists and stands for ever.'[10]
[Since the Arabs had a clear and overwhelming majority of the population,
this meant one of two things: (1) Israel would not be a democracy, or (2) Israel
would have to force hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to flee the land, and
keep them from returning. In 1948, operating under Plan Dalet, Israeli soldiers
would implement option 2, ethnic cleansing.]
The Zionist Congress continued to publicly propose that
Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth according to the Biltmore
proposals, while at the same time admitting in private that they had a partition
plan of their own that was acceptable as a basis for negotiations.[11] During
the debate on partition in November 1947, Mr Husseini (of the Arab Higher
Committee) referred to Ben Gurion's previous contention that no Zionist could
forego the smallest portion of the land of Israel, and suggested that the
Revisionists were being more honest about their territorial aspirations than the
representatives of the Jewish Agency.[12] By December 1947, the Jewish community
in Palestine let it be known that they had tens of thousands of well equipped
and well trained fighters.[13]
In the White Paper of 1939, the British Government had
determined that it was under no legal obligation to facilitate the further
development of the Jewish National Home, by immigration, without respecting the
wishes of the Arab population. The 1939 Zionist Congress denied the moral and
legal validity of the White Paper. The opinion of the Permanent Mandates
Commission, which had the duty "to advise" the Council of the League of Nations
"on all matters relating to the observance of the Mandates" was divided. Four
members felt the White Paper violated the terms of the mandate, while three
members did not. An analysis prepared by the UN Secretariat concluded: 'It
remains a matter of speculation whether the Council of the League, in the
circumstances existing in the summer of 1939, would have sided with the majority
of four or the minority of three of the Permanent Mandates Commission. The
outbreak of war in September 1939 prevented the Council from considering the
question.'[14][15]
When the Jewish and Arab leadership could not agree on a
course of administration that would lead to a unified independent state, the
government of the United Kingdom requested that the Question of Palestine[16] be
placed on the Agenda of the United Nations General Assembly. They asked that the
Assembly make recommendations, under Article 10 of the Charter,[17] concerning
the future government of Palestine.[18] The British proposal recommended that a
special committee be established to perform a preliminary study designed to
assist the General Assembly in developing recommendations. The United Nations
Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was an advisory committee to the Ad Hoc
Committee on the Palestine Question. Membership on the Ad Hoc Committee was open
to all the members of the United Nations. The General Assembly resolution called
for the establishment of a United Nations Palestine Commission with a mandate to
implement the plan of partition. The United Kingdom recognized the United
Nations Palestine Commission as the successor government of Palestine.[19] But
the United Nations had not agreed to automatically fall heir to all of the
responsibilities either of the League of Nations or of the Mandatory Power in
respect to the Palestine Mandate. It had merely agreed to facilitate the
transfer of sovereignty from the Mandatory to the provisional governments and to
administer and govern a small trusteeship.[20]
The Palestine Mandate
In November 1917, as General Allenby was preparing to conquer
Palestine, the British Foreign office issued the Balfour Declaration of 1917, a
letter from the Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, to Lord Rothschild, head of the
British Zionist movement. The declaration stated:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment
in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best
endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly
understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights
and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
This declaration was a compromise, based on a draft telegram
that Lord Balfour had asked Weizmann to submit earlier. It did not contain a
formal commitment. It reflected the efforts of the British Zionist movement led
by Dr. Chaim Weizmann, longstanding British sentiment for restoration of the Jews
and British strategic and imperial considerations on the one hand. On the other
hand, it reflected concerns of British Jewish anti-Zionists and foreign office
personnel concerned about antagonizing the Arab world.[21][22] These conflicting
forces were to be reflected in the vicissitudes of British policy, ultimately
causing Britain to express a desire to be relieved of its responsibility for
administering the mandate, which in turn led to a recommendation for the
partition of Palestine.
After the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman
Empire, the victorious Allied Supreme Council met at the San Remo Conference in
April 1920 to confirm the allocation of Ottoman lands under the proposed new
System of Mandates. Palestine was placed under the British mandate. The final
juridical date on which the mandates for the Middle East became a part of a
fixed and authoritative law of nations was delayed due to difficulties
surrounding the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, the Treaty of Sèvres,
and the Treaty of Lausanne.[23] The League of Nations British Mandate of
Palestine attempted to make the national home for the Jewish people an article
of the Law of Nations,[24] by incorporating the wording of the Balfour
Declaration. The mandates were supported by President Woodrow Wilson, but the
Senate refused to ratify the Covenant of the League of Nations or the mandates.
Senator Borah explained his objections to the mandates:
"When this league, this combination, is formed four great
powers representing the dominant people will rule one-half of the inhabitants of
the globe as subject peoples – rule by force, and we shall be a party to the
rule of force. There is no other way by which you can keep people in subjection.
You must either give them independence, recognize their rights as nations to
live their own life and to set up their own form of government, or you must deny
them these things by force.[25]
[The bolded words above explain in large part why the U.S. was attacked on
9-11. We betrayed the American Creed that all human beings are created equal,
and are entitled to justice and self-determination. When we chose to deny the
rights of Palestinians to the same rights that we so avidly claim for ourselves,
we opened up a Pandora's Box of evils that beset us to this day. The only cure
is to practice what we preach.]
The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, together with the
Italian and French governments rejected early drafts of the mandate because it
had contained a passage which read:
"Recognizing, moreover, the historical connection of the Jewish people with
Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute it their national
home..."
The Palestine Committee set up by the Foreign Office
recommended that the reference to 'the claim' be omitted. The Allies had already
noted the historical connection in the Treaty of Sèvres, but they had recognized
no legal claim. They felt that whatever might be done for the Jewish people was
based entirely on sentimental grounds. Further, they felt that all that was
necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn
'it', that is the whole country, into their home. Lord Balfour suggested an
alternative which was accepted:
'Whereas recognition has thereby [i.e. by the Treaty of
Sèvres] been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with
Palestine, and to the [sentimental] grounds for reconstituting their National
Home in that country ...'[26]
The Vatican, the Italian, and the French governments continued
to press their own legal claims on the basis of the former Protectorate of the
Holy See and the French Protectorate of Jerusalem. The idea of an International
Commission to resolve claims on the Holy Places had been formalized in Article
95 of the Treaty of Sèvres, and taken up again in article 14 of the Palestinian
Mandate. Negotiations concerning the formation and the role of the commission
were partly responsible for the delay in ratifying the mandate. The United
Kingdom assumed responsibility for the Holy Places under Article 13 of the
mandate. However, it never created the Commission on Holy Places to resolve the
other claims.[27]
Jewish immigration to Palestine in the initial period
following World War I was sparse, owing to difficult conditions in Palestine and
lack of sufficient commitment to Zionism to face the rigors of pioneering life,
as well as lack of funds for development.[28]
On 24 July 1922, in London, the terms of the British Mandate
over Palestine and Transjordan were approved by the Council of the League of
Nations. Under the Anglo-French Declaration, and the McMahon-Hussein Agreements,
certain areas had been reserved to be Arab and independent in the future. No
fixed borders for the Palestine Mandate had been established in the zone
controlled by the British Military, or the Occupied Enemy Territories
Administration (OETA). The OETA was in effective control under the Hague
Conventions (1899 and 1907) at the time of the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement. The
conventions required that the status quo be maintained until a peace treaty was
negotiated. Accordingly, the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement had called for the
borders to be established after the Peace Conference. The Zionist Organization
submitted a proposed map at the Peace Conference, which excluded the independent
Arab area east of the Hedjaz Railway. In drafting the Mandate, the British
elected to use the Jordan River as a natural boundary instead of the railway
line. Article 25 stated:
In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern
boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled,
with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or
withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider
inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for
the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those
conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with
the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
Accordingly, on 16 September 1922 the League of Nations
formally approved a memorandum from Lord Balfour confirming the exemption of
Transjordan from the clauses of the mandate concerning the creation of a Jewish
national home, and from the mandate's responsibility to facilitate Jewish
immigration and land settlement in that portion of the former occupied
territories.[29]
In the 1930s, with increased anti-Semitism and the rise of
Adolf Hitler in Germany, the Fifth Aliya brought substantial numbers of European
Jews to Palestine.[30]
The Arab uprising of 1936-9 was triggered by increased Jewish
immigration in conjunction with rising Arab nationalist sentiment. Following the
revolt, the British Peel Commission proposed a Palestine divided between a small
Jewish state (about 15%), a much bigger Arab state and an international zone.
The Jewish Agency rejected the borders in the British plan, but established
their own committees on borders and population transfer so that they could offer
an alternative plan of their own.[31] Both of the proposals contained provisions
for the forced transfer of the Arab population to areas outside the borders of
the new Jewish state. The plans were developed along the lines of the
Greco-Turkish transfer. After these proposals were rejected by the Arab side,
the British changed their position and sought to eliminate Jewish immigration to
Palestine. This was seen as a contradiction of the terms of the mandate, and an
anti-humanitarian catastrophe, in light of the increasing persecution in Europe.
In the prewar period it led to organization of illegal immigration. While the
small Lehi group attacked the British, the Jewish Agency, which represented the
mainstream Zionist leadership, still hoped to persuade the British to restore
Jewish immigration rights and cooperated with the British in the war against
Fascism.
[Why should Palestinians have been forced to move, abandoning their homes?
What if the roles were reversed? What would Americans say if the Jews had been
the clear majority and some other race had demanded that they cede their land
and homes? The problem is obvious: racism is wrong, and the minute Americans
choose sides based on race, all hell breaks lose, as it did during the Civil War
and later during the days of Jim Crow laws and public lynchings.]
When the British insisted on preventing immigration of Jewish
Holocaust survivors to Palestine following World War II, the Jewish community
began to wage an uprising and guerrilla war. This warfare and United States
pressure to end the anti-immigration policy led to the establishment of The
Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946. It was a joint British and American
attempt to agree on a policy regarding the admission of Jews to Palestine. In
April, the Committee reported that its members had arrived at a unanimous
decision. The Committee approved the American condition of the immediate
acceptance of 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe into Palestine. It also
recommended that there be no Arab, and no Jewish State. The report explained
that in order to dispose, once and for all, of the exclusive claims of Jews and
Arabs to Palestine, we regard it as essential that a clear statement of
principle should be made that Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not
dominate Jew in Palestine. U.S. President Harry S. Truman angered the British
Labour Party by issuing a statement supporting the 100,000 refugees but refusing
to acknowledge the rest of the committee's findings. The British government had
asked for US assistance in implementing the recommendations. The US War
Department had issued an earlier report which stated that an open-ended U.S.
troop commitment of 300,000 personnel would be necessary to assist the British
government in maintaining order against an Arab revolt.[32]
[The US War Department would prove prophetic, as after 9-11 hundreds of
thousands of US troops and support personnel would be required in Afghanistan
and Iraq.]
These events were the decisive factors that forced the British
to announce their desire to terminate the Palestine Mandate and place the
Question of Palestine before the United Nations.
The United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations,
attempted to resolve the dispute between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. On May
15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives
from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers
were represented. After spending three months conducting hearings and general
survey of the situation in Palestine, UNSCOP officially released its report on
August 31. The only unanimous recommendation was that the United Kingdom
terminate their mandate for Palestine and grant it independence at the earliest
possible date. A majority of nations (Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia,
Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay) recommended the creation of
independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under
international administration. A minority (India, Iran, Yugoslavia) plan
supported the creation of a federal union based upon the US Constitutional
model. It would have established both a Jewish State and an Arab state.
Preliminary Legal Questions
From the outset, there were important preliminary legal
questions regarding the validity of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the
Anglo-French Declaration, the League of Nations British Mandate of Palestine,
and the competence of the United Nations or its members to enforce a solution
against the wishes of the majority of the indigenous population. The United
States Senate had not ratified the Treaty of Versailles, in part, due to
reservations about the legitimacy of the League of Nations System of
Mandates.[33] The US government subsequently entered into individual treaties to
secure legal rights for its citizens, and to protect property rights and
businesses interests in the mandates. In the case of the Palestine Mandate
Convention, it recited the terms of the League of Nations mandate, and subjected
them to eight amendments. One of those precluded any unilateral changes to the
terms of the mandate.[34] The United States insisted that the convention say
that it 'consents' rather than 'concurs' with the terms of the mandate and
declined to mention the Balfour Declaration in the preamble of its portion of
the agreement. It did not agree to mutual defense, to provisionally recognize a
Jewish State, or to pledge itself to maintain the territorial integrity of the
mandate.[35]
There were also suggestions that the Mandate should have been
placed under the UN trusteeship program in accordance with the guiding
principles contained in Chapter 11[36] and Chapter 12[37] of the UN Charter. All
members were required to recognize the 'fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion' when dealing with non-self
governing peoples. In that respect the UN system was portrayed as 'a real
advance over the League of Nations Covenant and the mandate system established
under it.'.[38] All of these issues were more or less brushed aside by routine
procedural decisions according to the delegate from Colombia. His observations
and comments were addressed to the Ad Hoc Committee on 25 November 1947.
Article 26 of the Palestine Mandate[39] provided that:
'The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should
arise between the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations relating
to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate, such
dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the
Permanent Court of International Justice...'
The Jewish Agency claimed that the Mandate created a binding
legal obligation to establish a sovereign Jewish State. The UNSCOP report to the
General Assembly said the conclusion seemed inescapable that the undefined term
"National Home" had been used, instead of the term "State", to place a
restrictive construction on the scheme from its very inception.[40]
The UN never reached a unanimous conclusion. Nothing in the
terms of the Mandate precluded the establishment of a Jewish State in all of
Palestine. However, a minority felt that nothing in the terms of the post-war
treaties and the mandate precluded the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish
state denominated along the lines of a 'domestic dependent nation'.[41]
In an earlier dispute involving the grant of the Rutenberg
Concessions, the Permanent Court of Justice had ruled it had jurisdiction over
every dispute involving the Palestine Mandate:
'The Court is of opinion that, in cases of doubt, jurisdiction
based on an international agreement embraces all disputes referred to it [the
Court] after its establishment. In the present case, this interpretation appears
to be indicated by the terms of Article 26 itself where it is laid down that
"any dispute whatsoever .... which may arise" shall be submitted to the
Court.'[42]
On 25 November 1947 the Colombian delegate, Fernandez,
announced that he favored the first draft resolution of the minority
sub-committee, which called for an advisory opinion under Article 96 of the UN
Charter[43] and Chapter IV of the Statute of the Court.[44] He stated that 'The
delegation of Colombia, faithful to the principles of law, asked that a request
should be made for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.'
The opinion of the remaining colonial powers was summed-up in the response of
the French delegation that the inherent rights of the indigenous population of
Palestine were a political or philosophical question, but not a legal matter for
the Court to decide. The Colombian resolution requesting an advisory opinion was
defeated.[45]
One further legal issue remained. The mandatory Power had the
required legal and administrative authority to implement a partition plan. The
U.N. could recommend a partition solution but, "does not seem to have any legal
ground to impose a solution unless the mandate is in due order transmitted into
a trusteeship with the U.N. as administering authority". The only other source
of legal authority was if a threat to the peace existed.[46] Four days later the
plan of partition was approved with the provision that it be imposed by force:
'The Security Council [shall] determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the
peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 (CHAPTER VII) of the
Charter,[47] any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this
resolution.'[48]
Plan for the future government of Palestine
The Palestine Mandate contained dispositive clauses that
required the establishment of a perpetual system of safeguards for the religious
rights and immunities which had been under international guarantee during the
mandate period. Those provisions would become operative in the event that a
decision was taken to terminate the mandate.[49] Although the Palestine question
had only been submitted for a recommendation under article 10 of the Charter,
the UNSCOP committee had proposed the termination of the mandate and the
establishment of a corpus separatum under UN trusteeship. Questions relating to
the operation of the trusteeship system fall under the provisions of Article 18
of the Charter. That article stipulates that the determinations are 'decisions',
not recommendations, and requires a two-thirds majority of the members present.
In several cases involving the powers of the General Assembly with regard to
trusteeships and mandates, the International Court has held that those decisions
can have legal effects which are binding or dispositive.[50]
The United Nations also enacted a formal minority rights
protection system as an integral part of the Partition Plan for Palestine, and
placed those rights under UN guarantee. A complete list of the various legal
instruments still in force, including UN GAR 181(II), was compiled by the UN
Secretariat in 1950.[51] The Chairman-Rapporteur of a UN Working Group on
Minorities subsequently advised that no competent UN organ had made any decision
which would extinguish the obligations under those instruments.[52] The legal
instrument was a unilateral Declaration to be made by the government of the new
states. This was another established procedure. In the Minority Schools in
Albania Case, the Permanent Court of International Justice held that
Declarations made before the League Council were tantamount to a treaty.[53]
Like the earlier treaties, the Declarations conferred basic
rights on all the inhabitants of the Jewish and Arab states without distinction
of sex, nationality, language, race or religion and protected the rights and
property of all nationals of the country who differed in race, religion, or
language from the majority of the inhabitants of the country. The country
concerned had to acknowledge the clauses of the treaty: as fundamental laws of
State and no law, regulation or official action could conflict or interfere with
their stipulations, nor could any law, regulation or official action prevail
over them. The States also had to acknowledge these rights as obligations of
international concern placed under the guarantee of the United Nations.
Compromissory clauses were included granting the International Court
jurisdiction.[54]
Abba Eban subsequently declared that the rights stipulated in
section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been
constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as
required by that resolution and assured the committee that Israel would not
invoke Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter, regarding its domestic
jurisdiction. The instruments that he cited during the hearings were the
Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, and various cables and
letters of confirmation addressed to the Secretary General.[55] Mr. Eban's
explanations and Israel's undertakings were noted in the text of A/RES/273
(III), 11 May 1949.[56] A similar Declaration of the State of Palestine,
supplied by the Palestine National Council, was accepted as being in line with
the General Assembly resolution in A/RES/43/177, 15 December 1988.[57]
Both States were also required to adopt democratic
constitutions which were to embody the same rights guaranteed in the
Declarations. Four days after UNSCOP held its first public hearings the Jewish
Agency had signed a letter that came to be known as The Status-Quo
Agreement.[58] It was addressed to the Ultra-Orthodox World Agudat Israel
organization. It explained that the establishment of the State required the
approval of the United Nations, and that this would not be possible unless the
State guaranteed freedom of conscience for all of its citizens and made it clear
there was no intention of establishing a theocratic State. The letter also
provided that the state would honor the Sabbath, and that only kosher food would
be served in state institutions.
The Issue of Recognition and the Existence of the New
States
A transition period under UN auspices started with the
adoption of the resolution. Palestine had been recognized as a dependent state
with its own nationality under the terms of the mandate and article 80 of the UN
Charter. Transjordan had been recognized as an independent government throughout
most of the mandatory period, but it had not been recognized as an independent
state.[59] The resolution called for the mandatory to evacuate a seaport and
hinterland 'in the territory of the Jewish State', no later than 1 February
1948. That, and other references to the existence of the (still dependent)
Jewish and Arab states prior to the termination of the mandate constituted forms
of express or tacit recognition.
The General Assembly resolution also provided powerful legal
authority,[60] since it called upon the inhabitants of Palestine 'to take such
steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect'. Many of
those steps, like raising an armed militia to help prevent frontier clashes, are
defined as 'Acts of State' according to customary international law.[61] Several
legal authorities concluded that this recognition was irrevocable and could not
be made provisional, invalidated by difficulties, or the opposition of some
parties to the establishment of the new states.[62][63]
Proposed division
The Jewish population was concentrated in settlement areas in
1947. The borders were drawn to encompass them, placing most of the Jewish
population in the Jewish state. (Map reflects Jewish owned land not the size and
number of settlements. It does not imply that only Jews lived here or that all
other land was owned or exclusively populated by Arabs.) The Jewish Agency
contended that the Arab and Jewish portions of the plan were not integral. The
Chairman of the Palestine Commission contended that they were integral. The US
delegation had implied that the setting up of one state was not made conditional
on the setting up of the other state.[64]
The details of the land division were never finalized. On 25
November 1947 an amendment to the plan was passed that would have allowed the
boundaries to be adjusted on the spot in Palestine by the Border Commission. The
amendment was introduced by the delegation from the Netherlands due to last
minute revisions of the demographic data by the mandatory administration. The
proposed borders would have cut-off 54 Arab villages from their farm land. The
discussion before the vote indicated that the inclusion of those villages in the
Jewish state would have added 108,000 more Arabs to the population, or required
in the alternative that an additional 2 million dunams of cereal farm land be
included in the Arab state. The final text of the resolution read:
On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to
carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish
States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the
recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine.
Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this Plan are to be
modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state
boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.
Palestine's land surface was approximately 26,320,505 dunums
(26,320 km2), of which about one third was cultivable. By comparison, the size
of modern day Israel (as of 2006) is 20,770,000 dunums (20,770 km2) (Geography
of Israel). The land in Jewish possession had risen from 456,000 dunums (456
km2) in 1920 to 1,393,000 dunums (1,393 km2) in 1945[65] and 1,850,000 dunums
(1,850 km2) by 1947 (Avneri p. 224).[66] No reliable figures of private land
ownership by Arabs were available, due to the lack of centralized records under
the Ottoman Land Code. The 1939 White Paper had imposed prohibitions and
restrictions on land transfers to the Jewish citizenry. The Zionist Organization
had established a similar system under the Jewish National Fund, or JNF, which
held its land purchases in trust 'for the Jewish people as a whole'.[67] The
Fund's charter specified that the purpose of the JNF was to purchase land for
the settlement of Jews. This was usually interpreted to mean that the JNF should
not lease land to non-Jews.
The UN General Assembly made a non-binding recommendation for
a three-way partition of Palestine into a Jewish State, an Arab State and a
small internationally administered zone including the religiously significant
towns Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The two states envisioned in the plan were each
composed of three major sections, linked by extraterritorial crossroads. The
Jewish state would receive the Coastal Plain, stretching from Haifa to Rehovot,
the Eastern Galilee (surrounding the Sea of Galilee and including the Galilee
panhandle) and the Negev, including the southern outpost of Umm Rashrash (now
Eilat). The Arab state would receive the Western Galilee, with the town of Acre,
the Samarian highlands and the Judean highlands, and the southern coast
stretching from north of Isdud (now Ashdod) and encompassing what is now the
Gaza Strip, with a section of desert along the Egyptian border.
The partition defined by the General Assembly resolution
differed somewhat from the UNSCOP report partition. Most notably, Jaffa was
constituted as an enclave of the Arab State and the boundaries were modified to
include Beersheba and a large section of the Negev desert within the Arab State
and a section of the Dead Sea shore within the Jewish State.
The land allocated to the Arab state (about 43% of Mandatory
Palestine[68]) consisted of all of the highlands, except for Jerusalem, plus one
third of the coastline. The highlands contain the major aquifers of Palestine,
which supplied water to the coastal cities of central Palestine, including Tel
Aviv. The Jewish state was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly
larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate
there.[68] The state included three fertile lowland plains — the Sharon on the
coast, the Jezreel Valley and the upper Jordan Valley.
The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however,
consisted of the Negev Desert. The desert was not suitable for agriculture, nor
for urban development at that time. The Jewish state was also given sole access
to the Red Sea.
The plan called for the new states to honor the existing
international commitments and submit any disputes to the International Court of
Justice. Under the Anglo-French Accords of 1922, 1923 and 1926 Syria and Lebanon
had been granted the same rights of access to Lake Tiberias (aka Sea of Galilee
and Lake Kinneret) as the Jewish and Arab Palestinians in the British Mandate
territory. Under the 1923 Agreement:
"...Any existing rights over the use of waters of the Jordan
by the inhabitants of Syria shall be maintained unimpaired.... ... The
inhabitants of Syria and of the Lebanon shall have the same fishing and
navigation rights on Lakes Huleh and Tiberias and on the River Jordan between
the said lakes as the inhabitants of Palestine, but the Government of Palestine
shall be responsible for the policing of the lakes.[69]
The 1926 Accord stipulated that
"All the inhabitants, whether settled or semi-nomadic, of both
territories who, at the date of the signature of this agreement enjoy grazing,
watering or cultivation rights, or own land on the one or the other side of the
frontier shall continue to exercise their rights as in the past."
Apart from the Negev, the land allocated to the Jewish state
was largely made up of areas in which there was a significant Jewish population.
The land allocated to the Arab state was populated almost solely by Arabs.[70]
The plan tried its best to accommodate as many Jews as
possible into the Jewish state. In many specific cases, this meant including
areas of Arab majority (but with a significant Jewish minority) in the Jewish
state. Thus the Jewish State would have an overall large Arab minority. Areas
that were sparsely populated (like the Negev), were also included in the Jewish
state to create room for immigration in order to relieve the "Jewish
Problem".[71] According to the resolution, Jews and Arabs living in the Jewish
state would become citizens of the Jewish state and Jews and Arabs living in the
Arab state would become citizens of the Arab state.
The UNSCOP plan would have had the following demographics
(data based on 1945). This data does not reflect the actual land ownership by
Jews, local Arabs, Ottomans and other land owners. This data also excludes the
land designated to Arabs in trans-Jordan (country of Jordan, west of the river
Jordan).
Territory Arab and other population
% Arab and other Jewish population
% Jewish Total population
Arab State 725,000 99% 10,000 1% 735,000
Jewish State 407,000 45% 498,000 55% 905,000
International 105,000 51% 100,000 49% 205,000
Total 1,237,000 67% 608,000 33% 1,845,000
Data from the Report of UNSCOP — 1947
The UNSCOP Report also noted that "in addition there will be
in the Jewish State about 90,000 Bedouins, cultivators and stock owners who seek
grazing further afield in dry seasons."[72]
Last minute corrections
The Bedouin settlement and population figures were revised in
a report submitted by a representative of the government of the United Kingdom
on 1 November 1947. It was included in an Ad Hoc Committee report, A/AC.14/32,
dated 11 November 1947. The Palestine Administration conducted an investigation
and used the Royal Air Force to perform an aerial survey of the Beersheba
District. They reported that the Bedouins had the greater part of two million
dunams under cereal grain production. The administration counted 3,389 Bedouin
houses together with 8,722 tents. The report explained that:
"It should be noted that the term Beersheba Bedouin has a
meaning more definite than one would expect in the case of a nomad population.
These tribes, wherever they are found in Palestine, will always describe
themselves as Beersheba tribes. Their attachment to the area arises from their
land rights there and their historic association with it."[73]
On the basis of that investigation, the Palestine
Administration estimated the Bedouin population at approximately 127,000. The
report noted that the earlier population "estimates must, however, be corrected
in the light of the information furnished to the Sub-Committee by the
representative of the United Kingdom regarding the Bedouin population. According
to the statement, 22,000 Bedouins may be taken as normally residing in the areas
allocated to the Arab State under the UNSCOP's majority plan, and the balance of
105,000 as resident in the proposed Jewish State. "It will thus be seen that the
proposed Jewish State will contain a total population of 1,008,800, consisting
of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. In other words, at the outset, the Arabs will
have a majority in the proposed Jewish State."[73] The partition plan was
revised and the Beersheba region was assigned to the Arab State, while some
further parts of the Judean Desert were give to the Jewish State.
Reactions to the plan
The Jewish Agency criticized the UNSCOP majority proposal
concerning Jerusalem, saying that the Jewish section of modern Jerusalem
(outside the Walled City) should be included in the Jewish State.[74] During his
testimony Ben Gurion indicated that he accepted the principle of partition, but
stipulated: "To partition," according to the Oxford dictionary, means to divide
a thing into two parts. Palestine is divided into three parts, and only in a
small part are the Jews allowed to live. We are against that."[75]
The majority of the Jewish groups, and the Jewish Agency
subsequently announced their acceptance of the proposed Jewish State, and by
implication the proposed international zone, and Arab State. However, it had
been stipulated that the implementation of the plan did not make the
establishment of one state or territory dependent on the establishment of the
others.[76]
A minority of extreme nationalist Jewish groups like Menachem
Begin's Irgun Tsvai Leumi and the Lehi (known as the Stern Gang), which had been
fighting the British, rejected the plan. Begin warned that the partition would
not bring peace because the Arabs would also attack the small state and that "in
the war ahead we'll have to stand on our own, it will be a war on our existence
and future".[77]
Numerous records indicate the joy of Palestine's Jewish
inhabitants as they attended to the U.N. session voting for the division
proposal. Up to this day, Israeli history books mention November 29 (the date of
this session) as the most important date in Israel's acquisition of
independence, and many Israeli cities commemorate the date in their streets'
names. However, Jews did criticize the lack of territorial continuity for the
Jewish state.
The Arab leadership (in and out of Palestine) opposed the
plan.[78]. The Arabs argued that it violated the rights of the majority of the
people in Palestine, which at the time was 67% non-Jewish (1,237,000) and 33%
Jewish (608,000).[79]
Mehran Kamrava says Israeli sources often cite Jewish
acceptance and Arab rejection of the U.N. partition plan as an example of the
Zionists' desire for peaceful diplomacy and the Arabs' determination to wage war
on the Jews. But he notes that more recent documentary analysis and
interpretation of events leading up to and following the creation of the state
of Israel fundamentally challenged many of the "myths" of what had actually
happened in 1947 and 1948."[80] Simha Flapan wrote that it was a myth that
Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace, and that it was also a
myth that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war.[81]
Chaim Weizmann commented on outside Arab interference with
earlier partition proposals. He noted that Arab states, like Egypt and Iraq, had
no legal standing in Palestinian affairs.[82] During the 1947 General Assembly
Special Session on Palestine "The Egyptian representative explained, in reply to
various statements, that the Arab States did not represent the Palestinian Arab
population."[83] Avi Plascov says that the Arab countries had no intention of
permitting the Palestinians a decisive role in the war or establishing a
Palestinian state. He notes that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) could not carry
out its decisions and could not count on local Palestinian support.[84]
During an Arab League Political Committee meeting in February
1948, the Mufti, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni asked for control of all affairs in
Palestine. The Political Committee rejected all of his proposals on the basis
that the Arab Higher Committee did not represent the Palestinian people. The
Leagues' affairs were handled through its own Palestine Council, not through the
Mufti or the AHC.[85] When the United States declined to recognize the
All-Palestine Government, it said that it had been established without
consulting the wishes of Arab Palestinians.[86] During the Ad Hoc Political
committee hearings on Israel's application for membership in the UN, Mr. Eban
acknowledged that the Arab states could not be logically blamed for withholding
recognition, since the UN itself had not yet recognized Israel.[87] Within hours
of Israel's admission to the UN, the Arab states and Israel signed the Lausanne
Protocol. It established the partition map from the November 29, 1947 UN
resolution as the basis for negotiations. The first head of the PLO, Ahmad
Shuqayri, was a member of the Syrian delegation to the Lausanne
Conference.[88][89]
John Wolffe says that while Zionists have attributed
Palestinian rejection of the plan to intransigence, others have argued that it
was rejected because it was unfair: it gave the majority of the land (56
percent) to the Jews, who at that stage legally owned only 7 percent of it, and
remained a minority of the population.[90] Mehran Kamrava also notes the
disproportionate allocation under the plan, and adds that the area under Jewish
control contained 45 percent of the Palestinian population. The proposed Arab
state was only given 45 percent of the land, much of which was unfit for
agriculture. Jaffa, though geographically separated, was to be part of the Arab
state.[91] Eugene Bovis says that the Jewish leadership had rejected an earlier
partition proposal because they felt it didn't allocate enough territory to the
proposed Jewish state.[92]
Ian Bickerton says that few Palestinians joined the Arab
Liberation Army because they suspected that the other Arab States did not plan
on an independent Palestinian state. Bickerton says for that reason many
Palestinians favored partition and indicated a willingness to live alongside a
Jewish state.[93] He also mentions that the Nashashibi family backed King
Abdullah and union with Transjordan.[94] Abdullah appointed Ibrahim Hashem Pasha
as the Governor of the Arab areas occupied by troops of the Arab League. He was
a former Prime Minister of Transjordan who supported partition of Palestine as
proposed by the Peel Commission and the United Nations. Fakhri Nashashibi and
Ragheb Bey Nashashibi were leaders of the movement that opposed the Mufti during
the mandate period. Both men accepted partition. Bey was the mayor of Jerusalem.
He resigned from the Arab Higher Committee because he accepted the United
Nations partition proposal. Fu’ad Nasar, the Secretary of Arab Workers Congress,
also accepted partition. The United States declined to recognize the
All-Palestine government in Gaza by explaining that it had accepted the UN
Mediator's proposal. The Mediator had recommended that Palestine, as defined in
the original Mandate including Transjordan, might form a union.[95] Bernadotte's
diary said the Mufti had lost credibility on account of his unrealistic
predictions regarding the defeat of the Jewish militias. Bernadotte noted "It
would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs
would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan." [96].
The vote
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted
33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, while making
some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. The
partition was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal from the Mandate
Territory of Palestine.
Prior to the vote, the two-thirds majority required for
passage of the resolution was not evident, and three countries — Haiti, Liberia,
the Philippines — were pressured to consider changing their positions in order
to assure passage; they subsequently switched their votes between November 25
and November 29.[97] The pressure came from Jewish and Zionist supporters of
partition, including some members of the United States administration and its
elected officials, as well as from some private citizens. President Truman later
noted, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the
United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the
White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had
as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this
instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders — actuated by
political motives and engaging in political threats — disturbed and annoyed
me."[98]
Of the permanent members of the Security Council, France, the United
States, and the Soviet Union voted for the resolution while the Republic of
China and United Kingdom abstained. The full vote was recorded follows:
30 countries (54%) initially in favour:
Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belorussian SSR, Canada,
Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France,
Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway,
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukrainian SSR, United
States of America, Soviet Union, Uruguay, Venezuela.
An additional 3 (5%) switched to in favor:
Haiti, Liberia, Philippines.
Against, (13 countries, 23%):
Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Abstentions, (10 countries, 18%):
Argentina, Chile, Republic of China, Colombia, El Salvador,
Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
Absent, (1 countries, 0%):
Thailand
Consequences
Main article: 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
On the day after the vote, a spate of Arab attacks left seven
Jews dead and scores more wounded. Shooting, stoning, and rioting continued
apace in the following days. The consulates of Poland and Sweden, both of whose
governments had voted for partition, were attacked. Bombs were thrown into
cafes, Molotov cocktails were hurled at shops, a synagogue was set on fire.
Fighting began almost as soon as the plan was approved,
beginning with the Arab Jerusalem Riots of 1947. On 1 April 1948, the Security
Council adopted Resolution 44 "to consider further the question of the future
government of Palestine."[99]
In February 1948, the British representative report stated
that in the period from 30 November 1947 to 1 February 1948, there were 869
killed and 1,909 wounded, for a total of 2,778 casualties: British - 46 Killed,
135 Wounded; Arabs - 427 killed, 1,035 wounded; Jews - 381 killed, 725 wounded;
others 15 killed, 15 wounded. The Palestine Commissioner said that without 'the
efforts of the [British] security forces over the past month, the two
communities would by now have been fully engaged in internecine slaughter.'[100]
On May 14, one day before the British Mandate expired, the new
Jewish state named the State of Israel announced its formal establishment and
the formation of the provisional government. The UN Resolution is mentioned in
Israel' Declaration of Independence as recognizing the right of the Jewish
People to establish a state. In accordance with the UN Resolution, the
Declaration promised that the State of Israel would ensure complete equality of
social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion,
race or sex, and guaranteed freedom of religion, conscience, language, education
and culture.
Eleven minutes after the Declaration of Independence was
signed, US President Harry Truman de facto recognized the State of Israel,
followed by Iran (which had voted against the UN partition plan), Guatemala,
Iceland, Nicaragua, Romania and Uruguay. The Soviet Union was the first nation
to recognize Israel de jure on 17 May 1948, followed by Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Yugoslavia, Ireland and South Africa.[101] The United States extended official
recognition on 31 January 1949.[102][103] The Arab League had announced the
establishment of a civil administration throughout Palestine on the same
day.[104][105] The All-Palestine government did little more than issue passports
and raise its own militia, the Holy War Army. The government was eventually
recognized by Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia.[106]
The declaration was followed by an invasion of the new state
by troops from Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, starting the 1948 Arab–Israeli
War, known in Israel as the War of Independence (Hebrew:
העצמאות, Milhamat HaAtzma'ut),
and to Palestinians as The Catastrophe (al-Naqba). Although a truce began on 11
June, fighting resumed on 8 July and stopped again on 18 July, before restarting
in mid-October and finally ending on 24 July 1949 with the signing of the
armistice agreement with Syria. By then Israel had retained its independence and
increased its land area by almost 50% compared to the partition plan. Following
independence, Moetzet HaAm was transformed into the Provisional State Council,
which acted as the legislative body for the new state until the first elections
in January 1949.
Covert Plans to Circumvent the UN Partition Plan
The neutrality of this
section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not
remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)
Palestine was already subject to international supervision and
control. The decision of the General Assembly to establish a trusteeship for the
City of Jerusalem was in keeping with the terms of article 28 of the
Mandate[107] and article 80 of the UN Charter.[108] Despite their obligation to
give the United Nations and its Palestine Commission every assistance in any
undertaking in accordance with the Charter,[109] several of the parties
attempted to dispose of the territory without obtaining the consent of the
United Nations.
Meeting in Cairo in November and December 1947, the Arab
League adopted a series of resolutions aimed at a military solution to the
conflict.[110] They formed an Arab Liberation Army. The Arab League also planned
punitive measures against Jews living in Arab countries, many of which were
subsequently implemented by individual states.[111][112]
When the United Kingdom announced plans for Transjordan's
independence, the Jewish Agency for Palestine had protested that in accordance
with the terms of article 80 of the UN Charter, the terms of the mandate could
not be altered without violating the rights of the Jewish people.[113] The
representatives of the Jewish Agency had raised the issue of article 80, and the
right of the Jewish people to settle in all of Palestine with the UNSCOP
Commission.[114][115]
Both the United States and the United Kingdom refused to
implement the plan by force, arguing it was unacceptable to both sides. The
United Kingdom refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN
Palestine Commission during the transitional period. It terminated the British
mandate of Palestine on May 15, 1948. The US State Department Legal Counsel,
Ernest Gross, had advised the administration that 'The Arab and Jewish
communities will be legally entitled on May 15, 1948 to proclaim states and
organize governments in the areas of Palestine occupied by the respective
communities.'[116]
In early May, the US State Department had already come to the
conclusion that a trusteeship proposal would not be accepted. Discussions
between the State Department and Moshe Shertok and Rabbi Silver of the Jewish
Agency had indicated that annexation by Transjordan of the proposed Arab state
would be acceptable. It was suggested that a population transfer from the Jewish
State to Transjordan should take place and that generous financial assistance
should be provided to resettle the Arabs in Transjordan. It was also suggested
that the problem of Jerusalem be resolved by establishing a condominium of
Transjordan and the Zionist State.[117][118] In the past, the League of Nations
had supported a number of population transfers under the terms of bi-lateral
treaties. Nonetheless, the Allied Powers, acting through the International
Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, had established that involuntary population
transfer was both a war crime and a crime against humanity.[119] In any event,
it had been common knowledge for months that Transjordan intended to occupy the
territory of the proposed Arab State. The Palestine Post had explained on 30
November 1947 that the other Arab States would not accept Transjordan taking
over by itself, and that they were preparing to fight Abdullah.[120] With the
consent of the General Assembly, the British High Commissioner had appointed a
mayor to head the Jerusalem Municipal Commission during the transition period.
The British government and the dominions subsequently voted against a proposed
statute written by the UN Trusteeship Council, leaving their own appointee in
charge of Jerusalem.[121]
Meir Zamir, a Historian from Ben Gurion University, has
published several articles based on unclassified documents from the French
archives. He says "Whereas in London foreign minister Ernest Bevin was declaring
Britain's intent to end its mandate in Palestine and maintain neutrality in the
conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, in the Middle East, British officials
openly supported the Arabs and sought to prevent the establishment of the Jewish
state." and detailed the top secret British arms deal for the Arabs. The article
reveals the British involvement in large weapon deals with the Arab countries,
and this was countered to the UN resolution on partition and flouted the appeal
by the UN Security Council for an embargo on arms sales to either Arabs or
Jews.[122]
During the UNSCOP hearings, Ralph Bunche had recorded his
suspicions that King Abdullah planned to enlarge his domain through the
partition of Palestine.[123] The British grand strategy for stability was to
have King Abdullah take over most of Arab Palestine. It was a delicate matter
because Transjordan was a British client state, and Abdullah was seen as a
British puppet.[124] The Soviet Union had vetoed Transjordan's application for
membership in the United Nations on the basis that it wasn't an independent
state.[125] The UN Mediator's proposals concerning the exchange of the Negev for
Western Galilee were thought to have originated from Britain and America, with
the intent of establishing military bases in the Negev so that British troops
could be reinstated in the region.[126] UK Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin had
twice attempted to influence the territorial outcome by encouraging Abdullah to
take over Arab Palestine and by attempting to secure part of the Negev as a
connecting strip between Egypt and the other Arab States.[127] In fact, the
Political Department of the Jewish Agency had promised to persuade the British
to move the Canal Zone bases to the Jewish state in return for Egyptian support
of their partition plan.[128]
Several accounts exist regarding a series of covert partition
proposals that were the subject of negotiations between various representatives
of the Jewish Agency (Golda Meir, Eliyahu Sasson, and Moshe Sharett) and the
Emir Abdullah of Transjordan, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al Said, and Egyptian
Prime Minister Ismail Sidqi.[129] Menachem Begin mentioned the talks with
Abdullah during the Knesset debate regarding Transjordan's annexation of the
West Bank. He also claimed that Jewish institutions had paid Abdullah bribes.
Several Knesset members voiced concerns that the British would use their treaty
with Abdullah to station British Forces in the West Bank.[130] Meir's talks had
reportedly addressed the Jewish response to Abdullah's plan to annex the area of
the proposed Arab state. Despite concerns in the Knesset, the Political
Department of the Jewish Agency and the cabinet had viewed the proposal in a
favorable light. Both organs had stipulated that Transjordan was not to
interfere with the establishment of the Jewish state, and that it must avoid
military confrontations.[131] Classified documents that were captured by Israel
indicated that the British had wanted to absorb Palestine into a "Greater Syria"
that would eventually be ruled by Iraq. Historian Efraim Karsh and others assert
that Britain and Transjordan planned to annex the Arab state and all or part of
the Jewish state to Transjordan.[132][133][133][134]
The HyperTexts