Revision as of 13:50, 3 April 2010 view sourceAnonMoos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers71,898 edits reverting Zero0000's self-revert -- the link you supplied works for me...← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:48, 11 December 2024 view source RafaelTLS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,600 edits →Further reading: adding url, expanding citations | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|1947 plan to divide British Palestine}} | |||
] | |||
{{pp-protected|reason=Arbitration Arab-Israeli conflict|expiry=indefinite|small=yes}} | |||
{{redirect|Partition of Palestine|the partition of Palestine into Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank|1949 Armistice Agreements}} | |||
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2024}} | |||
{{Infobox UN resolution | |||
|number = 181 (II) | |||
|organ = GA | |||
|date = 29 November | |||
|year = 1947 | |||
|meeting = 128 | |||
|code = A/RES/181(II) | |||
|document = https://undocs.org/A/RES/181(II) | |||
|for = 33 | |||
|abstention = 10 | |||
|against = 13 | |||
|result = Adopted | |||
|image = UN Palestine Partition Versions 1947.jpg | |||
|caption = ] (3 September 1947; see green line) and ] (25 November 1947) partition plans. The UN Ad Hoc Committee proposal was voted on in the resolution. | |||
}} | |||
The '''United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine''' was a proposal by the ] to ] ] at the end of the ]. Drafted by the U.N. ] (UNSCOP) on 3 September 1947, the Plan was adopted by the ] on 29 November 1947 as '''Resolution 181 (II)'''.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253 |title=A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947 |publisher=United Nations General Assembly |access-date=4 January 2018 |archive-date=10 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171010090147/https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |orig-date=29 Nov 1947 |title=UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) |url=https://documents.un.org/doc/resolution/gen/nr0/038/88/pdf/nr003888.pdf |language=en, fr}}</ref> The resolution recommended the creation of independent but economically linked Arab and Jewish States and an ] "]" for the city of ] and its surroundings.<ref>], </ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Nikitana |first=Galina Stepanovna |title=The State of Israel; a Historical Economic and Political Study |publisher=Progress Publishers |year=1973 |location=Moscow |pages=56 |language=en}}</ref> | |||
The '''United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine''' or ''']''' was a resolution adopted by the ]. It was approved by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947.<ref name="UN_ARES181II">{{UN document |docid=A-RES-181(II) |type=Resolution |body=General Assembly |session=-1 |resolution_number=181 |accessdate=2008-09-01|title=Future government of Palestine|date=29 November 1947}}</ref><ref></ref> The resolution recommended the division of the ] into two provisional states, one ] and one ], with a separate status for the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area (which would be under special international protection, belonging to neither of the two states), and an accompanying framework for overall economic union. The resolution sought to give partial satisfaction to two competing nationalisms, ] (Jewish nationalism) and local Arab nationalism, both of which had been accepted as legitimate a quarter century earlier by the UN precursor agency, the ]. The resolution was passed to help resolve both the recent ] which had befallen the European Jews, as well as the long-running conflict between Zionist ] to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and the competing “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish” Arab majority there (quoting the ]). A transitional period under UN auspices was to begin with the adoption of the resolution, and was scheduled to last until the two states were established. | |||
The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate; the gradual withdrawal of British armed forces by no later than 1 August 1948; and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem at least two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Arab state was to have a territory of 11,592 square kilometres, or 42.88 percent of the Mandate's territory, and the Jewish state a territory of 15,264 square kilometres, or 56.47 percent; the remaining 0.65 percent or 176 square kilometres—comprising Jerusalem, ] and the adjoining area—would become an ].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Asadi |first=Fawzi |date=1976-10-01 |title=Some Geographic Elements in The Arab-Israeli Conflict |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2307/2535720 |journal=Journal of Palestine Studies |language=en |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=79–91 |doi=10.2307/2535720 |jstor=2535720 |issn=0377-919X}}</ref><ref name=":1" /><ref> / Л. А. Беляев, С. Б. Григорян, П. А. Рассадин (с 1939), М. Ю. Рощин // ] : (в 35 т.) / гл. ред. Ю. С. Осипов. – М. : Большая российская энциклопедия, 2004–2017.</ref> The Plan also called for an ] between the proposed states and for the protection of religious and minority rights.<ref name="undocs.org/A/364" /> | |||
The proposed plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community (as organized into the ]), but was rejected by leaders of the Arab community (the ] etc.), who were supported in their rejection by the states of the ]. Therefore the partition plan was never implemented, and the gradual withdrawal of British forces and termination of the Mandate by August 1, 1948 (followed by a full independence of the new states by 1 October 1948) contemplated by the resolution did not happen. Instead, there was a ], and the British ultimately withdrew — without handing over territory or authority to any successor — in May 1948, leading to Israel's ] and the invasion of of Palestine by five Arab armies (the ]). | |||
The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements: ] and ] in the form of ].<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Quandt |first1=William Baver |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gwika-Y-ghwC&pg=PA7 |title=The Politics of Palestinian Nationalism |last2=Quandt |first2=William B. |last3=Jabber |first3=Fuad |last4=Jabber |first4=Paul |last5=Lesch |first5=Ann Mosely |date=1973-01-01 |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-02372-7 |pages=7 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Molinaro |first=Enrico |title=Holy Places of Jerusalem in Middle East Peace Agreements: The Conflict Between Global and State Identities |date=2009-04-01 |publisher=] |isbn=978-1845193355 |location=Liverpool |pages=78}}</ref> Jewish organizations collaborated with UNSCOP during the deliberations, while Palestinian Arab leadership boycotted it.<ref name="UN" /> The Plan's detractors considered the proposal to be pro-Zionist, as it allocated most land to the Jewish state despite Palestinian Arabs numbering twice the Jewish population.<ref>{{Cite web |title=BBC News |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1947.stm |access-date=23 October 2023 |website=news.bbc.co.uk}}</ref>{{sfn|Ben-Dror|2007|pp=259–7260|ps=: "The Arabs overwhelmingly rejected UNSCOP’s recommendations. The Arabs’ list of arguments against the majority’s conclusions was indeed a long one. A Palestinian historian summarized it by saying ‘Everything about it was Zionist’. When one takes into consideration the majority’s recommendations and the enthusiasm with which these recommendations were accepted by the Zionist leadership, then one can indeed affirm that claim. UNSCOP recommended an independent Jewish state, although the Arabs firmly objected to the principle of independence for the Jews, and did so in a way very generous to the Jews. More than half of the area of Palestine (62 percent) was allocated to be a Jewish state and the Arab state was supposed to make do with the remaining area, although the Palestinian Arab population numbered as much as twice the Jewish population in the land. The pro-Zionist results from UNSCOP confirmed the Arabs’ basic suspicions towards the committee. Even before the onset of its inquiry in Palestine, argued the Arabs, most of its members took a pro-Zionist stand. In addition, according to the Arabs, the committee’s final object – the partition – was pre-decided by the Americans. According to this opinion, the outcome of the UNSCOP inquiry was a foregone conclusion. This perception, which led the Palestinian Arabs to boycott the committee, is shared by some modern studies as well."}} The Plan was celebrated by most Jews in Palestine<ref name="trove1947-11-30" /> and reluctantly<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=1923–1948: Nationalism, immigration, and "economic absorptive capacity" |url=https://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80859e/80859E05.htm}}</ref> accepted by the ] with misgivings.<ref name="UN" /><ref>{{Citation |title=The 1947 Partition Plan |date=2022 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/international-law-and-the-arabisraeli-conflict/1947-partition-plan/BF9BEE2E6380D9CEAD0C710C6AC51C63 |work=International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict |pages=93–101 |editor-last=Sabel |editor-first=Robbie |access-date=31 October 2023 |place=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |doi=10.1017/9781108762670.006 |isbn=978-1-108-48684-2}}</ref> Zionist leaders, in particular ], viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a steppingstone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.<ref name="TEOP" /><ref>Sean F. McMahon, , Routledge 2010 p. 40. | |||
==Background== | |||
"The Zionist movement also accepted the UN partition plan of 1947 tactically. Palumbo notes that “he Zionists accepted this scheme since they hoped to use their state as a base to conquer the whole country.” Similarly, Flapan states that “ acceptance of the resolution in no way diminished the belief of all the Zionist parties in their right to the whole of the country ”; and that “acceptance of the UN Partition Resolution was an example of Zionist pragmatism par excellence. It was a tactical acceptance, a vital step in the right direction – a springboard for expansion when circumstances proved more judicious.”</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Imperial Israel : the history of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza|author= Michael Palumbo|date= 1990|url= https://archive.org/details/imperialisraelhi0000palu/page/18/mode/2up|page=19|publisher = Bloomsbury|isbn= 9780747504894|quote=The Zionists accepted this scheme since they hoped to use their state as a base to conquer the whole country}}</ref><ref name="myths" /><ref name="Baruch" /><ref name="Morris2008p75" /> | |||
Both the ], as well as the terms of the various ], had their origin at the ] and were drafted within the councils of the victorious ]. The League of Nations could not alter the terms of a mandate in any substantial way.<ref>The Official Journal of the League of Nations, dated June 1922, recorded discussion by Lord Balfour in which he argued that the League's authority was strictly limited. The article related that the 'Mandates were not the creation of the League, and that they could not in substance be altered by the League. The League's duties were confined to seeing that the specific and detailed terms of the mandates were in accordance with the decisions taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, and that in carrying out these mandates the Mandatory Powers should be under the supervision—not under the control—of the League. </ref> It was the original intention of the League of Nations that the Mandatory regime would lead toward the mandates' eventual independence. | |||
The ], the ] and other Arab leaders and governments rejected the Plan, as aside from Arabs forming a two-thirds majority, they owned most of the territory.<ref name="ER">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LILdBDrm-ksC&q=eugene+rogan+history+of+arabs|title=The Arabs: A History |edition=3rd|author=Eugene Rogan|page=321|publisher=Penguin|year=2012|isbn=978-0-7181-9683-7 }}</ref><ref name="Morris2008p66" /> They also indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division,<ref name="Morris2008p73" /> arguing that it violated the principles of ] in the ] that granted people the right to decide their own destiny.<ref name="UN" /><ref name="ghf_OBksgykC">{{Cite book |last=Hadawi |first=Sami |author-link=Sami Hadawi |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ghf_OBksgykC&pg=PA76 |title=Bitter Harvest: A Modern History of Palestine |date=1991 |publisher=Olive Branch Press |isbn=978-0-940793-76-7 |language=en}}</ref> They announced their intention to take all necessary measures to prevent the implementation of the resolution.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Perkins |first1=Kenneth J. |last2=Gilbert |first2=Martin |date=1999 |title=Israel: A History |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/120539 |journal=The Journal of Military History |volume=63 |issue=3 |pages=149 |doi=10.2307/120539 |jstor=120539 |issn=0899-3718}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Best |first=Antony |title=International History of the Twentieth Century and beyond |date=2004 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315739717-1 |work= |pages=531 |publisher=Routledge |doi=10.4324/9781315739717-1 |isbn=978-1-315-73971-7 |access-date=29 June 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Rothrock |first=James |title=Live by the Sword: Israel's Struggle for Existence in the Holy Land |date=2021-10-12 |publisher=WestBow Press |isbn=9781449725198 |location=Bloomington |pages=14}}</ref><ref>Lenczowski, G. (1962). ''The Middle East in World Affairs'' (3rd Edition). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. p. 723</ref> A ] broke out in Palestine,<ref name="Britannica2002" /> and the plan was not implemented.<ref name="Galnoor1995" /> In 1948, 85% of the Palestinians living in the areas that became the state of Israel became refugees.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Pappe |first=Ilan |title=The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine |date=2011 |publisher=Oneworld Publications Limited |isbn=9781780740560 |edition= |pages=213 |language=English}}</ref> | |||
In 1937, members of the ] of the League of Nations had privately informed the leadership of the ] that the ] could not be implemented according to the Agency's wishes. Faced with the prospect of remaining a minority in greater ], the Jewish Agency Executive decided that partition was the only way out of the impasse.<ref>Letters to Paula and the Children, ], translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press, 1971, page 135.</ref> The principle of partition was placed on the agenda of the Twentieth ]. In a 15 July 1937 editorial, ] 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.'<ref></ref> During the Congress, Ben Gurion supported the proposal to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state.<ref></ref> 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.'<ref></ref> | |||
==Background== | |||
The Zionist Congress continued to publicly propose that Palestine be established as a ] 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.<ref>, , and </ref> 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.<ref></ref> 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.<ref></ref> | |||
The ] administration was formalized by the ] under the ] in 1923, as part of the ] following ]. The Mandate reaffirmed the 1917 British commitment to the ], for the establishment in Palestine of a "National Home" for the Jewish people, with the prerogative to carry it out.<ref name="Mansfield1992"/><ref> "the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917"</ref> A British census of 1918 estimated 700,000 Arabs and 56,000 Jews.<ref name=Mansfield1992>{{Citation | title = The Arabs | year = 1992 | author = Mansfield, Peter | pages = 172–175 | publisher = Penguin Books | isbn = 978-0-14-014768-1}}</ref> | |||
In the ], 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.'<ref></ref><ref>The Zionist Congress disagreed with the legal determinations of the vested Mandatory Power that the Jewish National Home had already been established as a going concern. Several League members on the Mandates Commission also disagreed. Any legal dispute, whatsoever, should have been referred to the Permanent Court of Justice according to terms of the mandate itself (Article 26). The exact legal meaning of the terms 'Jewish people' or 'Jewish State' are still uncertain. see for example The subsequent statements of the Israeli Knesset regarding the UN resolution distinguish between the legal right to a state and the legal right to a national home: 'Eretz Yisrael agreed to accept the plan, since it recognized the right of the Jewish people to a state and not only a "national home" as stated in the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1922 Mandate for Palestine.'</ref> | |||
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 ] requested that the Question of Palestine<ref>http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/</ref> be placed on the Agenda of the ]. They asked that the Assembly make recommendations, under Article 10 of the Charter,<ref>http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter4.shtml</ref> concerning the future government of Palestine.<ref></ref> 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 ] (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.<ref></ref> 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.<ref></ref> | |||
In 1937, following a six-month-long ] which aimed to pursue national independence and secure the country from foreign control, the British established the ].<ref name="Khalidi2006">{{cite book|author=Rashid Khalidi|title=The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bYADAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT181|date=1 September 2006|publisher=Beacon Press|isbn=978-0-8070-0315-2|pages=181–}}</ref> The Commission concluded that the Mandate had become unworkable, and recommended partition into an Arab state linked to ]; a small Jewish state; and a mandatory zone. To address problems arising from the presence of national minorities in each area, it suggested a land and population transfer<ref name="Peel389"></ref> involving the transfer of some 225,000 Arabs living in the envisaged Jewish state and 1,250 Jews living in a future Arab state, a measure deemed compulsory "in the last resort".<ref name="Peel389"/><ref name=BennyMorris>{{cite book | author = Benny Morris | title = Righteous Victims | page = 139}}</ref><ref name="Bose2009">{{cite book|author=Sumantra Bose|title=Contested lands: Israel-Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia, Cyprus, and Sri Lanka|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KKZcgOJPjVkC&pg=PA223|date=30 June 2009|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-02856-2|page=223}}</ref> To address any economic problems, the Plan proposed avoiding interfering with Jewish immigration, since any interference would be liable to produce an "economic crisis", most of Palestine's wealth coming from the Jewish community. To solve the predicted annual budget deficit of the Arab State and reduction in public services due to loss of tax from the Jewish state, it was proposed that the Jewish state pay an annual subsidy to the Arab state and take on half of the latter's deficit.<ref name=Peel389/><ref name=BennyMorris/><ref name="Mandated Landscape">Mandated Landscape: British Imperial Rule in Palestine 1929–1948</ref> The Palestinian Arab leadership rejected partition as unacceptable, given the inequality in the proposed population exchange and the transfer of one-third of Palestine, including most of its best agricultural land, to recent immigrants.<ref name="Bose2009"/> The Jewish leaders, ] and ], persuaded the ] to lend provisional approval to the Peel recommendations as a basis for further negotiations.<ref>William Roger Louis, , 2006, p.391</ref><ref>Benny Morris, One state, two states: resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict, 2009, p. 66</ref><ref name="morris2004p48"/><ref>Partner to Partition: The Jewish Agency's Partition Plan in the Mandate Era, Yosef Kats, Chapter 4, 1998 Edition, Routledge, {{ISBN|978-0-7146-4846-0}}</ref> In ], Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to "possession of the land as a whole".<ref>, Obtained from the Ben-Gurion Archives in Hebrew, and translated into English by the ], Beirut</ref><ref>{{citation|last=Morris|first=Benny|author-link=Benny Morris|title= Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–1998|publisher=Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group|year=2011|isbn=978-0-307-78805-4|page=138}} Quote: "No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land of Israel. Jewish state in part is not an end, but a beginning ….. Our possession is important not only for itself … through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a state …. will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country"</ref><ref name=Finkelstein208>{{citation|title=Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-semitism and the Abuse of History|first=Norman|last=Finkelstein|publisher=University of California Press|year=2005|isbn=978-0-520-24598-3|page=280|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Xmi2Yw0QzN8C&pg=PA280}}</ref> The same sentiment, that acceptance of partition was a temporary measure beyond which the Palestine would be "redeemed ... in its entirety,"<ref>Jerome Slater, 'The Significance of Israeli Historical revisionism' in Russell A. Stone, Walter P. Zenner(eds.) Vol.3 SUNY Press, 1994 pp.179–199 p.182.</ref> was recorded by Ben-Gurion on other occasions, such as at a meeting of the Jewish Agency executive in June 1938,<ref>Quote from a meeting of the Jewish Agency executive in June 1938: " satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state, we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." in<br/> | |||
==The Palestine Mandate== | |||
{{citation|title=Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882–1948|first=Nur|last=Masalha|publisher=Inst for Palestine Studies|year=1992|isbn=978-0-88728-235-5|page=|url=https://archive.org/details/expulsionofpales00masa/page/107}}; and<br/> | |||
{{citation|title=One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate|first=Tom|last=Segev|publisher=Henry Holt and Company|year=2000|isbn=978-0-8050-4848-3|page=|url=https://archive.org/details/onepalestinecomp00sege/page/403}}</ref> as well as by ].<ref name=Finkelstein208/><ref>From a letter from Chaim Weizmann to ], ], while the Peel Commission was convening in 1937: "We shall spread in the whole country in the course of time ….. this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years." {{citation|title=Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882–1948|first=Nur|last=Masalha|publisher=Inst for Palestine Studies|year=1992|isbn=978-0-88728-235-5|page=|url=https://archive.org/details/expulsionofpales00masa/page/62}}</ref> | |||
The British ] was set up to examine the practicality of partition. The Peel plan was rejected and two possible alternatives were considered. 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 ], which proved unsuccessful.<ref>Palestine. Statement by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. Presented by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. November 1938. Cmd. 5893. {{cite web|url=https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2 |title=Policy statement/ Advice against partition - UK Secretary of State for the Colonies - UK documentation CMD. 5893/Non-UN document (11 November 1938) |access-date=11 November 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103061306/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4941922311B4E3C585256D17004BD2E2 |archive-date=3 November 2013 }}</ref> | |||
In November 1917, as General Allenby was preparing to conquer Palestine, the British Foreign office issued the ], 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."'' | |||
With ] looming, British policies were influenced by a desire to win Arab world support and could ill afford to engage with another Arab uprising.<ref>], ''The Destruction of the European Jews'', (1961) New Viewpoints, New York 1973 p.716</ref> The ] of May 1939 declared that it was "not part of policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State", sought to limit Jewish immigration to Palestine and restricted Arab land sales to Jews. However, the League of Nations commission held that the White Paper was in conflict with the terms of the Mandate as put forth in the past. The outbreak of the Second World War suspended any further deliberations.<ref> Palestine: Historical Background</ref><ref name="Morris2011p159">{{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–1998|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jGtVsBne7PgC|edition= Hebrew|date=25 May 2011|publisher=Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-307-78805-4|page=159|chapter=chp. 4|quote=Capping it all, the Permanent Mandates Commission of the Council of the League of Nations rejected the White Paper as inconsistent with the terms of the Mandate.}}</ref> The ] hoped to persuade the British to restore Jewish immigration rights, and cooperated with the British in the war against Fascism. ] was organized to spirit Jews out of Nazi controlled Europe, despite the British prohibitions. The White Paper also led to the formation of ], a small Jewish organization which opposed the British. | |||
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.], 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.<ref></ref><ref></ref> 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 World War II, in August 1945 President Truman asked for the admission of 100,000 ] survivors into Palestine<ref>William roger louis, 1985, p.386</ref> but the British maintained limits on Jewish immigration in line with the 1939 White Paper. The Jewish community rejected the restriction on immigration and organized an ]. These actions and United States pressure to end the anti-immigration policy led to the establishment of the ]. In April 1946, the Committee reached a unanimous decision for the immediate admission of 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe into Palestine, rescission of the White Paper restrictions of land sale to Jews, that the country be neither Arab nor Jewish, and the extension of U.N. Trusteeship. The U.S. endorsed the Commission's findings concerning Jewish immigration and land purchase restrictions,<ref name=Morris2008p34>Morris, 2008, p.34</ref> while the British made their agreement to implementation conditional on U.S. assistance in case of another Arab revolt.<ref name=Morris2008p34/> In effect, the British continued to carry out their White Paper policy.<ref>Gurock, Jeffrey S. ''American Jewish History'' American Jewish Historical Society, page 243</ref> The recommendations triggered violent demonstrations in the Arab states, and calls for a Jihad and an annihilation of all European Jews in Palestine.<ref>Morris, 2008, p.35</ref> | |||
After the ] and the collapse of the ], the victorious ] met at the ] in April 1920 to confirm the allocation of Ottoman lands under the proposed new ]. ] was placed under the ] ]. 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 ], the ], and the ].<ref></ref> The League of Nations ] attempted to make the national home for the Jewish people an article of the Law of Nations,<ref> When Rome started to control other cities, and incorporated the foreigners, into their empire, they developed a set of laws which they applied to the newly subjugated people. Roman laws did not apply to them, since they were not extended the right of Roman citizenship. They eventually called these new and separate laws, the Law of Nations. Hadrian's Decree of Expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem had been an early example of the Roman Law of Nations.</ref> by incorporating the wording of the Balfour Declaration. The mandates were supported by President ], but the Senate refused to ratify the Covenant of the League of Nations or the mandates. Senator Borah explained his objections to the mandates: <blockquote>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.<ref> and the </ref></blockquote> | |||
==United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP)== | |||
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:<blockquote> 'Recognizing, moreover, the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and ''the claim which this gives them to reconstitute it their national home''...'</blockquote> 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 ], 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. | |||
{{further|UNSCOP}} | |||
] and ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/A-Survey-of-Palestine/Story6686.html|title=Land Registration in Palestine before 1948 (Nakba): Table 2 showing Holdings of Large Jewish Lands Owners as of December 31st, 1945, British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine: Volume I – Page 245. Chapter VIII: Land: Section 3. – Palestine Remembered|work=palestineremembered.com}}</ref>]] | |||
Under the terms of ] each such mandatory territory was to become a sovereign state on termination of its mandate. By the end of ], this occurred with all such mandates except Palestine; however, the League of Nations itself lapsed in 1946, leading to a legal quandary.<ref>Nele Matz, 'Civilization and the Mandate System under the League of Nations,' in Armin Von Bogdandy, Rüdiger Wolfrum, Christiane E. Philipp (eds.) ''Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law ''. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2005 pp.47–96, | |||
:'those mandated territories that had been classified as A mandates, with the exception of Palestine, were finally granted full independence in addition to the already established structures for provisional self-governance,'</ref><ref name="Baylis Thomas p.47">Baylis Thomas, ''How Israel was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict''. Lexington Books 1999 .</ref> | |||
In February 1947, Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring the matter of the future of Palestine to the ].<ref>David D. Newsom, ''The Imperial Mantle: The United States, Decolonization, and the Third World''. Indiana University Press, </ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://unispal.un.org/dpa/dpr/UNISPAL.NSF/0/D442111E70E417E3802564740045A309|title=The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem Part II: 1947-1977 - Study (30 June 1979)|website=unispal.un.org}}</ref> According to ], British Foreign Secretary ]'s policy was premised on the idea that an Arab majority would carry the day, which met difficulties with ] who, sensitive to Zionist electoral pressures in the United States, pressed for a British-Zionist compromise.<ref>William Roger Louis, ''Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization''. Palgrave/Macmillan 2006, .</ref> In May, the UN formed the ] (UNSCOP) to prepare a report on recommendations for Palestine. The ] pressed for Jewish representation and the exclusion of both Britain and ] on the Committee, sought visits to camps where Holocaust survivors were interned in Europe as part of UNSCOP's brief, and in May won representation on the Political Committee.<ref>Daniel Mandel, ''H V Evatt and the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist''. Routledge 2004 The liaison officers with ] and ].(p.83)</ref> The Arab states, convinced statehood had been subverted, and that the transition of authority from the League of Nations to the UN was questionable in law, wished the issues to be brought before an International Court, and refused to collaborate with UNSCOP, which had extended an invitation for liaison also to the ].<ref name="Baylis Thomas p.47"/><ref>Mandel, </ref> In August, after three months of conducting hearings and a general survey of the situation in Palestine, a majority report of the committee recommended that the region be partitioned into an Arab state and a Jewish state, which should retain an economic union. An ] was envisioned for Jerusalem. | |||
The Arab delegations at the UN had sought to keep separate the issue of Palestine from the issue of Jewish refugees in Europe. During their visit, UNSCOP members were shocked by the extent of ] and ] violence, then at its apogee, and by the elaborate military presence attested by endemic barb-wire, searchlights, and armoured-car patrols. Committee members also witnessed the ] affair in Haifa and could hardly have remained unaffected by it. On concluding their mission, they dispatched a subcommittee to investigate Jewish refugee camps in Europe.<ref name=Morris2008p43>Morris, 2008, p. 43</ref><ref>], ''A History of the Jews in the Modern World''. Random House, 2007 .</ref> The incident is mentioned in the report in relation to Jewish distrust and resentment concerning the British enforcement of the 1939 White Paper.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://undocs.org/A/364(SUPP) |access-date=20 April 2017 |title=United Nations Special Committee on Palestine: Report to the General Assembly: Volume 1 |date=3 September 1947 |id=A/364(SUPP) |at=Chapter 2, para. 119, p. 28 |quote="There can be no doubt that the enforcement of the White Paper of 1939, subject to the permitted entry since December 1945 of 1,500 Jewish immigrants monthly, has created throughout the Jewish community a deep-seated distrust and resentment against the mandatory Power. This feeling is most sharply expressed in regard to the Administration's attempts to prevent the landing of illegal immigrants. During its stay in Palestine, the Committee heard from certain of its members an eyewitness account of the incidents relative to the bringing into the port of Haifa, under British naval escort, of the illegal immigrant ship, ''Exodus 1947''."}}</ref> | |||
Lord Balfour suggested an alternative which was accepted:<blockquote>'Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country ...'<ref>Palestine Papers, 1917-1922, Doreen Ingrams, George Braziller 1973 Edition, pages 98-103</ref></blockquote> | |||
===UNSCOP report=== | |||
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.<ref></ref> | |||
On 3 September 1947, the Committee reported to the General Assembly. ''CHAPTER V: PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS (I)'', Section A of the Report contained eleven proposed recommendations (I – XI) approved unanimously. Section B contained one proposed recommendation approved by a substantial majority dealing with the Jewish problem in general (XI). ''CHAPTER VI: PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS (II)'' contained a ''Plan of Partition with Economic Union'' to which seven members of the Committee (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay), expressed themselves in favour. ''CHAPTER VII RECOMMENDATIONS (III)'' contained a comprehensive proposal that was voted upon and supported by three members (India, Iran, and Yugoslavia) for a ''Federal State of Palestine''. Australia abstained. In ''CHAPTER VIII'' a number of members of the Committee expressed certain reservations and observations.<ref name="UNSCOP Report">{{cite web |url=https://undocs.org/A/364(SUPP) |access-date=20 April 2017 |title=United Nations Special Committee on Palestine: Report to the General Assembly: Volume 1 |date=3 September 1947 |id=A/364(SUPP) }}</ref> | |||
===Proposed partition=== | |||
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.<ref></ref> | |||
{{See also|Mandate Palestine#Land ownership|l1=Land ownership of the British Mandate of Palestine}} | |||
]) for the ] and the eventual ]. | |||
{{multiple image | |||
*Blue = area assigned to a Jewish state in the original UN partition plan, and within the 1949 Israel armistice lines. | |||
<!-- Essential parameters --> | |||
*Green = area assigned to an Arab state in the original UN partition plan, and controlled by Egypt or Jordan from 1949-1967. | |||
| align = right <!-- left/right/center/none --> | |||
*Light red = area assigned to an Arab state in the original UN partition plan, but within the 1949 Israel armistice lines. | |||
| direction = horizontal <!-- horizontal/vertical --> | |||
*Magenta = area assigned to the "Corpus Separatum" of Jerusalem/Bethlehem (neither Jewish nor Arab) by the plan, but controlled by Jordan from 1949-1967. | |||
| width = <!-- Digits only; no "px" suffix, please --> | |||
*Greyish = area assigned to the "Corpus Separatum" of Jerusalem/Bethlehem (neither Jewish nor Arab) by the plan, but within the 1949 Israel armistice lines.]] | |||
| footer = Two maps reviewed by UN Subcommittee 2 in considering partition | |||
On 24 July 1922, in ], the terms of the British Mandate over Palestine and Transjordan were approved by the Council of the League of Nations. Under the ], and the ], 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 ] at the time of the ]. 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:<blockquote> 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.</blockquote> Accordingly, on 16 September 1922 the League of Nations formally approved a memorandum from ] 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.<ref>Sicker, 1999, p. 164.</ref> | |||
<!-- Image 1 --> | |||
In the 1930s, with increased ] and the rise of ] in Germany, the Fifth Aliya brought substantial numbers of European Jews to Palestine.<ref></ref> | |||
| image1 = Palestine Land ownership by sub-district (1945).jpg | |||
| width1 = 150 | |||
| alt1 = | |||
| caption1 = Land ownership | |||
<!-- Image 2 --> | |||
The ] was triggered by increased Jewish immigration in conjunction with rising Arab nationalist sentiment. Following the revolt, the British ] proposed a Palestine divided between a small Jewish state (about 15%), a much bigger Arab state and an international zone. The Arab leadership rejected the plan. The Jewish Agency also 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.<ref>Partner to Partition: The Jewish Agency's Partition Plan in the Mandate Era, Yosef Kats, Chapter 4, 1998 Edition, Routledge, ISBN 0-7146-4846-9</ref> Both of the proposals contained provisions for the relocation of the Arab population to areas outside the borders of the new Jewish state. The plans were developed along the lines of the ]. After these proposals were rejected by the Arab side, the British ] 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 ]. In the prewar period it led to organization of ]. While the small ] 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. | |||
| image2 = Palestine Distribution of Population 1947 UN map no 93(b).jpeg | |||
| width2 = 147 | |||
When the British insisted on preventing immigration of Jewish ] 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 ] 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 ] angered the British ] 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.<ref>American Jewish History: A Eight-volume Series By Jeffrey S Gurock, American Jewish Historical Society, page 243</ref> | |||
| alt2 = | |||
| caption2 = Population distribution | |||
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 ]. | |||
The ], the successor to the ], attempted to resolve the dispute between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the ], composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the ]s 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 (], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under ]. A minority (], ], ]) 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 ], the ], the League of Nations ], 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 ], in part, due to reservations about the legitimacy of the League of Nations System of Mandates.<ref>The US Senate refused to ratify the Covenant of the League of Nations. Senator Lodge, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee had attached a reservation which read: 'No mandate shall be accepted by the United States under Article 22, Part 1, or any other provision of the treaty of peace with Germany, except by action of the Congress of the United States.' Senator Borah, speaking on behalf on the 'Irreconcilables' stated 'My reservations have not been answered.' He completely rejected the proposed system of Mandates as an illegitimate rule by brute force. and the Under the plan of the US Constitution, Article 1, the Congress was delegated the power to declare or define the Law of Nations in cases where its terms might be vague or indefinite.</ref> 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.<ref></ref> 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.<ref>see for example the negtiations under and </ref> | |||
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<ref>http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter11.shtml</ref> and Chapter 12<ref>http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter12.shtml</ref> 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.'.<ref></ref> 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<ref>http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/palmanda.htm#art26</ref> provided that: <blockquote>'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 ]...'</blockquote> 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.<ref> 'The notion of the National Home, which derived from the formulation of Zionist aspirations in the 1897 Basle program has provoked many discussions concerning its meaning, scope and legal character, especially since it has no known legal connotation and there are no precedents in international law for its interpretation. It was used in the Balfour Declaration and in the Mandate, both of which promised the establishment of a "Jewish National Home" without, however, defining its meaning. The conclusion seems to be inescapable that the vagueness in the wording of both instruments was intentional. The fact that the term "National Home" was employed, instead of the word "State" or "Commonwealth" would indicate that the intention was to place a restrictive construction on the National Home scheme from its very inception.</ref> | |||
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'.<ref>see for example , ], and ].</ref> | |||
In an earlier dispute involving the grant of the ], the Permanent Court of Justice had ruled it had jurisdiction over every dispute involving the Palestine Mandate: <blockquote>'The Court is of opinion that, in cases of doubt, jurisdiction based on an international agreement embraces all disputes referred to it 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.'<ref></ref></blockquote> | |||
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<ref>http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter14.shtml</ref> and Chapter IV of the Statute of the Court.<ref>http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0#CHAPTER_IV</ref> 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.<ref></ref> | |||
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.<ref></ref> Four days later the plan of partition was approved with the provision that it be imposed by force: 'The Security Council 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,<ref>http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml</ref> any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution.'<ref></ref> | |||
==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.<ref>See of the Palestine Mandate.</ref> 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 ] 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.<ref>see for example </ref> | |||
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.<ref>It is available via the using Symbol: E/CN.4/367, Date: 7 April 1950.</ref> 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.<ref>He added that it was doubtful whether that could even be done by the United Nations. See the discussion in </ref> 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.<ref>See International Human Rights in Context, Henry J. Steiner, Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman, Oxford University Press US, 2008, ISBN 0-19-927942-X, page 100</ref> | |||
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.<ref> and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181(II), Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine, C. Declaration</ref> | |||
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.<ref>See for example and the verbatim record, FIFTY-FIRST MEETING, HELD AT LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, ON MONDAY, 9 MAY 1949 : AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 3RD SESSION. It is available via the using Symbol: A/AC.24/SR.51, Date: 01/01/1949</ref> Mr. Eban's explanations and Israel's undertakings were noted in the text of A/RES/273 (III), 11 May 1949.<ref>http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9fb163c870bb1d6785256cef0073c89f/83e8c29db812a4e9852560e50067a5ac!OpenDocument</ref> 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.<ref>http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/d9d90d845776b7af85256d08006f3ae9/146e6838d505833f852560d600471e25!OpenDocument</ref> | |||
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.<ref></ref> It was addressed to the Ultra-Orthodox World ] 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.<ref></ref> 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,<ref>See for example Hersh Lauterpacht's opinion </ref> 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.<ref>Also see Article 3 of the ]</ref> 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.<ref>Jacob Robinson advised the People's Council that the Jewish State was already in existence as a result of the 29 November 1947 resolution. Hersh Lauterpacht advised that the United Nations recognition involved rights and obligations that were irrevocable, notwithstanding difficulties or opposition to the plan on the part of some people. See and Articles 6 and 7 of the ]</ref><ref>Judge Elaraby reached similar conclusions regarding the existence and recognition of the Palestinian State in an </ref> | |||
==Proposed division== | |||
:''See also: ]'' | |||
] | |||
<!-- Deleted image removed: ] the day after the UN vote. The headline is "Jewish State". It lists the 33 countries that voted in favor of the partition, 13 against, and 10 that abstained.]] --> | |||
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.<ref></ref> | |||
The details of the land division were never finalized. On 25 November 1947 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:<blockquote>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.</blockquote> | |||
Palestine's land surface was approximately 26,320,505 dunums (26,320 km<sup>2</sup>), 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 km<sup>2</sup>) (]). The land in Jewish possession had risen from 456,000 dunums (456 km<sup>2</sup>) in 1920 to 1,393,000 dunums (1,393 km<sup>2</sup>) in 1945<ref name = "Khalaf">Khalaf, 1991, pp. 26–27.</ref> and 1,850,000 dunums (1,850 km<sup>2</sup>) by 1947 (Avneri p. 224).<ref name = "CIA Factbook — Israel">{{cite web | |||
| url = https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html | |||
| date = 10 August 2006 | |||
| publisher = ] | |||
| title = Israel | |||
| work = ] | |||
}} | }} | ||
</ref> 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 ], or JNF, which held its land purchases in trust 'for the Jewish people as a whole'.<ref></ref> 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 ] and Bethlehem. The General Assembly recommended that the City of ] be placed under a special international regime, a ], 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 ]. | |||
The two states envisioned in the plan were each composed of three major sections, linked by ]s. The Jewish state would receive the Coastal Plain, stretching from ] to ], the Eastern ] (surrounding the ] and including the Galilee panhandle) and the Negev, including the southern outpost of Umm Rashrash (now ]). The Arab state would receive the Western Galilee, with the town of ], the ]n highlands and the ]n highlands, and the southern coast stretching from north of Isdud (now ]) and encompassing what is now the ], with a section of desert along the Egyptian border. | |||
The report of the majority of the Committee (]) envisaged the division of Palestine into three parts: an Arab State, a Jewish State and the City of ], linked by extraterritorial crossroads. The proposed Arab State would include the central and part of western ], with the town of ], the hill country of ] and ], an enclave at ], and the southern coast stretching from north of Isdud (now ]) and encompassing what is now the ], with a section of desert along the Egyptian border. The proposed Jewish State would include the fertile Eastern Galilee, the Coastal Plain, stretching from ] to ] and most of the ],<ref name="Morris2008p47"/> including the southern outpost of Umm Rashrash (now ]). The Jerusalem Corpus Separatum included ] and the surrounding areas. | |||
The partition defined by the General Assembly resolution differed somewhat from the UNSCOP report partition. Most notably, ] was constituted as an enclave of the Arab State and the boundaries were modified to include ] and a large section of the ] desert within the Arab State and a section of the ] shore within the Jewish State. | |||
The primary objectives of the majority of the Committee were political division and economic unity between the two groups.<ref name="undocs.org/A/364">{{cite web |url=https://undocs.org/A/364(SUPP) |access-date=20 April 2017 |title=United Nations Special Committee on Palestine: Report to the General Assembly: Volume 1 |date=3 September 1947 |id=A/364(SUPP) |page=51 |quote=The primary objectives sought in the foregoing scheme were, in short, political division and economic unity: to confer upon each group, Arab and Jew, in its own territory, the power to make its own laws, while preserving both, throughout Palestine, a single integrated economy, admittedly essential to the well-being of each, and the same territorial freedom of movement to individuals as is enjoyed today. }}</ref> The Plan tried its best to accommodate as many Jews as possible into the Jewish State. In many specific cases,{{citation needed|date=June 2013}} 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 desert), were also included in the Jewish state to create room for immigration. According to the plan, 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 land allocated to the Arab state (about 43% of Mandatory Palestine<ref name = "Merip"> at Merip.</ref>) 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.<ref name = "Merip" /> The state included three fertile lowland plains — the ] on the coast, the ] and the upper ]. | |||
By virtue of Chapter 3, Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, resided in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem would, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they were resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. | |||
The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the ]. The desert was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. The Jewish state was also given sole access to the ]. | |||
Population of Palestine by religions in 1946: Moslems — 1,076,783; Jews — 608,225; Christians — 145,063; Others — 15,488; Total — 1,845,559.<ref></ref> | |||
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 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: | |||
<blockquote>"...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.<ref>.</ref> </blockquote>The 1926 Accord stipulated that | |||
<blockquote> "''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''." </blockquote> | |||
On this basis, the population at the end of 1946 was estimated as follows: Arabs — 1,203,000; Jews — 608,000; others — 35,000; Total — 1,846,000.<ref></ref> | |||
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.<ref name = "Paßia"> at Passia.</ref> | |||
At the time the UN passed its decision to partition the country, the arable land was owned as follows: 93 per cent by Arabs, and 7 per cent by Jews.<ref>], </ref> | |||
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".<ref name = "MidEastWeb1947"> at MidEastWeb.</ref> 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 |
The Plan would have had the following demographics (data based on 1945). | ||
{| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 95%;" | |||
{| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 10px 0 10px 25px; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #AAA solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%; float: center;" | |||
! Territory !! Arab and other population !! % Arab and other !! Jewish population !! % Jewish !! Total population | |||
|- style="background: #E9E9E9" | |||
! Territory !! Arab and other population !! % Arab and other !! Jewish population !! % Jewish !! Total population | |||
|- | |- | ||
| Arab State | |||
|725,000 | |725,000 | ||
|99% | |99% | ||
Line 129: | Line 99: | ||
|735,000 | |735,000 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Jewish State | |||
|407,000 | |407,000 | ||
|45% | |45% | ||
Line 150: | Line 120: | ||
|1,845,000 | |1,845,000 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan ="7" style="background: #E9E9E9; font-size: 90%" | Data from the | |colspan ="7" style="background: #E9E9E9; font-size: 90%" | Data from the | ||
|} | |} | ||
] | |||
The UNSCOP Report also noted that "in addition there will be in the Jewish State about 90,000 ]s, cultivators and stock owners who seek grazing further afield in dry seasons."<ref name = "Domino">.</ref> | |||
In addition there would be in the Jewish State about 90,000 Bedouins, cultivators and stock | |||
===Last minute corrections=== | |||
owners who seek grazing further afield in dry seasons.<ref></ref> | |||
The land allocated to the Arab State in the final plan included about 43% of Mandatory Palestine<ref name = "Merip"> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130807084246/http://merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/un-partition-plan-pal-isr.html |date=7 August 2013 }} at Merip.</ref><ref name="Held2013" >Colbert C. Held, John Thomas Cummings, https://books.google.com/books?id=vcxVDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT287 ''Middle East Patterns: Places, People, and Politics,'' 6th ed. ], 2013 p.255: It called for three entities: a Jewish state with 56 percent of Mandate Palestine; an Arab state, 43 percent.'</ref><ref name="AFS2013">Abdel Monem Said Aly, Shai Feldman, Khalil Shikaki, {{Dead link|date=February 2024|bot=InternetArchiveBot|fix-attempted=yes}} ] 2013 p.50: 'a year before the UN adoption of the Resolution, the Arab population of Palestine comprised 68 percent of the total and owned about 85 percent of the land; the Jewish population comprised about one-third of the total and owned about 7 percent of the land.</ref> and 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.{{citation needed|date=July 2018}} The Jewish State allocated to the Jews, who constituted a third of the population and owned about 7% of the land, was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there.<ref name="Held2013" /><ref name="AFS2013" /><ref name="NYTimes26Nov1947">, NY Times, 26 November 1947</ref> The Jewish State included three fertile lowland plains – the ] on the coast, the ] and the upper ]. The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the ],<ref name="Morris2008p47"/> which was mostly not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. The Jewish State would also be given sole access to the ], crucial for its ], and the economically important ]. | |||
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: | |||
<blockquote> "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''."<ref name="domino.un.org"></ref></blockquote> | |||
The committee voted for the plan, 25 to 13 (with 17 abstentions and 2 absentees) on 25 November 1947 and the General Assembly was called back into a special session to vote on the proposal. Various sources noted that this was one vote short of the two-thirds majority required in the General Assembly.<ref name="NYTimes26Nov1947"/> | |||
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."<ref name="domino.un.org"/> The partition plan was revised and the Beersheba region was assigned to the Arab State, while some further parts of the ] were give to the Jewish State. | |||
== ''Ad hoc'' Committee == | |||
==Reactions to the plan== | |||
] | |||
{| class="infobox" style="border:0" | |||
{{main|Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question}} | |||
|} | |||
On 23 September 1947 the General Assembly established the ] to consider the UNSCOP report. Representatives of the ] and Jewish Agency were invited and attended.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/5ce900d2de34aadf852562bd007002d2?OpenDocument|title=1949.I.13 of 31 December 1948|website=unispal.un.org}}</ref> | |||
During the committee's deliberations, the British government endorsed the report's recommendations concerning the end of the mandate, independence, and Jewish immigration. {{citation needed|date=June 2013}} However, the British did "not feel able to implement" any agreement unless it was acceptable to both the Arabs and the Jews, and asked that the General Assembly provide an alternative implementing authority if that proved to be the case. | |||
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.<ref></ref> 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."<ref></ref> | |||
The Arab Higher Committee rejected both the majority and minority recommendations within the UNSCOP report. They "concluded from a survey of Palestine history that Zionist claims to that country had no legal or moral basis". The Arab Higher Committee argued that only an Arab State in the whole of Palestine would be consistent with the UN Charter. | |||
The majority of the Jewish groups, and the ] 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.<ref></ref> | |||
The Jewish Agency expressed support for most of the UNSCOP recommendations, but emphasized the "intense urge" of the overwhelming majority of Jewish displaced persons to proceed to Palestine. The Jewish Agency criticized the proposed boundaries, especially in the Western Galilee and Western Jerusalem (outside of the old city), arguing that these should be included in the Jewish state. However, they agreed to accept the plan if "it would make possible the immediate re-establishment of the Jewish State with sovereign control of its own immigration." | |||
A minority of extreme nationalist Jewish groups like ]'s ] and the ] (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".<ref>''Begin, Menachem, The Revolt 1978'', p. 412.</ref> | |||
Arab states requested representation on the UN ad hoc subcommittees of October 1947, but were excluded from Subcommittee One, which had been delegated the specific task of studying and, if thought necessary, modifying the boundaries of the proposed partition.<ref>Baylis Thomas, Lexington Books 1999 p.57 n.6.</ref> | |||
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. | |||
=== Sub-Committee 2 === | |||
The Arab leadership (in and out of Palestine) opposed the plan.<ref></ref>. 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).<ref></ref> | |||
The Sub-Committee 2, set up on 23 October 1947 to draw up a detailed plan based on proposals of Arab states presented its report within a few weeks.<ref name="Sub-Committee2"> (doc.nr. A/AC.14/32). 10 November 1947; on {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190330080155/https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ba8f82c57961b9fc85257306007096b8|date=30 March 2019}}<br />For the Bedouin issue, see par. 61–73 on pp. 39–46 and Appendix 3: ''Note on the Bedouin population of Palestine presented by the representative of the United Kingdom'' d.d. 1 November 1947 on pp. 65–66</ref> | |||
Based on a reproduced British report, the Sub-Committee 2 criticised the UNSCOP report for using inaccurate population figures, especially concerning the Bedouin population. The British report, dated 1 November 1947, used the results of a new census in Beersheba in 1946 with additional use of aerial photographs, and an estimate of the population in other districts. It found that the size of the Bedouin population was greatly understated in former enumerations. In Beersheba, 3,389 Bedouin houses and 8,722 tents were counted. The total Bedouin population was estimated at approximately 127,000; only 22,000 of them normally resident in the Arab state under the UNSCOP majority plan. The British report stated:<ref name="Sub-Committee2_Appendix3">{{cite web |url= http://www.mlwerke.de/NatLib/Pal/UN1947_Palestine-Minority-Report_Appendices.htm#FNanker5 |title=Report: Appendix III: Note dated 1 November 1947 on the Bedouin Population of Palestine Presented by the Representative of The United Kingdom|author=Sub-Committee 2 of the Ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question of the 2nd UN General Assembly 1947 |work=mlwerke.de |date=10 November 1947 |access-date=1 March 2016}}</ref><blockquote>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''.</blockquote>In respect of the UNSCOP report, the Sub-Committee concluded 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."<ref name="Sub-Commitee2_#Ch3Se04">{{cite web |url= http://www.mlwerke.de/NatLib/Pal/UN1947_Palestine-Minority-Report_Chapter3.htm#Chap3Sec03|title=Report of Sub-Committee 2: Chapter III: Proposals for the constitution and future government of Palestine – Sec.4 Objections to partition on grounds of distribution of population | |||
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."<ref>{{cite book |title=The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War |last=Kamrava |first=Mehran |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= |publisher=University of California Press |location= |isbn=978-0520241503 |pages=79–81 |url= |accessdate=2009-12-10}}</ref> 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.<ref>The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, by Simha Flapan, Pantheon, 1988, ISBN 0-679-72098-7, Myth One pages 13-54, Myth Two pages 55-80</ref> | |||
|author=Sub-Committee 2 of the Ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question of the 2nd UN General Assembly 1947 |work=mlwerke.de |date=10 November 1947|access-date=1 March 2016}}</ref> | |||
The Sub-Committee 2 recommended to put the question of the Partition Plan before the ] (Resolution No. I | |||
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.<ref>Palestine's Role in the Solution of the Jewish Problem, Chaim Weizmann, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jan., 1942), pp. 324-338</ref> 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."<ref></ref> 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.<ref name="Plascov 2008 2">{{cite book |title=The Palestinian refugees in Jordan 1948-1957 |last=Plascov |first=Avi |year=2008 |publisher=Routledge |location= |isbn=978-0714631202 |page=2 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=daLPXTYcoewC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false |accessdate=2009-12-11}}</ref> | |||
<ref name="Sub-Commitee2_Ch4Sec1">{{cite web |url= http://www.mlwerke.de/NatLib/Pal/UN1947_Palestine-Minority-Report_Chapter4.htm#Reso1 | |||
|title=Report of Sub-Committee 2: Chapter 4: Conclusions, I: Draft Resolution Referring Certain Legal Questions to The International Court of Justice | |||
|author=Sub-Committee 2 of the Ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question of the 2nd UN General Assembly 1947 |date=10 November 1947 | |||
|work=mlwerke.de |access-date=1 March 2016}}</ref>). In respect of the Jewish refugees due to World War II, the Sub-Committee recommended to request the countries of which the refugees belonged to take them back as much as possible (Resolution No. II<ref name="Sub-Commitee2_Ch4Sec2">{{cite web |url= http://www.mlwerke.de/NatLib/Pal/UN1947_Palestine-Minority-Report_Chapter4.htm#Reso2 | |||
|title=Report of Sub-Committee 2: Chapter 4: Conclusions, II: Draft Resolution on Jewish Refugees and Displaced Persons | |||
|author=Sub-Committee 2 of the Ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question of the 2nd UN General Assembly 1947 |date=10 November 1947 | |||
|work=mlwerke.de |access-date=1 March 2016}}</ref>). The Sub-Committee proposed to establish a unitary state (Resolution No. III<ref name="Sub-Commitee2_Ch4Sec3">{{cite web |url= http://www.mlwerke.de/NatLib/Pal/UN1947_Palestine-Minority-Report_Chapter4.htm#Reso3 | |||
|title=Report of Sub-Committee 2: Chapter 4: Conclusions, III: Draft Resolution on the Constitution and Future Government of Palestine | |||
|author=Sub-Committee 2 of the Ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question of the 2nd UN General Assembly 1947 |date=10 November 1947 | |||
|work=mlwerke.de |access-date=1 March 2016}}</ref>). | |||
===Boundary changes=== | |||
During an Arab League Political Committee meeting in February 1948, the Mufti, ] 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.<ref>Politics in Palestine: Arab factionalism and social disintegration, 1939-1948, By Issa Khalaf, University of New York Press, 1991,ISBN 0-7914-0708-X, page 290</ref> 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.<ref>'Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2, page 1448</ref> 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.<ref>See the minutes in A/AC.24/SR.45, 5 May 1949</ref> 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 future first head of the PLO, Ahmad Shuqayri, was a member of the Syrian delegation to the Lausanne Conference.<ref>See Neil Caplan, The Lausanne Conference 1949, Tel Aviv University, 1993, ISBN 965-224-013-3, pages 51-59</ref><ref>See Eytan Outlines Territorial Settlement, page 1, May 15, 1949 Palestine Post </ref> | |||
The ''ad hoc'' committee made a number of boundary changes to the UNSCOP recommendations before they were voted on by the General Assembly. | |||
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.<ref name="JohnWolffe">{{cite book |title=Religion in History: Conflict, Conversion and Coexistence (Paperback) |last=Wolffe |first=John |year=2005 |publisher=Manchester University Press |location= |isbn=978-0719071072 |page=265 |url= |accessdate=2009-12-10}}</ref> 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.<ref name="JohnWolffe"/> 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.<ref name="Bovis 1971 40">{{cite book |title=The Jerusalem question, 1917-1968 |last=Bovis |first=H. Eugene |year=1971 |publisher=Hoover Institution Press,U.S. |location= |isbn=978-0817932916 |page=40 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1L49R1xKA6QC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false |accessdate=2009-12-11}}</ref> | |||
The predominantly Arab city of ], previously located within the Jewish state, was constituted as an enclave of the Arab State. The boundary of the Arab state was modified to include ] and a strip of the ] along the Egyptian border,<ref name="Morris2008p53"/> while a section of the ] shore and other additions were made to the Jewish State. The Jewish population in the revised Jewish State would be about half a million, compared to 450,000 Arabs.<ref name="Morris2008p53">{{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|page=53|isbn=978-0-300-12696-9}}</ref> | |||
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.<ref>See "A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict,(4th Edition), Ian J. Bickerton, and Carla L. Klausner, Prentice Hall, 2001, ISBN 0-13-090303-5, page 88.</ref> He also mentions that the Nashashibi family backed King Abdullah and union with Transjordan.<ref>ibid, page 103</ref> 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.<ref>See memo from Acting Secretary Lovett to Certain Diplomatic Offices, Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume VI, pages 1447-48</ref> 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." <ref>See Folke Bernadotte, "To Jerusalem", Hodder and Stoughton, 1951, pages 112-13</ref>. | |||
The proposed boundaries would also have placed 54 Arab villages on the opposite side of the border from their farm land.{{citation needed|date=November 2011}} In response, the ] established in 1948 was empowered to modify the boundaries "in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary". These modifications never occurred. | |||
==The vote== | ==The vote== | ||
], document A/516, dated 25 November 1947. This was the document voted on by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947, and became known as the "United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine".<ref>A/PV.128 Minutes of the 128th meeting, page 1424, "We shall now proceed to vote by roll-call on the report of the Ad Hoc Committee (document A/516). A vote was taken by roll-call... The report was adopted by 33 votes to 13, with 10 abstentions."</ref>]] | |||
On 29 November 1947, the ] ] 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. | |||
Passage of the resolution required a two-thirds majority of the valid votes, not counting abstaining and absent members, of the UN's then 57 member states. On 26 November, after filibustering by the Zionist delegation, the vote was postponed by three days.<ref name=Barr2012>{{cite book |last = Barr |first = James | author-link = James Barr (author) |title = A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle that Shaped the Middle East |publisher = ] | place = London |year = 2012 |isbn = 978-1-84739-457-6}}<!--p.354--></ref><ref name="NYTimes27Nov1947">, NY Times, 27 November 1947</ref> According to multiple sources, had the vote been held on the original set date, it would have received a majority, but less than the required two-thirds.<ref name="NYTimes27Nov1947"/><ref name="Hansard">{{cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1947/dec/11/palestine|date=11 December 1947|title=PALESTINE|work=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KzPOYgEACAAJ&q=Servant+of+God+Zafrulla+Khan|title=Servant of God|work=google.co.uk|year=1983}}</ref> Various compromise proposals and variations on a single state, including federations and cantonal systems were debated (including those previously rejected in committee).<ref>, NY Times, 29 November 1947</ref><ref name="NYTimes25Nov1947">, NY Times, 25 November 1947</ref> The delay was used by supporters of Zionism in New York to put extra pressure on states not supporting the resolution.<ref name=Barr2012/> <!--p.354--> | |||
===Reports of pressure for and against the Plan=== | |||
Prior to the vote, the two-thirds majority required for passage of the resolution was not evident, and three countries — ], ], the ] — were pressured to consider changing their positions in order to assure passage; they subsequently switched their votes between November 25 and November 29.<ref>John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice"</ref> 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 ] 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."<ref>Lenczowski, p. 28, cite, Harry S. Truman, ''Memoirs 2'', p. 158.</ref> | |||
====Reports of pressure for the Plan==== | |||
] | |||
Zionists launched an intense White House lobby to have the UNSCOP plan endorsed, and the effects were not trivial.<ref>], ], ''The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,''(2007) Penguin Books 2008 p.371, n.8. Truman also remarked:'In all of my political experience I don't ever recall the Arab vote swinging a close election'.(p.142).</ref> The Democratic Party, a large part of whose contributions came from Jews,<ref>Michael Joseph Cohen, University of California Press 1990 p.162.</ref> informed Truman that failure to live up to promises to support the Jews in Palestine would constitute a danger to the party. The defection of Jewish votes in congressional elections in 1946 had contributed to electoral losses. Truman was, according to Roger Cohen, embittered by feelings of being a hostage to the lobby and its 'unwarranted interference', which he blamed for the contemporary impasse. When a formal American declaration in favour of partition was given on 11 October, a public relations authority declared to the Zionist Emergency Council in a closed meeting: 'under no circumstances should any of us believe or think we had won because of the devotion of the American Government to our cause. We had won because of the sheer pressure of political logistics that was applied by the Jewish leadership in the United States'. State Department advice critical of the controversial UNSCOP recommendation to give the overwhelmingly Arab town of ], and the Negev, to the Jews was overturned by an urgent and secret late meeting organized for ] with Truman, which immediately countermanded the recommendation. The United States initially refrained from pressuring smaller states to vote either way, but ] reported that America's U.N. delegation's case suffered impediments from high pressure by Jewish groups, and that indications existed that bribes and threats were being used, even of American sanctions against Liberia and Nicaragua.<ref>Michael Joseph Cohen, University of California Press 1990 161–163</ref> When the UNSCOP plan failed to achieve the necessary majority on 25 November, the lobby 'moved into high gear' and induced the President to overrule the State Department, and let wavering governments know that the U.S. strongly desired partition.<ref>Michael Joseph Cohen (1990) ''Truman and Israel'' University of California Press. : "Greece, the Philippines, and Haiti – three countries utterly dependent on Washington – suddenly came out one after another against its declared policy ...] reported to the American Zionist Emergency Council: 'During this time, we marshalled our forces, Jewish and non-Jewish opinion, leaders and masses alike, converged on the Government and induced the President to assert the authority of his Administration to overcome the negative attitude of the State Department which persisted to the end, and persists today. The result was that our Government made its intense desire for the adoption of the partition plan {{sic|nown}} to the wavering governments."'</ref> | |||
Proponents of the Plan reportedly put pressure on nations to vote yes to the Partition Plan. A telegram signed by 26 ] with influence on foreign aid bills was sent to wavering countries, seeking their support for the partition plan.<ref name="Bennis">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=T8VzP0eiLW0C&pg=PA33|title=Before and After|isbn=978-1-56656-462-5|last1=Bennis|first1=Phyllis|year=2003|publisher=Interlink Publishing Group Incorporated }}</ref> The US Senate was considering a large aid package at the time, including 60 million dollars to China.<ref>, ''New York Times'', 30 November 2015</ref><ref>, NY Times, 5 December 1947</ref> Many nations reported pressure directed specifically at them: | |||
Of the permanent members of the ], ], the ], and the ] voted for the resolution while the ] and ] abstained. The full vote was recorded follows: | |||
* '''{{flag|United States|1912}}''' (Vote: '''For'''): President ] 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."<ref name="Lencz2">{{cite book | last=Lenczowski | first=George | author-link=George Lenczowski | year=1990 | title=American Presidents and the Middle East | publisher=] | isbn=978-0-8223-0972-7 | pages= 157 }}, , cite, Harry S. Truman, ''Memoirs 2'', p. 158.</ref> | |||
* '''{{flagcountry|Dominion of India}}''' (Vote: '''Against'''): Indian Prime Minister ] spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, ], the Indian ambassador to the UN, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless "she voted right".<ref>{{cite book|last=Heptulla|first=Najma |title=Indo-West Asian relations: the Nehru era|year=1991|publisher=Allied Publishers|isbn=978-81-7023-340-4|pages=158|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BXWFlKwemEQC&pg=PA158}}</ref> Pandit occasionally hinted that something might change in favour of the Zionists. But another Indian delegate, Kavallam Pannikar, said that India would vote for the Arab side, because of their large ] minority, although they knew that the Jews had a case.<ref name="Morris2008p56"/> | |||
:In favor, (33 countries, 59%): | |||
* '''{{flag|Liberia}}''' (Vote: '''For'''): Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries.<ref>{{cite book|last=Quigley|first=John B. |title=Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice|year=1990|publisher=Duke University Press|isbn=978-0-8223-1023-5|pages=37|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GX8jX9dJXIAC&pg=PA37}}</ref> ], President of ], with major holdings in the country, also pressured the Liberian government<ref name="Hansard"/><ref name="Bennis"/> | |||
:*30 countries (54%) initially in favour: | |||
* '''{{flagdeco|Philippines|1936}} ]''' (Vote: '''For'''): In the days before the vote, Philippines representative General ] stated "We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government holds that the United Nations ought not to accept such responsibility." After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines' vote changed.<ref name="Bennis"/> | |||
:**], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. | |||
* '''{{flagcountry|Republic of Haiti (1859–1957)}}''' (Vote: '''For'''): The promise of a five million dollar loan may or may not have secured Haiti's vote for partition.<ref name="BregmanEl-Tahri1998">{{cite book|author1=Ahron Bregman|author2=Jihan El-Tahri|title=The fifty years war: Israel and the Arabs|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=o8ZtAAAAMAAJ|access-date=29 November 2011|year=1998|publisher=Penguin Books|page=25|isbn=978-0-14-026827-0}}</ref> | |||
* '''{{flagcountry|French Fourth Republic}}''' (Vote: '''For'''): Shortly before the vote, France's delegate to the United Nations was visited by ], a long-term Jewish supporter of the Democratic Party who, during the recent world war, had been an economic adviser to President Roosevelt, and had latterly been appointed by President Truman as United States ambassador to the newly created UN Atomic Energy Commission. He was, privately, a supporter of the ] and its front organization, the American League for a Free Palestine. Baruch implied that a French failure to support the resolution might block planned American aid to France, which was badly needed for reconstruction, French currency reserves being exhausted and its balance of payments heavily in deficit. Previously, to avoid antagonising its Arab colonies, France had not publicly supported the resolution. After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France's neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.<ref name=Barr2012/> <!--p.355-356--> | |||
* '''{{flagdeco|Venezuela|1930}} ]''' (Vote: '''For'''): ], Chairman of the Delegation of Venezuela, voted in favor of Resolution 181 .<ref>Benton Harbor ''News-Palladium'', Friday, 25 October 1946, p. 6.</ref> | |||
* '''{{flagcountry|Republic of Cuba (1902–59)}}''' (Vote: '''Against'''): The Cuban delegation stated they would vote against partition "in spite of pressure being brought to bear against us" because they could not be party to coercing the majority in Palestine.<ref> ''Times of London'', 29 November 1947</ref> | |||
* '''{{flag|Thailand|name=Siam}}''' (Absent): The credentials of the Siamese delegations were cancelled after Siam voted against partition in committee on 25 November.<ref name="NYTimes27Nov1947"/><ref>, NY Times, 27 November 1947</ref> | |||
There is also some evidence that ] put pressure on several "]s" to change their votes.<ref>Rich Cohen. ''The Fish That Ate the Whale''. New York, NY: Farrar Straus Giroux, 2012.</ref> | |||
:*An additional 3 (5%) switched to in favor: | |||
:**], ], ]. | |||
:Against, (13 countries, 23%): | |||
:*], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. | |||
====Reports of pressure against the Plan==== | |||
:Abstentions, (10 countries, 18%): | |||
According to Benny Morris, Wasif Kamal, an ] official, tried to bribe a delegate to the United Nations, perhaps a Russian.<ref>{{cite book |author=Morris |first=Benny |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ |title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war |publisher=Yale University Press |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-300-12696-9 |pages=61 |quote="The Arabs had failed to understand the tremendous impact of the Holocaust on the international community—and, in any event, appear to have used the selfsame methods, but with poor results. Wasif Kamal, an AHC official, for example, offered one delegate—perhaps the Russian—a "huge, huge sum of money to vote for the Arabs" (the Russian declined, saying, "You want me to hang myself?”). But the Arabs' main tactic, amounting to blackmail, was the promise or threat of war should the assembly endorse partition. As early as mid-August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji—soon to be named the head of the Arab League’s volunteer army in Palestine, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA)—threatened that, should the vote go the wrong way, "we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish". It would be a "holy war", the Arabs suggested, which might even evolve into "World War III". Cables to this effect poured in from Damascus, Beirut, Amman, and Baghdad during the Ad Hoc Committee deliberations, becoming "more lurid", according to Zionist officials, as the General Assembly vote drew near. The Arab states generally made no bones about their intention to support the Palestinians with "men, money and arms", and sometimes hinted at an eventual invasion by their armies. They also threatened the Western Powers, their traditional allies, with an oil embargo and/or abandonment and realignment with the Soviet Bloc" |access-date=13 July 2013}}</ref> | |||
:*], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. | |||
:Absent, (1 countries, 0%): | |||
:*] | |||
A number of Arab leaders argued against the partition proposal on the grounds that it endangered the Jews of Arab countries. | |||
==Consequences== | |||
{{main|1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine}} | |||
*A few months before the UN vote on partition of Palestine, Iraq's prime minister ] told British diplomat ] that he had nothing against the Iraqi Jews, who were a long established and useful community. However, if the United Nations solution was not satisfactory, the Arab League might decide on severe measures against the Jews in Arab countries, and he would be unable to resist the proposal.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Burdett |first1=Anita L. P. |last2=Great Britain. Foreign Office |last3=Great Britain. Colonial Office |title=The Arab League: 1946-1947 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=doIvAQAAIAAJ |year=1995 |publisher=Archive Editions |isbn=978-1-85207-610-8 |page=519 |series=The Arab League: British Documentary Sources 1943-1963 |lccn=95130580}}</ref><ref>Telegram 804, Busk to Foreign Office, 12 September 1947 .</ref> | |||
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 ] and ], both of whose governments had voted for partition, were attacked. Bombs were thrown into cafes, ]s were hurled at shops, a ] was set on fire. | |||
* At the 30th Meeting of the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine on 24 November 1947, the head of the Egyptian delegate, ], said that although there was no animosity against the Jews in Arab countries, nobody could prevent disorders if a Jewish state was established. Riots could break out which governments could not control, endangering the lives of Jews and creating an antisemitism difficult to root out. The UN, in Heykal's view, should consider the welfare of all Jews and not just the wishes of the Zionists.<ref>{{cite web|author=UN Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine|title=Thirtieth Meeting | date=24 November 1947 | url=https://www.undocs.org/en/A/AC.14/SR.30 | access-date = 18 April 2024}}</ref> | |||
Fighting began almost as soon as the plan was approved, beginning with the Arab ]. On 1 April 1948, the Security Council adopted Resolution 44 "to consider further the question of the future government of Palestine."<ref></ref> | |||
*In a speech at the General Assembly Hall at Flushing Meadow, New York, on Friday, 28 November 1947, Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Fadel Jamall, included the following statement: "Partition imposed against the will of the majority of the people will jeopardize peace and harmony in the Middle East. Not only the uprising of the Arabs of Palestine is to be expected, but the masses in the Arab world cannot be restrained. The Arab-Jewish relationship in the Arab world will greatly deteriorate. There are more Jews in the Arab world outside of Palestine than there are in Palestine. In Iraq alone, we have about one hundred and fifty thousand Jews who share with Moslems and Christians all the advantages of political and economic rights. Harmony prevails among Moslems, Christians and Jews. But any injustice imposed upon the Arabs of Palestine will disturb the harmony among Jews and non-Jews in Iraq; it will breed inter-religious prejudice and hatred."<ref>{{Citation|url=https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/93DCDF1CBC3F2C6685256CF3005723F2 |access-date=15 October 2013 |title=U.N General Assembly, A/PV.126, 28 November 1947, discussion on the Palestinian question |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131016084808/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/93DCDF1CBC3F2C6685256CF3005723F2 |archive-date=16 October 2013 }}</ref> | |||
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 security forces over the past month, the two communities would by now have been fully engaged in internecine slaughter.'<ref></ref> | |||
The Arab states warned the Western Powers that endorsement of the partition plan might be met by either or both an oil embargo and realignment of the Arab states with the Soviet Bloc.<ref>{{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ|access-date=13 July 2013|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|pages=61|isbn=978-0-300-12696-9|quote="The Arabs had failed to understand the tremendous impact of the Holocaust on the international community—and, in any event, appear to have used the selfsame methods, but with poor results. Wasif Kamal, an AHC official, for example, offered one delegate—perhaps the Russian—a "huge, huge sum of money to vote for the Arabs" (the Russian declined, saying, "You want me to hang myself?”). But the Arabs' main tactic, amounting to blackmail, was the promise or threat of war should the assembly endorse partition. As early as mid-August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji—soon to be named the head of the Arab League’s volunteer army in Palestine, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA)—threatened that, should the vote go the wrong way, "we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish". It would be a "holy war", the Arabs suggested, which might even evolve into "World War III". Cables to this effect poured in from Damascus, Beirut, Amman, and Baghdad during the Ad Hoc Committee deliberations, becoming "more lurid", according to Zionist officials, as the General Assembly vote drew near. The Arab states generally made no bones about their intention to support the Palestinians with "men, money and arms", and sometimes hinted at an eventual invasion by their armies. They also threatened the Western Powers, their traditional allies, with an oil embargo and/or abandonment and realignment with the Soviet Bloc"}}</ref> | |||
On May 14, one day before the ] expired, the new ]ish state named the ] announced its formal establishment and the formation of the ]. 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. | |||
===Final vote=== | |||
Eleven minutes after the Declaration of Independence was signed, US President ] de facto recognized the State of Israel, followed by ] (which had voted against the UN partition plan), ], ], ], ] and ]. The ] was the first nation to recognize Israel de jure on 17 May 1948, followed by ], ], ], ] and ].{{cn}} The United States extended official recognition on 31 January 1949.<ref> Truman Library</ref><ref></ref> The Arab League had announced the establishment of a civil administration throughout Palestine on the same day.<ref></ref><ref>see The Middle East Journal, Middle East Institute (Washington, D.C.), 1949, - Page 78, October 1): Robert A. Lovett, Acting Secretary of State, announced the US would not recognize the new Arab Government in Palestine, and </ref> 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.<ref>http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/diplomacy/Shlaim,%20The%20Rise%20and%20Fall%20of%20the%20All%20Palestine%20Govt.pdf The Rise and Fall of the All-Palestine Government in Gaza, by Avi Shlaim.</ref> | |||
] | |||
On 29 November 1947, the ] voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions and 1 absent, in favour of the modified Partition Plan. The final vote, consolidated here by modern ] rather than contemporary groupings, was as follows:<ref>{{cite book |chapter-url=https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/d442111e70e417e3802564740045a309?OpenDocument#In%20favour%3A%20Australia%2C%20Belgium%2C%20B |chapter=1947–1977 |title=The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917–1988 |publisher=United Nations |year=1990}}</ref> | |||
] | |||
==== In favour (33 countries, 72% of total votes) ==== | |||
The declaration was followed by an invasion of the new state by troops from ], ], ] and ], starting the ], known in Israel as the War of Independence ({{lang-he|מלחמת 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 ] 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 ], which acted as the legislative body for the new state until the ] in January 1949. | |||
''] (13 countries):'' | |||
{{columns-list|colwidth=22em| <!-- columns-list start--> | |||
*{{flag|Bolivia}} | |||
===Covert Plans to Circumvent the UN Partition Plan=== | |||
*{{flagcountry|Second Brazilian Republic}} | |||
{{POV-section|date=January 2009}} | |||
*{{flag|Costa Rica}} | |||
*{{flag|Dominican Republic}} | |||
*{{flag|Ecuador}} | |||
*{{flag|Guatemala}} | |||
*{{flagcountry|Republic of Haiti (1859–1957)}} | |||
*{{flag|Nicaragua}} | |||
*{{flag|Panama}} | |||
*{{flag|Paraguay|1842}} | |||
*{{flag|Peru|1825}} | |||
*{{flag|Uruguay}} | |||
*{{flagcountry|Republic of Venezuela}} | |||
}}<!-- Columnlist end--> | |||
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<ref>http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art28</ref> and article 80 of the UN Charter.<ref>http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art80</ref> Despite their obligation to give the United Nations and its Palestine Commission every assistance in any undertaking in accordance with the Charter,<ref></ref> several of the parties attempted to dispose of the territory without obtaining the consent of the United Nations. | |||
''] (8 countries):'' | |||
{{columns-list|colwidth=22em| <!-- columns-list start--> | |||
*{{flag|Belgium}} | |||
Meeting in ] in November and December 1947, the ] adopted a series of resolutions aimed at a military solution to the conflict.<ref>The War for Palestine, Eugene L. Rogan, Avi Shlaim, Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN 0-521-87598-6, page 239</ref> They formed an ]. The Arab League also planned punitive measures against Jews living in Arab countries, many of which were subsequently implemented by individual states.<ref></ref><ref></ref> | |||
*{{flag|Denmark}} | |||
*{{flag|French Fourth Republic|name=France}} | |||
*{{flag|Iceland}} | |||
*{{flag|Luxembourg}} | |||
*{{flag|Netherlands}} | |||
*{{flag|Norway}} | |||
*{{flag|Sweden}} | |||
}}<!-- Columnlist end--> | |||
When the United Kingdom announced plans for ]'s independence, the ] 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.<ref>The Palestine Post, Mandate is Indivisible, April 9, 1946, Page:3</ref> 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.<ref>'Article 80 speaks also about trusteeship agreements: "...until such agreements & etc...." This is the special Article of the Charter which applies to Palestine. It was introduced only because of Palestine.' The Jewish Plan for Palestine: Memoranda and Statements Presented to the United Nations General Assembly Special Committee on Palestine, by Jewish Agency for Israel, Page 362</ref><ref>'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.' statement by David Ben Gurion made during UNSCOP hearing in Jerusalem, on 7 July 1947, see </ref> | |||
''] (5 countries):'' | |||
{{columns-list|colwidth=22em| <!-- columns-list start--> | |||
Both the ] and the ] refused to implement the plan by force, arguing it was unacceptable to both sides. The ] refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN Palestine Commission during the transitional period. It terminated the ] 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.'<ref> and </ref> | |||
*{{flag|Byelorussian SSR|1937}} | |||
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 ] 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.<ref></ref><ref>Minutes from meeting of Shertok and Epstein with Sec. Marshall, Lovett, and Rusk, 8 May 1948, Political and Diplomatic Documents of the Central Zionist Archives, doc. 483, pp. 757-769.</ref> 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.<ref></ref> 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.<ref></ref> 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.<ref></ref> | |||
*{{flag|Third Czechoslovak Republic|name=Czechoslovakia}} | |||
*{{flag|Polish People's Republic|name=Poland}} | |||
*{{flag|Ukrainian SSR|1927}} | |||
*{{flag|Soviet Union|1936}} | |||
}}<!-- Columnlist end--> | |||
Meir Zamir, a Historian from Ben Gurion University, has published several articles based on unclassified documents from the French archives. | |||
''] (2 countries):'' | |||
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.<ref></ref> | |||
*{{flag|Liberia}} | |||
During the UNSCOP hearings, ] had recorded his suspicions that King Abdullah planned to enlarge his domain through the partition of Palestine.<ref>Ralph Bunche, Brian Urquhart, Norton & Company, 1998, ISBN 0-393-31859-1, page 145</ref> 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.<ref></ref> The Soviet Union had vetoed Transjordan's application for membership in the United Nations on the basis that it wasn't an independent state.<ref>The Middle East Today, Don Peretz, Greenwood, 1994, ISBN 0-275-94576-6, pages 346-347</ref> 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.<ref>see Sitting 8 of the Provisional Council of State, 5 July, 1948, Major Knesset Debates, Volume 1, Netanel Lorch, University Press of America, 1993, page 210</ref> UK Foreign Secretary ] 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.<ref></ref> 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.<ref>Pan-Arabism Before Nasser, Michael Doran, Oxford University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-19-516008-8, pages 98=100</ref> | |||
*{{flag|Union of South Africa|name=South Africa|1928}} | |||
''] (3 countries)'' | |||
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 ], and Egyptian Prime Minister Ismail Sidqi.<ref>see for example Pan-Arabism Before Nasser, Michael Doran, Oxford University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-19-516008-8, pages 98=114</ref> 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.<ref>see </ref> 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.<ref>The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, Avi Shlaim, W. W. Norton & Company, 2000 Edition, page 30; and The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, Simha Flapan, Pantheon Books, 1987 edition, pages 135-141</ref> 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.<ref></ref><ref name="autogenerated1"></ref><ref name="autogenerated1" /><ref></ref> | |||
*{{flag|Australia}} | |||
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.<ref></ref> 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.<ref></ref> In May 1948, the British withdrawal (without handing over territory or authority to any successor) and Israel's simultaneous unilateral ], which in part cites the UN resolution as recognizing the right of the Jewish people to establish a state, led to the ]. The General Assembly decided to appoint a Mediator, and relieved the established Palestine Commission from any further exercise of responsibility under Resolution 181 (II).<ref></ref> Although the original mediator was assassinated, continued UN mediation efforts resulted in the ], which temporarily delineated borders and greatly quieted the fighting between the parties. | |||
*{{flag|New Zealand}} | |||
*{{flag|Philippines|1936}} | |||
''] (2 countries)'' | |||
==Text of the Resolution== | |||
* | |||
*{{flag|Canada|1921}} | |||
* | |||
*{{flag|United States|1912}} | |||
* | |||
* | |||
==== Against (13 countries, 28% of total votes) ==== | |||
''Asia-Pacific (9 countries, primarily ] sub-area):'' | |||
{{columns-list|colwidth=22em| <!-- columns-list start--> | |||
*{{flag|Kingdom of Afghanistan|name=Afghanistan}} | |||
*{{flag|Dominion of India|name=India}} | |||
*{{flag|Pahlavi dynasty|name=Iran|1925}} | |||
*{{flag|Kingdom of Iraq|name=Iraq|1924}} | |||
*{{flag|Lebanon}} | |||
*{{flag|Dominion of Pakistan|name=Pakistan}} | |||
*{{flag|Saudi Arabia|1938}} | |||
*{{flag|Syrian Republic|name=Syria|1932}} | |||
*{{flag|Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen|name=Yemen|1927}} | |||
}}<!-- Columnlist end--> | |||
''Western European and Others (2 countries):'' | |||
*{{flag|Kingdom of Greece|name=Greece}} | |||
*{{flag|Turkey}} | |||
''African (1 country):'' | |||
*{{flag|Kingdom of Egypt|name=Egypt|1922}} | |||
''Latin American and Caribbean (1 country):'' | |||
*{{flag|Republic of Cuba (1902–1959)|name=Cuba}} | |||
==== Abstentions (10 countries) ==== | |||
''Latin American and Caribbean (6 countries):'' | |||
{{columns-list|colwidth=22em| <!-- columns-list start--> | |||
*{{Flag|Argentina}} | |||
*{{Flag|Chile}} | |||
*{{Flag|Colombia}} | |||
*{{Flag|El Salvador}} | |||
*{{Flag|Honduras}} | |||
*{{Flag|Mexico|1934}} | |||
}}<!-- Columnlist end--> | |||
''Asia-Pacific (1 country):'' | |||
*{{Flagcountry|Republic of China (1912–49)}} | |||
''African (1 country):'' | |||
*{{Flagcountry|Ethiopian Empire}} | |||
''Western European and Others (1 country):'' | |||
*{{Flag|United Kingdom}} | |||
''Eastern European (1 country):'' | |||
*{{Flag|Yugoslavia}} | |||
==== Absent (1 country) ==== | |||
''Asia-Pacific (1 country):'' | |||
*{{flag|Thailand}} | |||
===Votes by modern region=== | |||
If analysed by the modern composition of what later came to be known as the ] showed relatively aligned voting styles in the final vote. This, however, does not reflect the regional grouping at the time, as a major reshuffle of regional grouping occurred in 1966. All Western nations voted for the resolution, with the exception of the United Kingdom (the Mandate holder), Greece and Turkey. The ] also voted for partition, with the exception of Yugoslavia, which was to be ]. The majority of Latin American nations following Brazilian leadership{{Citation needed|reason=need source|date=November 2013}}, voted for partition, with a sizeable minority abstaining. Asian countries (primarily ] countries) voted against partition, with the exception of the Philippines.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LCNpmgDOYTwC&q=1947+palestine+united+nations+soviet+bloc&pg=PA248|title=A History of the Middle East|isbn=978-0-7864-5134-0|last1=Friedman|first1=Saul S.|date=10 January 2014|publisher=McFarland }}</ref> | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center; width:100%;" | |||
|- | |||
! Regional Group !! Members in UNGA181 vote !! UNGA181 For !! UNGA181 Against !! UNGA181 Abstained | |||
|- | |||
| African || '''4''' || 2 || 1 || 1 | |||
|- | |||
| Asia-Pacific || '''11''' || 1 || 9 || 1 | |||
|- | |||
| Eastern European || '''6''' || 5 || 0 || 1 | |||
|- | |||
| LatAm and Caribb. || '''20''' || 13 || 1 || 6 | |||
|- | |||
| Western Eur. & Others || '''15''' || 12 || 2 || 1 | |||
|- | |||
| '''Total UN members''' || '''56''' || '''33''' || '''13''' || '''10''' | |||
|} | |||
==Reactions== | |||
===Jews=== | |||
Jews gathered in ] and ] to celebrate the U.N. resolution during the whole night after the vote. Great bonfires blazed at Jewish collective farms in the north. Many big cafes in ] served free champagne.<ref name="Morris2008p75"/><ref name=trove1947-11-30/> Mainstream Zionist leaders emphasized the "heavy responsibility" of building a modern Jewish State, and committed to working towards a peaceful coexistence with the region's other inhabitants:<ref name="PalestineJewryJoyous">{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1947/11/30/archives/palestine-jewry-joyous-at-news-bengurion-voices-attitude-of.html?sq=november+30+1947+jewish+agency&scp=7&st=p | title=Palestine Jewry Joyous at News; Ben-Gurion Voices Attitude of Grateful Responsibility – Jerusalem Arabs Silent | work=The New York Times| date=30 November 1947 | access-date=9 January 2012 | pages=58}}</ref><ref name="VoteOnPalestineCheered">{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1947/11/30/archives/vote-on-palestine-cheered-by-crowd-thousands-hear-dr-weizmann.html?sq=november+30+1947+jewish+agency&scp=4&st=p | title=Vote On Palestine Cheered by Crowd | work=The New York Times| date=30 November 1947 | access-date=9 January 2012}}</ref> Jewish groups in the United States hailed the action by the United Nations. Most welcomed the Palestine Plan but some felt it did not settle the problem.<ref name="JewishUnitsHail">{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1947/11/30/archives/jewish-units-here-hail-action-by-un-most-welcome-palestine-plan-but.html?sq=november+30+1947+jewish+agency&scp=8&st=p | title=Jewish Units Here Hail Action by U.N. | work=The New York Times| date=30 November 1947 | access-date=9 January 2012}}</ref> | |||
Some ] rejected the partition plan as a renunciation of legitimately Jewish national territory.<ref name="JewishUnitsHail" /> The ], led by ], and the ] (also known as the Stern Group or Gang), the two Revisionist-affiliated underground organisations which had been fighting against both the British and Arabs, stated their opposition. 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."<ref>Begin, Menachem (1978) ''The Revolt''. p. 412.</ref> He also stated that "the bisection of our homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized."<ref>Begin, Menachem (1977) ''In The Underground: Writings and Documents''. Vol 4, p. 70.</ref> Begin was sure that the creation of a Jewish state would make territorial expansion possible, "after the shedding of much blood."<ref>Aviezer Golan and Shlomo Nakdimon (1978) ''Begin'' p. 172, cited in Simha Flapan, ''The Birth of Israel'', Pantheon Books, New York, 1988. p. 32</ref> | |||
Some ] scholars endorse ]'s view that it is a myth that Zionists accepted the partition as a compromise by which the Jewish community abandoned ambitions for the whole of Palestine and recognized the rights of the Arab Palestinians to their own state. Rather, Flapan argued, acceptance was only a tactical move that aimed to thwart the creation of an Arab Palestinian state and, concomitantly, expand the territory that had been assigned by the UN to the Jewish state.<ref name =myths>Simha Flapan, ''The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities'', Pantheon, 1988, {{ISBN|978-0-679-72098-0}}, Ch. 1 Myth One : Zionists Accepted the UN Partition and Planned for Peace, pages 13-53 "Every school child knows that there is no such thing in history as a final arrangement— not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements. History, like nature, is full of alterations and change. David Ben-Gurion, War Diaries, Dec. 3, 1947"</ref><ref>Sean F. McMahon, , Routledge 2010 p. 40.</ref><ref>P. J. I. M. De Waart, , BRILL 1994 p. 138</ref><ref>Mehran Kamrava, , 2nd edition University of California Press 2011 p. 83</ref><ref>Shourideh C. Molavi, , BRILL 2014 p. 126</ref> ] has said that Zionists "officially accepted the partition plan, but invested all their efforts towards improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries while reducing the number of Arabs in them."<ref name = "Baruch">{{cite web|url=http://hnn.us/article/3166|title=Benny Morris's Shocking Interview|publisher=History News Network|quote = "officially accepted the partition plan, but invested all their efforts towards improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries while reducing the number of Arabs in them." }}</ref> Many Zionist leaders viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.<ref name="TEOP">{{Cite book|title=Palestine and Israel: The Uprising and Beyond|author = David McDowall|date= 1990|publisher= I.B. Tauris| isbn =9780755612581|page=193|quote =Although the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan, it did not accept the proposed borders as final and Israel's declaration of independence avoided the mention of any boundaries. A state in part of Palestine was seen as a stage towards a larger state when opportunity allowed. Although the borders were 'bad from a military and political point of view,' Ben Gurion urged fellow Jews to accept the UN Partition Plan, pointing out that arrangements are never final, 'not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements'. The idea of partition being a temporary expedient dated back to the Peel Partition proposal of 1937. When the Zionist Congress had rejected partition on the grounds that the Jews had an inalienable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, Ben Gurion had argued in favour of acceptance, 'I see in the realisation of this plan practically the decisive stage in the beginning of full redemption and the most wonderful lever for the gradual conquest of all of Palestine.}}</ref><ref name = myths/><ref name= Baruch/><ref name="Morris2008p75"/><ref name="UN"></ref><ref>{{Cite book |authorlink=Ilan Pappe |last=Pappe |first=Ilan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rrttEAAAQBAJ |title=A History of Modern Palestine |date=2022 |edition=3rd |orig-date=2004|page=116 |quote="In fact, the Yishuv’s leaders felt confident enough to contemplate a takeover of fertile areas within the designated Arab state. This could be achieved in the event of an overall war without losing the international legitimacy of their new state."|publisher=] |isbn=978-1-108-24416-9 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Slater |first=Jerome |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y1AAEAAAQBAJ |title=Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020 |pages=64–65, 75|quote="... the evidence is overwhelming that the Zionist leaders had no intention of accepting partition as a necessary and just compromise with the Palestinians. Rather, their reluctant acceptance of the UN plan was only tactical; their true goals were to gain time, establish the Jewish state, build up its armed forces, and then expand to incorporate into Israel as much of ancient or biblical Palestine as they could."| date=2020 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-19-045908-6 }}</ref> | |||
Addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut (the ] Workers Party) days after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Ben-Gurion expressed his apprehension, stating:<blockquote>the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. Such a composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kanj |first=Jamal Krayem |title=Children of Catastrophe: Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America |publisher=Garnet |year=2010 |isbn=978-1-85964-262-7 |edition= |location=Reading}}</ref></blockquote>Despite these reservations, Ben-Gurion also recognized the plan's many accomplishments, stating "I know of no greater achievement by the Jewish people ... in its long history since it became a people."<ref>Morris 2008, p. 65</ref> | |||
===Arabs=== | |||
Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition.<ref name="Morris2008p66"/> The Arab states' delegations declared immediately after the vote for partition that they would not be bound by the decision, and walked out accompanied by the Indian and Pakistani delegates.<ref>, ''Times of India'', 1 December 1947</ref> | |||
They argued that it violated the principles of ] in the ] which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.<ref name="UN"/><ref name="ghf_OBksgykC"/> The Arab delegations to the UN issued a joint statement the day after that vote that stated: "the vote in regard to the Partition of Palestine has been given under great pressure and duress, and that this makes it doubly invalid."<ref>{{Cite news |date=1947-11-30 |title=Arab Leaders Call Palestine Vote 'Invalid'; Delegates Reaffirm Challenge to U.N. Action |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1947/11/30/87561776.html |access-date=2024-08-01 |work=] |pages=54 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> | |||
On 16 February 1948, the UN Palestine Commission reported to the Security Council that: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101003080945/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/FDF734EB76C39D6385256C4C004CDBA7 |date=3 October 2010 }} First Special Report to the Security Council</ref> | |||
====Arab states==== | |||
A few weeks after UNSCOP released its report, ], the General Secretary of the ], ] "Personally I hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similarly to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the Crusades."<ref name=AelY/> (This statement from October 1947 has often been incorrectly reported as having been made much later on 15 May 1948.)<ref name=Segev/> Azzam told ] "We will sweep them into the sea." Syrian president ] told his people: "We shall eradicate Zionism."<ref name="morris2008p187"/> | |||
King ] told the American ambassador to Egypt that in the long run the Arabs would soundly defeat the Jews and drive them out of Palestine.<ref>Morris 2008, p. 410</ref> | |||
While Azzam Pasha repeated his threats of forceful prevention of partition, the first important Arab voice to support partition was the influential Egyptian daily ''{{ill|Al Mokattam|d|Q12205272}}'': "We stand for partition because we believe that it is the best final solution for the problem of Palestine... rejection of partition... will lead to further complications and will give the Zionists another space of time to complete their plans of defense and attack... a delay of one more year which would not benefit the Arabs but would benefit the Jews, especially after the British evacuation."<ref name=jpost19471130mokattam/> | |||
On 20 May 1948, Azzam told reporters "We are fighting for an Arab Palestine. Whatever the outcome the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they like. In areas where they predominate they will have complete autonomy." He reportedly said that the armies of the Arab League states had entered Palestine “not only to protect Arab territory, but to fight the Jewish state”.<ref>{{Cite news |date=1948-05-21 |title=Azzam Wants UN To Sanction Arab War |url=https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/pls/1948/05/21/01/ |access-date=2024-08-01 |work=] |pages=3}}</ref> | |||
The Arab League said that some of the Jews would have to be expelled from a Palestinian Arab state.<ref name="Morris2008p45"/> | |||
Abdullah appointed ] Pasha as Military Governor of the Arab areas occupied by troops of the Transjordan Army. He was a former ] who supported partition of Palestine as proposed by the ] and the United Nations.<ref>{{cite book |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=TOQtC7uyF0kC&pg=PA43 |title= The Progression of International Law: Four Decades of the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights – An Anniversary Volume |page=431 |isbn=978-90-04-21911-3 |last1= Dinstein |first1= Yoram |last2= Domb| first2= Fania|date= 11 November 2011|publisher= Martinus Nijhoff Publishers }}</ref> | |||
====Arabs in Palestine==== | |||
] said in March 1948 to an interviewer from the ] daily ''Al Sarih'' that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition but "would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated."<ref name="morris2008p187"/> ] warned the Jews that "The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East".<ref name="Morris2008p50" /> | |||
Zionists attributed Arab rejection of the plan to mere intransigence. Palestinian Arabs opposed the very idea of partition but reiterated that this partition plan was unfair: the majority of the land (56%) would go to a Jewish state, when Jews at that stage legally owned only 6–7% of it and remained a minority of the population (33% in 1946).<ref name="familyofnations"/><ref name=Quigley2012p7/><ref name=Khoury1975p21/><ref>{{Cite book |last=McMahon |first=Sean F. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q8eLAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT90 |title=The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations: Persistent Analytics and Practices |date=2010-04-15 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-135-20203-3 |pages=90 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Choueiri |first=Youssef M. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1ioTXW3316AC&pg=PA281 |title=A Companion to the History of the Middle East |date=2008-04-15 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-1-4051-5204-4 |pages=281 |language=en}}</ref><ref name=Lughod2013p291/><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Quandt |first1=William Baver |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gwika-Y-ghwC&pg=PA46 |title=The Politics of Palestinian Nationalism |last2=Quandt |first2=William B. |last3=Jabber |first3=Fuad |last4=Jabber |first4=Paul |last5=Lesch |first5=Ann Mosely |date=1973-01-01 |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-02372-7 |pages=46–47 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Quigley |first=John B. |author-link=John B. Quigley |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VaUvqHNd6m0C&pg=noPA36 |title=The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective |date=2005 |publisher=Duke University Press |isbn=978-0-8223-3539-9 |pages=36 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="JohnWolffe">{{Cite book |title=Religion in History: Conflict, Conversion and Coexistence |last=Wolffe |first=John |year=2005 |publisher=Manchester University Press |isbn=978-0-7190-7107-2 |page=265 }}</ref> There were also disproportionate allocations under the plan and the area under Jewish control contained 45% of the Palestinian population. The proposed Arab state was only given 45% of the land, much of which was unfit for agriculture. Jaffa, though geographically separated, was to be part of the Arab state.<ref name="JohnWolffe"/> However, most of the proposed Jewish state was the Negev desert.<ref name="Morris2008p47"/><ref name="UNSCOP Report"/> The plan allocated to the Jewish State most of the Negev desert that was sparsely populated and unsuitable for agriculture but also a "vital land bridge protecting British interests from the Suez Canal to Iraq"<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Shapira |first1=Anita |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/154800576 |title=Yigal Allon, Native Son: A Biography |last2=Abel |first2=Evelyn |date=2008 |publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press |isbn=978-0-8122-4028-3 |series=Jewish culture and contexts |location=Philadelphia |pages=239 |oclc=154800576}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Galnoor |first=Itzhak |title=The Partition of Palestine: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement |publisher=State University of New York Press |year=1995 |isbn=978-0-7914-2194-9 |series=SUNY series in Israeli studies |location=Albany, NY |pages=195}}</ref> | |||
Few Palestinian Arabs joined the Arab Liberation Army because they suspected that the other Arab States did not plan on an independent Palestinian state. According to Ian Bickerton, for that reason many of them favored partition and indicated a willingness to live alongside a Jewish state.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Bickerton |first1=Ian J. |title=A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict |last2=Klausner |first2=Carla L. |date=2002 |publisher=Prentice Hall |isbn=978-0-13-090303-7 |edition=4th |location=Upper Saddle River, NJ |pages=88}}</ref> He also mentions that the Nashashibi family backed King Abdullah and union with Transjordan.<ref>Bickerton & Klausner (2001), page 103</ref> | |||
The ] demanded that in a Palestinian Arab state, the majority of the Jews should not be citizens (those who had not lived in Palestine before the British Mandate).<ref name="Morris2008p50" /> | |||
According to ], the mufti would agree to partition if he were promised that he would rule the future Arab state.<ref name="Cohen2008p236"/> | |||
The Arab Higher Committee responded to the partition resolution and declared a three-day general strike in Palestine to begin the following day.<ref>Morris, 2008, p. 76, 77</ref> | |||
===British government=== | |||
When ] received the partition proposal, he promptly ordered for it not to be imposed on the Arabs.<ref>Morris 2008, p. 73</ref><ref>Louis 2006, p. 419</ref> The plan was vigorously debated in the ]. | |||
In a British cabinet meeting at 4 December 1947, it was decided that the Mandate would end at midnight 14 May 1948, the complete withdrawal by 1 August 1948, and Britain would not enforce the UN partition plan.<ref>{{cite book |author=Morris |first=Benny |author-link=Benny Morris |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ |title=1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War |publisher=Yale University Press |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-300-12696-9 |page=74}}</ref> On 11 December 1947, the British government publicly announced these plans.<ref name="EndMandateAnnounced">{{cite book | title=Mandated landscape: British imperial rule in Palestine, 1929–1948 | publisher=Routledge | author=Roza El-Eini | year=2006 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ekQOAAAAQAAJ&q=Mandate+Britain+11+December+1947&pg=PA367 | page=367 | isbn=978-0-7146-5426-3 | series=History | quote=They accordingly announced on 11 December 1947, that the Mandate would end on 15 May 1948, from which date the sole task ... would be to ... withdrawal by 1 August 1948.}}</ref> During the period in which the British withdrawal was completed, Britain refused to share the administration of Palestine with a proposed UN transition regime, to allow the UN Palestine Commission to establish a presence in Palestine earlier than a fortnight before the end of the Mandate, to allow the creation of official Jewish and Arab militias or to assist in smoothly handing over territory or authority to any successor.<ref name="Koestler2007">{{cite book|author=Arthur Koestler|title=Promise and Fulfilment – Palestine 1917–1949|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XEqTMSzQYUIC&pg=PA163|access-date=13 October 2011|date=March 2007|publisher=READ BOOKS|isbn=978-1-4067-4723-2|pages=163–168}}</ref><ref name="morris2008p73"/> | |||
===United States government=== | |||
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.<ref>See memo from Acting Secretary Lovett to Certain Diplomatic Offices, Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume VI, pages 1447–48</ref> 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."<ref>See Folke Bernadotte, "To Jerusalem", Hodder and Stoughton, 1951, pages 112–13</ref> | |||
==Subsequent events== | |||
] | |||
The Partition Plan with Economic Union was not realized in the days following 29 November 1947 resolution as envisaged by the General Assembly.<ref name="Galnoor1995">{{cite book|author=Itzhak Galnoor|title=The Partition of Palestine: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nvUNlwD9cd0C&pg=PA289|access-date=3 July 2012|year=1995|publisher=SUNY Press|isbn=978-0-7914-2193-2|pages=289–}}</ref> It was followed by outbreaks of violence in Mandatory Palestine between Palestinian Jews and Arabs known as the ].<ref name="Britannica2002">Article "History of Palestine", ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' (2002 edition), article section written by ] and Ian J. Bickerton.</ref> After ], the ], left Jerusalem, on the morning of 14 May the British army left the city as well. The British left a power vacuum in Jerusalem and made no measures to establish the international regime in Jerusalem.<ref>], ''Independence Versus Nakba''; Kinneret–Zmora-Bitan–Dvir Publishing, 2004, {{ISBN|978-965-517-190-7}}, p.104</ref> At midnight on 14 May 1948, the British Mandate expired,<ref>{{cite web |title=Web – Termination of British mandate in Plaestine 14/15 May |url=http://avg.nation.com/avgtbavg/search/web?qsi=1&q=Termination%20of%20British%20mandate%20in%20Plaestine%2014%2F15%20May&cid={7695AE77-3C6C-4582-AAD7-226A99E90239}&mid=96588ca0df2d47d3945ed1e8f68dd8a4-9d859a339eae02d20e3b00f203079520725dc238&ds=AVG&lang=en&v=17.0.1.9&sg=0&pid=nation&pr=fr&d=2013-09-28%2009%3A23%3A40&sap=dsp&coid=avgtbavg&fcoid=4&fcop=results-bottom&fpid=2 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171012111912/http://avg.nation.com/avgtbavg/search/web?qsi=1&q=Termination%20of%20British%20mandate%20in%20Plaestine%2014%2F15%20May&cid={7695AE77-3C6C-4582-AAD7-226A99E90239}&mid=96588ca0df2d47d3945ed1e8f68dd8a4-9d859a339eae02d20e3b00f203079520725dc238&ds=AVG&lang=en&v=17.0.1.9&sg=0&pid=nation&pr=fr&d=2013-09-28%2009%3A23%3A40&sap=dsp&coid=avgtbavg&fcoid=4&fcop=results-bottom&fpid=2 |archive-date=October 12, 2017 |work=nation.com}}</ref> and Britain disengaged its forces. Earlier in the evening, the ] had gathered at the ] (today known as Independence Hall), and approved a ], declaring "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel".<ref name="UN"/><ref></ref> The ] began with the invasion of, or intervention in, Palestine by the Arab States on 15 May 1948.<ref>]</ref> | |||
===Resolution 181 as a legal basis for Palestinian statehood=== | |||
In 1988, the ] published the ] relying on Resolution 181, arguing that the resolution continues to provide international legitimacy for the right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty and national independence.<ref>See {{cite web |url=http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000827/082711eo.pdf |title=Request for the admission of the State of Palestine to Unesco as a Member State |publisher=UNESCO |date=12 May 1989}}</ref> A number of scholars have written in support of this view.<ref>See The Palestine Declaration to the International Criminal Court: The Statehood Issue {{cite web|url=http://www.lawrecord.com/files/35-rutgers-l-rec-1.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=19 July 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716143235/http://www.lawrecord.com/files/35-rutgers-l-rec-1.pdf |archive-date=16 July 2011 }} and Silverburg, Sanford R. (2002), "Palestine and International Law: Essays on Politics and Economics", Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Co, {{ISBN|978-0-7864-1191-7}}, pages 37–54</ref><ref name="Israel 1949">See Chapter 5 "Israel (1948–1949) and Palestine (1998–1999): Two Studies in the Creation of States", in Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, and Stefan Talmon, eds., The Reality of International Law: Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999)</ref><ref name="Tim Hillier 1998, page 217">Sourcebook on public international law, by Tim Hillier, Routledge, 1998, {{ISBN|978-1-85941-050-9}}, page 217; and Prof. Vera Gowlland-Debbas, "Collective Responses to the Unilateral Declarations of Independence of Southern Rhodesia and Palestine, An Application of the Legitimizing Function of the United Nations", The British Yearbook of International Law, 1990, pp. 135–153</ref> | |||
A General Assembly request for an advisory opinion, Resolution ES-10/14 (2004), specifically cited resolution 181(II) as a "relevant resolution", and asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) what are the legal consequences of the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Judge ] explained the majority opinion: "The Court has also held that the right of self-determination as an established and recognized right under international law applies to the territory and to the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the exercise of such right entitles the Palestinian people to a State of their own as originally envisaged in resolution 181 (II) and subsequently confirmed."<ref name="icj-cij.org">{{Cite web|url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1679.pdf|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604233639/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1679.pdf|url-status=dead|title=See paragraph 5, Separate opinion of Judge Koroma|archivedate=4 June 2011}}</ref> In response, Prof. Paul De Waart said that the Court put the legality of the 1922 League of Nations Palestine Mandate and the 1947 UN Plan of Partition beyond doubt once and for all.<ref>See De Waart, Paul J.I.M., "International Court of Justice Firmly Walled in the Law of Power in the Israeli–Palestinian Peace Process", ''Leiden Journal of International Law'', 18 (2005), pp. 467–487</ref> | |||
===Retrospect=== | |||
In 2011, ] stated that the 1947 Arab rejection of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a mistake he hoped to rectify.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/abbas-should-change-his-locks-before-next-wave-of-palestinian-prisoners-freed-1.399760|title=Abbas should change his locks before next wave of Palestinian prisoners freed|date=6 December 2011|work=Haaretz}}</ref> | |||
===Commemoration=== | |||
]]] | |||
A street in the ] neighborhood of ] is named ''Kaf-tet benovember'' (29 November Street). On 29 November 2022, a monument designed and executed by sculptor ] was unveiled on a hilltop in ] to mark the 75th anniversary of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine.<ref></ref> The date also marks the annual ].<ref>, ]</ref> | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | *] | ||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | *] | ||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | *] | ||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist| |
{{reflist||refs= | ||
<ref name="Cohen2008p236">{{cite book|author=Hillel Cohen|title=Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917–1948|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LMIk4adlKr0C&pg=PA228|date=3 January 2008|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=978-0-520-93398-9|page=236|quote=... Musa al-alami surmised that the mufti would agree to partition if he were promised that he would rule the Arab state}}</ref> | |||
<ref name=trove1947-11-30>{{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article134238148 |title=U.N.O. PASSES PALESTINE PARTITION PLAN. |newspaper=] |location=NSW |date=1 December 1947 |access-date=24 October 2014 |page=1 |publisher=National Library of Australia |quote="Semi-hysterical Jewish crowds in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were still celebrating the U.N.O. partition vote at dawn to-day. Great bonfires at Jewish collective farms in the north were still blazing. Many big cafes in Tel Aviv served free champagne. A brewery threw open its doors to the crowd. Jews jeered some British troops who were patrolling Tel Aviv streets but others handed them wine. In Jerusalem crowds mobbed armoured cars and drove through the streets on them. The Chief Rabbi in Jerusalem (Dr Isaac Herzog) said: "After the darkness of 2000 years, the dawn of redemption has broken. The decision marks at epoch not only in Jewish history, but in world history." The Jewish terrorist organisation, Irgun Zvai Leumi, announced from its headquarters that it would "cease to exist in the new Jewish state."}}</ref> | |||
<ref name=jpost19471130mokattam>{{cite web|title=The Egyptian daily "Al Mokattam" supported the partition|url=http://jpress.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI_heb/SharedView.Article.aspx?parm=UTsglqETxE4HJ9A%2Ffb3LrubgzrMb8lKrasAoY1KpB70y1pHNnpBrSAc6j%2FoaC55YYw%3D%3D&mode=image&href=PLS%2F1947%2F11%2F30&page=1&rtl=true|work=The Jerusalem Post|date=30 November 1947|quote="the influential daily "Al Mokattam"... supporting partition... this is the first time that any important Arab voice in the middle east has pronounced publicly for partition and Arab circles in Cairo are reported to be amazed at the article... We stand for partition because we believe that it is the best final solution for the problem of Palestine... rejection of partition... will lead to further complications and will give the Zionists another space of time to complete their plans of defense and attack... a delay of one more year which would not benefit the Arabs but would benefit the Jews, especially after the British evacuation."}}</ref> | |||
<ref name="morris2004p48" >Benny Morris, , p. 48; p. 11 "while the Zionist movement, after much agonising, accepted the principle of partition and the proposals as a basis for negotiation"; p. 49 "In the end, after bitter debate, the Congress equivocally approved –by a vote of 299 to 160 – the Peel recommendations as a basis for further negotiation."</ref> | |||
<!--ref name="unispal.un.org">,"The Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan so that any comment of theirs did not specifically concern the status of the Arab section of Palestine under partition but rather rejected the scheme in its entirety."</ref--> | |||
<ref name="Morris2008p45">{{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ|access-date=24 July 2013|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|pages=45|isbn=978-0-300-12696-9|quote="On 23 July, at Sofar, the Arab representatives completed their testimony before UNSCOP. Faranjieh, speaking for the Arab League, said that Jews "illegally" in Palestine would be expelled and that the future of many of those "legally" in the country but without Palestine citizenship would need to be resolved "by the future Arab government ”}}</ref> | |||
<ref name="Morris2008p47">{{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ|access-date=13 July 2013|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|page=47|isbn=978-0-300-12696-9|quote=The Jews were to get 62 percent of Palestine (most of it desert), consisting of the Negev}}</ref> | |||
<ref name="Morris2008p56">{{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ|access-date=13 July 2013|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|page=56|isbn=978-0-300-12696-9|quote=Vijayalakshmi Pandit, Nehru’s sister, who headed the delegation, occasionally threw out hints that something might change. But Shertok was brought down to earth by historian Kavalam Panikkar, another member of the Indian delegation: "It is idle for you to try to convince us that the Jews have a case. . . . We know it. . . . But the point is simply this: For us to vote for the Jews means to vote against the Moslems. This is a conflict in which Islam is involved. . . . We have 13 million Moslems in our midst. . . . Therefore, we cannot do it.}}</ref> | |||
<ref name="morris2008p73">{{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ|access-date=13 July 2013|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|page=73|isbn=978-0-300-12696-9|quote=Bevin regarded the UNSCOP majority report of 1 September 1947 as unjust and immoral. He promptly decided that Britain would not attempt to im- pose it on the Arabs; indeed, he expected them to resist its implementation… The British cabinet...: in the meeting on 4 December 1947... It decided, in a sop to the Arabs, to refrain from aiding the enforcement of the UN resolution, meaning the partition of Palestine. And in an important secret corollary... it agreed that Britain would do all in its power to delay until early May the arrival in Palestine of the UN (Implementation) Commission. The Foreign Office immediately informed the commission "that it would be intolerable for the Commission to begin to exercise its authority while the Palestine Government was still administratively responsible for Palestine"... This... nullified any possibility of an orderly implementation of the partition resolution.}}</ref> | |||
<ref name="Morris2008p50">{{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ|access-date=24 July 2013|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|pages=50, 66|isbn=978-0-300-12696-9|quote="p. 50,"The Arab reaction was just as predictable: "The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East", promised ].; at 1947 "Haj Amin al-Husseini went one better: he denounced also the minority report, which, in his view, legitimized the Jewish foothold in Palestine, a "partition in disguise", as he put it." ; p.66, at 1946 "The AHC ... insisted that the proportion of Jews to Arabs in the unitary state should stand at one to six, meaning that only Jews who lived in Palestine before the British Mandate be eligible for citizenship"}}</ref> | |||
<ref name="Morris2008p66">{{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ|access-date=24 July 2013|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|pages=66, 67, 72|isbn=978-0-300-12696-9|quote=" p.66, at 1946 "The League demanded independence for Palestine as a "unitary" state, with an Arab majority and minority rights for the Jews." ; p.67, at 1947 "The League’s Political Committee met in Sofar, Lebanon, on 16–19 September, and urged the Palestine Arabs to fight partition, which it called "aggression", "without mercy". The League promised them, in line with Bludan, assistance "in manpower, money and equipment" should the United Nations endorse partition." ; p. 72, at December 1947 "The League vowed, in very general language, "to try to stymie the partition plan and prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine"}}</ref> | |||
<ref name="Morris2008p75">{{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ|access-date=24 July 2013|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|pages=75|isbn=978-0-300-12696-9|quote=" p. 75 The night of 29–30 November passed in the Yishuv’s settlements in noisy public rejoicing. Most had sat glued to their radio sets broadcasting live from Flushing Meadow. A collective cry of joy went up when the two-thirds mark was achieved: a state had been sanctioned by the international community. ; p. 396 The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 1947 UN partition resolution. "The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal. Most lamented the imperative of giving up the historic heartland of Judaism, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), with East Jerusalem's Old City and Temple Mount at its core; and many were troubled by the inclusion in the prospective Jewish state of a large Arab minority. But the movement, with Ben-Gurion and Weizmann at the helm, said "yes""; p.101 ... mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders.}}</ref> | |||
<ref name="Morris2008p73">{{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ|access-date=24 July 2013|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|pages=73|isbn=978-0-300-12696-9|quote="p73 All paid lip service to Arab unity and the Palestine Arab cause, and all opposed partition... p. 396 The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 1947 UN partition resolution. … The Palestinian Arabs, along with the rest of the Arab world, said a flat "no"… The Arabs refused to accept the establishment of a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. And, consistently with that "no", the Palestinian Arabs, in November–December 1947, and the Arab states in May 1948, launched hostilities to scupper the resolution’s implementation ; p. 409 The mindset characterized both the public and the ruling elites. All vilified the Yishuv and opposed the existence of a Jewish state on "their" (sacred Islamic) soil, and all sought its extirpation, albeit with varying degrees of bloody-mindedness. Shouts of "Idbah al Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) characterized equally street demonstrations in Jaffa, Cairo, Damascus, and Baghdad both before and during the war and were, in essence, echoed, usually in tamer language, by most Arab leaders. ”}}</ref> | |||
<ref name=AelY>]. The literal English translation is somewhat ambiguous, but the overall meaning is that the coming Arab defeat of the Jews will be remembered in the same way as the past Arab defeats of the Mongols and Crusaders are remembered.</ref> | |||
<ref name=Segev>{{cite news | author = Tom Segev | title = The makings of history / The blind misleading the blind | newspaper = Haaretz | date = 21 October 2011 | url = http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/the-makings-of-history-the-blind-misleading-the-blind-1.391260}}</ref> | |||
<ref name="morris2008p187">{{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J5jtAAAAMAAJ|access-date=13 July 2013|year=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|page=187|isbn=978-0-300-12696-9|quote=" p. 187 ." Azzam told Kirkbride:... we will sweep them into the sea". Al Quwwatli told his people:"…we shall eradicate Zionism"; p. 409 "Al Husseini…In March 1948 he told an interviewer in a Jaffa daily Al Sarih that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition but "would continue fighting until the Zionist were Annihilated""}}</ref> | |||
<ref name="familyofnations">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dexR7WEUtSgC&pg=PA19 |title=Israel and the Family of Nations: The Jewish Nation-state and Human Rights – Alexander Yakobson, Amnon Rubinstein |access-date= 20 May 2015|isbn=978-0-415-46441-3 |last1=Yakobson |first1=Alexander |last2=Rubinstein |first2=Amnon |year=2009 |publisher=Taylor & Francis }}</ref> | |||
<ref name=Quigley2012p7>], Cambridge University Press, 2012 p.7:'This proposed partition was seen as unfair by the Palestine Arabs, both because they sought a government for the entirety of Palestine and because they found the particular territorial division unfair for allocating the bulk of the territory to the projected Jewish state, even though Jews were less numerous than Arabs.'</ref> | |||
<ref name=Khoury1975p21>Fred J. Khoury, 'United States Peace Efforts', in Malcolm H. Kerr (ed.) SUNY Press 1975 pp.21–22:'The Arabs attacked the partition resolution as being unfair and contrary to the UN Charter. They contended that the UN had disregarded the rights of the Arab majority in Palestine by giving the Palestine Jews, then representing one-third of the total population, more territory and resources than those allotted to the Arab state and by relegating well over 400,000 Arabs to minority status in the Jewish State.'</ref> | |||
<ref name=Lughod2013p291>Ahmad H. Sa'di, Lila Abu-Lughod, Columbia University Press, 2013 pp291-292. 'The Palestinians' position remained unchanged from the beginning of the British mandate to its end: they opposed partition and supported the establishment of a political system that would reflect the wishes of the majority.'</ref> | |||
}} | |||
==Bibliography== | ==Bibliography== | ||
{{refbegin}} | |||
*Bregman, Ahron (2002). ''Israel's Wars: A History Since 1947''. London: Routledge. ISBN | |||
* {{cite journal | last=Ben-Dror | first=Elad | title= The Arab Struggle against Partition: The International Arena of Summer 1947| journal=Middle Eastern Studies | publisher=Taylor & Francis, Ltd. | volume=43 | issue=2 | year=2007 | issn=0026-3206 | jstor=4284540 | pages=259–293 | doi=10.1080/00263200601114117 | s2cid=143853008 | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/4284540 | access-date=20 January 2023}} | |||
*Arieh L. Avneri (1984). ''The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land Settlement and the Arabs, 1878–1948''. Transaction Publishers. ISBN | |||
* {{cite book|author=Benny Morris|title=1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CC7381HrLqcC&pg=PA332|access-date=14 July 2013|date=2008|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-14524-3}} | |||
*Fischbach, Michael R. (2003). ''Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict''. ]. ISBN | |||
* {{cite book|author=William Roger Louis|title=Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NQnpQNKeKKAC&pg=PA420|access-date=16 August 2013|year=2006|publisher=I.B. Tauris|isbn=978-1-84511-347-6}} | |||
*Gelber, Yoav (1997). ''Jewish-Transjordanian Relations: Alliance of Bars Sinister''. London: Routledge. ISBN-X | |||
* {{cite book|author=William Roger Louis|title=The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945–1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ATQQ0FMS1FQC&pg=PA474|year=1985|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-822960-5}} | |||
*Khalaf, Issa (1991). ''Politics in Palestine: Arab Factionalism and Social Disintegration,''. ]. ISBN | |||
{{refend}} | |||
*Louis, Wm. Roger (1986). ''The British Empire in the Middle East,: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism''. ]. ISBN | |||
*. ] Online School Edition, 15 May 2006. | |||
==Further reading== | |||
*Sicker, Martin (1999). ''Reshaping Palestine: From Muhammad Ali to the British Mandate, 1831–1922''. Praeger/Greenwood. ISBN | |||
* {{Cite book |last=Bregman |first=Ahron |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TDGUgXvNu60C |title=Israel's Wars: A History Since 1947 |date=2002 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-415-28715-9 |location=London ; New York}} | |||
* {{Cite book |last=Avneri |first=Aryeh L. |title=The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land-settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948 |date=1984 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-87855-964-0 |series=Middle East Studies |location=New Brunswick, USA}} | |||
* {{Cite book |last=Fischbach |first=Michael R. |title=Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict |date=2003 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-231-12978-7 |series=The Institute for Palestine Studies series |location=New York}} | |||
* {{Cite book |last=Gelber |first=Yoav |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UVihAwAAQBAJ |title=Jewish-Transjordanian Relations 1921-1948: Alliance of Bars Sinister |date=1997 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-7146-4675-6 |location=London}} | |||
* {{Cite book |last=Khalaf |first=Issa |url=https://archive.org/details/politicsinpalest0000khal |title=Politics in Palestine: Arab Factionalism and Social Disintegration, 1939-1948 |date=1991 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-7914-0707-3 |series=SUNY series in the social and economic history of the Middle East |location=Albany}} | |||
* {{Cite book |last=Louis |first=William Roger |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ATQQ0FMS1FQC |title=The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism |date=1984 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-19-822489-1 |location=Oxford (GB)}} | |||
* {{Cite book |last=Sicker |first=Martin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e7zOEAAAQBAJ |title=Reshaping Palestine: from Muhammad Ali to the British Mandate, 1831-1922 |date=1999 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-275-96639-3 |location=Westport, Conn}} | |||
* {{Cite encyclopedia |title=Palestine |encyclopedia=] |url=https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine}} | |||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
{{wikiquote}} | |||
{{Wikisourcepar|United Nations Special Committee on Palestine Federal State Plan}} | |||
{{Wikisource|United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181}} | |||
* | |||
{{Commons category|United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine}} | |||
* | |||
{{Wikisource|United Nations Special Committee on Palestine Federal State Plan}} | |||
* | |||
* . On www.un.org. | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* Shapell Manuscript Foundation | |||
* {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150427023903/http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/1947-un-partition-plan-reso.html |date=27 April 2015 }} | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
*{{YouTube|QrIjzUK0FKg|Firsthand testimonies from the men and women who helped found the State of Israel}} | |||
{{Documents of Mandate Palestine}} | |||
{{United Nations}} | {{United Nations}} | ||
{{Arab–Israeli diplomacy}} | |||
{{Nakbaend}} | |||
{{Authority control}} | |||
{{DEFAULTSORT:United Nations Partition Plan For Palestine}} | {{DEFAULTSORT:United Nations Partition Plan For Palestine}} | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 23:48, 11 December 2024
1947 plan to divide British Palestine"Partition of Palestine" redirects here. For the partition of Palestine into Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, see 1949 Armistice Agreements.
United Nations resolution adopted in 1947
UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) | |
---|---|
UNSCOP (3 September 1947; see green line) and UN Ad Hoc Committee (25 November 1947) partition plans. The UN Ad Hoc Committee proposal was voted on in the resolution. | |
Date | 29 November 1947 |
Meeting no. | 128 |
Code | A/RES/181(II) (Document) |
Voting summary |
|
Result | Adopted |
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations to partition Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. Drafted by the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) on 3 September 1947, the Plan was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947 as Resolution 181 (II). The resolution recommended the creation of independent but economically linked Arab and Jewish States and an extraterritorial "Special International Regime" for the city of Jerusalem and its surroundings.
The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate; the gradual withdrawal of British armed forces by no later than 1 August 1948; and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem at least two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Arab state was to have a territory of 11,592 square kilometres, or 42.88 percent of the Mandate's territory, and the Jewish state a territory of 15,264 square kilometres, or 56.47 percent; the remaining 0.65 percent or 176 square kilometres—comprising Jerusalem, Bethlehem and the adjoining area—would become an international zone. The Plan also called for an economic union between the proposed states and for the protection of religious and minority rights.
The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements: Palestinian nationalism and Jewish nationalism in the form of Zionism. Jewish organizations collaborated with UNSCOP during the deliberations, while Palestinian Arab leadership boycotted it. The Plan's detractors considered the proposal to be pro-Zionist, as it allocated most land to the Jewish state despite Palestinian Arabs numbering twice the Jewish population. The Plan was celebrated by most Jews in Palestine and reluctantly accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine with misgivings. Zionist leaders, in particular David Ben-Gurion, viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a steppingstone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.
The Arab Higher Committee, the Arab League and other Arab leaders and governments rejected the Plan, as aside from Arabs forming a two-thirds majority, they owned most of the territory. They also indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division, arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter that granted people the right to decide their own destiny. They announced their intention to take all necessary measures to prevent the implementation of the resolution. A civil war broke out in Palestine, and the plan was not implemented. In 1948, 85% of the Palestinians living in the areas that became the state of Israel became refugees.
Background
The British administration was formalized by the League of Nations under the Palestine Mandate in 1923, as part of the Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. The Mandate reaffirmed the 1917 British commitment to the Balfour Declaration, for the establishment in Palestine of a "National Home" for the Jewish people, with the prerogative to carry it out. A British census of 1918 estimated 700,000 Arabs and 56,000 Jews.
In 1937, following a six-month-long Arab General Strike and armed insurrection which aimed to pursue national independence and secure the country from foreign control, the British established the Peel Commission. The Commission concluded that the Mandate had become unworkable, and recommended partition into an Arab state linked to Transjordan; a small Jewish state; and a mandatory zone. To address problems arising from the presence of national minorities in each area, it suggested a land and population transfer involving the transfer of some 225,000 Arabs living in the envisaged Jewish state and 1,250 Jews living in a future Arab state, a measure deemed compulsory "in the last resort". To address any economic problems, the Plan proposed avoiding interfering with Jewish immigration, since any interference would be liable to produce an "economic crisis", most of Palestine's wealth coming from the Jewish community. To solve the predicted annual budget deficit of the Arab State and reduction in public services due to loss of tax from the Jewish state, it was proposed that the Jewish state pay an annual subsidy to the Arab state and take on half of the latter's deficit. The Palestinian Arab leadership rejected partition as unacceptable, given the inequality in the proposed population exchange and the transfer of one-third of Palestine, including most of its best agricultural land, to recent immigrants. The Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion, persuaded the Zionist Congress to lend provisional approval to the Peel recommendations as a basis for further negotiations. In a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to "possession of the land as a whole". The same sentiment, that acceptance of partition was a temporary measure beyond which the Palestine would be "redeemed ... in its entirety," was recorded by Ben-Gurion on other occasions, such as at a meeting of the Jewish Agency executive in June 1938, as well as by Chaim Weizmann.
The British Woodhead Commission was set up to examine the practicality of partition. The Peel plan was rejected and two possible alternatives were considered. 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.
With World War II looming, British policies were influenced by a desire to win Arab world support and could ill afford to engage with another Arab uprising. The MacDonald White Paper of May 1939 declared that it was "not part of policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State", sought to limit Jewish immigration to Palestine and restricted Arab land sales to Jews. However, the League of Nations commission held that the White Paper was in conflict with the terms of the Mandate as put forth in the past. The outbreak of the Second World War suspended any further deliberations. 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 organization which opposed the British.
After World War II, in August 1945 President Truman asked for the admission of 100,000 Holocaust survivors into Palestine but the British maintained limits on Jewish immigration in line with the 1939 White Paper. The Jewish community rejected the restriction on immigration and organized an armed resistance. These actions and United States pressure to end the anti-immigration policy led to the establishment of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. In April 1946, the Committee reached a unanimous decision for the immediate admission of 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe into Palestine, rescission of the White Paper restrictions of land sale to Jews, that the country be neither Arab nor Jewish, and the extension of U.N. Trusteeship. The U.S. endorsed the Commission's findings concerning Jewish immigration and land purchase restrictions, while the British made their agreement to implementation conditional on U.S. assistance in case of another Arab revolt. In effect, the British continued to carry out their White Paper policy. The recommendations triggered violent demonstrations in the Arab states, and calls for a Jihad and an annihilation of all European Jews in Palestine.
United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP)
Further information: UNSCOPUnder the terms of League of Nations A-class mandates each such mandatory territory was to become a sovereign state on termination of its mandate. By the end of World War II, this occurred with all such mandates except Palestine; however, the League of Nations itself lapsed in 1946, leading to a legal quandary. In February 1947, Britain announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring the matter of the future of Palestine to the United Nations. According to William Roger Louis, British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin's policy was premised on the idea that an Arab majority would carry the day, which met difficulties with Harry S. Truman who, sensitive to Zionist electoral pressures in the United States, pressed for a British-Zionist compromise. In May, the UN formed the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) to prepare a report on recommendations for Palestine. The Jewish Agency pressed for Jewish representation and the exclusion of both Britain and Arab countries on the Committee, sought visits to camps where Holocaust survivors were interned in Europe as part of UNSCOP's brief, and in May won representation on the Political Committee. The Arab states, convinced statehood had been subverted, and that the transition of authority from the League of Nations to the UN was questionable in law, wished the issues to be brought before an International Court, and refused to collaborate with UNSCOP, which had extended an invitation for liaison also to the Arab Higher Committee. In August, after three months of conducting hearings and a general survey of the situation in Palestine, a majority report of the committee recommended that the region be partitioned into an Arab state and a Jewish state, which should retain an economic union. An international regime was envisioned for Jerusalem.
The Arab delegations at the UN had sought to keep separate the issue of Palestine from the issue of Jewish refugees in Europe. During their visit, UNSCOP members were shocked by the extent of Lehi and Irgun violence, then at its apogee, and by the elaborate military presence attested by endemic barb-wire, searchlights, and armoured-car patrols. Committee members also witnessed the SS Exodus affair in Haifa and could hardly have remained unaffected by it. On concluding their mission, they dispatched a subcommittee to investigate Jewish refugee camps in Europe. The incident is mentioned in the report in relation to Jewish distrust and resentment concerning the British enforcement of the 1939 White Paper.
UNSCOP report
On 3 September 1947, the Committee reported to the General Assembly. CHAPTER V: PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS (I), Section A of the Report contained eleven proposed recommendations (I – XI) approved unanimously. Section B contained one proposed recommendation approved by a substantial majority dealing with the Jewish problem in general (XI). CHAPTER VI: PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS (II) contained a Plan of Partition with Economic Union to which seven members of the Committee (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay), expressed themselves in favour. CHAPTER VII RECOMMENDATIONS (III) contained a comprehensive proposal that was voted upon and supported by three members (India, Iran, and Yugoslavia) for a Federal State of Palestine. Australia abstained. In CHAPTER VIII a number of members of the Committee expressed certain reservations and observations.
Proposed partition
See also: Land ownership of the British Mandate of Palestine Land ownershipPopulation distributionTwo maps reviewed by UN Subcommittee 2 in considering partitionThe report of the majority of the Committee (CHAPTER VI) envisaged the division of Palestine into three parts: an Arab State, a Jewish State and the City of Jerusalem, linked by extraterritorial crossroads. The proposed Arab State would include the central and part of western Galilee, with the town of Acre, the hill country of Samaria and Judea, an enclave at Jaffa, 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 proposed Jewish State would include the fertile Eastern Galilee, the Coastal Plain, stretching from Haifa to Rehovot and most of the Negev desert, including the southern outpost of Umm Rashrash (now Eilat). The Jerusalem Corpus Separatum included Bethlehem and the surrounding areas.
The primary objectives of the majority of the Committee were political division and economic unity between the two groups. 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 desert), were also included in the Jewish state to create room for immigration. According to the plan, 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.
By virtue of Chapter 3, Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, resided in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem would, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they were resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.
Population of Palestine by religions in 1946: Moslems — 1,076,783; Jews — 608,225; Christians — 145,063; Others — 15,488; Total — 1,845,559.
On this basis, the population at the end of 1946 was estimated as follows: Arabs — 1,203,000; Jews — 608,000; others — 35,000; Total — 1,846,000.
At the time the UN passed its decision to partition the country, the arable land was owned as follows: 93 per cent by Arabs, and 7 per cent by Jews.
The Plan would have had the following demographics (data based on 1945).
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: 3 September 1947: CHAPTER 4: A COMMENTARY ON PARTITION |
In addition there would be in the Jewish State about 90,000 Bedouins, cultivators and stock owners who seek grazing further afield in dry seasons.
The land allocated to the Arab State in the final plan included about 43% of Mandatory Palestine and 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 allocated to the Jews, who constituted a third of the population and owned about 7% of the land, was to receive 56% of Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there. The Jewish 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, which was mostly not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time. The Jewish State would also be given sole access to the Sea of Galilee, crucial for its water supply, and the economically important Red Sea.
The committee voted for the plan, 25 to 13 (with 17 abstentions and 2 absentees) on 25 November 1947 and the General Assembly was called back into a special session to vote on the proposal. Various sources noted that this was one vote short of the two-thirds majority required in the General Assembly.
Ad hoc Committee
Main article: Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian QuestionOn 23 September 1947 the General Assembly established the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question to consider the UNSCOP report. Representatives of the Arab Higher Committee and Jewish Agency were invited and attended.
During the committee's deliberations, the British government endorsed the report's recommendations concerning the end of the mandate, independence, and Jewish immigration. However, the British did "not feel able to implement" any agreement unless it was acceptable to both the Arabs and the Jews, and asked that the General Assembly provide an alternative implementing authority if that proved to be the case.
The Arab Higher Committee rejected both the majority and minority recommendations within the UNSCOP report. They "concluded from a survey of Palestine history that Zionist claims to that country had no legal or moral basis". The Arab Higher Committee argued that only an Arab State in the whole of Palestine would be consistent with the UN Charter.
The Jewish Agency expressed support for most of the UNSCOP recommendations, but emphasized the "intense urge" of the overwhelming majority of Jewish displaced persons to proceed to Palestine. The Jewish Agency criticized the proposed boundaries, especially in the Western Galilee and Western Jerusalem (outside of the old city), arguing that these should be included in the Jewish state. However, they agreed to accept the plan if "it would make possible the immediate re-establishment of the Jewish State with sovereign control of its own immigration."
Arab states requested representation on the UN ad hoc subcommittees of October 1947, but were excluded from Subcommittee One, which had been delegated the specific task of studying and, if thought necessary, modifying the boundaries of the proposed partition.
Sub-Committee 2
The Sub-Committee 2, set up on 23 October 1947 to draw up a detailed plan based on proposals of Arab states presented its report within a few weeks.
Based on a reproduced British report, the Sub-Committee 2 criticised the UNSCOP report for using inaccurate population figures, especially concerning the Bedouin population. The British report, dated 1 November 1947, used the results of a new census in Beersheba in 1946 with additional use of aerial photographs, and an estimate of the population in other districts. It found that the size of the Bedouin population was greatly understated in former enumerations. In Beersheba, 3,389 Bedouin houses and 8,722 tents were counted. The total Bedouin population was estimated at approximately 127,000; only 22,000 of them normally resident in the Arab state under the UNSCOP majority plan. The British report stated:
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.
In respect of the UNSCOP report, the Sub-Committee concluded 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."
The Sub-Committee 2 recommended to put the question of the Partition Plan before the International Court of Justice (Resolution No. I ). In respect of the Jewish refugees due to World War II, the Sub-Committee recommended to request the countries of which the refugees belonged to take them back as much as possible (Resolution No. II). The Sub-Committee proposed to establish a unitary state (Resolution No. III).
Boundary changes
The ad hoc committee made a number of boundary changes to the UNSCOP recommendations before they were voted on by the General Assembly.
The predominantly Arab city of Jaffa, previously located within the Jewish state, was constituted as an enclave of the Arab State. The boundary of the Arab state was modified to include Beersheba and a strip of the Negev desert along the Egyptian border, while a section of the Dead Sea shore and other additions were made to the Jewish State. The Jewish population in the revised Jewish State would be about half a million, compared to 450,000 Arabs.
The proposed boundaries would also have placed 54 Arab villages on the opposite side of the border from their farm land. In response, the United Nations Palestine Commission established in 1948 was empowered to modify the boundaries "in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary". These modifications never occurred.
The vote
Passage of the resolution required a two-thirds majority of the valid votes, not counting abstaining and absent members, of the UN's then 57 member states. On 26 November, after filibustering by the Zionist delegation, the vote was postponed by three days. According to multiple sources, had the vote been held on the original set date, it would have received a majority, but less than the required two-thirds. Various compromise proposals and variations on a single state, including federations and cantonal systems were debated (including those previously rejected in committee). The delay was used by supporters of Zionism in New York to put extra pressure on states not supporting the resolution.
Reports of pressure for and against the Plan
Reports of pressure for the Plan
Zionists launched an intense White House lobby to have the UNSCOP plan endorsed, and the effects were not trivial. The Democratic Party, a large part of whose contributions came from Jews, informed Truman that failure to live up to promises to support the Jews in Palestine would constitute a danger to the party. The defection of Jewish votes in congressional elections in 1946 had contributed to electoral losses. Truman was, according to Roger Cohen, embittered by feelings of being a hostage to the lobby and its 'unwarranted interference', which he blamed for the contemporary impasse. When a formal American declaration in favour of partition was given on 11 October, a public relations authority declared to the Zionist Emergency Council in a closed meeting: 'under no circumstances should any of us believe or think we had won because of the devotion of the American Government to our cause. We had won because of the sheer pressure of political logistics that was applied by the Jewish leadership in the United States'. State Department advice critical of the controversial UNSCOP recommendation to give the overwhelmingly Arab town of Jaffa, and the Negev, to the Jews was overturned by an urgent and secret late meeting organized for Chaim Weizman with Truman, which immediately countermanded the recommendation. The United States initially refrained from pressuring smaller states to vote either way, but Robert A. Lovett reported that America's U.N. delegation's case suffered impediments from high pressure by Jewish groups, and that indications existed that bribes and threats were being used, even of American sanctions against Liberia and Nicaragua. When the UNSCOP plan failed to achieve the necessary majority on 25 November, the lobby 'moved into high gear' and induced the President to overrule the State Department, and let wavering governments know that the U.S. strongly desired partition.
Proponents of the Plan reportedly put pressure on nations to vote yes to the Partition Plan. A telegram signed by 26 US Senators with influence on foreign aid bills was sent to wavering countries, seeking their support for the partition plan. The US Senate was considering a large aid package at the time, including 60 million dollars to China. Many nations reported pressure directed specifically at them:
- United States (Vote: For): 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."
- India (Vote: Against): Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, the Indian ambassador to the UN, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless "she voted right". Pandit occasionally hinted that something might change in favour of the Zionists. But another Indian delegate, Kavallam Pannikar, said that India would vote for the Arab side, because of their large Muslim minority, although they knew that the Jews had a case.
- Liberia (Vote: For): Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries. Harvey S. Firestone Jr., President of Firestone Natural Rubber Company, with major holdings in the country, also pressured the Liberian government
- Philippines (Vote: For): In the days before the vote, Philippines representative General Carlos P. Romulo stated "We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government holds that the United Nations ought not to accept such responsibility." After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines' vote changed.
- Haiti (Vote: For): The promise of a five million dollar loan may or may not have secured Haiti's vote for partition.
- France (Vote: For): Shortly before the vote, France's delegate to the United Nations was visited by Bernard Baruch, a long-term Jewish supporter of the Democratic Party who, during the recent world war, had been an economic adviser to President Roosevelt, and had latterly been appointed by President Truman as United States ambassador to the newly created UN Atomic Energy Commission. He was, privately, a supporter of the Irgun and its front organization, the American League for a Free Palestine. Baruch implied that a French failure to support the resolution might block planned American aid to France, which was badly needed for reconstruction, French currency reserves being exhausted and its balance of payments heavily in deficit. Previously, to avoid antagonising its Arab colonies, France had not publicly supported the resolution. After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France's neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
- Venezuela (Vote: For): Carlos Eduardo Stolk, Chairman of the Delegation of Venezuela, voted in favor of Resolution 181 .
- Cuba (Vote: Against): The Cuban delegation stated they would vote against partition "in spite of pressure being brought to bear against us" because they could not be party to coercing the majority in Palestine.
- Siam (Absent): The credentials of the Siamese delegations were cancelled after Siam voted against partition in committee on 25 November.
There is also some evidence that Sam Zemurray put pressure on several "banana republics" to change their votes.
Reports of pressure against the Plan
According to Benny Morris, Wasif Kamal, an Arab Higher Committee official, tried to bribe a delegate to the United Nations, perhaps a Russian.
A number of Arab leaders argued against the partition proposal on the grounds that it endangered the Jews of Arab countries.
- A few months before the UN vote on partition of Palestine, Iraq's prime minister Nuri al-Said told British diplomat Douglas Busk that he had nothing against the Iraqi Jews, who were a long established and useful community. However, if the United Nations solution was not satisfactory, the Arab League might decide on severe measures against the Jews in Arab countries, and he would be unable to resist the proposal.
- At the 30th Meeting of the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine on 24 November 1947, the head of the Egyptian delegate, Heykal Pasha, said that although there was no animosity against the Jews in Arab countries, nobody could prevent disorders if a Jewish state was established. Riots could break out which governments could not control, endangering the lives of Jews and creating an antisemitism difficult to root out. The UN, in Heykal's view, should consider the welfare of all Jews and not just the wishes of the Zionists.
- In a speech at the General Assembly Hall at Flushing Meadow, New York, on Friday, 28 November 1947, Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Fadel Jamall, included the following statement: "Partition imposed against the will of the majority of the people will jeopardize peace and harmony in the Middle East. Not only the uprising of the Arabs of Palestine is to be expected, but the masses in the Arab world cannot be restrained. The Arab-Jewish relationship in the Arab world will greatly deteriorate. There are more Jews in the Arab world outside of Palestine than there are in Palestine. In Iraq alone, we have about one hundred and fifty thousand Jews who share with Moslems and Christians all the advantages of political and economic rights. Harmony prevails among Moslems, Christians and Jews. But any injustice imposed upon the Arabs of Palestine will disturb the harmony among Jews and non-Jews in Iraq; it will breed inter-religious prejudice and hatred."
The Arab states warned the Western Powers that endorsement of the partition plan might be met by either or both an oil embargo and realignment of the Arab states with the Soviet Bloc.
Final vote
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions and 1 absent, in favour of the modified Partition Plan. The final vote, consolidated here by modern United Nations Regional Groups rather than contemporary groupings, was as follows:
In favour (33 countries, 72% of total votes)
Latin American and Caribbean (13 countries):
- Bolivia
- Brazil
- Costa Rica
- Dominican Republic
- Ecuador
- Guatemala
- Haiti
- Nicaragua
- Panama
- Paraguay
- Peru
- Uruguay
- Venezuela
Western European and Others (8 countries):
Eastern European (5 countries):
African (2 countries):
Asia-Pacific (3 countries)
North America (2 countries)
Against (13 countries, 28% of total votes)
Asia-Pacific (9 countries, primarily Middle East sub-area):
Western European and Others (2 countries):
African (1 country):
Latin American and Caribbean (1 country):
Abstentions (10 countries)
Latin American and Caribbean (6 countries):
Asia-Pacific (1 country):
African (1 country):
Western European and Others (1 country):
Eastern European (1 country):
Absent (1 country)
Asia-Pacific (1 country):
Votes by modern region
If analysed by the modern composition of what later came to be known as the United Nations Regional Groups showed relatively aligned voting styles in the final vote. This, however, does not reflect the regional grouping at the time, as a major reshuffle of regional grouping occurred in 1966. All Western nations voted for the resolution, with the exception of the United Kingdom (the Mandate holder), Greece and Turkey. The Soviet bloc also voted for partition, with the exception of Yugoslavia, which was to be expelled from Cominform the following year. The majority of Latin American nations following Brazilian leadership, voted for partition, with a sizeable minority abstaining. Asian countries (primarily Middle Eastern countries) voted against partition, with the exception of the Philippines.
Regional Group | Members in UNGA181 vote | UNGA181 For | UNGA181 Against | UNGA181 Abstained |
---|---|---|---|---|
African | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Asia-Pacific | 11 | 1 | 9 | 1 |
Eastern European | 6 | 5 | 0 | 1 |
LatAm and Caribb. | 20 | 13 | 1 | 6 |
Western Eur. & Others | 15 | 12 | 2 | 1 |
Total UN members | 56 | 33 | 13 | 10 |
Reactions
Jews
Jews gathered in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to celebrate the U.N. resolution during the whole night after the vote. Great bonfires blazed at Jewish collective farms in the north. Many big cafes in Tel Aviv served free champagne. Mainstream Zionist leaders emphasized the "heavy responsibility" of building a modern Jewish State, and committed to working towards a peaceful coexistence with the region's other inhabitants: Jewish groups in the United States hailed the action by the United Nations. Most welcomed the Palestine Plan but some felt it did not settle the problem.
Some Revisionist Zionists rejected the partition plan as a renunciation of legitimately Jewish national territory. The Irgun Tsvai Leumi, led by Menachem Begin, and the Lehi (also known as the Stern Group or Gang), the two Revisionist-affiliated underground organisations which had been fighting against both the British and Arabs, stated their opposition. 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." He also stated that "the bisection of our homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized." Begin was sure that the creation of a Jewish state would make territorial expansion possible, "after the shedding of much blood."
Some Post-Zionist scholars endorse Simha Flapan's view that it is a myth that Zionists accepted the partition as a compromise by which the Jewish community abandoned ambitions for the whole of Palestine and recognized the rights of the Arab Palestinians to their own state. Rather, Flapan argued, acceptance was only a tactical move that aimed to thwart the creation of an Arab Palestinian state and, concomitantly, expand the territory that had been assigned by the UN to the Jewish state. Baruch Kimmerling has said that Zionists "officially accepted the partition plan, but invested all their efforts towards improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries while reducing the number of Arabs in them." Many Zionist leaders viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.
Addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut (the Eretz Israel Workers Party) days after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Ben-Gurion expressed his apprehension, stating:
the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. Such a composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%.
Despite these reservations, Ben-Gurion also recognized the plan's many accomplishments, stating "I know of no greater achievement by the Jewish people ... in its long history since it became a people."
Arabs
Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition. The Arab states' delegations declared immediately after the vote for partition that they would not be bound by the decision, and walked out accompanied by the Indian and Pakistani delegates.
They argued that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny. The Arab delegations to the UN issued a joint statement the day after that vote that stated: "the vote in regard to the Partition of Palestine has been given under great pressure and duress, and that this makes it doubly invalid."
On 16 February 1948, the UN Palestine Commission reported to the Security Council that: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
Arab states
A few weeks after UNSCOP released its report, Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, told an Egyptian newspaper "Personally I hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similarly to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the Crusades." (This statement from October 1947 has often been incorrectly reported as having been made much later on 15 May 1948.) Azzam told Alec Kirkbride "We will sweep them into the sea." Syrian president Shukri al-Quwatli told his people: "We shall eradicate Zionism."
King Farouk of Egypt told the American ambassador to Egypt that in the long run the Arabs would soundly defeat the Jews and drive them out of Palestine.
While Azzam Pasha repeated his threats of forceful prevention of partition, the first important Arab voice to support partition was the influential Egyptian daily Al Mokattam [d]: "We stand for partition because we believe that it is the best final solution for the problem of Palestine... rejection of partition... will lead to further complications and will give the Zionists another space of time to complete their plans of defense and attack... a delay of one more year which would not benefit the Arabs but would benefit the Jews, especially after the British evacuation."
On 20 May 1948, Azzam told reporters "We are fighting for an Arab Palestine. Whatever the outcome the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they like. In areas where they predominate they will have complete autonomy." He reportedly said that the armies of the Arab League states had entered Palestine “not only to protect Arab territory, but to fight the Jewish state”.
The Arab League said that some of the Jews would have to be expelled from a Palestinian Arab state.
Abdullah appointed Ibrahim Hashem Pasha as Military Governor of the Arab areas occupied by troops of the Transjordan Army. He was a former prime minister of Transjordan who supported partition of Palestine as proposed by the Peel Commission and the United Nations.
Arabs in Palestine
Haj Amin al-Husseini said in March 1948 to an interviewer from the Jaffa daily Al Sarih that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition but "would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated." Jamal al-Husayni warned the Jews that "The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East".
Zionists attributed Arab rejection of the plan to mere intransigence. Palestinian Arabs opposed the very idea of partition but reiterated that this partition plan was unfair: the majority of the land (56%) would go to a Jewish state, when Jews at that stage legally owned only 6–7% of it and remained a minority of the population (33% in 1946). There were also disproportionate allocations under the plan and the area under Jewish control contained 45% of the Palestinian population. The proposed Arab state was only given 45% of the land, much of which was unfit for agriculture. Jaffa, though geographically separated, was to be part of the Arab state. However, most of the proposed Jewish state was the Negev desert. The plan allocated to the Jewish State most of the Negev desert that was sparsely populated and unsuitable for agriculture but also a "vital land bridge protecting British interests from the Suez Canal to Iraq"
Few Palestinian Arabs joined the Arab Liberation Army because they suspected that the other Arab States did not plan on an independent Palestinian state. According to Ian Bickerton, for that reason many of them favored partition and indicated a willingness to live alongside a Jewish state. He also mentions that the Nashashibi family backed King Abdullah and union with Transjordan.
The Arab Higher Committee demanded that in a Palestinian Arab state, the majority of the Jews should not be citizens (those who had not lived in Palestine before the British Mandate).
According to Musa Alami, the mufti would agree to partition if he were promised that he would rule the future Arab state.
The Arab Higher Committee responded to the partition resolution and declared a three-day general strike in Palestine to begin the following day.
British government
When Bevin received the partition proposal, he promptly ordered for it not to be imposed on the Arabs. The plan was vigorously debated in the British parliament.
In a British cabinet meeting at 4 December 1947, it was decided that the Mandate would end at midnight 14 May 1948, the complete withdrawal by 1 August 1948, and Britain would not enforce the UN partition plan. On 11 December 1947, the British government publicly announced these plans. During the period in which the British withdrawal was completed, Britain refused to share the administration of Palestine with a proposed UN transition regime, to allow the UN Palestine Commission to establish a presence in Palestine earlier than a fortnight before the end of the Mandate, to allow the creation of official Jewish and Arab militias or to assist in smoothly handing over territory or authority to any successor.
United States government
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. 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."
Subsequent events
The Partition Plan with Economic Union was not realized in the days following 29 November 1947 resolution as envisaged by the General Assembly. It was followed by outbreaks of violence in Mandatory Palestine between Palestinian Jews and Arabs known as the 1947–48 Civil War. After Alan Cunningham, the High Commissioner of Palestine, left Jerusalem, on the morning of 14 May the British army left the city as well. The British left a power vacuum in Jerusalem and made no measures to establish the international regime in Jerusalem. At midnight on 14 May 1948, the British Mandate expired, and Britain disengaged its forces. Earlier in the evening, the Jewish People's Council had gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum (today known as Independence Hall), and approved a proclamation, declaring "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel". The 1948 Arab–Israeli War began with the invasion of, or intervention in, Palestine by the Arab States on 15 May 1948.
Resolution 181 as a legal basis for Palestinian statehood
In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization published the Palestinian Declaration of Independence relying on Resolution 181, arguing that the resolution continues to provide international legitimacy for the right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty and national independence. A number of scholars have written in support of this view.
A General Assembly request for an advisory opinion, Resolution ES-10/14 (2004), specifically cited resolution 181(II) as a "relevant resolution", and asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) what are the legal consequences of the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Judge Abdul Koroma explained the majority opinion: "The Court has also held that the right of self-determination as an established and recognized right under international law applies to the territory and to the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the exercise of such right entitles the Palestinian people to a State of their own as originally envisaged in resolution 181 (II) and subsequently confirmed." In response, Prof. Paul De Waart said that the Court put the legality of the 1922 League of Nations Palestine Mandate and the 1947 UN Plan of Partition beyond doubt once and for all.
Retrospect
In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that the 1947 Arab rejection of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a mistake he hoped to rectify.
Commemoration
A street in the Katamon neighborhood of Jerusalem is named Kaf-tet benovember (29 November Street). On 29 November 2022, a monument designed and executed by sculptor Sam Philipe was unveiled on a hilltop in Netanya to mark the 75th anniversary of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine. The date also marks the annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
See also
- Faisal–Weizmann Agreement
- History of the State of Palestine
- Israeli Declaration of Independence
- Israeli–Palestinian conflict
- Lausanne Conference of 1949
- Minority Treaties
- Sykes–Picot Agreement
- Two-state solution
- United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights
- United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine
- Partition of India
References
- "A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947". United Nations General Assembly. Archived from the original on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 4 January 2018.
- "UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II)" (PDF) (in English and French).
- Galina Nikitina, The State of Israel: A Historical, Economic and Political Study / By Galina Nikitina / 1973, Progress Publishers / p. 50.
- ^ Nikitana, Galina Stepanovna (1973). The State of Israel; a Historical Economic and Political Study. Moscow: Progress Publishers. p. 56.
- Asadi, Fawzi (1 October 1976). "Some Geographic Elements in The Arab-Israeli Conflict". Journal of Palestine Studies. 6 (1): 79–91. doi:10.2307/2535720. ISSN 0377-919X. JSTOR 2535720.
- Палестина / Л. А. Беляев, С. Б. Григорян, П. А. Рассадин (с 1939), М. Ю. Рощин // Большая российская энциклопедия : (в 35 т.) / гл. ред. Ю. С. Осипов. – М. : Большая российская энциклопедия, 2004–2017.
- ^ "United Nations Special Committee on Palestine: Report to the General Assembly: Volume 1". 3 September 1947. p. 51. A/364(SUPP). Retrieved 20 April 2017.
The primary objectives sought in the foregoing scheme were, in short, political division and economic unity: to confer upon each group, Arab and Jew, in its own territory, the power to make its own laws, while preserving both, throughout Palestine, a single integrated economy, admittedly essential to the well-being of each, and the same territorial freedom of movement to individuals as is enjoyed today.
- Quandt, William Baver; Quandt, William B.; Jabber, Fuad; Jabber, Paul; Lesch, Ann Mosely (1 January 1973). The Politics of Palestinian Nationalism. University of California Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-520-02372-7.
- Molinaro, Enrico (1 April 2009). Holy Places of Jerusalem in Middle East Peace Agreements: The Conflict Between Global and State Identities. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 78. ISBN 978-1845193355.
- ^ The Question of Palestine and the UN, "The Jewish Agency accepted the resolution despite its dissatisfaction over such matters as Jewish emigration from Europe and the territorial limits set on the proposed Jewish State."
- "BBC News". news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 23 October 2023.
- Ben-Dror 2007, pp. 259–7260: "The Arabs overwhelmingly rejected UNSCOP’s recommendations. The Arabs’ list of arguments against the majority’s conclusions was indeed a long one. A Palestinian historian summarized it by saying ‘Everything about it was Zionist’. When one takes into consideration the majority’s recommendations and the enthusiasm with which these recommendations were accepted by the Zionist leadership, then one can indeed affirm that claim. UNSCOP recommended an independent Jewish state, although the Arabs firmly objected to the principle of independence for the Jews, and did so in a way very generous to the Jews. More than half of the area of Palestine (62 percent) was allocated to be a Jewish state and the Arab state was supposed to make do with the remaining area, although the Palestinian Arab population numbered as much as twice the Jewish population in the land. The pro-Zionist results from UNSCOP confirmed the Arabs’ basic suspicions towards the committee. Even before the onset of its inquiry in Palestine, argued the Arabs, most of its members took a pro-Zionist stand. In addition, according to the Arabs, the committee’s final object – the partition – was pre-decided by the Americans. According to this opinion, the outcome of the UNSCOP inquiry was a foregone conclusion. This perception, which led the Palestinian Arabs to boycott the committee, is shared by some modern studies as well."
- ^ "U.N.O. PASSES PALESTINE PARTITION PLAN". Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners' Advocate (NSW : 1876 – 1954). NSW: National Library of Australia. 1 December 1947. p. 1. Retrieved 24 October 2014.
Semi-hysterical Jewish crowds in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were still celebrating the U.N.O. partition vote at dawn to-day. Great bonfires at Jewish collective farms in the north were still blazing. Many big cafes in Tel Aviv served free champagne. A brewery threw open its doors to the crowd. Jews jeered some British troops who were patrolling Tel Aviv streets but others handed them wine. In Jerusalem crowds mobbed armoured cars and drove through the streets on them. The Chief Rabbi in Jerusalem (Dr Isaac Herzog) said: "After the darkness of 2000 years, the dawn of redemption has broken. The decision marks at epoch not only in Jewish history, but in world history." The Jewish terrorist organisation, Irgun Zvai Leumi, announced from its headquarters that it would "cease to exist in the new Jewish state.
- "1923–1948: Nationalism, immigration, and "economic absorptive capacity"".
- Sabel, Robbie, ed. (2022), "The 1947 Partition Plan", International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 93–101, doi:10.1017/9781108762670.006, ISBN 978-1-108-48684-2, retrieved 31 October 2023
- ^ David McDowall (1990). Palestine and Israel: The Uprising and Beyond. I.B. Tauris. p. 193. ISBN 9780755612581.
Although the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan, it did not accept the proposed borders as final and Israel's declaration of independence avoided the mention of any boundaries. A state in part of Palestine was seen as a stage towards a larger state when opportunity allowed. Although the borders were 'bad from a military and political point of view,' Ben Gurion urged fellow Jews to accept the UN Partition Plan, pointing out that arrangements are never final, 'not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements'. The idea of partition being a temporary expedient dated back to the Peel Partition proposal of 1937. When the Zionist Congress had rejected partition on the grounds that the Jews had an inalienable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, Ben Gurion had argued in favour of acceptance, 'I see in the realisation of this plan practically the decisive stage in the beginning of full redemption and the most wonderful lever for the gradual conquest of all of Palestine.
- Sean F. McMahon, The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations, Routledge 2010 p. 40. "The Zionist movement also accepted the UN partition plan of 1947 tactically. Palumbo notes that “he Zionists accepted this scheme since they hoped to use their state as a base to conquer the whole country.” Similarly, Flapan states that “ acceptance of the resolution in no way diminished the belief of all the Zionist parties in their right to the whole of the country ”; and that “acceptance of the UN Partition Resolution was an example of Zionist pragmatism par excellence. It was a tactical acceptance, a vital step in the right direction – a springboard for expansion when circumstances proved more judicious.”
- Michael Palumbo (1990). Imperial Israel : the history of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Bloomsbury. p. 19. ISBN 9780747504894.
The Zionists accepted this scheme since they hoped to use their state as a base to conquer the whole country
- ^ Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, Pantheon, 1988, ISBN 978-0-679-72098-0, Ch. 1 Myth One : Zionists Accepted the UN Partition and Planned for Peace, pages 13-53 "Every school child knows that there is no such thing in history as a final arrangement— not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements. History, like nature, is full of alterations and change. David Ben-Gurion, War Diaries, Dec. 3, 1947"
- ^ "Benny Morris's Shocking Interview". History News Network.
officially accepted the partition plan, but invested all their efforts towards improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries while reducing the number of Arabs in them.
- ^ Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 75. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. Retrieved 24 July 2013.
" p. 75 The night of 29–30 November passed in the Yishuv's settlements in noisy public rejoicing. Most had sat glued to their radio sets broadcasting live from Flushing Meadow. A collective cry of joy went up when the two-thirds mark was achieved: a state had been sanctioned by the international community. ; p. 396 The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 1947 UN partition resolution. "The Zionist movement, except for its fringes, accepted the proposal. Most lamented the imperative of giving up the historic heartland of Judaism, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), with East Jerusalem's Old City and Temple Mount at its core; and many were troubled by the inclusion in the prospective Jewish state of a large Arab minority. But the movement, with Ben-Gurion and Weizmann at the helm, said "yes""; p.101 ... mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders.
- Eugene Rogan (2012). The Arabs: A History (3rd ed.). Penguin. p. 321. ISBN 978-0-7181-9683-7.
- ^ Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. pp. 66, 67, 72. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. Retrieved 24 July 2013.
p.66, at 1946 "The League demanded independence for Palestine as a "unitary" state, with an Arab majority and minority rights for the Jews." ; p.67, at 1947 "The League's Political Committee met in Sofar, Lebanon, on 16–19 September, and urged the Palestine Arabs to fight partition, which it called "aggression", "without mercy". The League promised them, in line with Bludan, assistance "in manpower, money and equipment" should the United Nations endorse partition." ; p. 72, at December 1947 "The League vowed, in very general language, "to try to stymie the partition plan and prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine
- Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. Retrieved 24 July 2013.
"p73 All paid lip service to Arab unity and the Palestine Arab cause, and all opposed partition... p. 396 The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 1947 UN partition resolution. … The Palestinian Arabs, along with the rest of the Arab world, said a flat "no"… The Arabs refused to accept the establishment of a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. And, consistently with that "no", the Palestinian Arabs, in November–December 1947, and the Arab states in May 1948, launched hostilities to scupper the resolution's implementation ; p. 409 The mindset characterized both the public and the ruling elites. All vilified the Yishuv and opposed the existence of a Jewish state on "their" (sacred Islamic) soil, and all sought its extirpation, albeit with varying degrees of bloody-mindedness. Shouts of "Idbah al Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) characterized equally street demonstrations in Jaffa, Cairo, Damascus, and Baghdad both before and during the war and were, in essence, echoed, usually in tamer language, by most Arab leaders. "
- ^ Hadawi, Sami (1991). Bitter Harvest: A Modern History of Palestine. Olive Branch Press. ISBN 978-0-940793-76-7.
- Perkins, Kenneth J.; Gilbert, Martin (1999). "Israel: A History". The Journal of Military History. 63 (3): 149. doi:10.2307/120539. ISSN 0899-3718. JSTOR 120539.
- Best, Antony (2004), International History of the Twentieth Century and beyond, Routledge, p. 531, doi:10.4324/9781315739717-1, ISBN 978-1-315-73971-7, retrieved 29 June 2022
- Rothrock, James (12 October 2021). Live by the Sword: Israel's Struggle for Existence in the Holy Land. Bloomington: WestBow Press. p. 14. ISBN 9781449725198.
- Lenczowski, G. (1962). The Middle East in World Affairs (3rd Edition). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. p. 723
- ^ Article "History of Palestine", Encyclopædia Britannica (2002 edition), article section written by Walid Ahmed Khalidi and Ian J. Bickerton.
- ^ Itzhak Galnoor (1995). The Partition of Palestine: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement. SUNY Press. pp. 289–. ISBN 978-0-7914-2193-2. Retrieved 3 July 2012.
- Pappe, Ilan (2011). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications Limited. p. 213. ISBN 9781780740560.
- ^ Mansfield, Peter (1992), The Arabs, Penguin Books, pp. 172–175, ISBN 978-0-14-014768-1
- The Palestine Mandate "the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917"
- Rashid Khalidi (1 September 2006). The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Beacon Press. pp. 181–. ISBN 978-0-8070-0315-2.
- ^ Palestine Royal Commission report, 1937, 389–391
- ^ Benny Morris. Righteous Victims. p. 139.
- ^ Sumantra Bose (30 June 2009). Contested lands: Israel-Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia, Cyprus, and Sri Lanka. Harvard University Press. p. 223. ISBN 978-0-674-02856-2.
- Mandated Landscape: British Imperial Rule in Palestine 1929–1948
- William Roger Louis, Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization, 2006, p.391
- Benny Morris, One state, two states: resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict, 2009, p. 66
- Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 48; p. 11 "while the Zionist movement, after much agonising, accepted the principle of partition and the proposals as a basis for negotiation"; p. 49 "In the end, after bitter debate, the Congress equivocally approved –by a vote of 299 to 160 – the Peel recommendations as a basis for further negotiation."
- Partner to Partition: The Jewish Agency's Partition Plan in the Mandate Era, Yosef Kats, Chapter 4, 1998 Edition, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-7146-4846-0
- Letter from David Ben-Gurion to his son Amos, written 5 October 1937, Obtained from the Ben-Gurion Archives in Hebrew, and translated into English by the Institute of Palestine Studies, Beirut
- Morris, Benny (2011), Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–1998, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, p. 138, ISBN 978-0-307-78805-4 Quote: "No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land of Israel. Jewish state in part is not an end, but a beginning ….. Our possession is important not only for itself … through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a state …. will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country"
- ^ Finkelstein, Norman (2005), Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-semitism and the Abuse of History, University of California Press, p. 280, ISBN 978-0-520-24598-3
- Jerome Slater, 'The Significance of Israeli Historical revisionism' in Russell A. Stone, Walter P. Zenner(eds.) Critical Essays on Israeli Social Issues and Scholarship, Vol.3 SUNY Press, 1994 pp.179–199 p.182.
- Quote from a meeting of the Jewish Agency executive in June 1938: " satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state, we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." in
Masalha, Nur (1992), Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882–1948, Inst for Palestine Studies, p. 107, ISBN 978-0-88728-235-5; and
Segev, Tom (2000), One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate, Henry Holt and Company, p. 403, ISBN 978-0-8050-4848-3 - From a letter from Chaim Weizmann to Arthur Grenfell Wauchope, High Commissioner for Palestine, while the Peel Commission was convening in 1937: "We shall spread in the whole country in the course of time ….. this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years." Masalha, Nur (1992), Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882–1948, Inst for Palestine Studies, p. 62, ISBN 978-0-88728-235-5
- Palestine. Statement by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. Presented by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. November 1938. Cmd. 5893. "Policy statement/ Advice against partition - UK Secretary of State for the Colonies - UK documentation CMD. 5893/Non-UN document (11 November 1938)". Archived from the original on 3 November 2013. Retrieved 11 November 2014.
- Hilberg, Raul, The Destruction of the European Jews, (1961) New Viewpoints, New York 1973 p.716
- Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry – Appendix IV Palestine: Historical Background
- Benny Morris (25 May 2011). "chp. 4". Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–1998 (Hebrew ed.). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 159. ISBN 978-0-307-78805-4.
Capping it all, the Permanent Mandates Commission of the Council of the League of Nations rejected the White Paper as inconsistent with the terms of the Mandate.
- William roger louis, 1985, p.386
- ^ Morris, 2008, p.34
- Gurock, Jeffrey S. American Jewish History American Jewish Historical Society, page 243
- Morris, 2008, p.35
- Michael R. Fischbach (13 August 2013). Jewish Property Claims Against Arab Countries. Columbia University Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-231-51781-2.
By 1948, after several decades of Jewish immigration, the Jewish population of Palestine had risen to about one third of the total, and Jews and Jewish companies owned 20 percent of all cultivable land in the country.
- "Land Registration in Palestine before 1948 (Nakba): Table 2 showing Holdings of Large Jewish Lands Owners as of December 31st, 1945, British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine: Volume I – Page 245. Chapter VIII: Land: Section 3. – Palestine Remembered". palestineremembered.com.
- Nele Matz, 'Civilization and the Mandate System under the League of Nations,' in Armin Von Bogdandy, Rüdiger Wolfrum, Christiane E. Philipp (eds.) Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law . Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2005 pp.47–96, p.87
- 'those mandated territories that had been classified as A mandates, with the exception of Palestine, were finally granted full independence in addition to the already established structures for provisional self-governance,'
- ^ Baylis Thomas, How Israel was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Lexington Books 1999 p.47.
- David D. Newsom, The Imperial Mantle: The United States, Decolonization, and the Third World. Indiana University Press, p.77.
- "The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem Part II: 1947-1977 - Study (30 June 1979)". unispal.un.org.
- William Roger Louis, Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization. Palgrave/Macmillan 2006, pp.404,429–437.
- Daniel Mandel, H V Evatt and the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist. Routledge 2004 pp.73,81. The liaison officers with Aubrey Eban and David Horowitz.(p.83)
- Mandel, p.88.
- Morris, 2008, p. 43
- Howard M. Sachar, A History of the Jews in the Modern World. Random House, 2007 p.671.
- "United Nations Special Committee on Palestine: Report to the General Assembly: Volume 1". 3 September 1947. Chapter 2, para. 119, p. 28. A/364(SUPP). Retrieved 20 April 2017.
There can be no doubt that the enforcement of the White Paper of 1939, subject to the permitted entry since December 1945 of 1,500 Jewish immigrants monthly, has created throughout the Jewish community a deep-seated distrust and resentment against the mandatory Power. This feeling is most sharply expressed in regard to the Administration's attempts to prevent the landing of illegal immigrants. During its stay in Palestine, the Committee heard from certain of its members an eyewitness account of the incidents relative to the bringing into the port of Haifa, under British naval escort, of the illegal immigrant ship, Exodus 1947.
- ^ "United Nations Special Committee on Palestine: Report to the General Assembly: Volume 1". 3 September 1947. A/364(SUPP). Retrieved 20 April 2017.
- ^ Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 47. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. Retrieved 13 July 2013.
The Jews were to get 62 percent of Palestine (most of it desert), consisting of the Negev
- Official Records the Second Session the General Assembly. Supplement No 11. United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. Report to the General Assembly. Volume 1. Lake Success. New York. 1947. / p. 11
- Official Records the Second Session the General Assembly. Supplement No 11. United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. Report to the General Assembly. Volume 1. Lake Success. New York. 1947. / p. 11
- Galina Nikitina, The State of Israel: A Historical, Economic and Political Study / By Galina Nikitina / 1973, Progress Publishers / p. 50.
- Official Records the Second Session the General Assembly. Supplement No 11. United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. Report to the General Assembly. Volume 1. Lake Success. New York. 1947. / p. 54
- UN Partition Plan Archived 7 August 2013 at the Wayback Machine at Merip.
- ^ Colbert C. Held, John Thomas Cummings, https://books.google.com/books?id=vcxVDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT287 Middle East Patterns: Places, People, and Politics, 6th ed. Hachette UK, 2013 p.255: It called for three entities: a Jewish state with 56 percent of Mandate Palestine; an Arab state, 43 percent.'
- ^ Abdel Monem Said Aly, Shai Feldman, Khalil Shikaki, Arabs and Israelis: Conflict and Peacemaking in the Middle East, PalgraveMacmillan 2013 p.50: 'a year before the UN adoption of the Resolution, the Arab population of Palestine comprised 68 percent of the total and owned about 85 percent of the land; the Jewish population comprised about one-third of the total and owned about 7 percent of the land.
- ^ Palestine Division Wins in Committee 25 to 13, 17 Abstain, NY Times, 26 November 1947
- "1949.I.13 of 31 December 1948". unispal.un.org.
- Baylis Thomas, How Israel was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Lexington Books 1999 p.57 n.6.
- Report of Sub-Committee 2 (doc.nr. A/AC.14/32). 10 November 1947; on Archived 30 March 2019 at the Wayback Machine
For the Bedouin issue, see par. 61–73 on pp. 39–46 and Appendix 3: Note on the Bedouin population of Palestine presented by the representative of the United Kingdom d.d. 1 November 1947 on pp. 65–66 - Sub-Committee 2 of the Ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question of the 2nd UN General Assembly 1947 (10 November 1947). "Report: Appendix III: Note dated 1 November 1947 on the Bedouin Population of Palestine Presented by the Representative of The United Kingdom". mlwerke.de. Retrieved 1 March 2016.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - Sub-Committee 2 of the Ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question of the 2nd UN General Assembly 1947 (10 November 1947). "Report of Sub-Committee 2: Chapter III: Proposals for the constitution and future government of Palestine – Sec.4 Objections to partition on grounds of distribution of population". mlwerke.de. Retrieved 1 March 2016.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - Sub-Committee 2 of the Ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question of the 2nd UN General Assembly 1947 (10 November 1947). "Report of Sub-Committee 2: Chapter 4: Conclusions, I: Draft Resolution Referring Certain Legal Questions to The International Court of Justice". mlwerke.de. Retrieved 1 March 2016.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - Sub-Committee 2 of the Ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question of the 2nd UN General Assembly 1947 (10 November 1947). "Report of Sub-Committee 2: Chapter 4: Conclusions, II: Draft Resolution on Jewish Refugees and Displaced Persons". mlwerke.de. Retrieved 1 March 2016.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - Sub-Committee 2 of the Ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question of the 2nd UN General Assembly 1947 (10 November 1947). "Report of Sub-Committee 2: Chapter 4: Conclusions, III: Draft Resolution on the Constitution and Future Government of Palestine". mlwerke.de. Retrieved 1 March 2016.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9.
- A/PV.128 Minutes of the 128th meeting, page 1424, "We shall now proceed to vote by roll-call on the report of the Ad Hoc Committee (document A/516). A vote was taken by roll-call... The report was adopted by 33 votes to 13, with 10 abstentions."
- ^ Barr, James (2012). A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle that Shaped the Middle East. London: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-84739-457-6.
- ^ Assembly Delays Vote on Palestine, NY Times, 27 November 1947
- ^ "PALESTINE". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). 11 December 1947.
- "Servant of God". google.co.uk. 1983.
- U.N. Puts off Vote on Palestine a Day: Compromise is Aim, NY Times, 29 November 1947
- Unitary Palestine Fails in Committee, NY Times, 25 November 1947
- John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,(2007) Penguin Books 2008 p.371, n.8. Truman also remarked:'In all of my political experience I don't ever recall the Arab vote swinging a close election'.(p.142).
- Michael Joseph Cohen, Truman and Israel, University of California Press 1990 p.162.
- Michael Joseph Cohen, Truman and Israel, University of California Press 1990 161–163
- Michael Joseph Cohen (1990) Truman and Israel University of California Press. pp.163–154: "Greece, the Philippines, and Haiti – three countries utterly dependent on Washington – suddenly came out one after another against its declared policy ...Abba Hillel Silver reported to the American Zionist Emergency Council: 'During this time, we marshalled our forces, Jewish and non-Jewish opinion, leaders and masses alike, converged on the Government and induced the President to assert the authority of his Administration to overcome the negative attitude of the State Department which persisted to the end, and persists today. The result was that our Government made its intense desire for the adoption of the partition plan nown [sic] to the wavering governments."'
- ^ Bennis, Phyllis (2003). Before and After. Interlink Publishing Group Incorporated. ISBN 978-1-56656-462-5.
- Chinese Put Needs at Several Billion, New York Times, 30 November 2015
- House, Debating Aid, Veers to Attacks on U.S. Policies, NY Times, 5 December 1947
- Lenczowski, George (1990). American Presidents and the Middle East. Duke University Press. p. 157. ISBN 978-0-8223-0972-7., p. 28, cite, Harry S. Truman, Memoirs 2, p. 158.
- Heptulla, Najma (1991). Indo-West Asian relations: the Nehru era. Allied Publishers. p. 158. ISBN 978-81-7023-340-4.
- Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. Retrieved 13 July 2013.
Vijayalakshmi Pandit, Nehru's sister, who headed the delegation, occasionally threw out hints that something might change. But Shertok was brought down to earth by historian Kavalam Panikkar, another member of the Indian delegation: "It is idle for you to try to convince us that the Jews have a case. . . . We know it. . . . But the point is simply this: For us to vote for the Jews means to vote against the Moslems. This is a conflict in which Islam is involved. . . . We have 13 million Moslems in our midst. . . . Therefore, we cannot do it.
- Quigley, John B. (1990). Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice. Duke University Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-8223-1023-5.
- Ahron Bregman; Jihan El-Tahri (1998). The fifty years war: Israel and the Arabs. Penguin Books. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-14-026827-0. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
- Benton Harbor News-Palladium, Friday, 25 October 1946, p. 6.
- Palestine Vote Delayed Times of London, 29 November 1947
- Political Issues Delay Asia Talks, NY Times, 27 November 1947
- Rich Cohen. The Fish That Ate the Whale. New York, NY: Farrar Straus Giroux, 2012.
- Morris, Benny (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. Retrieved 13 July 2013.
The Arabs had failed to understand the tremendous impact of the Holocaust on the international community—and, in any event, appear to have used the selfsame methods, but with poor results. Wasif Kamal, an AHC official, for example, offered one delegate—perhaps the Russian—a "huge, huge sum of money to vote for the Arabs" (the Russian declined, saying, "You want me to hang myself?"). But the Arabs' main tactic, amounting to blackmail, was the promise or threat of war should the assembly endorse partition. As early as mid-August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji—soon to be named the head of the Arab League's volunteer army in Palestine, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA)—threatened that, should the vote go the wrong way, "we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish". It would be a "holy war", the Arabs suggested, which might even evolve into "World War III". Cables to this effect poured in from Damascus, Beirut, Amman, and Baghdad during the Ad Hoc Committee deliberations, becoming "more lurid", according to Zionist officials, as the General Assembly vote drew near. The Arab states generally made no bones about their intention to support the Palestinians with "men, money and arms", and sometimes hinted at an eventual invasion by their armies. They also threatened the Western Powers, their traditional allies, with an oil embargo and/or abandonment and realignment with the Soviet Bloc
- Burdett, Anita L. P.; Great Britain. Foreign Office; Great Britain. Colonial Office (1995). The Arab League: 1946-1947. The Arab League: British Documentary Sources 1943-1963. Archive Editions. p. 519. ISBN 978-1-85207-610-8. LCCN 95130580.
- Telegram 804, Busk to Foreign Office, 12 September 1947 .
- UN Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine (24 November 1947). "Thirtieth Meeting". Retrieved 18 April 2024.
- U.N General Assembly, A/PV.126, 28 November 1947, discussion on the Palestinian question, archived from the original on 16 October 2013, retrieved 15 October 2013
- Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. Retrieved 13 July 2013.
The Arabs had failed to understand the tremendous impact of the Holocaust on the international community—and, in any event, appear to have used the selfsame methods, but with poor results. Wasif Kamal, an AHC official, for example, offered one delegate—perhaps the Russian—a "huge, huge sum of money to vote for the Arabs" (the Russian declined, saying, "You want me to hang myself?"). But the Arabs' main tactic, amounting to blackmail, was the promise or threat of war should the assembly endorse partition. As early as mid-August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji—soon to be named the head of the Arab League's volunteer army in Palestine, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA)—threatened that, should the vote go the wrong way, "we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish". It would be a "holy war", the Arabs suggested, which might even evolve into "World War III". Cables to this effect poured in from Damascus, Beirut, Amman, and Baghdad during the Ad Hoc Committee deliberations, becoming "more lurid", according to Zionist officials, as the General Assembly vote drew near. The Arab states generally made no bones about their intention to support the Palestinians with "men, money and arms", and sometimes hinted at an eventual invasion by their armies. They also threatened the Western Powers, their traditional allies, with an oil embargo and/or abandonment and realignment with the Soviet Bloc
- "1947–1977". The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917–1988. United Nations. 1990.
- Friedman, Saul S. (10 January 2014). A History of the Middle East. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-5134-0.
- "Palestine Jewry Joyous at News; Ben-Gurion Voices Attitude of Grateful Responsibility – Jerusalem Arabs Silent". The New York Times. 30 November 1947. p. 58. Retrieved 9 January 2012.
- "Vote On Palestine Cheered by Crowd". The New York Times. 30 November 1947. Retrieved 9 January 2012.
- ^ "Jewish Units Here Hail Action by U.N." The New York Times. 30 November 1947. Retrieved 9 January 2012.
- Begin, Menachem (1978) The Revolt. p. 412.
- Begin, Menachem (1977) In The Underground: Writings and Documents. Vol 4, p. 70.
- Aviezer Golan and Shlomo Nakdimon (1978) Begin p. 172, cited in Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel, Pantheon Books, New York, 1988. p. 32
- Sean F. McMahon, The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations, Routledge 2010 p. 40.
- P. J. I. M. De Waart, Dynamics of Self-determination in Palestine, BRILL 1994 p. 138
- Mehran Kamrava, The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War, 2nd edition University of California Press 2011 p. 83
- Shourideh C. Molavi, Stateless Citizenship: The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel, BRILL 2014 p. 126
- Pappe, Ilan (2022) . A History of Modern Palestine (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 116. ISBN 978-1-108-24416-9.
In fact, the Yishuv's leaders felt confident enough to contemplate a takeover of fertile areas within the designated Arab state. This could be achieved in the event of an overall war without losing the international legitimacy of their new state.
- Slater, Jerome (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press. pp. 64–65, 75. ISBN 978-0-19-045908-6.
... the evidence is overwhelming that the Zionist leaders had no intention of accepting partition as a necessary and just compromise with the Palestinians. Rather, their reluctant acceptance of the UN plan was only tactical; their true goals were to gain time, establish the Jewish state, build up its armed forces, and then expand to incorporate into Israel as much of ancient or biblical Palestine as they could.
- Kanj, Jamal Krayem (2010). Children of Catastrophe: Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America. Reading: Garnet. ISBN 978-1-85964-262-7.
- Morris 2008, p. 65
- "Palestine Partition Approved by U.N.", Times of India, 1 December 1947
- "Arab Leaders Call Palestine Vote 'Invalid'; Delegates Reaffirm Challenge to U.N. Action". The New York Times. 30 November 1947. p. 54. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 1 August 2024.
- United Nations Palestine Commission Archived 3 October 2010 at the Wayback Machine First Special Report to the Security Council
- Akhbar el-Yom, 11 October 2011, p9. The literal English translation is somewhat ambiguous, but the overall meaning is that the coming Arab defeat of the Jews will be remembered in the same way as the past Arab defeats of the Mongols and Crusaders are remembered.
- Tom Segev (21 October 2011). "The makings of history / The blind misleading the blind". Haaretz.
- ^ Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 187. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. Retrieved 13 July 2013.
p. 187 ." Azzam told Kirkbride:... we will sweep them into the sea". Al Quwwatli told his people:"…we shall eradicate Zionism"; p. 409 "Al Husseini…In March 1948 he told an interviewer in a Jaffa daily Al Sarih that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition but "would continue fighting until the Zionist were Annihilated"
- Morris 2008, p. 410
- "The Egyptian daily "Al Mokattam" supported the partition". The Jerusalem Post. 30 November 1947.
the influential daily "Al Mokattam"... supporting partition... this is the first time that any important Arab voice in the middle east has pronounced publicly for partition and Arab circles in Cairo are reported to be amazed at the article... We stand for partition because we believe that it is the best final solution for the problem of Palestine... rejection of partition... will lead to further complications and will give the Zionists another space of time to complete their plans of defense and attack... a delay of one more year which would not benefit the Arabs but would benefit the Jews, especially after the British evacuation.
- "Azzam Wants UN To Sanction Arab War". The Palestine Post. 21 May 1948. p. 3. Retrieved 1 August 2024.
- Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. Retrieved 24 July 2013.
"On 23 July, at Sofar, the Arab representatives completed their testimony before UNSCOP. Faranjieh, speaking for the Arab League, said that Jews "illegally" in Palestine would be expelled and that the future of many of those "legally" in the country but without Palestine citizenship would need to be resolved "by the future Arab government "
- Dinstein, Yoram; Domb, Fania (11 November 2011). The Progression of International Law: Four Decades of the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights – An Anniversary Volume. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 431. ISBN 978-90-04-21911-3.
- ^ Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. pp. 50, 66. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. Retrieved 24 July 2013.
p. 50,"The Arab reaction was just as predictable: "The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East", promised Jamal Husseini.; at 1947 "Haj Amin al-Husseini went one better: he denounced also the minority report, which, in his view, legitimized the Jewish foothold in Palestine, a "partition in disguise", as he put it." ; p.66, at 1946 "The AHC ... insisted that the proportion of Jews to Arabs in the unitary state should stand at one to six, meaning that only Jews who lived in Palestine before the British Mandate be eligible for citizenship
- Yakobson, Alexander; Rubinstein, Amnon (2009). Israel and the Family of Nations: The Jewish Nation-state and Human Rights – Alexander Yakobson, Amnon Rubinstein. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-46441-3. Retrieved 20 May 2015.
- John Quigley, The Six Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for Preventive War, Cambridge University Press, 2012 p.7:'This proposed partition was seen as unfair by the Palestine Arabs, both because they sought a government for the entirety of Palestine and because they found the particular territorial division unfair for allocating the bulk of the territory to the projected Jewish state, even though Jews were less numerous than Arabs.'
- Fred J. Khoury, 'United States Peace Efforts', in Malcolm H. Kerr (ed.) Elusive Peace in the Middle East, SUNY Press 1975 pp.21–22:'The Arabs attacked the partition resolution as being unfair and contrary to the UN Charter. They contended that the UN had disregarded the rights of the Arab majority in Palestine by giving the Palestine Jews, then representing one-third of the total population, more territory and resources than those allotted to the Arab state and by relegating well over 400,000 Arabs to minority status in the Jewish State.'
- McMahon, Sean F. (15 April 2010). The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations: Persistent Analytics and Practices. Routledge. p. 90. ISBN 978-1-135-20203-3.
- Choueiri, Youssef M. (15 April 2008). A Companion to the History of the Middle East. John Wiley & Sons. p. 281. ISBN 978-1-4051-5204-4.
- Ahmad H. Sa'di, Lila Abu-Lughod, Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory, Columbia University Press, 2013 pp291-292. 'The Palestinians' position remained unchanged from the beginning of the British mandate to its end: they opposed partition and supported the establishment of a political system that would reflect the wishes of the majority.'
- Quandt, William Baver; Quandt, William B.; Jabber, Fuad; Jabber, Paul; Lesch, Ann Mosely (1 January 1973). The Politics of Palestinian Nationalism. University of California Press. pp. 46–47. ISBN 978-0-520-02372-7.
- Quigley, John B. (2005). The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective. Duke University Press. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-8223-3539-9.
- ^ Wolffe, John (2005). Religion in History: Conflict, Conversion and Coexistence. Manchester University Press. p. 265. ISBN 978-0-7190-7107-2.
- Shapira, Anita; Abel, Evelyn (2008). Yigal Allon, Native Son: A Biography. Jewish culture and contexts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 239. ISBN 978-0-8122-4028-3. OCLC 154800576.
- Galnoor, Itzhak (1995). The Partition of Palestine: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement. SUNY series in Israeli studies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. p. 195. ISBN 978-0-7914-2194-9.
- Bickerton, Ian J.; Klausner, Carla L. (2002). A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-13-090303-7.
- Bickerton & Klausner (2001), page 103
- Hillel Cohen (3 January 2008). Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917–1948. University of California Press. p. 236. ISBN 978-0-520-93398-9.
... Musa al-alami surmised that the mufti would agree to partition if he were promised that he would rule the Arab state
- Morris, 2008, p. 76, 77
- Morris 2008, p. 73
- Louis 2006, p. 419
- Morris, Benny (2008). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9.
- Roza El-Eini (2006). Mandated landscape: British imperial rule in Palestine, 1929–1948. History. Routledge. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-7146-5426-3.
They accordingly announced on 11 December 1947, that the Mandate would end on 15 May 1948, from which date the sole task ... would be to ... withdrawal by 1 August 1948.
- Arthur Koestler (March 2007). Promise and Fulfilment – Palestine 1917–1949. READ BOOKS. pp. 163–168. ISBN 978-1-4067-4723-2. Retrieved 13 October 2011.
- Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9. Retrieved 13 July 2013.
Bevin regarded the UNSCOP majority report of 1 September 1947 as unjust and immoral. He promptly decided that Britain would not attempt to im- pose it on the Arabs; indeed, he expected them to resist its implementation… The British cabinet...: in the meeting on 4 December 1947... It decided, in a sop to the Arabs, to refrain from aiding the enforcement of the UN resolution, meaning the partition of Palestine. And in an important secret corollary... it agreed that Britain would do all in its power to delay until early May the arrival in Palestine of the UN (Implementation) Commission. The Foreign Office immediately informed the commission "that it would be intolerable for the Commission to begin to exercise its authority while the Palestine Government was still administratively responsible for Palestine"... This... nullified any possibility of an orderly implementation of the partition resolution.
- See memo from Acting Secretary Lovett to Certain Diplomatic Offices, Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume VI, pages 1447–48
- See Folke Bernadotte, "To Jerusalem", Hodder and Stoughton, 1951, pages 112–13
- Yoav Gelber, Independence Versus Nakba; Kinneret–Zmora-Bitan–Dvir Publishing, 2004, ISBN 978-965-517-190-7, p.104
- "Web – Termination of British mandate in Plaestine 14/15 May". nation.com. Archived from the original on 12 October 2017.
- Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel: 14 May 1948
- Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations 15 May 1948: Retrieved 4 May 2012
- See "Request for the admission of the State of Palestine to Unesco as a Member State" (PDF). UNESCO. 12 May 1989.
- See The Palestine Declaration to the International Criminal Court: The Statehood Issue "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 July 2011. Retrieved 19 July 2009.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) and Silverburg, Sanford R. (2002), "Palestine and International Law: Essays on Politics and Economics", Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Co, ISBN 978-0-7864-1191-7, pages 37–54 - See Chapter 5 "Israel (1948–1949) and Palestine (1998–1999): Two Studies in the Creation of States", in Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, and Stefan Talmon, eds., The Reality of International Law: Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999)
- Sourcebook on public international law, by Tim Hillier, Routledge, 1998, ISBN 978-1-85941-050-9, page 217; and Prof. Vera Gowlland-Debbas, "Collective Responses to the Unilateral Declarations of Independence of Southern Rhodesia and Palestine, An Application of the Legitimizing Function of the United Nations", The British Yearbook of International Law, 1990, pp. 135–153
- "See paragraph 5, Separate opinion of Judge Koroma" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 June 2011.
- See De Waart, Paul J.I.M., "International Court of Justice Firmly Walled in the Law of Power in the Israeli–Palestinian Peace Process", Leiden Journal of International Law, 18 (2005), pp. 467–487
- "Abbas should change his locks before next wave of Palestinian prisoners freed". Haaretz. 6 December 2011.
- אנדרטת שופר החירות בנתניה: 75 שנה להחלטת האו"ם ההיסטורית
- On This Day: 75 years since UN vote to turn Palestine into Jewish, Arab states, Jerusalem Post
Bibliography
- Ben-Dror, Elad (2007). "The Arab Struggle against Partition: The International Arena of Summer 1947". Middle Eastern Studies. 43 (2). Taylor & Francis, Ltd.: 259–293. doi:10.1080/00263200601114117. ISSN 0026-3206. JSTOR 4284540. S2CID 143853008. Retrieved 20 January 2023.
- Benny Morris (2008). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-14524-3. Retrieved 14 July 2013.
- William Roger Louis (2006). Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization. I.B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1-84511-347-6. Retrieved 16 August 2013.
- William Roger Louis (1985). The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945–1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822960-5.
Further reading
- Bregman, Ahron (2002). Israel's Wars: A History Since 1947. London ; New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-28715-9.
- Avneri, Aryeh L. (1984). The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land-settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948. Middle East Studies. New Brunswick, USA: Transaction Books. ISBN 978-0-87855-964-0.
- Fischbach, Michael R. (2003). Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Institute for Palestine Studies series. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-12978-7.
- Gelber, Yoav (1997). Jewish-Transjordanian Relations 1921-1948: Alliance of Bars Sinister. London: Frank Cass. ISBN 978-0-7146-4675-6.
- Khalaf, Issa (1991). Politics in Palestine: Arab Factionalism and Social Disintegration, 1939-1948. SUNY series in the social and economic history of the Middle East. Albany: State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-0707-3.
- Louis, William Roger (1984). The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951: Arab Nationalism, the United States, and Postwar Imperialism. Oxford (GB): Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822489-1.
- Sicker, Martin (1999). Reshaping Palestine: from Muhammad Ali to the British Mandate, 1831-1922. Westport, Conn: Praeger. ISBN 978-0-275-96639-3.
- "Palestine". Encyclopædia Britannica.
External links
- UN Resolution 181 (II) A: Future government of Palestine. On www.un.org.
- Text of the Resolution at undocs.org
- Full text of report of Sub-Committee 2 with all appendices, tables and maps
- JFK in Support of Partition, 1948 Shapell Manuscript Foundation
- Maps of Palestine Archived 27 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine
- Ivan Rand and the UNSCOP Papers
- Official Map prepared by UNSCOP
- 29 November Quiz
- Firsthand testimonies from the men and women who helped found the State of Israel on YouTube
Diplomacy and peace proposals in the Arab–Israeli conflict | |
---|---|
Background |
|
1948–1983 |
|
1991–2016 |
|
2019–present |
Nakba | |
---|---|
Background | |
Main articles | |
Key incidents | |
Notable writers | |
Related categories/lists | |
Related templates | |
The Holocaust and the Nakba |
- History of the Jews in Palestine (region)
- United Nations General Assembly resolutions concerning Israel
- 1947 in law
- 1948 Arab–Israeli War
- United Nations General Assembly resolutions
- Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the United Nations
- Partition (politics)
- Borders of Israel
- Borders of the Gaza Strip
- Borders of the West Bank
- 1947 in international relations
- Documents of Mandatory Palestine
- 1947 in Mandatory Palestine
- Two-state solution
- 1947 in the United Nations