Ron Prosor (Israel's man at the UN) wrote an Op-Ed in the Times on March 31 titled The U.N.’s War on Israel. I found it extremely annoying, but after a few deep breaths I managed to channel my annoyance into something useful.
Prosor is right to note that at times it seems the UN has no other business but to pass resolutions condemning Israel. But why? Are there any reasons for this unseemly obsession? I can think of a handful:
- Most UN member-states are former European colonies. In fact, the whole non-European world is except for five countries. So as a group, member-states of the UN don't much like colonialism and naturally empathize with the Palestinians.
- There are a lot of Arab/Muslim countries that have to support Palestine (or find it convenient to do so). They control resources that many other countries need, and so it goes.
- The UN has some institutional animosity towards Israel, thanks to the assassination of a UN appointed mediator (Folke Bernadotte), ordered by a sometime terrorist who went on to become PM of Israel.
- Israel has repeatedly ignored UN resolutions on its West Bank settlements, its administration in the Occupied Territories, and with respect to the various conflicts it has been involved in over the years. Many of today's resolutions are useless re-iterations of prior resolutions that have been ignored by successive Israeli governments.
- In many ways, the Israel/Palestine conflict is a problem created by the UN, early in its history.
The last point is what I want to discuss in this super long diary. It will involve wading into a thicket of post WW-I maneuvering including the McMahon Hussein Letters, the Sykes-Picot agreemeent, the Balfour Declaration, the Peel Commission, and finally, the UN Partition Plan of 1947.
Towards the end, I've quoted, in full, the remarkable statement made by Henry Cattan, representing Palestinian interests, to the UN committee working on the partition plan. Cattan was a Palestinian lawyer who happened to have been Christian. He went on to write a number of books on Palestine, including The Palestine Question. His statement is below the fold and I'd highly recommend reading it when you get to the end. It's at once both illuminating and tragic.
Since this is such a long diary, I've marked key sections in bold for those who want to skim it. All emphasis throughout the diary is mine.
To do the subject any justice whatsoever, we have to go back 100 years, to the beginning of World War I. That is when events come together to suggest there are greater storms to come. Contrary to widely-held belief, the colonization of Palestine by Jews was not a response to the Holocaust. Jewish immigration to Palestine began much earlier and we have to understand this to comprehend the UN partition plan and why the Palestinians refused to accept it.
World War I started in July 1914, and ended in November 1918. Britain entered the conflict in August of 1914. Since we're discussing the Middle-Eastern theater, you're thinking it had to be about oil in some way. You'd be right, the British feared the Ottomans would capture their oil-fields in Iran and that drove some of their thinking during the war.
As the war got underway, Herbert Samuel (the first cabinet minister with Jewish heritage) spoke to members of the British cabinet in November 1914 about why the British Empire should support the Zionist effort in Palestine:
"I mentioned that two things would be essential—that the state should be neutralized, since it could not be large enough to defend itself, and that the free access of Christian pilgrims should be guaranteed.... I also said it would be a great advantage if the remainder of Syria were annexed by France, as it would be far better for the state to have a European power as neighbour than the Turk."
and Samuel recalled a later discussion with the Foreign Minister:
"When I asked him what his solution was he said it might be possible to neutralize the country under international guarantee ... and to vest the government of the country in some kind of Council to be established by the Jews"
In 1915, Samuel presented a formal proposal titled "The Future of Palestine" which included the following text:
I am assured that the solution of the problem of Palestine which would be much the most welcome to the leaders and supporters of the Zionist movement throughout the world would be the annexation of the country to the British Empire.
Even at this early stage, we already suspect there are forces at play here that will impact Palestine. Palestine will soon become the focus of a great deal of interest, including religious sentiment (both Christian and Jewish).
To jump ahead a bit, the British empire did take control of the civil administration of Palestine after the war, and in 1920 this was legitimized as the "British Mandate for Palestine" by the League of Nations. Samuel was appointed the first High Commissioner of Palestine. The local population understood the import of the appointment instantly and the Palestinian Muslim-Christian Association sent the following message to the British authorities:
'Sir Herbert Samuel regarded as a Zionist leader, and his appointment as first step in formation of Zionist national home in the midst of Arab people contrary to their wishes. Inhabitants cannot recognise him, and Muslim-Christian Society cannot accept responsibility for riots or other disturbances of peace'.
The House of Lords debated the question of a "Jewish National Home" and Samuel's appointment as High Commissioner quite extensively in June of 1920. From the debate's transcript, it is clear the Lords were aware of the issues and the path along which Samuel's appointment and the British Mandate would set Palestine. Lord Sydneham (who had served as Governor of my hometown, Bombay) said:
My Lords, every one of us must thoroughly sympathise with those Jews who wish to make their home in Palestine. Although their rights are based upon a particularly ruthless conquest we respect, and wish to take into full account, their strong sentiment inherited from the five hundred years during which they were a ruling people. We cannot, however, go back three thousand years, and we must consider the equal rights of the present inhabitants of Palestine.
In November, 1917, Mr. Balfour expressed the sympathy of the Government with the aspirations of the Zionists, but he stated that it must be "clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." It is because it seems that this just and necessary reservation has been forgotten that I venture to raise this Question in your Lordships' House to-day. For reasons which can easily be understood it is only in your Lordships' House that a strong plea can be raised for justice to the immense non-Jewish majority of the population of Palestine.
[...]
I should particularly like to draw your Lordships' attention to the speech made by the Bishop at Jerusalem at a meeting at the Church House, and reported in the Guardian and Church Times. The Bishop said plainly that the present troubles were "largely due to the actions and behaviour of the Zionists" who settled in Palestine since the war. He then pointed out that— The Zionist Commission had been a very strong body; but it was not strong enough to control all its members, many of whom were extremists … They had behaved and spoken as if the country had already been given to them and was theirs to dispose of as they would. in ordinary conversation among Zionists at Jerusalem it had been asked. 'What shall be done with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? Shall it be burned or razed to the ground?' It did not occur to them that Christians and Mohammedans had as much right to Palestine as they had."
[...]
The Rev. G. Napier Wittingham, who has lately returned from Palestine, tells me that the Zionists demand rights of pre-emption on all sales of land in Palestine, and possession of all uncultivated lands, even if there are customary rights over those lands, which we always recognise in India. A number of Australian soldiers wished to settle in Palestine but have been prevented from doing so by the protest of the Zionist Commission. Lately the Government, at the instigation of the Commission, offered £150 for some land adjoining the Sacred Mosque of Omar. This is Wakf land, which anyone who has served in India understands. The proposal, of course, caused the bitterest resentment among the Moslems in the country, and Mr. Wittingham writes— All the various sects of Christians, all the Moslems are at one. A Society has been formed called the Moslem and Christian League, and I had a long talk with its President, his Excellency Aref Pasha. He did not mince matters but said quite plainly that he and his friends had been deceived. They fought on the side of the British against the Turk because they believed in British justice, but they would never have fought their co-religionists had they imagined for a moment that a British victory meant Jewish domination.
The Moslem Christian League is surely a most remarkable development in the land of the Crusades, and the unanimity of all Christian Churches in Palestine seems a portent when one remembers the antecedents of the Crimean War. The League has branches all over Palestine, and the President of the Jaffa Branch has sent me a copy of this appeal, in which these words occur. It is addressed to "the Loyal Members of the British Parliament, to the ardent members of the House of Lords, to the British Liberal-Labour Party, to the Anglo-Saxon Churches, to the Professors and students of British Universities and Colleges, to the noble and just British Nation," and it says this— "Since Mr. Balfour's announcement to make our country, Palestine, national home for the Zionists, the Zionists began treading upon our National Rights, monopolizing influences, appropriating every thing to themselves and insulting all that is sacred to us. Though their number hardly equal one-tenth of the population and the land they own hardly amounts to one in four hundred parts, yet they have nearly monopolised commerce and industry, tightened the clutch upon the natives causing miseries and discontent amongst Moslems and Christians, the original inhabitants of the land; and all this thanks to the money poring on them from outside and the privileges given to them. What will be the result if the Zionists influx of immigration, permitted by the British Government, continues? Now they are coming by hundred and thousands, but what will be the result later on? Will it not be the destruction of Moslems and Christians together? Who is to blame for this fearful result? Surely we are in a dangerous situation menaced by vanishment; that is why we appeal for a helping hand to protect us from this horrible end. To allow Palestine to be a Jewish national home would be to condemn us to death." This language may be Oriental in tone, but the main facts are real, beyond dispute, and the League has not funds enough to make its cause known in this country. The zionists are demanding a monopoly of the railway concessions, and of port, developments and public works generally, and are insisting that Jewish labour and presumably capital should be employed in those services. They are also trying to substitute Hebrew for Arabic, and it is not surprising that many inhabitants are already trying to leave the country.
We have had a plain warning of what is before us.[...]your Lordships will imagine the utter consternation which prevailed when the announcement of the appointment of a Zionist Governor for the country was made. Nothing could have been more unfortunate at this moment. I am perfectly certain that Sir Herbert Samuel will do his utmost to be completely impartial, though the forces which will be brought to bear upon him might be too much for a stronger man. But is it reasonable to suppose that the Moslems and Christians of Palestine will ever believe that we can be impartial, and must it not be thought that this appointment was designed to pave the way for a complete Zionist Government of the country? I cannot think that His Majesty's Government had full and accurate information of the conditions in Palestine when this appointment was made.
Whatever happens, our responsibility to the people whom we have not consulted must remain. Who will regulate the influx of Zionists, which Dr. Max Nordau says will reach 8,000,000 or 10,000,000, or much more than twice the number that this little country will ever support? He also says that half-a-million Zionists are to be settled in the next few years. I wonder what the people of Scotland would say to such a prospect as that?
Samuel's appointment went ahead as planned. Views on his administration differ, but his presence and appointment was an indicator of the impact early Zionist efforts had on the British administration of Palestine. As an aside, during his administration, Samuel appointed as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Hajji Amin al-Husseini who played a complicated role in the years leading up to the partition of Palestine.
McMahon-Hussein Letters
In 1916 though, Britain had more immediate considerations. The British needed allies to win the War and among those recruited were the Arab tribes (yes Virginia, we're going to get to Lawrence of Arabia shortly). The "Arab revolt", essentially an armed insurgency against the Ottoman empire, was instigated by the Arab Bureau of the British Foreign Office. It was hoped this would distract the Turks and reduce the risk to Britain's Iranian fields. The carrot presented to the Arab leaders was British support for independent Arab states.
The NY Times presented a synopsis of the various promises made: World War I Pledges Led to Woe in 1957 which is quite useful so I'll quote it:
Much Middle East trouble traces back to promises made to both Jews and Arabs in World War I, with resulting charges of betrayal.
[...]
The Arabs also got promises, primarily Emir Hussein of Mecca, who started the Arab revolt against Turkey in June, 1916, in which Britain's Col. T.E. Lawrence--"Lawrence of Arabia"--was a spectacular leader.
Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner for Egypt, wrote Emir Hussein on Oct. 24, 1915, that "Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca."
Sir Henry excluded as not purely Arab "the two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo." In 1922, Britain said this exception covered "the whole of Palestine west of the Jordan" River.
It is possible that the British Arab Bureau may not have considered the Palestinian peasant population as "Arabs" in this context, perhaps they implicitly reserved that term for those who practiced a more Bedouin lifestyle. Whatever you may think, the statements made by Palestinian and Arab leaders throughout the entire period do suggest they believed the terms of the agreement applied to Palestine.
Balfour Declaration
To make matters more complicated, the British government had also made firm promises to the Zionists.
The most notable promise, and the source of the greatest disputes, was the Balfour Declaration, incorporated by the League of Nations into Britain's 1922 Palestine mandate. On Nov. 2, 1917, British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour wrote:
"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."
That is the entire text of the famous "Balfour Declaration". Balfour is celebrated in Israel, it seems like every town has a street named for him. The British Prime Minister at the time, David Lloyd George supported the Balfour declaration. He was later to say this was for "propagandist reasons", and to quote him:
The Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.
To disprove accusations that lobbying is an American invention, I'll note this little tidbit, Lloyd George's legal firm had previously been engaged by Zionist groups to work on a proposal to establish a Jewish national home in Uganda.
Though Palestinian leaders had assumed they would be set on the path to an independent Palestine once the war was over, when that time came, the British government decided no such movers were possible for the moment.
By August, 1921, the Arabs had succeeded in getting Jordan separated from the "Jewish national home" provisions of the draft Palestine mandate. On July 1, 1922, a British statement asserted that the Balfour Declaration terms "do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a home should be founded in Palestine."
There was an opportunity here, at the end of the war, to make good on the promise to their Arab allies in Palestine, but the British demurred.
On May 17, 1938, the British said "it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State." A White Paper asserted it would be "contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the mandate that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."
In light of similar negotiations over the end of colonial rule in other parts of the world, to me this sounds like a pretext to lengthen colonial rule. In the Indian context, the claim was made that the Hindu/Muslim communities could not peacefully co-exist without British rule. A laudable sentiment, but one which did not seem to have stopped British troops from butchering them together when required.
Miko Peled has a particularly blunt view of Balfour, he says: "The Balfour Declaration is one white racist promising another white racist somebody else's land."
Sykes–Picot Agreement
As the discussions were proceeding with the Zionists and Arabs/Palestinians, someone in the British Foreign Office seems to have forgotten to tell Britain's Arab allies that a separate, secret arrangement had been reached with the French government to divide Northern Arabia into two sections in anticipation of the Ottoman defeat (with a small portion reserved for Russia). The agreement was finalized in May 1916. When the Arabs did find out about it, Emir Faisal traveled to London to confront Lloyd George (with TE Lawrence in tow). George is reported to have said "conditions had changed".
By 1919, the war was over and it appears conditions had changed so much that the British government did not feel it suitable to keep its promise to France either. The French protested, but thought better of it when they remembered the sight of German troops massed along the Ardennes and their need to maintain the British alliance.
The British administration in Palestine continued to function in the 1920s and 1930s. There were sporadic protests concerning Jewish immigration to Palestine; Zionists thought the quotas were too low, while Palestinians considered them too high. In general, the area went through an economic boom (as did much of the world) and a degree of modernization. Absent other forces, there is a case to be made that Palestine would have retained it's cosmopolitan, mixed character and perhaps flowered into a smaller version of Istanbul, or Beirut. But with enormous tribal and ethnic forces wreaking destruction across Europe and the world, this was not to be.
Peel Commission
We'll skip ahead to the mid-30s now. After an outbreak of violence in 1936 in Mandate Palestine, the British government asked Lord Peel to investigate the cause of the unrest. Peel convened a series of hearings in Palestine. During the hearings, the Jewish representatives insisted that a National Home for Jews was the primary objective of Britain's Mandate in Palestine. Which seems to have been news to many observers, but given the actions of Herbert Samuel, Lloyd George and Balfour, perhaps they weren't too far off the mark.
Some Palestinian groups boycotted the hearings, believing they were prejudiced against Palestinian freedom and statehood. The Mufti of Jerusalem (al-Huseini) did participate however, and he told the committee Palestinians sought immediate freedom and an end to the mandate. As a rationale for his appeal, he referred to the League of Nation's article guaranteeing self-determination to all. The same League of Nations that had awarded the British Mandate over Palestine. Peel died in 1937, but not before he had recommended the partition of Palestine.
The commission found that the unrest was caused by:
[F]irst, the desire of the Arabs for national independence; secondly, their antagonism to the establishment of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, quickened by their fear of Jewish domination. Among contributory causes were the effect on Arab opinion of the attainment of national independence by ‘Iraq, Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Syria and the Lebanon; the rush of Jewish immigrants escaping from Central and Eastern Europe; the inequality of opportunity enjoyed by Arabs and Jews respectively in placing their case before Your Majesty’s Government and the public; the growth of Arab mistrust; Arab alarm at the continued purchase of Arab land by the intensive character and the "modernism" of Jewish nationalism; and lastly the general uncertainty, accentuated by the ambiguity of certain phrases in the Mandate, as to the ultimate intentions of the Mandatory Power.
Following the Peel Commissions' recommendation for partition, rioting and violence continued Palestine. The NY Times' reported on British attempts to mediate between violent factions of Palestinians and Zionists who were rioting in Palestine: Zionists Adamant In Palestine Row (1939):
These (meetings) will be continued tomorrow and the British must consider the Palestine-Arabs' counter-proposals for immediate independence. It is regarded here as foregone that these counter-proposals will be excluded.
[...]
future conversations between the Jews and the British probably will continue on an informal basis, while the Arabs remain in formal session.
[...]
The famous McMahon correspondence--letter exchanged in 1915 and 1916 between Sir Henry McMahon and Sherif Hussein of Mecca at the time the British were inciting the Arabs to revolt against Turkish rulers--finally was published today. The letters have been published before, but this is the first time publication has been made officially, the present and past British governments always insisting that publication would not be "in the public interest".
The publication finally came because the Arabs insisted the letter justified their claim that Great Britain promised them an independent Palestine.
It's entirely possible that the British officers engaged in negotiations did fully intend to keep Palestine out of the promises made to Emir Faisal's father. After all, recall the cabinet seems to have bought into the theory that keeping Palestine open to Christian pilgrims was a laudable goal. Or it may have been that "conditions changed".
The NY Times obituary for Henry McMahon in 1949 reviewed his role in Palestine:
It was through him that the negotiations with Sherif Hussein of Mecca were conducted that led to the Arab revolt against the Turks. The Arabs say that letters Sir Henry wrote promised them sovereignty over Palestine. The British denied having made such promises.
An AP story noted that Sir Henry once wrote to a newspaper "I feel it my duty to state, and I do so definitely and emphatically, that it was not intended by me, in giving this pledge to King Hussein, to include Palestine in the area in which Arab independence was promised."
Or perhaps it just took some good old-fashioned, well-meaning American lobbying:
An appeal to Malcolm MacDonald, British Colonial Secretary, to "desist" from any plan to create an independent State in Palestine, has been cabled to the British Cabinet officer by the editors of The Nation and Oswald Garrison Villard, one of its contributing editors. [it reads]
"Reflecting large section of independent liberal and labor opinion, editors of The Nation earnestly appeal to you to desist from plan to create Independent State in Palestine. Such action would arouse indignation among Christians and Jews alike, and would mean abandonment of the whole Zionist policy and Balfour Declaration. The effect upon American attitude toward Great Britain would be literally disastrous"
The British administration of Palestine was presented with yet another opportunity to put Palestine on the path towards independence and statehood. As had happened in 1920, at the end of the Great War, they demurred. This sorry history is part of the reason the House of Commons so conclusively voted to recognize Palestine last year as I discussed in a diary at the time.
UN Partition Plan
During the war, the Jewish militia continued to work towards building a large, capable and well-armed militia, knowing that a confrontation with the Muslim-Christian majority was imminent. Driving their determination were the waves of destitute and persecuted Jewish immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, some of whom made their way to Palestine.
Towards the end of the Second World War, Britain was exhausted both militarily and politically. The Empire no longer had the will or wherewithal to stall independence movements in the colonies. Their largest colony, India, had contributed substantial troops and material in both World War I and II (my great grandfather's generation fought in Europe during the Great War). Remarkably, most British subjects, including those under colonial rule, had remained loyal to the crown through both conflicts. This was despite the fact that many in India and elsewhere felt the British government had reneged on promises to move towards greater self-determination and independence for its colonies after WW-I.
In any case, after WW-II it was clear the colonial ship had sailed, especially in the largest colony, India. In 1946, the British political establishment was dealing with calls for a partition of India into two states, India and Pakistan. To the British Empire, this was a far more pressing issue, with numerous complexities, not least the status of the various Indian monarchies they'd allied with over a hundred years of rule. In comparison, Palestine probably looked like a tiny problem and one they could easily outsource since they were governing it under a League of Nations mandate. So the "problem" of Palestine was passed, like a hot potato, over to the UN, which had succeeded the League of Nations.
And so towards the end of this sordid saga, we finally come to the claim that the "Palestinians rejected a state in 1947". Where shall we begin? Firstly, it's perhaps more accurate to say the Palestinians rejected the partition of their homeland as determined by the UN. They always wanted a state of their own, just not on the one the UN offered.
The problem wasn't just that the proposal favored the Jewish residents of Palestine, roughly half the country was being granted to a third of the population (which had been 10% in 1917). There were serious issues with the process as well. There were numerous reports that UN delegates had been bribed and threatened to support the partition plan. Jawaharlal Nehru said his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit (India's representative to the UN) had been offered bribes and was threatened with physical harm leading up to the vote, for the record, India voted No on partition. Haiti voted for partition, apparently influenced by an offer of a loan. The Philippines representative was recalled (apparently at the US's request) after voicing skepticism over partition. The French delegate was visited by Bernard Baruch who warned the US would withhold aid to France for World War 2 reconstruction if France did not vote for partition (Baruch appears to have been an Irgun sympathizer).
Truman wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt about the intense lobbying during this period:
"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.[...] I regret this situation very much because my sympathy has always been on the side of the Zionists.
Is it any wonder the Palestinians "rejected" such a process?
Nevertheless, it's instructive to review the substance of Palestinian views leading up to the adoption of resolution 181 on 29 November 1947 and the Palestinian case presented at the hearings. The Palestinian statement was read by Henry Cattan, part of the delegation from the Arab Higher Committee representing the Arab community in mandate Palestine. The delegation included both Muslim and Christian Arabs. Cattan was a lawyer, and a Palestinian Christian born in Jerusalem, who went on to write a number of books on the I/P conflict including The Palestine Question
I come to you as a representative of the people of Palestine, as an Arab whose roots are deeply imbedded in that tortured land. The Arab people are deeply anxious to find a just and lasting solution to the problem before you, because it is their own problem, the problem of their present life and their future destiny. No one is concerned with it as much as they are, since it involves their very existence as a people. With this existence threatened, with the future of our children in doubt, with our national patrimony in danger, we come to you, the representatives of the organized community of nations, in the full assurance that your conscience will support us in our struggle to hold that which is dearest to any people's heart: the national right of self-determination, which stands at the basis of your Charter.
Cattan's remarkable statement is below the fold and it lays out the Palestinian cause in as clear and sensible a way as I've ever heard it expressed. It is worth a read. Before he spoke, other representatives from the region spoke as well:
HASSAN Pasha (Egypt): I must emphasize that the Egyptian delegation believes—and with reason, I think—that the question of the displaced persons and world Jewry is the concern of another organ of the United Nations. I must point out, in this connexion, that the displaced persons of the world constitute some hundreds of thousands of people, and that the Jewish displaced persons constitute probably one-seventh or one-eighth of the displaced persons of the world. I therefore do not see why we should worry about one-eighth of the total number, when there is an organ of the United Nations which is taking care of displaced persons generally.
As my colleague from Syria pointed out, there has been a great amount of money raised in order to aid the Jews. It is natural that, with these funds, the Jews can be re-established in their homeland on a more privileged footing than the other displaced persons who have to start from scratch.
I do not see why we should complicate the question of Palestine by stepping on the rights of the original inhabitants of that country and allowing an invasion by an alien racial group. It is my belief—and I think this should be borne in mind by all the representatives—that the question of Palestine is independent of the question of the displaced persons.
[...]
Mr.JAMALI (Iraq): Just this afternoon I came across a very significant statement made by the Honourable Harry S. Truman, President of the United States, to the United States Congress on 12 March 1947. The statement reads as follows:
"I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure."
I should like to replace "the United States" by "the United Nations." I hope it will be the policy of the United Nations "to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure".
This statement is the very essence of traditional democracy. It is the very essence of traditional democracy that no people shall be subjugated by any group, and that no imposition shall be made upon any people by outsiders and outside pressure.
It seems to me that it behooves the committee which we are going to appoint to look very thoroughly into that principle, and see how it applies to Palestine. In Palestine, we have a free people who are resisting domination and invasion by a people who want to come in, who will become the majority, and who will rule these free people.
It is very important when we think of immigration into Palestine to look into the motive behind it. What is the motive behind it? Is the motive—and I hope the committee of inquiry will study that—really humanitarian? Is it a question of refugees? No, it is not a question of humanitarianism, nor a question of displaced persons. It is a question of determination to come in and dominate.
[...]
This will to dominate will bring about a great disturbance of peace and harmony in the Middle East, in the Arab world. I do hope that the committee will go to Palestine to study the situation on the spot, to study the effect of this invasion, of this imposition on peace and harmony in the neighbouring Arab States because—as I have said, and as the committee, I hope, will discover—Palestine is an integral part of the Arab world. It is what New York is to the United States of America. You cannot separate them. So I do hope that the question of the bearing of the Palestine problem on the Arab world will be thoroughly studied by the committee.
I should like to address a word to my colleagues who have referred to connecting the question of the immigration of displaced persons to that of Palestine. I submit that the two questions are quite separate. Palestine should not suffer for the crimes of Hitler. The Arabs should not suffer for the crimes of Hitler. There are some who propose that Palestine should bear part of the burden. To these gentlemen, I would say that Palestine has already taken much more than its due. It has taken approximately one-half million of Hitler's refugees and displaced persons.
Please let the committee of inquiry look into the question of peace and security in the Middle East. Let them put themselves in our place; I hope that they will open their own doors to those displaced persons much more than they have been doing so far.
On that last subject, see my diary on the failure of the Evian conference and Likud's insistence on a Jewish State.
Cattan's words were very fine, in many ways, they remind me of the beautiful words used by so many American Indian chiefs to describe the relationship their people had with the land. They too spoke of treaties abrogated, trust betrayed, and they failed to keep their people on their lands when faced with the collective might of a Western colonization. And in the end, the UN approved partition in November 1947. It was immediately clear to everyone on the ground that the half of Palestine carved out for a Jewish state would contain 400,000 Palestinians who would constitute 45% of the population. This point was not lost on Ben-Gurion and the Haganah. They had been thinking about this day ever since the unrest in the 30s.
Eventually, the men with the guns who had prepared for the moment seized it when it was presented. The Jewish Haganah militia, working with their allies the Irgun and Lehi, co-ordinated the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Over 600,000 perhaps as many as 720,000 left their homes in what was to become Israel.
When it was all over, after the armistice of 1949, the Israeli state controlled, within the "green line" 78% of Mandate Palestine's territory.
The next challenge was finding the people for this empty land. Or was it a land that had been emptied?
Read More