| Footnotes |
"The United Kingdom Government was ready to assume the responsibility for giving effect to any plan on which agreement was reached by the Arabs and the Jews. If the Assembly were to recommend a policy which was not acceptable to the Jews and the Arabs, the United Kingdom Government would not feel able to implement it. It would then be necessary to provide for some alternative authority to implement it.
"The United Kingdom Government was not prepared to undertake the task of imposing a policy in Palestine by force of arms. In considering any proposal that it should participate in the execution of a settlement, it would have to take into account both the inherent justice of the settlement and the extent to which force would be required to give effect to it.
"It had determined to base its policy on the assumption that it had to lay down the Mandate under which it had sought for twenty-five years to discharge its obligations, to facilitate the growth of the Jewish National Home and to protect the interests of the Arab population. In order that there might be no misunderstanding of the attitude and policy of the United Kingdom, Mr. Creech-Jones had been instructed by his Government to announce with all solemnity that in the absence of a settlement it had to plan for an early withdrawal of British forces and of the British administration from Palestine." [AD HOC], p. 4
"In the light of the Treaty of Lausanne and international practice after the two world wars, it was clear that however inconceivable it might appear to some people, the inhabitants of any particular region had no say in international conferences at which their fate was decided. The Arab argument regarding the self-determination of peoples constituted an ideal, but not an axiom of international law."
Also "Regarding the other basic argument put forward by the Arabs, that of numerical superiority, Mr. Garcia Granados’ view was that what characterized a nation was its culture and not the number of inhabitants. In twenty-five years, the Jewish people had left upon Palestine the indelible mark of an out-standing culture, which characterized the country even more than the Arab culture: Palestine was no more Arab than certain Spanish countries of Latin America were Indian."JGG_2
"In conclusion, Dr. Granados asserted", according to the press release on that session, "that the prediction that the Arabs in the Jewish state would be plunged into misery and forced to emigrate to other Arab countries had been disclaimed by the history of the last 25 years. It was, he said, the economic progress of the Jews in Palestine which drew the Arabs down from the hill districts. And he pointed out, further, that despite the boycott which prohibits open trading between Arabs and Jews, it is still carried on clandestinely in the cities and openly in the settlements. The attraction, he declared, of mutual economic interests is irresistible - a fact which for the Committee must be a hope and an incentive.
And the Guatemalan delegate ended by declaring: 'There is no reason why there should be a fundamental conflict between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. The Arabs are producers of agricultural commodities for home consumption; the Jews are primarily producers of agricultural commodities for export and they tend to industrial expansion. Such industrial expansion can only be eminently favorable to the interests of the Middle East.'"
Editor's comment: The rest is history.
It is seldom acknowledged that, while Israel refers to UN-GA Resolution No. 181 recommending Partition of Palestine as legitimization of her existence, she did in the end not implement any of the provisions of that resolution: until today, there is no "Arab state" in the Palestine as carved out by British colonialism after the 1st World war; then of course no "economic union" with this non-existent "Arab State"; the borders were drawn by the war much wider than what the UN resolutions provided for, and the rights of the existing population were trampled upon by driving out four fifths of the Arab population of what became the State of Israel. This November 29, 1947 is a double bad day for the Arab Palestinians, since it is the cutoff date in the Israeli Prevention of Infiltration (Offences and Jurisdiction) Law, according to which the return of any "Palestinian citizen or [...] Palestinian resident without nationality or citizenship or whose nationality or citizenship was doubtful and who, during the said period, left his ordinary place of residence in an area which has become a part of Israel for a place outside Israel", i.e. who fled from Israels founding war, is considered a criminal, punishable by immediate deportation or four years prison.
And, as wiser people had warned, the State of Israel is in a permanent state of war against the Arabs of Palestine and the surrounding Arab nation. "We will ever live by the sword", declares Israeli prime minister Netanyahu.
Back to topTHIRTY-SECOND MEETING
Held at Lake Success, New York, on Monday, 24 November 1947 at 8.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. H. EVATT (Australia).
Subheadings added by the mlwerke.d editor
The Chairman recalled that the conclusions of Sub-Committee 1 were embodied in a draft resolution, to which a plan of partition with economic union was attached. The conclusions of Sub-Committee 2 were embodied in three draft resolutions contained in chapter IV of its report. As the debate had covered all the drafts, the Committee could proceed to the vote, it being understood that the movers of amendments, all of which related to the plan of Sub-Committee 1, would have the right to speak for them.
The Committee would first vote on the three draft resolutions submitted by Sub-Committee 2.
Mr. Gonzalez Fernandez (Colombia) felt that the first two draft resolutions of Sub-Committee 2 had not received proper consideration. He supported the first draft resolution to which, he recalled, the delegation of Belgium had made two main objections (29th meeting). In answer to those objections, Mr. Gonzalez Fernandez pointed out that the draft resolution was open to amendment, and that when a far-reaching and irrevocable decision was involved, it was never too late to examine all aspects of the question.
The delegation of Colombia had held from the very beginning, that certain points of substance, namely, the legal aspects of the matter, the problem of Jewish displaced persons in Europe and the possibility of conciliation, should be dealt with as preliminary questions. Those questions, however, had been more or less brushed aside by procedural decisions.
No one had contested the legal basis for the unanimous recommendations set forth in chapter V of the report of the Special Committee[fn]. The question was how those general principles could he carried into effect. It had seemed at one point that the members of Sub-Committee 1 would refer to Chapters VI and VII of the Charter as the legal basis for the implementation of their plan. But the representative of Uruguay, who was Rapporteur of that Sub-Committee, had mentioned Articles 77 and 80 in that connexion (31st meeting). If the Palestinian question was a political matter not covered by the Charter, the great Powers should decide it outside the Organization. If, however, the fifty-seven Members of the 0rganization were to assume grave responsibilities in respect of Palestine, the question should be dealt with in accordance with the Charter, which was the one safeguard of small nations.
Colombia was neither firmly in favour of partition nor firmly opposed to it. It sympathized with the Jewish people and had therefore asked — in vain — that recommendations VI and XII of the Special Committee should immediately be carried out.
The delegation of Colombia, faithful to the principles of law, asked that the International Court of Justice should be requested to offer an advisory opinion. If an advisory opinion of the Court were not asked for, the delegation of Colombia would find it very difficult to take a definite position on the proposals before the Committee. Advocacy of recourse to the Court was by no means a negative position. The Mandatory Power's forces would not be withdrawn within the following three months and, while the Court studied the matter, an active, well directed attempt might he made towards conciliation. The advisory opinion of the Court and the results of conciliation under United Nations auspices could he considered at a special session of the General Assembly.
Mr. Parodi (France) said that his delegation always paid the utmost attention to such issues as the competence of the United Nations and the observance of the Charter. He felt, however, that all but one of the questions listed in the first draft resolution of Sub-Committee 2 were so general in character as not to constitute legal issues of which the International Court of Justice could make a detailed study. The first question, for instance, concerned the inherent right of the indigenous population of Palestine; that was a political or philosophical issue, not a legal one.
Since the French delegation entertained some doubts in connexion with the question formulated in sub-paragraph (viii) of the first paragraph of the operative part, Mr. Parodi requested that that sub-paragraph should be voted upon separately.
The Chairman put to the vote the first paragraph of the operative part of the first draft resolution of Sub-Committee 2, up to and inclusive of sub-paragraph (vii).
A vote was taken by roll-call.
In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, El Salvador, Greece, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France, Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Abstaining: Bolivia, China, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Honduras, India, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
The paragraph up to and including sub-paragraph (vii), was rejected by 25 votes to 18, with 11 abstentions.
The Chairman, speaking as the representative of Australia, wished to explain the vote he was about to cast on sub-paragraph (viii). He considered the question posed in that sub-paragraph not as a legal but rather as a political matter.
The Chairman put sub-paragraph (viii) of the first paragraph of the operative part to the vote.
A vote was taken by roll-call.
In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, El Salvador, France, Greece, Haiti, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Against: Australia, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Abstaining: Belgium, Bolivia, China, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
The sub-paragraph was rejected by 21 votes to 20, with 13 abstentions.
The Chairman called upon the Committee to take a decision on the second draft resolution of Sub-Committee 2. He recalled that a recommendation dealing with the same subject had been debated in the Third Committee and had been adopted by the General Assembly as resolution 136 (II).
At the request of the representative of Argentina, the three recommendations would be put to the vote separately, consideration of the preamble being deferred.
The Chairman put the first recommendation to the vote.
A vote was taken by roll-call.
In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen.
Against: Australia, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Guatemala, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Panama, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Abstaining: Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nicaragua, Sweden, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
The recommendation was adopted by 17 votes to 14, with 23 abstentions.
The Chairman put the second recommendation to the vote.
A vote was taken by roll-call.
In favour: Afghanistan, Belgium, Chile, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Norway, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Siam, Syria, Yemen.
Against: Australia, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, Guatemala, Iceland, New Zealand, Peru, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Abstaining: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, Sweden, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
The recommendation was adopted by 18 votes to 16, with 21 abstentions.
The Chairman put the third recommendation to the vote.
A vote was taken by roll-call.
In favour: Afghanistan, China, Colombia, Egypt, Haiti, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Siam, Syria, Yemen.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Denmark, Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Abstaining: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
The recommendation was rejected by 18 votes to 15, with 22 abstentions.
Mr. Tsarapkin (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) noted that the representative of Lebanon had quoted an article from the New York Times in which a reference was made to the USSR. Mr. Tsarapkin declared that that article was an absurd and slanderous invention. The fact that it had been published on the eve of a decision on the question of Palestine clearly showed its provocative aims.
The Chairman put the first five paragraphs of the preamble to the second draft resolution to the vote in succession.
The first paragraph was adopted by 20 votes to 10.
The second paragraph was adopted by 22 votes to 12.
The third paragraph was rejected by 17 votes to 15.
The fourth paragraph was rejected by 17 votes to 15.
The fifth paragraph was adopted by 18 votes to 15.
The Chairman put the sixth paragraph to the vote.
A vote was taken by roll-call.
In favour: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France, Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Siam, Sweden, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Abstaining: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, India, Mexico, Nicaragua, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
The paragraph was rejected by 26 votes to 11, with 18 abstentions.
The Chairman put the seventh paragraph to vote.
The paragraph was adopted by 18 votes to 15.
The eighth and ninth paragraphs were adopted without a formal vote.
The Chairman put the second draft resolution of Sub-Committee 2, as modified, to the vote as a whole.
A vote was taken by roll-call.
In favour: Afghanistan, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, France, Haiti, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen.
Against: Australia, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. Canada, Chile, Denmark, Guatemala, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Abstaining: Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Greece, Honduras, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, Siam, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
The draft resolution was not adopted, 16 votes being cast in favour and 16 against, with 23 abstentions.
The Chairman proposed that the modified text of the second draft resolution should he included in the Committee’s report to the General Assembly.
It was so agreed.
The Chairman put the third draft resolution of Sub-Committee 2 to the vote.
A vote was taken by roll-call.
In favour: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France, Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Siam, Sweden, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Abstaining: Argentina, China, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, India, Mexico, Nicaragua, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
The draft resolution was rejected by 29 votes to 12, with 14 abstentions.
| Original draft resolution as proposed by Sub-Committee 2 | What was left over after the voting in the ad hoc Committee's plenum |
|---|---|
| The General Assembly, | |
| Having regard to the unanimous recommendations of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, that the General Assembly undertake immediately the initiation and execution of an international arrangement whereby the problem of the distressed European Jews will be dealt with as a matter of extreme urgency for the alleviation of their plight and of the Palestine problem, | Having regard to the unanimous recommendation of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine that the General Assembly undertake immediately the initiation and execution of an international arrangement whereby the problem of the distressed European Jews will be dealt with as a matter of extreme urgency for the alleviation of their plight and of the Palestine problem; |
| Bearing in mind that genuine refugees and displaced persons constitute a problem which is international in scope and character. | Bearing in mind that genuine refugees and displaced persons constitute a problem which is international in scope and character; |
| Considering that the question of refugees and displaced persons is indivisible in character as regards its possible solution, | |
| Considering that it is the duty of the Governments concerned to make provision for the return of refugees and displaced persons to the countries of which they are nationals, | |
| Considering that it is the duty of the Governments concerned to make provision for the return of refugees and displaced persons to the countries of which they are nationals, | |
| Being further of the opinion that where repatriation proves impossible, solution should be sought by way of resettlement in the territories of the Members of the United Nations which are willing and in a position to absorb these refugees and displaced persons, | Being of the opinion that where repatriation proves impossible, solution should be sought by way of resettlement in the territories of the Members of the United Nations which are willing and in a position to absorb these refugees and displaced persons; |
| Considering that Palestine, despite its very small area and limited resources, has absorbed a disproportionately large number of Jewish immigrants and cannot take anymore without serious injury to the economy of the country and the rights and position of the indigenous population, | |
| Considering that many other countries with much greater area and larger resources have not taken their due share of Jewish refugees and displaced persons, | |
| Having adopted its resolution 62 (I) of 15 December 1946 calling for the creation of an International Refugee Organization with a view to the solution of the refugee problem through the combined efforts of the United Nations, and | HAVING adopted resolution 62 (I) on 15 December 1946 calling for the creation of an international refugee organization with a view to the solution of the refugee problem through the combined efforts of the United Nations; and |
| Taking note of the assumption on 1 July 1947 by the Preparatory Commission of the International Refugee Organization of operational responsibility for displaced persons and refugees, | TAKING note of the assumption on 1 July 1947 by the Preparatory Commission of the International Refugee Organization of operational responsibility for displaced persons and refugees |
| Recommends | |
| 1. That countries of origin should be requested to take back the Jewish refugees and displaced persons belonging to them, and to render them all possible assistance to resettle in life; | That the countries of origin should be requested to take back the Jewish refugees and displaced persons belonging to them, and to render them all possible assistance to resettle in life. |
| 2. That those Jewish refugees and displaced persons who cannot be repatriated should be absorbed in the territories of Members of the United Nations in proportion to their area, economic resources, per capita income, population and other relevant factors; | That those Jewish refugees and displaced persons who cannot be repatriated should be absorbed in the territories of Members of the United Nations in proportion to their area, economic resources, per capita income, population and other relevant factors. |
| 3. That a special committee of the General Assembly should be set up to recommend for acceptance of the Members of the United Nations a scheme of quotas of Jewish refugees and displaced persons to be resettled in their rcspectivc territories, and that the special committee should, as far as possible, work in consultation with the International Refugee Organization or its Preparatory Commission, | |
| Country | in Cte | Changed | in GA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Afghanistan | - | - | |
| Argentina | ± | ± | |
| Australia | + | + | |
| Belgium | ± | ± > + | + |
| Bolivia | + | + | |
| Brazil | + | + | |
| Byelorussian S.S.R. | + | + | |
| Canada | + | + | |
| Chile | + | + > ± | ± |
| China | ± | ± | |
| Colombia | ± | ± | |
| Costa Rica | + | + | |
| Cuba | - | - | |
| Czechoslovakia | + | + | |
| Denmark | + | + | |
| Dominican Republic | + | + | |
| Ecuador | + | + | |
| Egypt | - | - | |
| El Salvador | ± | ± | |
| Ethiopia | ± | ± | |
| France | ± | ± > + | + |
| Greece | ± | ± > - | - |
| Guatemala | + | + | |
| Haiti | ± | ± > + | + |
| Honduras | ± | ± | |
| Iceland | + | + | |
| India | - | - | |
| Iran | - | - | |
| Iraq | - | - | |
| Lebanon | - | - | |
| Liberia | ± | ± > + | + |
| Luxembourg | ± | ± > + | + |
| Mexico | ± | ± | |
| Netherlands | ± | ± > + | + |
| New Zealand | ± | ± > + | + |
| Nicaragua | + | + | |
| Norway | + | + | |
| Pakistan | - | - | |
| Panama | + | + | |
| Paraguay | / | / > + | + |
| Peru | + | + | |
| Philippines | / | + | |
| Poland | + | + | |
| Saudi Arabia | - | - | |
| Siam (Thailand) | - | - > / | / |
| Sweden | + | + | |
| Syria | - | - | |
| Turkey | - | - | |
| U.S.S.R. | + | + | |
| Ukrainian S.S.R. | + | + | |
| Union of South Africa | + | + | |
| United Kingdom | ± | ± | |
| United States of America | + | + | |
| Uruguay | + | + | |
| Venezuela | + | + | |
| Yemen | - | - | |
| Yugoslavia. | ± | ± | |
| Sum Y/NA/A | 55 | +1 | 56 |
| Sum Y/N | 38 | +8 | 46 |
| Total Yes | 25 | +8 | 33 |
| Percent of Y/N/A | 45,45% | 58,93% | |
| Percent of Y/N | 65,79% | 71,74% | |
| Total No | 13 | 13 | |
| Abstaining | 0 | 0 | |
| not present | 2 | -1 | 1 |
| Changed from cte to GA | 12 |
While the ad hoc Committee was identical in its composition to the UN General Assembly, the stricter voting rules of the GA did not apply, where according to article 18 of the Charter of the United Nations decisions "on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting," which in Rule 86 of the GA's Rules and Producedures is clarified to mean "members casting an affirmative or negative vote. Members which abstain from voting are considered as not voting."
The vote for the Partition Resolution in the Ad hoc Committee did not achieve the two-thirds majority when counting only Yes and No votes, and not even an absolute majority when counting the abstentions, too. So some countries abstaining had to be brought to vote for partion if the Partition Resolution should be adopted by the GA. - Editor's note
THIRTY-FOURTH MEETING
Held at Lake Success, New York, on Tuesday, 25 November 1947, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. H. Evatt (Australia).
The Chairman called upon the Committee to take a decision on the draft resolution and plan submitted by Sub-Committee 1, as amended.
Sir Carl Berendsen (New Zealand) stated that his delegation was in favour of partition but that it had grave apprehensions concerning the enforcement and implementation of the plan. It desired to vote for partition and hoped that some measure would be taken to strengthen the provisions concerning enforcement and implementation. Sir Carl urged, as a duty which the United Nations owed to itself as well as to the Arabs and Jews, that all Members, and particularly the great Powers, should pledge themselves at the current session of the General Assembly that if bloodshed and upheaval broke out in Palestine, a united effort to suppress it would be made by means of an international force, to which all would contribute in proportionate strength. Such a pledge would remove the doubts he had mentioned.
The New Zealand delegation would abstain from voting in the Ad Hoc Committee, without prejudice to its final vote to be cast in the General Assembly.
Mr. El-Khouri (Syria) stated that his delegation would vote against the partition plan because, if adopted, it would seriously prejudice legitimate rights and interests, and at the same time constitute a violation of the Charter, the Covenant of the League of Nations, and the terms of the Mandate.
The delegation of Syria reserved all its rights including that of putting the question before the International Court of Justice.
Mr. Jamali (Iraq) stated that his delegation would vote against the partition plan because it was unjust, impractical, contrary to the Charter and would endanger international peace.
The Chairman put to the vote the draft resolution and plan submitted by Sub-Committee 1, as amended.
A vote was taken by roll-call.
In favour: Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Iceland, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Against: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Siam, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Abstaining: Argentina, Belgium, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
Absent: Paraguay, Philippines.
The resolution was adopted by 25 votes to 13, with 17 abstentions.
Mahmoud Fawzi Bey (Egypt) stated that the decision for partition was not within the scope of the Charter; the delegation of Egypt therefore reserved its right to consider the decision null and void.
The Chairman thanked the members of the Committee for their assistance in the consideration of the question, and declared the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian question completed.
The meeting rose at 3.35 p.m.
The following is taken from the "Yearbook of the United Nations 1947-1948", United Nations, Lake Success (NY), 1949, pages 245-247
The recommendations of the ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question (A/516) were considered by the General Assembly at the 124th to 128th plenary meetings, from [Wednesday] November 26 to [Saturday] 29, 1947. [editor's note: Thursday, November 27 was "Thanksgiving", a special holiday in the USA]
The Plan of Partition with Economic Union, in the form recommended by the ad hoc Committee, was supported, often with certain misgivings concerning particular aspects (e.g., the provisions for the Plan's implementation), by the representatives of Sweden, Canada, Brazil, United States, Poland, Uruguay, Netherlands, New Zealand, U.S.S.R., Belgium and Guatemala. The Plan was opposed, on the grounds that it violated the Charter and the principle of the right of self-determination of the Palestine population, by the representatives of the Philippines, Yemen, Greece, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Haiti, Pakistan, Cuba and Iraq.
Representatives of several other Members declared themselves equally dissatisfied with the Partition Plan and with the rival plan for a unitary Palestine. Those who under these circumstances announced that they would abstain from voting were the representatives of China and Ethiopia.
During the 127th meeting on [Friday] November 28, the representative of Colombia submitted a draft resolution (A/518) which provided that a decision on the Palestine question be deferred and that the matter be referred back to the ad hoc Committee for further efforts at producing a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews. At the same meeting, the representative of France proposed a 24-hour adjournment to permit a last-minute effort at conciliating Arabs and Jews and at arriving at an agreed solution of the Palestine problem. The French motion was supported by the representatives of Denmark and Luxembourg, and opposed by those of Colombia and Poland. It was approved by the Assembly by a vote of 25 to 15, with 10 abstentions, and, consequently, the Assembly thereupon adjourned for 24 hours.
Following this 24-hour adjournment, the representative of Lebanon, at the 128th plenary meeting on [Saturday] November 29, 1947, deploring that since the beginning of the discussions "no demarche was attempted with the Arab delegations and no attempt was made to find any conciliation formula ..." until the representatives of France and Colombia had intervened during the preceding plenary meeting, assured the Assembly that the Arab States had been and were always ready to listen to and study "any conciliatory formula susceptible of providing a reasonable and just solution of the Palestine question". They would have been happy to present a detailed plan embodying such a formula, but time had been lacking to do so between the present and the preceding plenary meeting. Nevertheless, the Arab States were in position to submit the "general principles which ought to serve as a basis for a compromise formula", namely:
"Principle number one: A federal independent state shall be set up in Palestine not later than 1 August 1948.
"Principle number two: The government of the independent state of Palestine shall be constituted on a federal basis and shall comprise a federal government and cantonal governments of Jewish and Arab cantons.
"Principle number three: The delimitation of the cantons shall be effected with a view to leaving as few Arab or Jewish minorities as possible in each canton.
"Principle number four: The population of Palestine shall elect by direct universal suffrage a Constituent Assembly which shall draft the future constitution of the federal state of Palestine. The Constituent Assembly shall comprise all the elements of the population in proportion to the number of their respective citizens.
"Principle number five: The Constituent Assembly, in defining the powers of the federal state of Palestine, as well as the powers of the judicial and legislative organs, in defining the functions of the cantonal governments, and in defining the relationships between the cantonal governments and the federal state, will be guided by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as the constitutions of the individual states of the United States of America.
"Principle number six: Among other necessary and essential provisions, the constitution shall provide for the protection of the Holy Places, freedom of access, visit and worship, in accordance with the status quo, as well as the safeguarding of the rights of religious establishments of all nationalities which are now found in Palestine."
In formulating these suggestions, the Arab States, the representative of Lebanon said, did not wish to exclude any suggestion or proposal which might be submitted by other delegations and which might be calculated to conciliate the points of view of Jews and Arabs.
The statement that no attempt at conciliation had been made was challenged by the representative of Iceland, who had been the Rapporteur of the ad hoc Committee. He recalled the efforts by the ad hoc Committee's Conciliation Group, adding that, as previously reported, these efforts had been doomed to failure in view of the vast gap between the contending parties.
The representative of the United States declared that the suggestions outlined by the representative of Lebanon coincided very largely with the plan recommended in the UNSCOP minority report, a plan which the ad hoc Committee had rejected. He moved that the recommendations of the ad hoc Committee be put to the vote immediately.
The representative of Iran submitted a draft resolution calling for a delay until January 15, 1948, in the deliberations of the Assembly on the Palestine question to enable the ad hoc Committee to reconvene and to study the matter further. The representative of Syria declared that the Chairman of the ad hoc Committee, in his capacity as Chairman of the Conciliation Group, had requested the chief of the Saudi Arabian delegation to make arrangements for consultations with the chief of the United States delegation to see if conciliation were possible. The representative of Syria further declared that the chief of the Saudi Arabian delegation had immediately notified the Chairman of the Conciliation Group of its readiness to accept this suggestion, but had never received an answer. Nor had another approach been made for such consultations to any of the delegations most directly concerned. Therefore, he maintained, the ad hoc Committee had not fulfilled its duties.
The representative of the U.S.S.R. opposed the proposal of the representative of Lebanon, and suggested that a vote be taken promptly on the recommendations of the ad hoc Committee.
The President ruled that the recommendations of the ad hoc Committee must be voted on before the Iranian proposal could be put to the vote.
The representative of Lebanon said he wished to call the Assembly's attention to the fact that the twelve general recommendations of UNSCOP had not been voted on in the ad hoc Committee. He therefore suggested that this be done now, before a vote was taken on the Plan of Partition with Economic Union. The President ruled that these twelve recommendations had been a matter for the ad hoc Committee, and not for the General Assembly. He then submitted the report of the ad hoc Committee (A/516) to a roll-call vote.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favor: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.S.R., United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Against: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Abstained: Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
The report, including the Plan of Partition with Economic Union, was therefore adopted by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions (see below).
Following the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom pointed out that a number of details connected with the application of the resolution just adopted would closely affect his Government. He expressed the hope that the United Nations Commission (envisaged in the resolution) would communicate with his Government in order that arrangements might be agreed upon for the arrival of the Commission in Palestine and for the co-ordination of its plans with those of the Mandatory Power for the withdrawal of British administration and British military forces. Earlier, the representative of the United Kingdom had reaffirmed the policy of his Government as outlined before the beginning of the general debate in the ad hoc Committee, and had reaffirmed that, subject to the limitations of that policy, the Government of the United Kingdom would not obstruct the implementation of the Partition Plan.
Also, following the adoption of the resolution on Partition, the representatives of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen denounced the Partition Plan as being anti-Charter, illegal and immoral, and declared that their respective Governments, regarding the resolution embodying the plan as a recommendation (rather than a binding decision), would not feel bound by it.
The President then proposed, and the Assembly endorsed, the following Members for membership on the United Nations Palestine Commission: Bolivia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Panama and the Philippines.
On the proposal of the representative of Sweden, acting for the Rapporteur of the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee, the Assembly completed work on the Palestine aspect of the agenda of the second session by adopting the following resolution (181(II)B):
"The General Assembly
"Authorizes the Secretary-General to draw from the Working Capital Fund a sum not to exceed $2,000,000 for the purposes set forth in the last paragraph of the resolution on the future government of Palestine.”
Back to topJGG_1 The representative of Guatemala, Jorge García Granados (1900-1961) related the conversation between Sandtröm and 5 Haganah representatives on pages 182-188 of his book about his participation in UNSCOP and the General Assembly debates, based — as he wrote — on the notes provided to him by Sandström. In it, the Haganah representatives claimed to have 55'000 "trained and armed" fighters, 90'000 including reserves (p. 183). "The High Command of Haganah believes that it can repulse any attack from the Arab population in Palestine. If Palestine Arabs receive help from the Arab States, as they did during the previous riots, we can meet that situation, too. [...] Our forces are more able than the Arabs; and Jewish Palestine now has a munitions industry which can put us far ahead of all Arab countries in the next few years. If the Arab States should be supplied by the big States, Haganah could not stand up to that situation, of course. But we can stand up against the Arabs alone." (p. 185). Note by the editor. Quoted from "The Birth of Israel - The Drama as I saw it", by Jorge García Granados, New York, Alfred Knopf, 1948. Available online as Hathi Trust scan at http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015005185734 To jump directly to the pages relating the meeting with Haganah
JGG_2 Guatemala's population is composed by four fifths of Amerindians and Mestizos, according to the en.Wikipedia article Demographics of Guatemala. Editor