Silly Palestinians, if only they'd accepted the state offered in 1947.

Apr 02, 2015 9:45am PDT by subir, Community

152 125

Please log in or sign up to continue.

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.""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"The Future of PalestineI 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.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'.debated the question of a "Jewish National Home" and Samuel's appointmentMy 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?

McMahon-Hussein LettersIn 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.Balfour DeclarationTo 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."

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.Lloyd George's legal firm had previously been engaged by Zionist groupsThough 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."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."butchering them together when requiredMiko 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 AgreementAs 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 CommissionWe'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.Zionists Adamant In Palestine RowThese (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.

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."

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 reason the House of Commons so conclusively voted to recognize Palestine last yearUN Partition PlanDuring 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.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.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.

see my diary on the failure of the Evian conference and Likud's insistence on a Jewish StateCattan'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?

A UN committee met on May 9, 1947 to discuss the question of Palestine and a transcript is available. It's worth reading the Palestinian representative's entire statement since it is a very good summary of events leading to the partition. In the end though, it did nothing to stop the irresistible forces pushing for partition.The UNISPAL site has an overview of all the committee meetings on Palestine and include Cattan's comments paraphrased, though they spell his name Kattan.And here's the complete message Cattan delivered (emphasis mine):
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.

It may be well to start by sketching a picture of Palestine prior to the First World War. Palestine was then included in the Ottoman Empire as part of the province of Syria; but this inclusion did not in any way alter or affect the Arab character of Palestine. It had been inhabited for several centuries by Arabs; its customs, traditions, and culture were Arab; its towns and villages were Arab. Those are the facts. No amount of propaganda or distortion can change the Arab character, the Arab history, and the Arab national characteristics of Palestine.

Other small communities lived in the midst of the Arabs inhabiting Palestine and the other Arab countries: Jews, Armenians, Kurds, and others. In all those Arab countries, the Jewish communities lived in peace and security. They even found for centuries amongst the Arabs more tolerance, more security, and more happiness than they had encountered among some of the nations of Europe.

In Palestine, in particular, the Jews represented in 1914 a small fraction of the population, about six to seven per cent of the total. They had their own schools, synagogues, and communal institutions. But one important fact should be noted: They had no national or political aims antagonistic or hostile to the Arabs. On the contrary, while retaining their religious, cultural and racial characteristics, the Jews merged harmoniously in the Arab structure. That explains why there was then no friction between the Arabs and Jews, no riots, no disturbances. The contrast between the old era and the present day provides an understanding of the problem.

Politically, the Arabs of Palestine, like the Arabs of neighbouring countries, were not then independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity. They shared, however, the sovereignty of an independent country and enjoyed full rights of citizenship equal to the rights enjoyed by the Turkish citizens of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, Arabs rose to the highest executive, legislative, and administrative positions.

Notwithstanding their enjoyment of full political rights, the Arabs wished to establish a purely Arab State independent of the Ottoman Empire. There were already several undercurrents aiming at the achievement of that objective. These undercurrents rose to the surface and gained strength and violence during the First World War. The Allied Governments encouraged the struggle of the Arabs for then- independence, since it fitted into their plans for a victorious termination of the conflict. In particular, the United Kingdom made several pledges for the recognition and establishment of Arab independence.

In 1915, there was a pledge of Sir Henry McMahon, the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Egypt, to King Hussein of Hedjaz, then Sherif of Mecca, declaring that the United Kingdom was prepared to recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs in all regions lying within frontiers proposed by the Sherif of Mecca. Sir Henry McMahon purported to exclude from the pledge certain portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Horns, Hama and Aleppo. The portions excluded fell within the then French sphere of interest and claims. There was, however, no exclusion of that part of Syria now known as Palestine.

On 2 November 1917, the United Kingdom Government issued the Balfour Declaration without the consent or even the knowledge of the Arabs, and in contradiction to the McMahon pledge made in 1915. When news of this declaration reached the Arab world, doubts were created in the minds of the Arabs as to the sincerity of Allied aims concerning the future of the Arab countries. Sherif Hussein asked for an explanation. To allay Arab fears, the United Kingdom Government delivered to King Hussein what is known as the "Hogarth Message", which pledged that Jewish settlement in Palestine would be allowed only in so far as would be consistent with the political and economic freedom of the Arab population.

In other words, the Balfour Declaration was to be secondary and subservient to the political freedom of the population.

Hogarth message"(1) The Entente Powers are determined that the Arab race shall be given full opportunity of once again forming a nation in the world. This can only be achieved by the Arabs themselves uniting, and Great Britain and her Allies will pursue a policy with this ultimate unity in view.

"(2) So far as Palestine is concerned we are determined that no people shall be subject to another, but

(a) In view of the fact that there are in Palestine shrines, Wakfs and Holy places, sacred in some cases to Moslems alone, to Jews alone, to Christians alone, and in others to two or all three, and inasmuch as these places are of interest to vast masses of people outside Palestine and Arabia, there must be a special regime to deal with these places approved of-by the world.
(b) As regards the Mosque of Omar it shall be considered as a Moslem concern alone and shall not be subjected directly or indirectly to any non-Moslem authority.

"(3) Since the Jewish opinion of the world is in favour of a return of Jews to Palestine and inasmuch as this opinion must remain a constant factor, and further as His Majesty's Government view with favour the realisation of this aspiration, His Majesty's Government are determined that in so far as is compatible with the freedom of the existing population both economic and political, no obstacle should be put in the way of the realisation of this ideal.
In this connexion the friendship of world Jewry to the Arab cause is equivalent to support in all States where Jews have a political influence. The leaders of the movement are determined to bring about the success of Zionism by friendship and co-operation with the Arabs, and such an offer is not one to be lightly thrown aside,"

Again, in February 1918, the acting United Kingdom agent in Jedda, Lieutenant-Colonel Bassett, wrote to the Sherif of Mecca:

"His Majesty's Government and their allies stand steadfastly by every cause aiming at the liberation of the oppressed nations, and they are determined to stand by the Arab peoples in their struggle for the establishment of an Arab world in which law shall replace Ottoman injustice and in which unity shall prevail over the rivalries artificially provoked by the policy of Turkish officials. His Majesty's Government reaffirm their former pledge in regard to the liberation of the Arab peoples. His Majesty's Government have hitherto made it their policy to ensure that liberation, and it remains the policy they are determined unflinchingly to pursue by protecting such Arabs as are already liberated from all dangers and perils, and by assisting those who are still under the yoke of the tyrants to obtain their freedom."

Then again, in June 1918, the United Kingdom Government, in what is known as the Declaration to the Seven, made the following pledge:

George Antonius, The Arab Awakening, appendix C. G. E. Putnam Co., New York, 1946.

"In regard to the areas occupied by allied forces ... it is the wish and desire of His Majesty's Government that the future government of these regions should be based upon the principle of the consent of the governed, and this policy has and will continue to have the support of His Majesty's Government."

In November 1918, the Anglo-French Declaration was issued, which stated that the objective of France and the United Kingdom in prosecuting the war in the East was the following:

"... complete and definite emancipation of the peoples . . . and the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.

"In order to carry out these intentions, France and Great Britain are at one in encouraging and assisting the establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia, now liberated by the Allies, and in the territories the liberation of which they are engaged in securing, and recognizing these as soon as they are actually established.

"Far from wishing to impose on the populations of these regions any particular institutions, they are only concerned to ensure by their support and by adequate assistance the regular working of Governments and administrations freely chosen by the populations themselves . . .'"

One of the matters which the special committee to be set up will therefore have to investigate will be the various pledges given to the Arabs before and after the Balfour Declaration with regard to the recognition of their independence.

The struggle which had as its backbone the will and determination of the Arabs to realize their independence was spurred on and encouraged by the assurances of the Allied Powers regarding independence, political freedom and the establishment of governments freely chosen. The Arabs, in fact, made a substantial contribution to the Allied victory in the First World War. King Hussein of Hedjaz joined the Allied armies; and Arabs from Syria, Lebanon and Palestine answered his call for revolt, joined the ranks of the Allies, and fought with them.

To quote from the report of the British Military Commission of Inquiry set up to investigate causes of the disturbances in 1920 in Jerusalem:

"In fact, in June 1918, recruitment for the Allied Sherif Army was in full swing in Palestine. Those recruited were under the impression that they were fighting for the national cause and the liberation of their fatherland, while the evidence now before us shows that the real impression left in the minds of the Arabs as a whole was that the United Kingdom Government would undertake the formation of an independent Arab State comprising Palestine."

I do not wish to comment on the denial or breaking of pledges, nor on the ethics or legality of making contradictory promises. I wish to emphasize, however, that the claim of the Arabs for termination of the mandate and recognition of their independence does not rest on promises or pledges. The Arabs of Palestine are not claiming their country on pledges made to them, for it belongs to them. Nor are the Arabs claiming their independence on assurances; they are entitled to such independence as their natural and inalienable right.

The value of those pledges, however, is two-fold. In the first place, they nullify any contradictory assurances given to the Jews, if the Balfour Declaration is to be read as meaning more than a cultural home. In the second place, those pledges show that the administration of the country in a manner inconsistent with and contrary to the wishes of the large majority of the inhabitants is a glaring injustice.

I have mentioned the Balfour Declaration. It is at the root of and the very reason for all the troubles. It is the cause of the problem into which you are inquiring. It is the cause of the disturbance of peace and security in Palestine and the Middle East. Several commissions of inquiry into the disturbances in Palestine have invariably found that the Balfour Declaration and its policy of immigration were the primary and fundamental causes of such disturbances.

When we remember that the Balfour Declaration was made without the consent, not to say the knowledge, of the people most directly affected; when we consider that its making is contrary to the principles of national self-determination and democracy, and contrary also to the principles enunciated in the Charter of the United Nations; when we know that it was inconsistent with the pledges given to the Arabs before and after its date, it will be the duty of the special committee to inquire into the legality, validity and ethics of that document.

Out of the conflict of the First World War, there emerged certain high principles which were to govern the organization of international relations and serve as the basis of the structure of modern civilization.

l Section 5, The Palestine Arab Case, a mimeographed statement issued by the Arab Higher Committee, April 1947.

The principles propounded by President Wilson—namely, the rejection of all ideas of conquest, and recognition of the right of self-determination—were incorporated in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Covenant laid down that, to the peoples inhabiting territories which have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the State which formerly governed them, there should be applied the principle that their well-being and development form a sacred trust of civilization.

Moreover, in particularizing certain communities detached from the Turkish Empire, namely, the Arab nation, Article 22 laid down in regard to their development, the following: ". . .'their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."

Notwithstanding the pledges of the United Kingdom and the Allied Governments, notwithstanding Wilson's Fourteen Points, notwithstanding Article 22 of the Covenant, notwithstanding the riots in the country and the expressed opposition of the people of Palestine, the mandate was formulated in a manner embodying the Balfour Declaration.

One of the points which the special committee of inquiry will have to consider will be the inconsistency of the mandate with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 22 is the primary and enabling instrument from which the mandate can derive its force and validity, if any. If, therefore, the mandate for Palestine has, in its inception or in the interpretation of its objects or in its practical application, deviated or departed from the primary objectives of Article 22 of the Covenant, then it is ultra vires and null and void. There is no power in Article 22 of the Covenant which enables the embodiment in the mandate of provisions prejudicial to the interests of the people of the country.

A further issue which the special committee would have to inquire into is that the mandate was intended to be a provisional and transitory form of administration. The neighbouring Arab countries—Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and TransJordan—were similarly and at the same time placed under mandate. They are now making their contribution to the organization and maintenance of world peace and security.

Mr. Bevin declared on 25 February 1947, in the House of Commons:

"In the other States hi the Middle East where we also had a mandate, it has led to self-government. ... I want to suggest that the cultural development of the Arabs and Jews in Palestine is of as high a standard as ... in any other Arab State."

There is therefore no justice in the denial to the people of Palestine of the elementary rights of self-government and independence. If, with a view to continuing this injustice, it is argued that the cessation of the mandate might lead to bloodshed between Arabs and Jews, and even if that were at all true, it is no reason which carries any convincing force, since the whole history of the mandate since its inception is a history of troubles, disorders, and bloodshed.

Another point which we suggest that the special committee inquire into is the effect of the dissolution of the League of Nations on the Palestine mandate. It was specifically provided in Article 22 of the Covenant that the mandate should be exercised by the mandatory "on be-half of the League of Nations", this being the primary condition under which the mandate was granted.

The powers of a mandatory cannot legally outlive the existence of the person or body delegating such powers. The mandatory cannot be said today to be exercising its powers on behalf of the League, a body which has ceased to exist.

Article 80 of the Charter of the United Nations has a negative operation in not interfering with existing rights. It has not the positive effect of conferring validity on, or retaining in full force, an agency or mandate which has ceased to have any validity. Even if the mandate can be said to be still in existence, the special committee should, in my submission, be asked to consider the conflict between the provisions of the mandate imposing the obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and the obligation undertaken by the United Kingdom Government on becoming a party to the Charter of the United Nations. The obligations in the mandate relating to the Jewish national home and the facilitation of Jewish immigration, if such are to be construed as implying their discharge against the will of the original inhabitants of the country and the majority of the population, are clearly in conflict with the purposes and principles of the Charter.

They are again in conflict with the resolution which the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted at its meeting on 15 December 1946. This resolution disapproved of the resettlement of displaced persons where the resettlement would be likely to disturb friendly relations with neighbouring countries. The resolution further states that due weight should be given, among other factors, to any evidence of genuine apprehension and concern felt inter alia by the indigenous population of non-self-governing countries.

Another term of reference would be an inquiry into the practical application of the mandate which, in our contention, would show:

(a) That it was not exercised within the scope and for the purposes contemplated by Article 22 of the Covenant;

(b) That is was not exercised for the benefit of the original inhabitants of the country;

(c) That its further continuation is creating a situation which is affecting peace and good order in Palestine and threatening peace and security in the Middle East.

That inquiry will show, moreover, how the Arabs have lost the civil and political rights which they enjoyed prior to the mandate, and how the immigration initiated and facilitated under the mandate is threatening the very existence of the Arab nation. It will show how that immigration has led to troubles and bloodshed which have soiled the Holy Land. It will show how the United Kingdom Government is giving administrative advice and assistance to another United Kingdom Government calling itself the Palestine Government. It will show how no trace can be found of self-governing institutions, and much less of any trace of the development of such institutions. It will show how many lives were lost as a result of the policy of enforcing the mandate, and how much money has been spent on police posts and fortresses as compared with schools and hospitals.

Another aspect of the practical application of the mandate will show how, during the last twenty-five years, more than one half million Jews were allowed to immigrate into the country against the wishes of its inhabitants, and how the United Kingdom Government not only used its best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of the Balfour Declaration, but fully and completely achieved it at the expense of many lives and suffering.

Further, in formulating the terms of reference of the proposed special committee of inquiry, it is not sufficient to point out what the problem is. It is equally important to invite attention to what the problem is not, so as to avoid confusion of issues.

In the first place, the problem is not an Arab-Jewish problem. The Arab opposition to immigration and to the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine is not based on any racial prejudice against Jews as Jews, but would be equally strong whatever the race or religion of any group which might attempt to wrest the country from its Arab inhabitants or to force immigrants into it against the will of the Arabs.

In the second place, the problem is not economic. It is often contended that the Jews of Europe can develop the country by colonizing it, better than its inhabitants could develop it. Even if the premises on which this argument rests were true, it would still be worthless, because it is an unacceptable and immoral argument. Such reasoning, if accepted, could justify any aggression by the more advanced against the less advanced nations of the world.

In the third place, the problem is not connected with the refugee problem. The problem of the refugees and of displaced persons is not limited to any special religion or race. It is a humanitarian problem, and it is the duty and concern of the civilized world to treat it as such. Indeed, this has been done, as is evidenced by the establishment of the International Refugee Organization. The linking of the refugee problem with Palestine has made and will continue to make the solution of both problems infinitely, more difficult, if not impossible.

These are two different and distinct problems; each must be solved on its own merits, and all countries of the world must participate and share in the responsibility for their solution.

The Arab Higher Committee deems it absolutely essential that a recommendation should be made to the mandatory to take immediate steps for the complete stoppage of all Jewish immigration into Palestine, whether termed legal or illegal. For, in the view of the Arab population, all immigration of Jews into Palestine is illegal.

In the fourth place, the problem of Palestine cannot and should not be regarded as one of historical connexion. The Zionist claim Palestine on the grounds that at one time, more than two thousand years ago, the Jews had a kingdom in a part of it. Were this argument to be taken as a Basis for settling international issues, a dislocation of immeasurable magnitude would take place. It would mean the redrawing of the map of the whole world. It has been said that you cannot set back the hands of the clock of history by twenty years. What should then be said when an effort is made to set the clock of history back by twenty centuries in an attempt to give away a country on the ground of a transitory historic association?

These are the observations which we wish to put before you at this stage. I hope I have succeeded, without overtaxing your patience, in indicating the real cause of the disease. I trust that the committee of investigation, and later on the General Assembly, will be convinced that this apparently complex problem cannot be solved except on the basis of principles already agreed upon by all the civilized world and sanctioned by the Charter.

It is high time that Palestine's right to independence should be recognized, and that this tormented country should enjoy the blessing of a democratic government. It is high time, also, that a policy which has been impairing the ethnological and political structure of the country should be brought to an end by the highest body in the world.

We are not asking something which is out of line with what humanity has striven for throughout the ages. We are asking nothing more than what each of you would wish for his own country; nothing more than what is consecrated by the lofty principles and purposes of your very Charter; nothing more than what the greatest of Masters, who arose from that holy but today tortured land, taught every one of us when He said: "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you."

Display 152 Comments

Daily Kos