Zion friends of Israel

Iceland and the Palestinian
question at the UN in 1947
How Iceland was left with the hot potato at the UN

The British government had in February 1947, asked the UN to decide the future form of government in Palestine.

In May 1947 the UN established a Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), to make recommendations to the General Assembly. The proposals of the Special Committee were finalized at the end of August.

On September 23, the General Assembly established an Ad Hoc Committee with representatives from all the 57 member states.

On September 25, the Ad Hoc Committee elected the following officers: Dr. Herbert V. Evatt of Australia was elected Chairman. Prince Subhasvasti Svastivat of Siam was elected Vice-Chairman and Mr. Thor Thors of Iceland was elected Rapporteur.

The Ad Hoc Committee established three sub-committees. Committee number one was to recommend measures for Partition. The second committee was to recommend measures for a Unitary state in the area. The third committee, was a reconciliation commission.

On November 24 - 25 the Ad Hoc Committee defeats the proposal for a unitary state by 16-16-23 (for-against-abstain). The Committee accepts the partition plan by vote (25-18-17) and sends it to the General Assembly for final action (Report A/516).

On November 26 the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question is presented at the UN General Assembly by Rapporteur Thor Thors from Iceland (A/PV.124)

For some unknown reasons, the chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee Dr. Herbert V. Evatt, decided to leave New York on November 27 and take the afternoon train to San Fransisco, where he boarded the SS Matsonia on his way to Australia.⁽¹⁾

It has been suggested that the reason Dr. Evatt left the scene, was that he did not want to alienate the Arab countries any further, because he was already planning his candidacy for the office of UN General Assembly president next year.

The Vice-Chairman Prince Subhavasti also decided to leave New York and Siam would be without representation at the UN.  Here is a part of the story from Aba Eban in his Autobiography:

"By the morning of November 29 the Thai delegate, Prince Wan, had prudently departed for Bangkok on the Queen Mary, ostensibly on the grounds that a revolutionary situation existed in his country, but actually in order to avoid having to cast a vote against partition."⁽²⁾
(Note: The name of the Thai delegate, was Prince Subhasvasti, not Prince Wan)

Now we have the strange situation, that the Chairman (that normally would have presented the findings of the Committee) and the Vice-Chairman have left New York, and the final presenting of the proposals of the Ad Hoc Committee prior to the General Assembly voting, is left with the Rapporteur, the Icelandic representative Mr. Thor Thors.

Abba Eban tells the rest of the story in his Autobiography:

"At any rate, Thor Thors would be the first speaker on that historic day, and it seemed urgent to ensure that he would set up a positive momentum. Accordingly, I began my day on November 29, 1947, with a visit to him at the Barclay Hotel.

           I found my position quixotic, and I thought it best to tell him so frankly. The Jewish people was at a turning point. If we succeeded, we would realize a millennial dream. If we failed, that dream might be extinguished for generations to come. The key to this turning point in the first part of the UN meeting would lie in the hands of a small island country in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean with a population of less than 175,000. It is a quality of multilateral diplomacy that governments may sometimes determine great issues in which they themselves are only remotely involved, but which are of desperate consequence to others far away. Our future as a people depended on its most decisive day on the momentum or atmosphere which would be created by a representative of Iceland. I invited Ambassador Thors to reflect on the historic mystery involved.

He replied with disconcerting emotion. He said that Iceland was far less remote from Jewish destiny than I presumed. In its culture it was deeply impregnated with Biblical memories. Moreover, it was a stubborn and tenacious democracy, guarding its national particularity within its rain-swept island boundaries for century upon century – a people determined to be itself, sharing its language and literature with no other nation, and refusing to abandon its remote island outpost for warmer and gentler climes elsewhere. Such a people could be relied upon to understand the perseverance with which the Jewish people clung to its own specificity and to the recollections of its own patrimony. Ambassador Thors fully accepted my argument that what was needed now was “decision,” not the vain pursuit of “agreement.” If the decision was clear and firmly upheld, it might have the chance of securing acquiescence later on. It was only because all prospects of an agreed solution had been exhausted in the three decades of Mandatory rule that the matter had come to the United Nations Assembly. He would say that if the General Assembly made no clear recommendation, it would be failing its duty, and with that failure some of mankind’s most cherished hopes would subside.

I made for the United Nations General Assembly headquarters, which was in ferment of tension. Newspapermen, television and radio correspondents from all over the world were concentrated in the lobbies, while the delegates’ seats and visitor’s gallery were crowded as they had never been before. The United Nations was facing a momentous opportunity at a very early stage of its career. On the podium, pale and solemn were the President of the Assembly, Oswaldo Aranha, Trygve Lie and the equally well nourished Assistant Secretary-General Andrew Cordier. Aranha called the meeting to order and invited the representative of Iceland to the rostrum. Thors, to my relief, was magnificent. He stated with firm conviction that despite every examination of all avenues, he and his committee were convinced that an agreement in advance was impossible. The only hope of conciliation lay in an act of judgment and decision. If the world community was firm in support of partition, then partition would come into existence and those who opposed it now would have no course but to acquiesce.

From that moment on, the debate went inexorably our way."⁽²⁾

UN General Assembly voting on 29 November 1947

(1) Daniel Mandel (2004) H.V. Evatt and the Establishment of Israel
(2) Abba Eban (1977) An Autobiography