|
|
Partition approved by more than 2/3: 33 VOTE YES, 13 NO, 10 ABSTAIN
FLUSHING MEADOW, Saturday — The plan for the partition of Palestine into
separate Jewish and Arab States was at 5.30 (New York time) this afternoon
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by 33 votes to 13,
with 10 abstentions and one delegation absent. The voting came after a last
ditch effort by the Arab States to prevent partition by proposing the
establishment of a federated state based on the canton system, in which the
Jews and Arabs would be separated as far as possible.
The Arab motion, which was attacked as a move to sabotage the U.N.
Partition plan, was opposed by the rapporteur of the Ad Hoc Committee, Mr.
Thors, and by the delegate of the United States, Mr. H. Johnson, who asked
the Chairman, Dr. Aranha, to call for a vote on the Ad Hoc Committee’s
recommendation for Partition. Dr. Aranha ruled that the delegates would have
to vote on the partition plan after hearing the last minute appeals by Iran
and Syria. Mr. Johnson, said: “There is nothing conciliatory in this,” and
he was supported by the Soviet delegate.
After the result was announced, the Assembly appointed a five-nation
Commission to carry out the plan and to supervise the transfer of the
Government of Palestine to the provisional Jewish and Arab Councils: the
nations appointed were: Bolivia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Panama and the
Philippines. The sum of two million dollars was then voted by the Assembly
for the work of the Commission.
2,000,000 DOLLAR BUDGET FOR IMPLEMENTATION
FLUSHING MEADOW, Saturday.
— The U.N. Assembly met for its last session on Palestine at 4.25 (11.25
p.m. Palestine time), at the end of the 24-hour adjournment proposed
yesterday by France to explore the possibilities of a conciliation between
Jews and Arabs.
The President Dr. Oswaldo Aranha, saying that the Assembly would first
of all determine whether any steps had been taken since yesterday to reach a
satisfactory agreement between the parties announced that if there had been
no agreement, he would proceed to a vote.
The Lebanese delegate, M. Camille Chamoun, then said that the Arab
States had always been prepared to listen to proposals of conciliation and
to study any formula allowing for a reasonable settlement. No resolution
should be taken which would require implementation by force. He submitted a
general draft as a basis for a compromise formula:
A federal independent state to be set up before August 1. 1948,
comprising federal governments of Jews and Arabs, with the rights of
minorities to be safeguarded: a Constituent Assembly to set up the state, to
define the powers of the Federal Government and other laws such as govern
the Constitution of the U.S. and the states of the U.S.; and the protection
of and free access to the Holy Places and the right of all nationalities to
be safeguarded.
These recommendations, he continued, though necessarily incomplete in
detail, could serve as a basis for discussion which might be supported by
the majority of the Assembly. The Arab delegations were prepared to listen
to suggestions of other delegates.
No Success
The Rapporteur of the Ad Hoc Committee, M. Thor Thors of Iceland, then
told the Assembly that its “Conciliation Committee” had met with no success
whatever. His group had repeatedly invited the Arab Higher Executive to
attend their meetings with a view to making concrete proposals, he said, but
the reply had always been that nothing could be discussed except a unitary
state.
On November 22. the Committee reported to the Ad Hoc Committee that no
conciliation could be achieved, and it had concluded that conciliation could
not be achieved. “All attempts to bring about conciliation were doomed in
advance.”
“Now,” M. Thors Said, “at the 11th hour suggestions are being made for
conciliation. It seems to me that once U.N. has taken a firm decision, and
the parties are faced with a fact, conciliation my come about, but not
before.” The U.N. Commission in Palestine should use every means to
achieve conciliation.
U.S. Calls Vote
The U.S. delegate, Mr. Herschel Johnson, asked that a vote be taken
immediately. The Lebanese plan, he said, resurrected “almost in toto the
Minority report of UNSCOP, which had been rejected by the Ad Hoc Committee,”
and was not legal before the Assembly. No conciliation offer had really been
made. Never until the U.N. had taken the matter up had anything been
proposed that was acceptable either to Jews or Arabs. Partition was the only
solution.
The Lebanon, he said, “has no more to do with conciliation than Australia or
China. There is no mention of conciliation between the Jewish Agency and the
Arab Higher Committee.”
Mr. Mohammed Abdel of Persia said that the Lebanese proposal was an
attempt to avoid discord and showed that the Arab world was prepared to make
concessions. He proposed an adjournment of “several weeks,” after which the
Ad Hoc Committee would be reconvened to work out a plan that would meet with
agreement of all.
Asking delegates and audience to maintain order, Dr. Aranha conferred
briefly with the Secretary-General, M. Trygve Lie, and then called on Fares
Bey Khoury, the head of the Syrian delegation. M. Khoury expressed
appreciation of France’s resolution to adjourn the Assembly. He reiterated
that the Ad Hoc Committee’s report would inevitably lead to a bloodshed. As
a peace-loving people, France had suggested adjustment, and in the light of
that spirit, Mr. Khoury said, it would be proper to arrange to facilitate
the task and not to make it more difficult. The Arabs had suggested to the
Ad Hoc Committee all along that conciliation was necessary, but nothing had
been done.
The Arab Higher Executive ad not been invited by the Ad Hoc Committee
to come forward with concrete proposals or discuss the matter of
conciliation.
He then read a letter from Dr. Evatt to Emir Feisal of Saudi Arabia, dated
November 1. inviting him to meet Mr. George Marshall to discuss the
prospects of conciliation.
Ad Hoc Shortening
Emir Feisal had replied that he was most anxious to meet Mr. Marshall.
But there the matter had rested. The Ad Hoc Committee had not fulfilled its
duties. It had dealt with the UNSCOP Majority report because that was the
one it favoured. The Arab delegates plan for a unitary state had been
neglected.
In an independent Arab state the Jews would not be treated as a minority.
There would be a modern democratic state, and Jews and Arabs would join in
the same parties, and in some would even be a majority.
The Jews would have a one-to-three minority status in Palestine, he said. In
the U.S. they were one to thirty, yet wielded such influence that “they even
transferred it to the U.N. where they hissed certain delegates.”
Banging his gavel on the table, the Chairman called the Syrian delegate to
order, while alternate sections of the public galleries hissed and
applauded.
If one Jew in 30 could dominate affairs at the U.S., M. Khoury
continued, how much easier would it be in a country where the relation was
one to three.
Dr. Fahdil Jamali, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, submitted a statement in
French to Dr. Aranha and asked that it be translated and produced to the
Assembly before the voting. Pending its translation, he asked the Soviet
delegate, the last speaker on the list, to address the Assembly.
M. Andrei Gromyko, speaking in Russian, said that he could never
understand what good the adjournment would do. “Nothing has changed since
yesterday. Nothing would change in 24 hours, if only because this question
was the subject of negotiations for 25 years.”
The Lebanese proposal could not change the situation one iota. We
discussed federal government from the beginning. The Arabs did not then want
to discuss the question. That was their own concern. They were free to do
so.
The Arab delegates were trying to confuse the question and make it more
complicated.
He concluded:
The Soviet Delegation considers that the General Assembly must take a
decision on the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee immediately. The
Assembly should vote now, and the Soviet Delegation will support the
proposal in the Assembly as it did in the Committee.
Dr. Aranha read the translation of the Iraqi proposal, which asked
for adjournment until January 15, 1948.
The Chairman ruled that the sequence of the voting would be:
(1) The Ad Hoc Committee’s plan;
(2) The Iraqi resolution;
(3) Any other resolution.
Point of Order
It was now twenty past midnight (Palestine time). The Lebanese
delegate, “on a point of order,” asked that the amendments included in the
Ad Hoc Committee’s report be voted upon first. The Chairman ruled they did
not need a vote. He conferred with M. Trygve Lie and the Assistant
Secretary-General, M. Andrew Cordier, and announced that voting would begin.
At 23 minutes past midnight, the 56 members of the U.N. voted (the
Siamese delegate was not present). At 29 minutes past midnight, the Yugoslav
delegate the last in the alphabetical order, said he would abstain.
The vote proceeded by roll call in absolute silence until Mr. Cordier
called “France.” When the French delegate answered “Yes,” there was loud and
prolonged applause from the public seats. Dr. Aranha stopped the roll-call
and asked for order.
Gasps of satisfaction greeted the affirmative votes of Haiti, Liberia and
the Philippines.
After the vote, Sir Alexander Cardogan, the British Delegate, said: “Now
that the Assembly has adopted this resolution, I must point out that there
will be a number of points of detail connected with the application of the
plan that will particularly affect my Government.
“I am therefore instructed to express the hope that the U.N. Commission
will communicate with His Majesty’s Government in order that arrangements
may be agreed on for the arrival of the Commission in Palestine and for the
co-ordination of the withdrawal plans of the British Administration and the
British Military forces.”
Arab Reaction
The Arab delegations immediately began attacking the decision, later
walking out of the hall in a body.
Emir Feisal (Saudi Arabia) said: “Today’s resolution destroyed the
Charter. We know the pressure which has been exerted by some of the big
powers. For these reasons, Saudi Arabia records that she considers herself
not bound by the resolution. She reserves the full right to act freely in
whatever way she deems fit. My Government also holds responsible the
Governments who prevented conciliation.”
Dr. Fadhil Jamali (Iraq) said: “My Government feels this decision is
undemocratic, illegal, impractical and contradicts the spirit and letter of
the Charter. My Government does not recognize its validity. It reserves
freedom of action towards its implementation.
Prince Seif el Islam Abdullah (Yemen) also declared that his Government
reserved all rights in connection with the decision.
Emir Adel Arslan (Syria) said: “The Charter is dead. It was murdered,
and you all know who are the culprits. My country will never recognize such
a decision.”
Implementation Budget
Amid continuous cheers the Assembly then elected the Implementation
Commission, and voted two million dollars for its work. It will leave
shortly for Palestine.
The Chairman of the Credentials Committee then presented his report, after
which the Assembly heard a series of speeches thanking its President and
members for their work during the session.
Dr. Lange, of Poland, thanked Dr. Aranha for the “most difficult task
put upon your shoulders.” He thanked the Secretary-General of the U.N., Mr.
Trygve Lie, and all members of the Secretariat for the work they had carried
out “without sparing time, day and night, to help us conduct our work.” The
second session of the General Assembly could now claim to have served a
useful purpose. “Our decisions will, I am sure, go down in history.”
Mr. Warren Austin, for the U.S., thanked Dr. Aranha who he said, had
brought “great glory to Brazil, and added to the stature of his territory
and increased its dignity and influence in the world.”
Dr. Jose Arce (Argentina) associated himself with the tribute to Dr.
Aranha.
M. Trygve Lie said that although the present session was ending, the
U.N.’s work would go on everywhere.
I am confident that out of all this work we shall be able to achieve real
progress towards a more securely peaceful world in the 10 months before we
meet again for the third session of the General Assembly in Europe.
_____________________________________
24 –Hour Delay Follows Colombian Resolution
FLUSHING MEADOW Saturday — The Colombian delegate Senor Alfonso Lopez,
opened yesterday afternoon’s session of the U.N. Assembly with a surprise
manoeuvre, suggesting that the U.N. defer its vote and make a last-minute
attempt at guiding the Arabs and Jews to a settlement.
“With so many abstentions and negative votes registered in the Ad Hoc
Committee,” he said, “Partition will remain a minority plan, even if it got
the required two-thirds majority in the Assembly.” It was irrelevant at the
last minute to try and influence another few delegates to endorse the
proposal — that would not give it world backing. One should not ignore the
fact that the Moslem delegations opposed it en bloc, and it was significant
in the Ad Hoc Committee. China and France had not seen eye to eye with the
U.S. and U.S.S.R. His new plan would leave the question of Palestine in the
consideration stage until well into Spring next Year.
His proposal was to give the Ad Hoc Committee the character of an interim
subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, to carry on the study of the
Palestine question with a view to finding a satisfactory solution. This
committee should be authorized;
to take necessary steps to bring about agreement between the Arabs and Jews
as to the future Government of that country;
to request, if it deems necessary, the advisory opinion of the International
Court of Justice;
to formulate complete recommendations as to the manner in which the U.N. may
give effect to its unanimous recommendations and to report on its work not
later than February 29, 1948.
He proposed that member states shall advise not later than April 15, 1948,
whether they wish to consider the matter at a special Assembly session.
“We have limited but ample time, as the Mandatory will not complete the
evacuation until August next year.” Thus, if the Palestine Committee was
allowed to continue its work and report before the end of February, that
would give ample time to convene — if necessary — a special session in
Spring.
When the Colombian delegate left the rostrum, the President of the Assembly,
Dr. Aranha, announced that the proposal would be put to the vote later in
the session.
M. Alexandre Parodi, of France, then sprang the second surprise in proposing
a 24-hour adjournment in the hope of some last minute conciliatory move. He
based his proposal on the statements of Sir Mohammad Zafrullah Khan
(Pakistan) and Dr. Fahdil Jamali (Iraq) who earlier in the debate had
suggested that the door to conciliation was still open.
“This overture comes quite late in the game, and it might be asked whether
it is not merely an attempt to delay the moment of decision,” he said later.
However, he considered the question too grave and complicated to allow any
chance to be left aside “even a faint one,” of making a peaceful settlement
based on agreement.
M. Parodi opened his short statement with explaining the present position
was — either Partition or nothing, and that he did not like being pushed to
this extremity.
After the Ethiopian delegate declared he would abstain, the Chairman
declared the debate closed and put the French proposal to the vote. The
Assembly decided by 25 votes to 15 votes to adjourn for 24 hours, after M.
Oscar Lange of Poland had made a short but ardent plea against the
deferment, and so did the Colombian delegate — for different reasons.
(Reuter, UP, Palcor)
_____________________________________
PAKISTAN,
IRAQ TALK OF RECONCILIATION
FLUSHING MEADOW, Saturday. — The first speaker in yesterday’s debate was the
delegate of Pakistan, Sir Mohammad Zafrullah Khan, who recalled the “mortal
struggle” in which the Allies had been drawn not long ago, when the Arabs
were called upon to redress the balance in the Middle East, and they threw
in their lot with the Allies.
What legal right had the world to cut up Palestine, he asked, warning the
nations of the West that tomorrow they might need friends and allies in the
Middle East. “I appeal to you,” he said, “not to wrong your friends.”
From North Africa to Central Asia, Sir Mohammad said, there were doubts and
distrust of the motives and statements of the Western Powers. “You take the
gravest risks of impairing any chance of real cooperation between East and
West by thus forcibly driving what amounts to a western wedge into the heart
of the Middle East.”
UNSCOP had recommended that all UN members take refugees and D.P.’s to
alleviate their lot. What had the General Assembly done in that respect?
Sub-Committee Two had put forward the same recommendation; it had asked that
D.P.’s and refugees “shall be distributed among member states according to
their capacity to receive them.” The U.S., which was “so humanitarian” had
made no effort to take refugees but recommended that they go to Palestine.
That was the contribution to the solution of the problem by that “august
power.”
The proposed Jewish and Arab States would each consist of three parts. Was
that justice? And Jerusalem would remain forever under international
jurisdiction. The Holy City would never belong to the Arabs, she would
always be different. “What authority, legal authority have you to do this,”
he asked. The whole scheme lacked legal and constitutional authority, Sir
Mohammad asserted, imploring delegates not to accept it. “Will you take the
responsibility?”
Economic Board
The Joint Economic Board was as illegal as the U.N. administration of
Jerusalem. Sir Mohammad then went into detail as concerns boundaries,
minorities etc. to claim that injustice was being done to the Arabs, and he
drew particular attention to the Negev where far more Arabs were now living,
but which was to be given to the Jews.
He also invited the attention of delegates to “that eminent, highly
respected Jew,” Dr. Magnes, who had always stood for political unity. It was
a fallacy, he said, to think that once economic unity was established,
political unity would follow. But the Arabs of Palestine and the Arab States
would not cooperate.
Mr. Johnson of the U.S., he said, had expressed the hope that, given the
support of the surrounding Arab States and the people of Palestine, the
experiment might work. “But the Arabs of Palestine have declared that they
are not going to cooperate — and remember,” he warned, “this is not an
experiment; it is proposed as a permanent solution.”
“The United Nations was in honour bound to seek to unite and bring together,
rather than divide,” he concluded. Let it make a last attempt at bringing
together. “Let us decide here today to promote and foster peace, prosperity
and welfare for all, Jew, Arab and Gentile alike, which shall redound to our
glory forever.”
In a brief statement, the Chinese delegate informed the Assembly that
as per instructions received from Nanking, China would not support
Partition, but abstain from voting.
Dr. G. Granados, of Guatemala recalled that the Arab Higher Executive would
even listen to UNSCOP’s chairman, Judge Sandstrom, and had intimated that
they did not seem to be in favour of conciliation. “UNSCOP went out to call
at the doors of the Arabs and were received in villages, where it did not
notice the hostility accorded to them by Arab leaders.”
He gave instances of the Arab boycott against the Jews, to prove that
conciliation was not possible, not because the Jews did not want it, but
because of the Arabs’ animosity.
Mr. Ernest Dihigo announced that Cuba would oppose Partition “despite the
pressure brought to bear upon us.”
Dr. Fahdil Jamali, the Iraqi delegate, spoke for over an hour alleging
that “great pressure” was being brought to bear on the anti-Partitionists
and that power politics were “playing havoc with the independence of UN
members.”
He warned that any injustice imposed on Palestine “will have serious
effects on the harmony between the Jews and non-Jews of Iraq.” Palestine was
a Holy Land, and Partition would only dissect its holiness. Why did the Jews
not fight for the retention of Jerusalem in their State, he asked. Jerusalem
was said to be their Holy City, and if the Jews “acquiesce in having
Jerusalem separated from the Jewish State, then why don’t they want to
establish their Jewish State in another part of the world, such as the U.S.,
Australia or Birobidjan?”
Was it not better to let both parties sort out their disputes by
themselves? That could not produce more chaos, not only in Palestine, but
all around it. However, Dr. Jamali asserted, it was not necessary that there
should be chaos and disorder. Conciliation between the Arabs and Jews was
still possible, he concluded.
The Assembly then adjourned for lunch.
_____________________________________
ARABS PROPOSE ALTERNATIVE
FLUSHING MEADOW, Saturday. — The tenseness of the last few hours at the U.N.
Assembly when it was believed that voting on the Palestine question would
finally be taken was evidenced tonight by the packed public galleries, with
crowds larger than ever in the chequered history of the United Nations.
For the first time in the history of the United Nations, uniformed police
appeared at all strategic points of the public and press galleries.
M. Chamoun’s soft spoken approach did not have the support of Jamal Eff.
Husseini, who was the spokesman for the Arabs of Palestine, recently
threatened to hurl the entire Arab world of 70 million persons against any
Jewish State created in the Middle East. The Arabs had held off until the
last possible moment and until passage of partition seemed assured.
Mr. Johnson said: “I submit that the condition outlined by the delegate of
France have not been fulfilled. The purpose of the adjournment was to permit
conciliation. No conciliation plan is before the Assembly now. The Lebanon
“has no more to do with conciliation than Austria or China. There is no
mention of conciliation between the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher
Committee.
The Iran delegate suggested that the question should be referred to the Ad
Hoc Committee for further study during a “number of weeks.” The Chairman
ruled the proposal to be put in writing and called on Faris Bey el-Khoury,
Syria, who appealed to the delegates to look for a solution other than
Partition, which he said was impossible of implementation.
The Syrian delegate read a letter from Dr. Evatt to Prince Feisal of Saudi
Arabia dated November 1, inviting him to confer with Mr. George Marshall on
conciliation efforts. The Saudi reply accepted the suggestion but, Faris Bey
maintained, nothing was done, the Ad Hoc Committee concentrating on
partition. He therefore appealed for further time for conciliation efforts,
in order to avert violence and bloodshed.
The Chairman announced he could not put the Iranian motion — which he
considered a new one — until the Partition proposal was voted and decided.
“Now we proceed to vote” said Dr. Aranha, at 12:20 a.m. (Palestine time)
when M. Chamoun for the Lebanon was given the floor on a “point of order.”
Dr. Aranha ruled that the Lebanese proposal was out of order. Voting began
at 12:27 a.m. Palestine time and was concluded by 12:30 a.m.
Mr. Gromyko was the last speaker pending the written translation of the
Iranian adjournment motion. He said nothing was changed in the 24 hours
during which the Assembly stood adjourned: it was a question that had
remained unsettled for 25 years. The Lebanese proposals did not change the
position “one iota,” although it was the same proposal as the UNSCOP
alternative which the Arabs, for reasons of their own, had not even wished
to discuss. The U.N. had taken the question on itself and must settle it;
the Assembly must proceed to a vote without delay. The Soviet delegation
would support Partition in the Assembly as it had done in the Ad Hoc
Committee.
The Chairman then read the Iranian motion asking for adjournment until
January 15, 1948.
_______________________________
The front page of Palestine Post 30 November 1947 (4.30 A.M. version)
Image of the front
page story (continued on page 3)
|
