77            Memorandum by the Middle East Department of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1

COPY:AVP RF,F,018,OP.9,P.17,D.77,LL.6-11

Moscow, 15 April 1947

Secret

THE POSITIONS OF THE US, BRITAIN, THE ARABS AND THE ZIONSTS ON THE PALESTINE QUESTION

(For the forthcoming discussion of the Palestine question at the United Nations)

1.      The United States’Position

The most recent version of the official position of the United States is to be found in Truman’s statement of 3 Octorber 1946.Truman said that piblic opinion in the United States would support the proposal to create a viable Jewish state, in control of its own immigration and economic policy in an appropriate part of Palestine—but not the whole of Palestine—and the immediate admission of 100,000 Jewish immigrants, as proposed by the Jewish Agency.

  The United States government could support such a solution to the problem.

  The interest in Palestine shown by the United States is determined by these circumstances:

  1.The seizure of the richest oil resources in the Near East by American cartels and the United States’ intention to establish the domination of American capital in Near Eastern markets. The American pipeline will pass through Palestine and American refineries will be built there too.

  2.The United States’ aim of building air and naval bases in the Near East, particularly in Palestine, in order to establish American domination of the world.

  Under Truman the United States came out decisively in support of the Zionists and, with the aim of achieving economic and military supremacy over the countries of the Near East, laid special stress on the creation of a Zionist state in Palestine. Influential American Zionist circles support on the two million Jewish voters in the US, and on American Zionist capitalists.

  The US considers that Palestine is an exceptionally important economic and strategic bridgehead on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. This is why there is exceptionally strong support for the Zionists’ aim to create a Zionist

1.      This document appears to borrow extensively from Shtein’s memorandum (see Doc.74)

176页

state in Palestine, even thought it damages the United’States’ relations with the Arab states.

II.The British Position

Britain’s position on the Palestine question was recently made clear at the London conference of January 1947.

The British government proposed a plan to the Arab delegates and to the Jewish Agency which envisaged the creation in Palestine of two autonomous cantons, one Arab and one Jewish, which would be subject to a central tripartite government (Arab-Jewish-British).

  The Arabs, in their canton, would have to guarantee the rights of the Jewish minority living on their territory, and the Jewish canton would take on the same obligations with regard to the Arab minority. One hundred thousand new Jewish immigrants would be admitted to the Jewish canton.

  The tripartite government would exist in Palestine for four years, after which a bi-national constituent assembly would be formed to work out a constitution for the Palestinion state. The Palestine state would be subject to trusteeship for five years. Relations between Great Britain and the Palestine state would be regulated by treaty.

This position was rejected by both Arabs and Jews. Britain then referred the issue to the United Nations, taking the view that Britain, as the mandatocy state, could not solve the problem of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine (as the Zionists and the United States insist) or an Arab state (as the Arabs insist).

In his statement of 25 February 1974 on this matter, Bevin argued that the British government, ‘as the mandatory power, is not authorized to take such a decision’.

For Britain, Palestine plays the role of a strategic bridgehead, guaranteeing sea and air communications with India. The British pipeline carrying oil from Iraq terminates in Palestine.

In the first period of their rule in Palestine the British relied mainly on the Zionists, protected Jewish immigration and attracted Jewish capital to Palestine, but in 1925 decided to back the Arabs. Britain was trying to play the part of arbiter between the two sides struggling against each other in Palestine.

Britain’s decision to hand the matter over to the United Nations was evidently taken because:

1.Britain was unable to put forward a plan which would be acceptable to both the Arabs and the Jews and would also fully maintain the British position in Palestine.

2.Britain could not shoulder the heavy financial burden which the maintenance of a substantial military and civilian state apparatus in Palestine would entail.

3.There was increasing pressure from the United States, and at the same time joint Anglo-Saxon plants to seize the resources of the middle and Near East (oil, air bases, military supplies and training of local armies, etc.).

177页

By handing over the Palestine questine question to the United Nations, Britain continues to see itself as the mandatory power, and to hold, therefore, that any radical solution to the Palestine problem is still impossible without British consent. By referring the Palestine questione question to the United Nations Britain is trying to gain time while reserving its position with regard to the peoples of Palestine.

III.The Arab State’ Position

The Arab states’ proposals on the Palestine question were set out in a memorandum which the leader of the Syrian delegation handed to members of the United Nations on 21 Novermber 1946. 2 The proposals consisted of a number of points, of which the following were fundamental:

   1.The high commissioner of Balestine is to appoint a provisional government of Balestine, to which he will hand over all executive and legislative power, but the high commissoner shall retain the right of veto for the period of transition.

  2.Elections to a constituent assembly of Balestine are to take place.

  3. A democratic constitution should be adopted for Palestine which envisages the eledtion of a legislative body. The high commissioner may not veto the constitution.

  4. Jewish immigration must be halted.

  5. The mandate will no longer be operative after the appointment of a head of the state of Palestine, but no later than 31 December 1948.

  6. A treaty of alliance should be concluded with Britain.

  Progressive Arab organizations such as the Arab League of National Liberation 3 are struggling for the independence of Palestine and the annulment of the mandate, for the withdrawal of British troops and for the democratization of the country. The League stands for Arab-Jewish unity in the struggle against imperialism and Zionism.