86        Circular of the Mapal Central Committee to its Emissaries Abroad

COPY: CZA S53/12C

Tel Aviv, 29 May 1947

Dear Comrades,

  In our previous letter we discussed Gromyko’s speech at the UN,1[Doc.83] which turned into a very important event. Since then two weeks have already passed, and it must be noted that the speech continues to occupy centre stage.[…]2 [A passage, enumerating various political and military events in Palestine, has been deleted.] However, the Gromyko episode remains the subject of discussions, arguments, and assessments. Because everyone, Jews and gentiles alike, considers it an expression_r of a shift in Soviet policy towards Zionism.

  Ben-Gurion on Gromyko’s speech: Ben-Gurion, who arrived from America on the day the Assefat Hanivharim [Elected Assembly] session began and who reported to that meeting on the UN Special Session, made the following comments, inter alia, on Gromyko’s speech:’ It has been a long time since we heard the representative of a great world power—apart from the remarks of President Truman—speak in such shocking and accurate terms as did Gromyko on behalf of the Soviet Union about the suffering of the Jewish people, its applling losses in the last world war, the tribulations and the impasse of hundreds of thousands of Jews, the remnants of European Jewry who are searching in vain for a haven. But the importance and surprise of Gromyko’s remarks lay not in the description of the Jewish situation—a conclussion in fact reached by the Zionist movement decades ago, but for the

198页

first time confirmed for the world to hear by an emissary of the Soviet Union the Jewish people’s aspiration to its own state.

  The following is the key passage of the speech:

  It would be unjust not to take into account the Jews’ aspirations to establish their own state and to deny the Jewish people’s right to realize those aspirations. Denying that right to the Jewish people cannot be justified, especially if we take into account all they endured in the Second World War. Therefore, the investigation of this aspect of the problem and the preparation of appropriate proposals should also constitute an important task of the committee.

Ben-Gurion cautioned against exaggerating the importance of statements in our favour made by world rulers. However, he stressed that he must note with more than a little satisfaction the moral and political value of the Soviet Union’s approach to the dual question of the People of Israel and the Land of Israel, as reflected in Gromyko’s speech.

  […]3 [One paragraph, containing a summary of Gromyko’s speech (Doc.83), has been omitted.

  [Ben-Gurion also said]:’ And I want to add the following: This time I had a lengthy talk with Gromyko, in which I heard from him elaborations about the offical speech he delivered in the [General] Assembly of the United Nations, and I of course elaborated upon my remarks to the Political Committee. I do not think I need relate here what I told him, and I cannot relate what he told me; but I can say that in general the additional clarifications were positive: in any event they did not diminish in the least the impression that was gained by the remarks made in public to the United Nations [General] Assembly.

  The english in the wake of Gromyko’s declaration: The reverberations reaching us through the British press indicate that Gromyko’s speech came as no small surprise to the British as well. This time an unpleasant surprise. The British press is still continuing to rehash the speech. On the one hand, the British paper claim that we are exaggerating its Zionist value, and on the other hand, they are distoring what we say, in order to alienate us from Russia’s friendship. For example, the times distorted Ben-Gurion’s remarks to the Assefat Hanivharim with one little addition:’ Russia broke promises in the past’. Moreover, they are interpreting Bevin’s statement in the House of Commons, ‘that Britain is determined to remain in the Middle East, as a reply to Gromyko’s Zionist speech at the UN.

  And what is the opinion of the opposition in the Histadrut? In our previous letter we were able to inform you about the initial reactions to Gromyko’s speech in Al bamisbmar and Kol baam.4 [The daily organs of the left-wing Zionist Hashomer Hatsair and the Palestine Communist Pary (PCP).] It should be noted that Misbmar put forward an indirect argument against Gromyko’s alternative—[creation of] a Jewish state by means of partition. In other words, [the paper] has begun to argue against the ten dency towards a state, but without saying so explicitly. The complaint is directed against the Jewish Agency Executive for acting to bring about a Jewish state, not against Gromyko.

  It is interesting that this time the P[alestine] C[ommunist] P[arty] is also following in the footsteps of Al bamishman: Here is a passage from Kol baam on this subject:

  Everyone who is acquainted with the Soviet Union’s position on the question of our country will have no undue difficulty understanding that the Soviet public sees only the liquidation of British imperialist rule as the basis for a just solution of the national problem in our country. There are many paths to a life of friendly partnership, a life of peace among people. The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia—these are instructive examples of a just solution of the national problem which furthers the interests of large and small nations. Here the national question has found its solution not in the form of partition, but on the basis of unity. On the basis of this unity a solution of the Palestine question is also possible. The campaign for partition on the part of Ben-Gurion and others dovetails with Bevin’s policy, which is aimed at strengthening and intensifying imperialist rule in the Middle East and in our land. The problem can be resolved only by the establishment of a democratic, independent Jewish-Arab state, for only a program to create independent political life for Jews and Arabs will enable maximum mobilization of the force for the war against imperialism. But the ‘partition’ plan aggravates the dispute between Jews and Arabs, and the only beneficiary is imperialism.

  It should be noted that Gromyko’s speech has also caused ideological difficulties for the Movement for Ahdut Haavoda---Left Poale Zion. That party, of course, was also among those which sent congratulatory cables to Russia after Gromyko’s speech. However, while [its] cable contains, among other points, a call for a Jewish state, the weekly’s editorial. Which is devoted to the speech, apart from its great nebulousness, is clear in its rejection of Gromyko’s two alternatives. Here is a typical passage from the article:

  It is not the gorm of the solution that the Gromyko declaration pretends to determine and disclose in advance, before the conclusion of the inqiury, but rather the content of the solution to our people’s problem, which [the declaration] lays down at the outset, openly and explicitly, on two main foundations: Jewish political independence and mass Jewish aliya. These are the two elements that in retrospect introduced into what was a balanced declaration great doubts about the reality of the division of power in the form of a bi-national state, to the extent that this might perpetuate the currently existing balance of national forces in Palestine. These two elements also cast doubt on the substance of the proposal to partition the country without a state of true independence in the western area of influence, without the territory or the ablility to concentrate mass aliya.

  The major thrust of the content and meaning of Gromyko’s declaration boils down to the liquidation of the regime that is exploiting an international mandate to establish a ‘semi-military-police state’; it [implies] the rapid advancement of thee Zionist enterprise, including the immediate immigration of ‘the many Jews who survived in Europe without a country of residence, without shelter, without means of subsistence’, in order to develop Jewish political independence as a factor of peace and progress on the battlefield of the Middle East.

  That is the substance of the declaration, which in this transition period implies only one political framework, that of international supervision, which introduces

200页

the Soviet Union as a factor having full and equal rights in determining the fate of our country.

Since the opposition in the Histadrut appears as opposition to Gromyko and to our political leadership, the Palestine Communist Party has called on the opposition parties to [show] ‘unity for the sake of a democratic program’. Among others points, Kol baam says:

  Today Ben-Gurion and [Rabbi Abba Hille] Silver symbolize the policy that has brought calamity upon the yishuv. They are [also] the embodiement of a policy without prospects, with no way out, a policy of submission. The opposition parties in the Histadrut—the Communist Party, Hashomer Hatsair and parts of the Ahdut Haavoda party which oppose [the] Biltmore [Program]5 [The Biltmore program, adopted by the American Zionist Federation in may 1942, and later by the Zionist movement as a whole, called for Palestine to become a ‘Jewish commonwealth integrated in the structure of the new democratic world’.]-----bear responsibility for the future of the yishuv, [and] the future of friendly relations with the land of socialism.

  This responsibility must of necessity find expression_r in the elimination of the monopoly of Ben-Gurion and Co. in representing the yishnv. Moreover, the opposition parties must declare during the elections that Ben-Gurion has no right to speak in the name of the entire yishuv.

  If Hashomer Hatsair and Ahdur Haavoda-Poale Zion continue to accept Ben-Gurion’s monopoly in representing the yishuv, then these paries will not be fulfilling their role.

The working class within the country and the progressive and democratic camp throughout the world will be able to draw the appropriate conclusions from their behaviour.

It should be stated that the explicit threat voice by ‘the progresive and democratic camp throughout the world’ has had no impact on these two parties. But they have made a gesture towards [the PCP] in another sphere: in the Constituent Assembly they voted in favour of the inclusion of the PCP representative in the National Council.

The Arabs following the Gromyko speech: It is noteworthy that the tide of great satisfaction and optimism, which had swelled when the Arab Higher Committee also received a conciliatory invitation to appear before the Political Committee [of the UN], gave way to growing melancholy and depression. This was induced when it became clear that the terms of reference of the investigative committee ignore the Arabs’ requests and that the committee will not co-opt a representative from an Arab state. 6 [For the composition of UNSCOP see Doc.84,n.1. Determining its terms of reference was also a subject of contention, the Arabs insisting on eliminating any reference to the plight of European Jewry, restricting the investigation to Palestine and binding it in advance to the principle of self-determination of peoples. The Zionists favoured a more general wording and empowering the committee to conduct investigations outside Palestine. The final version was much more akin to the Zionist view, calling upon the committee to ‘conduct investigations in Palestine and wherever it may deem useful’ and to ‘submit such proposals, as it may consider appropriate for the solution of the problem of Palestine’ (See GA OR, First Special Session, UN document A/310, pp.6-7). Then comes Gromyko’s surprising statement and heightens their perplexity and anger.

201页

  There is no longer any doubt that Gromyko’s speech came as a stunning surprise to the Arabs, since Russia had strongly supported their demand that the [General Assembly] session, and then the investigative committee, discuss immediate independence. The Arabs tried to extract the maximum benefit from Russia as a bogeyman against the Anglo-Saxons. But at the same time, the Arabs were not ready to compensate Russia for its support. Following Gromyko’s remarks, the Arabs tried to hide their consternation by blurring the issue, hushing it up, and distorting its implocations. Not only did they emphasize the attack on the British and the mandate and try to construe the demand for a bi-national state as support for the Arabs’ insistence on a ‘democratic’ Palestinian state containing a [numerically] frozen Jewish minority lacking communal political rights (Jamal Husayni speaks about the pre-1920 Jews; Fares al-Khuri about the ‘loyal’ Jewish citizens; the Arab left about the Jews currently in the country)—but they completely ignored Gromyko’s recognition of the Jewish national home, the Jews’ right to a state, the connection between the DPs and the Palestine problem, and partition as an alternative solution to a bi-national state. The Arab left, which is now in a delicate situation, tried to blur and distort Gromyko’s statement by construing it to mean that russia in fact supprots a democratic Palestinian state with full equal rights for all the Jews in the country (not a bi-national state); but Gromyko cautioned the Arabs that by their uncompromising stand they might bring about a very undesirable solution: partition. The Arab communists, who oppose partition no less than the mufti, are directing their full wrath at the extremism and fanaticism of the official Palestinian leadership, which [they say] is helping [bring about] pattition by its racist hatred of the Jews and its refusal to recognize the existing Jewish community in Palestine.

  It should be pointed out that in any event Gromyko’s remarks did not generate direct Arab attack on Russia: generally it was noted with disappointment that Russia was no better than the other imperialist powers,i.e., it is on the same level as Britain and the United States. But perceptive Arab circles inferred from Gromyko’s remarks that [the Arabs] should give more consideration to the Soviets and abandon their exclusive Anglo-Saxon orientation; these circles believe that the Arabs must pay Russia a higher price in order to win it over. Another result of Gromyko’s remarks is the Arabs’ growing ambition to strengthen their relations with Asiatic states such as Turkey, India, [and] Iran ,with the aim of establishing a pan-Asian bloc against the powers.

  […]7 [The rest of the document, which deals with internal Arab politics and the possible Arab reaction to UNSOP, has been omitted.]

202页