88       I.N.Bakulin to A.Ia.Vyshinskii (Moscow)

COPY: AVP RF, F.0118, OP.10, P.5, D.3.LL.1-8

Moscow , 30 Junly 1947

Secret

CONCERNING THE UPCOMING DISCUSSION OF THE PALESTINE QUESTINE AT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION IN SEPTEMBER 1947       

1.      Background 1 [The first part of this survey is apparently taken in large part from the entry ‘Palestine’ in the 2^nd edition of Bol’shaia soveiskaia entsiklopediia, the relevant volumes of which appeared in 1939.]

Until World War I, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire.

  In 1919, in order to instigate the Arabs to revolt against Turkey, the British government, in secret talks with Husayn, the Sherif of Mecca, promised that, after the end of the war, an independent Arab state which would include Palestine would be created.

 In May 1916 Britain and France concluded an agreement (Sykes-Picot) according to which, after the end of the war, Palestine was to be given over to international rule. The form of government was to be determined by agreement between Russia, Britain and France; the Palestinian ports of Haifa and Acre were to be given to Britain.

 On 2 November 1917, wishing to secure the support of the influential Jewish bourgeoisie of Europe and the US in reinforcing Britain’s control over Palestine, which was occupied at that time by British forces, the British government published Lord Balfour’s Declaration. In it Britain promised to ‘view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’.

 In 1920 the British succeeded in received ‘full powers of legislation and of administration’ of Palestine; thiis was confirmed by the League of Nations on 24 June 1922.

  Under the mandate, Britain received ‘full powers of legislation and of administration’ of Palestine, including control over foreign relations, the

205页

judicial system and the holy places. As part of the mandate, Britain received the right to maintain its troops in Palestine.

  The entire legislative and executive power in the country was concentrated in the hands of British high commissioner. The so-called ‘Palestine administration’, made up of British officials, functioned under his authority.

  According to the ‘constitution’ of 1922, a legislative council was supposed to be formed in Palestine, but as a result of the Arab boycott of the elections, this measure by the British was not carried out.

  The Zionists constituted the basic support of the British colonial domination in Palestine. On the basis of the mandate, the Jewish Agency was formed as a body to assist the Palestine administration in issues related to the organization of a Jewish national home.2 [The Jewish Agency for Palestine was established in 1929 and accorded a formal status in the British mandate over Palestine. It was set up to encourage Jewish immigration to Palestine and to assist in close settlement of the land. It also included representatives of Jewish non-zionist organizations interested in building up Palestine. Its executive, divided between Jerusalem. London and New York, was the main political and economic organ of the Zionist organization and the Palestine Jewish community (the yishuv)] The Zionists played the main role in it.

  The Jewish National Council (Vaad Leumi) was thus formed on the initiative of the British. It was officially recognized as a body of self-government responsible for collecting taxes from the Jews for upkeep of schools and for communal needs. An Elected Assembly [Assefat Hanivharim]3 [See doc.16,n.1.] was also formed. Under the umbrella of the Zionist Executive, an illegal Jewish army, Hagana (Defence),4 [The Zionist Executive in Palestine never assurned direct control or command of the Hagana. In 1947 it was subject to a mixed yishuv Security Committee representing the Zionist organization, the Histadrut and various unaffiliated yishuv bodies.]  was formed, numbering up to 80,000 persoms. It was used by the British to suppress the Arab national movement. In Montgomery’s instructions (published in Palestine and the Middle East, 8 September 1946), in connection with the British troops’ preparations for operations against the Arab insurgents of 1938, there was direct mention of the creation in Palestine of mixed froups of soldiers and of ‘tested local residents’. The instructions recommended Jewish Zionists in this latter capacity.

  The economic penetration of Zionist capital undermined the foundations of Arab existence in Palestine, whereas the political privileges given the Zionists impinged upon their national rights and aspirations.

  The Zionists’ seizure of Arab lands evoked strong protests and Jews in Palestine. Thus, in particular, the powerful anti-British Arab riots in 1929, 1936, and 1939 were suppressed with Jewish assistance.

  The Arab uprising in Palestine in 1935 forced the British to enter into talks with the Arabs on constitutional reforms in Palestine. The Zionists, however, disapproved of the British intention of giving the population of Palestine a constitution. In April 1936 a new Arab uprising broke out which in its scale far

206页

exceeded previous anti-British riots. It was supported by the Arabs of other countries and by the Muslims of India.

  The disturbances latted for three years. Arab disturbances in Palestine represented a dangerous threat to British rule in the conditions leading up to World War II. The British were thus forced to reconsider their policy towards the Arabs of Palestine.

  By 1937, the British Royal Commission of Lord Peel, which investigated the situation in Palestine, came to the conclusion that the mandate had ‘outlived its usefulness’ and could no longer assure Britain firm control of Palestine. The Peel Commission recommended that Palestine be partitioned into three parts: British, Jewish and Arab. This proposal was rejected by the Arabs. 5[See Doc.31, n.3.]

  Under pressure of the comtinuing anti-British Arab movement, the British were forced to work out a new course which they formulated in the White Paper of 1939. 6[For the immigration restrictions of the White Paper see Doc.1.n.7.]

  In the White Paper of 1939, Britain repudiated exclusive support of the Zionists and tried to establish cooperation with the elite of the Arab national movement. In 1944 Britain promised to halt Jewish immigration to Palestine, and in 19[3]9 it began talks on granting independence to Palestine.

  The White Paper of 1939 aroused strong dissatisfaction among Zionists. Beginning with the spring of 1944, this took the form of open armed actions against the British.

  This struggle became particularly active after the end of World War II, when the US extended considerable support to the Zionists in their struggle against the British.

 In August 1945, Truman demanded the immediate admission into Palestine of 100,000 Jews from Europe. The British refused to grant this request. In this connection, in November 1945 the joint Anglo-American Committee was established. It was entrusted with studying the Palestine question, as well as the Jewish question in Europe, and with bringing its recommendations to the US and British governments.

 On 30 April 1946 this committee published its report. It recommended permitting the entry of 100,000 Jews into Palestine. With regard to the state of affairs in Palestine, the committee acknoeledged that the country was ‘an armed camp’ and that, despite the state of siege and the presence of an enormous British army, the disturbances were continuing. The report particularly emphasized the irreconcilable hostility between Arabs and Jews living in Palestine.

 The committee recommended retaining the British mandate over Palestine, pending the establishment of trusteeship under the UN.

 The recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee evoked dissatisfaction among both Zionists and Arabs.

207页

On 8 July 1946, talks began in London between US and British government experts in order to work out a specific plan for resolving the Palestine problem on the basis of the Anglo-American Committee’s report. Alluding to the hostility between Jews and Arabs, the experts recommended the creation in Palestine of a federation of four regions in which two regions would be governed by the central government (the British) and two would would be autonomous Arab and Jewish provinces. The central government would retain all basic governing functions.

 The plan for a federation completely suited British interests but evoked American dissatisfaction. Under the pretext of the need to reconsider the entire issue, Truman recalled the American experts from London.

 In this period Jewish terrorist organizations became markedly more active. The British authorities in Palestine responded with mass repressions against the Jews.

 After the collapse of the conference of anglo-American experts, the Arab countries, on the basis of a decision adopted at a session of the Arab League in Bludan, proposed that Britain begin talks on a way of resolving the Palestine problem. 7[See Doc.65, and n.7 there.] The British accepted tha Arab proposal and on 10 September 1946, a special conference on Palestine was convened, with the participation of Egypt, Syria,  Lebanon, Iraq, Transjordan and Saudi Arabia. 8[See Doc.67,n.3]

  The Jews and Arabs of Palestine refused to participate in the conference.

  Having rejected the British plan for a federation, the Arabs offered their plan, which consisted of following points:

  It envisaged the formation at the end of 1948 of a unified independent state with a predominantly Arab population; other nationalities, including Jews, would be granted full rights. According to this plan, a provisional Palestine government was to be formed immediately, with seven Arab and three Jewish ministers. The provisional government would organize elections for a constituent assembly. After the latter would adopt a democratic constitution, elections would be held for a legislative assembly. Based on the size of the Jewish population in Palestine, the Jews would be given approximately one third of the seat in the Palestinian parliament.

  The British mandate would cease to be in effect after the appointment of the first head of state.

  The Jews rejected both the British federal plan and the Arabs’ proposals for setting up an independent Arab state in Palestine. They demanded free immigration of Jews to Palestine, transference of control over immigration to the Jewish Agency, and the Creation of an independent Jewish state in Palestine.

  Based on Truman’s telegram to Attlee in connection with the suspension of the conference’s work, the US supported the Jewish Agency’s proposal and suggested that Britain permit the entry of 100,000 Jews into Palestine. 9[See Doc. 71, n.3.]

208页

 Under pretext of the need to study the Arab plan for a state structure in Palestine, the British government postponed reopening the conference, first until 16 December and then to 27 January 1947.

 On the eve of the renewal of the London Conference on the Palestine issue, the 27^th World Zionist Congress was held in Basel. It supported the Jews’ demand for free immigration and the creation of an independent Jewish state in Palestine.

 In addition to representatives of Arab countries, representatives of the Palestinian Arabs participated in the London Conference, which renewed its work on 27 January 1947.

 In the course of the conference, in response to resistance by the delegates from Arab countries to its federal plan, the British suggested the creation in Palestine of two autonomous cantons-Jewish and Arab- which would be subordinated to a tripartite government (Arab-Jewish-British) located in Jerusalem.

 The Arabs rejected this British proposal too.

 On 14 February, in view of the fact that agreement had not been reached, Mr.Bevin declared that the British government had decided to entrust the Palestine question to the UN.

 

1.      Study of the Question by the UN Committee

On 28 April. At the suggestion of the British government, a special session of the UN General Assembly was held. Its task was to set up and instruct a special committee to prepare a report on the Palestine question for consideration at the next session of the Assembly.

 It can be concluded from the debates on procedural issues that the US and Btitain decided to join efforts not to permit a detailed discussion of the essence of the Palestinee question. Evidently, they calculated that while the committee was carrying out its work in Palestine, they would be able to reach an amicable agreement between themselves about the fate of Palestine, and they would try to reconcile the initial positions which they had held prior to Un analysis of the Palestine question.

  Neither the British nor the US representative expressed his government’s new position at the General Assembly session. Thus, the ouyside world though that the British and US positions remained as they had been before the start of the session (see Memorandum 337-BV of 15 April 1947 about the positions of the US, Britain, Arabs and Zionists on the Palestine question). 10[Doc.78.]

   Only an oblique mention appeared in a letter of [George] Marshall, published in the American press on 6 May, in which he replied to a Question of trusteeship over Palestine. It was indicated in the reply that this question

209页

would not arise until some steps were taken to include Palestine in the system of UN trusteeship. At the same time, Marshal stressed that according to Article 77 of the Un Charter, the transference of territories under the mandate of the  League of Nations to UN trusteeship was a voluntary rather than automatic act.

   The resolution adopted by the Assembly session provided for the appointment of representatives of eleven states to the committee to prepare a report on Palestine for the forthcoming General Assembly session. These states were Australia Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Holland, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugolsavia.

   After acquainting themselves with the Palestine problem, on 15 June the committee left for Palestine to study the situation on the spot.

A.  The Arab position. The Arab Executive Committee in Palestine decided to boycott the UN committee and called upon all Arabs to refuse to give any testimony to committee members.

 The UN committee was thus able to obtain testimony only from the Jewish population of Palestine.

The attitude of the palestinian Arabs to the activity of the UN committee could be judged from the remarks in the Arab press by leaders of Palestinian Arabs and Arabs of other countries, which came down to a demand to terminate the British mandate over Palestine, grant it independence and halt Jewish immigration.

Judging by the statement of Syria’s President Shukri al-Quwwatll published in the newspaper Orient on 21 July 1947, the representatives of Arab countries completely shared the opinion of Palestine Arabs and would continue to oppose the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. 11[See Doc.89.]

Representatives of Arab countries presented a memorandum to the UN committee in Beirut on 22 July in which they contended that the sole correct solution to the Palestine question was the formation of a free government in Palestine on the basis of proportional representation.

B.  The Jews’ position. In its statement to the UN committee, the Jewish Agency demanded the formation in Palestine of a Jewish state which would have the unlimited right to receive Jewish immigrants from other countries into Palestine.

The chairman of the executive committee of the Jewish Agency, Ben-Gurion, proposed a plan to the UN committee which envisaged the creation of a Jewish state in all of Palestine, the abolition of the British White Paper of 1939 and the encouragement of a Jewish-Arab alliance. Ben-Gurion declared that the Jewish Agency would be implacably opposed to any decrees concerning the formation of a bi-national state or the establishment of a Birtish or UN mandate over Palestine.

3        Our Position

The position of the Soviet Union on the Palestine question was presented by Comrade Gromyko at the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly of 14 May 1947.  12[See Doc. 83.]

On this basis, during the discussion of the Palestine question at the forthcoming Assembly session, we must:

1. Attain abolition of the mandate system of administering Palestine as unjustified.

2. Attain the withdrawal of British forces from Palestine because otherwise it would be impossible to create an independent state in Palestine.

3. support the idea of greate an independent dual democratic Arab-Jewish state based on granting equal rights to the Jewish and Arab populations.

4. If it becomes clear during the discussion of the Palestine question that relations between Arabs and Jews have deteriorated to the point that they could not coexist peacefully in a dual democratic state, then support should be given to the creation of two independent states, Arab and Jewish.

5. If a proposal is made for the Assembly to discuss the resettlement of 100,000 Jews in Palestine, we should support this proposal.

 The above points, defining our attitude towards the Palestine question, were conveyed by Comrade Gromyko.

The need for additional proposals and instructions may arise after the presentation of the report by the UN committee which investigated the situation in Palestine.

                               Direct of the Near East Department

                                             I.Bakulin