November 29, 1947 A Date We Shall Not Forget
Compiled from Palestine and International Law
This date will remain a shameful day in the foreheads of the West and especially of the United States. On this very day the Western States and especially the United States of America succumbed to the pressure of the Zionist Movement and forced the United Nations to rip Palestine apart and granted to the Zionists to establish the illegal entity in the land of the Palestinians. It is no secret that the usurpation of Palestine was achieved by means of Zionist influence and American political pressure. The Zionists gained to their cause President Truman, who put the weight of the US Government in support of partition. In his Memoirs President Truman complains about Zionist pressure:
"The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think that I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance . . . Some of the extreme Zionist leaders were even suggesting that we pressure sovereign nations into favourable votes in the General Assembly.
However, President Truman does not disclose his own role and his own pressures in favor of Zionism and of the partition plan, except to mention concisely: "I instructed the State Department to support the partition plan.
American influence played a great role in the adoption of the partition resolution. The evidence is ample in this regard. A few days before the final vote it had become fairly clear that the partition plan would not obtain the majority of two-thirds required for its adoption. Many countries had openly-declared their opposition to partition or had abstained in the Committee vote. Thus, General Carlos Romulo, the representative of the Philippines, declared that he would defend the fundamental rights of a people to decide its political future and to preserve the territorial integrity of the land of its birth. But he was soon to change his attitude, like many others, because the pressures began to be felt.
"From that time on the representatives of the United States impressed upon every delegation the necessity to adopt a 'positive attitude'- the means employed was more often intimidation than persuasion. In this way Belgium, France, Haiti, Liberia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Paraguay and the Philippines found themselves obliged to reconsider their vote at the plenary session.
Let us listen to American testimony. Kermit Roosevelt has written:
"Our delegation declared itself. . . in favor of the plan for partition . . . After its decision was made, the delegation proceeded on the principle that other countries should be allowed to make up their own minds. This principle was modified, however, when it became apparent that if it were followed the partition plan would be defeated . . . Haiti, Liberia, the Philippines, China, Ethiopia were overnight either won to voting for partition or persuaded to abstain ... The delegates of those six nations and their home governments as well were swamped with telegrams, phone calls, letters and visitations. Many of the telegrams, particularly, were from Congressmen, and others as well invoked the name and prestige of the US Government. An ex-Governor, a prominent Democrat with White House and other connections, personally telephoned Haiti urging that its delegation be instructed to change its vote. (The same thing happened to Liberia.) Both States reversed themselves and voted for partition.
A witness of great weight is James Forestall, then US Secretary for Defense. James Forestall was anxious to lift the Palestine Question out of American internal politics, but in this he failed. His Diaries abound with information about maneuvers designed to secure a favourable UN vote for the partition of Palestine. He said:
"There was a feeling among the Jews that the United States was not doing what it should to solicit votes in the UN General Assembly in flavour of the Palestine partition ... I thought it was a most disastrous and regrettable fact that the foreign policy of this country was determined by the contributions a particular bloc of special interests might make to party funds ... Forestall heard from Loy Henderson more about the 'very great pressure' that had been put on him as well as Mr. Lovell to get active American solicitations for UN votes for the Palestine partition ... I thought that the methods that had been used by people outside of the Executive branch of the government to bring coercion and duress on other nations in the General Assembly bordered closely onto scandal... Mr. Forestall said that our [US] Palestine policy had been made for 'squalid political purposes
Sumner Welles, a former US Secretary of State, also throws light upon the pressures exercised by the White House in 1947 in order to ensure adoption of the partition resolution. He said:
"Jewish support for the partition plan became overwhelming. In several of the larger cities the political influence of this body of American citizens was considerable and their allegiance was a matter of more than passing concern to a President whose desire for re-election was well-known ...
When the partition plan was finally introduced in a plenary meeting of the General Assembly on November 26 the outcome suddenly looked uncertain. Under the provisions of the Charter and the regulations of the Assembly a two-thirds majority was required for approval. It was known that among the Latin-American Republics Cuba was adamant in her opposition. It was also known that Argentina, Colombia and Mexico would abstain from voting, and that certain other republics, notably Haiti, El Salvador and Honduras, were inclined to follow the lead taken by Cuba. Several of the smaller nations of Western Europe were reluctant to take any definite position.
In the light of later events it is important that there be no misunderstanding of the position that the United States assumed at that juncture. By direct order of the White House every form of pressure, direct and indirect, was brought to bear by American officials upon those countries outside the Moslem world that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to partition. Representatives or intermediaries were employed by the White House to make sure that the necessary majority would at least be secured.
Stephen Penrose, the President of the American University of Beirut, criticized the American pressure in favor of partition in the following terms:
"The political maneuvering which led to the final acceptance of the United Nations General Assembly of the majority report of UNSCOP provides one of the darker pages in the history of American international politics. There can be no question but that it was American pressure which brought about the acceptance of the recommendation for Partition of Palestine with Economic Union voted by the General Assembly on 29 November 1947. It was this effective American pressure for partition which is largely responsible for the terrific drop which American prestige took in all parts of the Arab and Muslim world.
Even the US Congress resounded with a note of protest. Congressman Lawrence H. Smith told Congress in 1947:
"Let's take a look at the record, Mr. Speaker, and see what happened in the United Nations Assembly prior to the vote on partition. A two-thirds vote was required to pass the resolution. On two occasions the Assembly was to vote and twice it was postponed. It was obvious that the delay was necessary because the proponents (the USA and the USSR) did not have the necessary votes. In the meantime, it is reliably reported that intense pressure was applied to the delegates of three small nations by the United States member and by officials 'at the highest levels in Washington'. Now that is a serious charge. When the matter was finally considered on the 29th, what happened? The decisive votes for partition were cast by Haiti, Liberia and the Philippines. These votes were sufficient to make the two-thirds majority. Previously, these countries opposed the move... The pressure by our delegates, by our officials, and by the private citizens of the United States constitutes reprehensible conduct against them and against us.
The official record of the General Assembly also reflects the pressure that was brought to bear upon delegates and governments in order to vote in favor of partition. Mahmoud Fawzi, the Egyptian delegate, said:
"Let us frankly say to the whole world that, despite all the pressure exerted in favor of partition, a majority of the United Nations could not stomach this violation of the principles of the Charter.
Camille Chamoun, the Lebanese delegate, declared:
"I can well imagine to what pressure, to what maneuvers your sense of justice, equity and democracy has been exposed during the last thirty-six hours. I can also imagine how you have resisted all these attempts ... in order to preserve ... the democratic methods of our Organization. My friends think of these democratic methods, of the freedom in voting which is sacred to each of our delegations. If we were to abandon this for the tyrannical system of tackling each delegation in hotel rooms, in bed, in corridors and ante-rooms, to threaten them with economic sanctions or to bribe them with promises in order to compel them to vote one way or another, think of what our Organization would become in the future."38
Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan, the delegate for Pakistan, stated:
"It is with satisfaction that one notes, Mr. President, that you are anxious to secure ... an undisturbed and uninfluenced discussion. Whether the vote is going to be equally free and uninfluenced is no longer a matter for satisfaction ... Those who have no access to what is going on behind the scenes have known enough from the Press that... the deliberations .. . will not be left free."39
Mr. Dihigo, the Cuban delegate, concluded his speech against partition in these words:
"For these reasons, we feel bound to vote against the plan of partition ... and to adhere firmly to our stand despite the negotiations and despite the pressure which has been brought to bear upon us."40
Fadel Jamali, the delegate of Iraq, stated:
"Great pressure is being brought upon members who have already formulated their point of view, pressure designed to have them change their minds, and
36 US Congressional Record, p. 1176, 18 December 1947.
Mr. Vilfan, the Yugoslav delegate, observed that the United States had become "the principal sponsor of partition".46 Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan for Pakistan said:
"It was also strange that on 29 November a certain number of representatives had voted for partition, whereas on 26 November they had declared that they were opposed to partition as unjust . . . The representatives who had changed their minds during those three days . . were caught between the dictates of their conscience and the strong pressure which was being put on them and their Governments. Those facts were so well-known that the partition plan could be called a United States rather than a United Nations decision.
Charles Malek for Lebanon observed:
"When the Special Committee's recommendation was made to the General Assembly, it was extremely difficult for the Assembly to decide upon any solution other than partition. Mr. Malek did not wish to comment on the circumstances which attended that decision beyond remarking that he had first-hand knowledge of certain shameful pressures which were exerted.
What is the legal value of a resolution which was obtained only by means of political pressures? Pitman Potter has observed: "The United States came close to exercising undue influence to get the partition plan adopted. It seems, however, that the existence of undue influence is more than amply demonstrated, and without such undue influence the partition resolution would never have been adopted. In fact, the partition resolution was "steamrollered" through the General Assembly by the United States. On the basis of the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice requiring members of the UN to conform, in the exercise of their vote, to the principles of the Charter and of good faith, the partition resolution must be considered to be null and void on the ground, amongst others, of having been obtained by the exercise of undue influence.