Canadian Ivan Rand and the UNSCOP Papers -- Creates Israel in 1948

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

There's probably a "Cloak and Dagger" blackmail story behind this but I haven't found it yet...note the bogus "6 million" number again in the case being made only two years after ending WWII... Jew Scams with that number apparently worked...  --CSR

Ivan Rand and the UNSCOP Papers

by John Ross - April 2002

Last December, I found myself disturbed by comments made by Liberal Senator Marcel Prud'homme who, as quoted in Hansard (House of Commons daily debates), gave a particularly vicious diatribe against three of Israel's prime ministers. He also directed his fellow senators to look back to the United Nations (UN) and the General Assembly resolution of Nov. 29, 1947, in order to find the reason for the current difficulty in the Middle East.

To the applause of his senate colleagues, he said, "[Former Canadian prime minister] Lester Pearson helped implement a report written by another great Canadian from the Supreme Court, which called for two states in the land of Palestine, one for the Jews, one for the Palestinians - of course, with no consultation from the Palestinians."

The intent of Prud'homme's revisit to the past was clearly twofold. Firstly, he wanted all Canadians to believe that as early as 1947, Israel has been acting in defiance of the UN's wishes by preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state. Secondly, he wanted Canadians to take the failure of the creation of a Palestinian state as a personal affront to the memory of two pre-eminent Canadians who supported the rights of the Palestinians.

I have always been aware of the fact that while at Flushing Meadows on Nov. 29, 1947, Pearson, who was then under-secretary of state for external affairs, helped Israel obtain the two-thirds majority vote required to pass the resolution in favour of the partition of Palestine. The Arab nations had sought a unitary independent Palestinian state in which the Jews would have no more than a one-third representation in an elected government, and so it was clearly recognized that a vote in favour of partition was an outright rejection of their position.

Furthermore, the historical record confirms that the Arabs had been consulted and were invited to appear before the UN or its committees. Therefore, I knew Prud'homme was quite wrong in his interpretation of events and that he gave a misleading "spin" on the partition resolution.

But what piqued my interest was the reference to the other Canadian referred to by Prud'homme, Supreme Court Justice Ivan Rand, who drafted the original recommendation that was the basis of the UN resolution. Although the details of his prestigious legal and judicial career were well known, little information has been available about his involvement in making the report. This is because the committee that he served on, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), deliberated in secrecy; their meetings and discussions were never made public.

I wanted to find out more about Rand and his position on Palestine for two reasons. My first objective was to determine if his reasons for partition would either hinder or help present-day Canadian Jewry in combating the countless UN resolutions of that attack Israel's legitimacy.

My second reason, which was more personal, arose from the fact that Rand founded the University of Western Ontario Law School upon his retirement from the Supreme Court of Canada in 1960, the same law school that I attended.

I first looked for the government-published volume Documents on Canadian External Affairs (1947), which contains all formerly classified memorandums and correspondence of the External Affairs Department of the federal government. In the section on Palestine, I found several interesting telegrams and documents between Pearson, minister of external affairs Louis St. Laurent and prime minister Mackenzie King, which indicated that Canada tried strenuously not to be nominated as a member of UNSCOP, and that it lobbied both the United States and the United Kingdom to be kept off the committee.

Only after arm twisting by the United States did Canada reluctantly agree to be one of the 11 "neutral" states (Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, India, Guatemala, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia) that would immediately visit Palestine and render a report outlining a solution for the problem by Aug. 31, 1947. But in order to diminish the anticipated political fallout from having been forced to make a decision on the touchy subject, the Canadian government decided that its representative on UNSCOP would be completely independent and not be given any instructions.

Out of a list of seven prominent Canadians, King selected Rand, who departed for Palestine via New York in June 1947. The Department of External Affairs provided Rand with a historical background paper as a guideline, but this memorandum must have been intended to neutralize him from making any decision on Palestine as it spoke of "two great historic tragedies... one Arab, the other Jewish."

The report also advised of the "futility" in determining which people have suffered the worst "catastrophe," and included a Jewish position paper that argued for one unitary Palestinian state and said that partition was not in the best interests of the Jews.

I then decided to call Western's law school to find out if Rand had left behind any memoirs or articles about the time he served on UNSCOP. The library staff said they doubted there would be anything, as Rand never wrote an autobiography, but that they would conduct a search. I was surprised to hear back from the senior librarian a few days later, and quite excited when she told me that she had located an old box marked "Palestine" containing UN papers marked "classified and confidential." I drove anxiously to London to examine the box's contents, and was overwhelmed to see that it contained the complete record of the UNSCOP hearings and deliberations.

Not only did the box also have copies of the position papers of the submissions presented by all of the various local and religious groups in Palestine, but it also contained the confidential reports of the British high commissioner, the verbatim reporting of all meetings and discussions, the individual position papers of each member of UNSCOP and the working drafts of the final report together with handwritten notes and amendments.

Also kept in the box were two important and interesting files. The first contained Rand's personal correspondence from government officials and various individuals living in Palestine, while the second contained the entire briefing report from External Affairs. No one could have dared imagine a more valuable treasure chest of information pertaining to Palestine in 1947 and so revealing of the world's attitude towards Jews and Zionism.

The material revealed that the UNSCOP delegates were completely divided on what they envisioned for Palestine. On Aug. 27, 1947, only four days before the report was due, the chairman realized they had "too many different proposals" and that "the upshot would be a disjointed, incoherent, and from the point of view of the assembly, largely unintelligible report." The only majority viewpoint at that time was of India, Iran, Yugoslavia and Peru, who announced that they were in favour of a unitary state.

The most gratifying for me, however, was reading that it was Rand who recognized the need for consensus in order to arrive at a single solution that would benefit the Jews. He rose to the forefront in the deliberations and forced his fellow delegates to reconsider their personal positions. By using his great ability as a conciliator, he proceeded to work on a draft final report that would eventually gain the majority support of seven of the 11 delegates.

When the delegate from India chided the other delegates favouring partition for not having specifics on partition boundaries, Rand kept his group working together, saying that it was more important to complete the report with a strong recommendation for partition, and only afterward would it be necessary to settle this issue. When the delegates finally had to delineate the boundaries for the two states, he persuaded his fellow members to give the Jewish state control over the Negev, a decision latter opposed by many countries, including the United States. On Aug. 30, he argued and debated with the Indian delegate to ensure that the background reasons set out in the report were supportive of the historical right for a Jewish national homeland.

The UNSCOP papers clearly demonstrate that without Rand, there would not have been a final report that so thoroughly and persuasively recommended partition as the only viable way of helping the Jews in Palestine and the Diaspora. Without it, it is extremely unlikely that Israel would have obtained the two-thirds majority vote of the General Assembly on Nov. 29, 1947. Our debt to Rand, both as Jews and as Canadians, is immeasurable and should proudly be recorded in the history of Zionism and Israel.

Of the 11 members (Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, India, Guatemala, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia) who served on the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), Justice Ivan Rand of Canada became the leading implementer of the Zionist dream for a separate independent Jewish state in Palestine.

Rand's role in UNSCOP was quite remarkable because Canada and the United Kingdom (U.K.) had hoped that Rand would recognize that the Balfour Declaration was the source of the problems in Palestine. The decision they had expected from Rand and his fellow UNSCOP members was a final recommendation to simply "amend" the terms of the British Mandate by formalizing the Jewish immigration restrictions set out in the White Paper to be official United Nations (UN) policy.

Such a measure, they believed, would help deflect criticism from the British government and place it upon the UN, thereby allowing the British to continue enforcing their decision to restrict Jewish immigration into Palestine.

It was therefore no accident that, on his way to Palestine in June 1947, Rand received a briefing report from the Department of External Affairs that equated the annihilation of six million Jews by the Nazis to the killing of 800,000 Muslims by the Mongols in Baghdad in 1258. Not only did this memorandum state that it was "futile" to determine whether the Jews of the Arabs had suffered the most, it also suggested that any solution for Palestine must recognize the need to rebuild Islamic culture from the devastation inflicted upon it in the 13th century.

Nor were the words of the British High Commissioner in Palestine unintentional when he advised the UNSCOP members that the thorny issue of immigration into Palestine would soon pass because Jews would not want to immigrate to Palestine once they had been settled in other countries around the world.

Yet a few weeks later, when UNSCOP members had left Palestine and had gone to Geneva, Switzerland, to write their report, Rand distanced himself from the views of the Canadian and British governments. He saw himself as a member of a committee of the UN and accountable only to the UN rather than as a delegate of a country.

On August 6, 1947, Rand prepared his own memorandum for a solution to the problems in Palestine, advocating partition and the establishment of an independent Jewish state. Over the next three weeks, he gradually convinced a majority of the committee members to adopt this position and to give control over the Negev to the Jewish state. He also single-handedly and successfully opposed the anti-partition members who challenged the validity of the Balfour Declaration as the primary basis for the British Mandate. And he reaffirmed the legality of the Balfour Declaration and suggested it was the White Paper of 1939, with its restrictive limits on Jewish immigration, that was the illegal document and the real source of the problems in Palestine.

What caused Rand to so forcefully renounce the political line suggested to him by the Canadian and British governments, and to echo the words of David Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizmann in their addresses to UNSCOP? It is difficult to find the exact moment when he decided to follow the Zionist position, as this would normally be an exercise in pure speculation. But having read his private correspondence, I would argue that the primary influence on his decision was the contact and correspondence he had with Jews living in Palestine.

Unlike the other UNSCOP members who were isolated and cooped up away from the "rank and file of Palestine," Rand was invited to many social engagements. He was also extended every kindness from the Jews of Palestine. This was especially true of those Jews who had emigrated from Canada. Their letters to Rand as a "fellow countryman" reflect the sincere graciousness and warm hospitality that epitomized the noble ideals and principles of Zionism. Most importantly, they succeeded in exposing the fallacy that lay behind the anti-partition positions of the British High Commissioner and Canadian External Affairs.

One of Rand's first letters was from Moshe Novomeysky of Upper Talbieh, Jerusalem, who was the directing manager of Palestine Potash Ltd., a public company that had the concession for processing chemicals from the Dead Sea. He thanked Rand for the pleasurable exchange of views they had while spending the afternoon together at the Dead Sea, and asked if they could meet again. One of the leading industrialists of Palestine, Novomeysky planned to build a railway to the Mediterranean. He was also a member of the "Brandeis group," an economic corporation that had been guided by former Justice Louis Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court to invest in Palestine. Rand must have been a most interested audience because, prior to his appointment to the Canadian Supreme Court, he was lead counsel for Canadian National Railways and was deeply involved in many capital projects of this nature.

Rand also received a letter from Bernard Joseph of Rehavia, Jerusalem, a Canadian lawyer who left Montreal in 1922 to immigrate to Palestine and who became a leading member of the Palestine bar. This letter explains the significance of Rand's interest in the Palestine Economic Corporation as Joseph wrote to Rand that he was "interested to read in the Palestine Post that you recently published an essay on the late Brandeis whose friendship I had the privilege of enjoying." Rand was quite an admirer of Brandeis, who was a fellow graduate of Harvard Law School and who specialized in business and commercial law. It is most interesting to note the remarkable similarities between these two justices, as their careers, their commitment to higher education and their social activism on the bench for which they both became famous mirror each other in virtually every respect.

From the collective settlement of Ein Hashofet came a letter from Ms. M. Bloomstone. She warmly invited Rand, as a fellow Canadian, to visit her on the 10th anniversary celebrations of her settlement that was located in the quiet hills of Ephraim. A letter similar in nature arrived from Molly Lyons Bar-David, who, in her own charming and inimitable way, invited Rand to Beth Mamoud at Arnona, Jerusalem, to share in their Shabbat. In extending her heartfelt hospitality, she wrote about her birthplace in Tisdale, Saskatchewan, and proceeded to list some names in the Canadian legal profession in order that Rand might not think her a "terrorist." But most importantly, she addressed the question of why Jews emigrate from free countries such as Canada to Palestine. The answer, she explained, was that "I couldn't resist the challenge of Palestine and couldn't divorce myself from the fate of my people in Europe, nor ignore the implications of both; this, despite the fact that I was happy in Canada and (except for isolated occurrences and childhood sorry memories) was in no need for personal salvation."

All of these letters showed Rand the personal and human side of Zionism, and undoubtedly made him much more sensitive and receptive to the need for an independent Jewish state. If these Canadian acts of "kindness" or "chesed" were indeed the spark that enable Rand to write the UNSCOP report that set the wheel in motion toward the United Nations resolution of November 1947, then all Canadian Jewry can take great satisfaction.

It would be a serious mistake to believe that Rand's concern for improving the lives of Jews ceased after he helped to initiate the creation of the State of Israel. In 1950, he wrote and delivered the landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that struck down restrictive covenants that had prevented land from being sold to Jews. The case of Noble and Wolf v. Alley was an appeal from a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that had ruled in favour of discrimination against Jews in respect to private property rights. But Rand refused to let stand the argument from the respondent's counsel, who claimed that "his client's property would depreciate in value if Jews were allowed in as owners." Stopping counsel in mid-speech, Rand said, "If Albert Einstein and Arthur Rubinstein purchased cottages there, the property values would increase, and the association should be honoured to have them as neighbours."

Rand was a true friend to the Jews of Israel and of Canada. Given the momentous importance of the two contemporaneous and courageous decisions that helped us at home and abroad, we should recognize the fact that the history of Israel and Canada may be far more intertwined than we will ever know.

Excerpt from FAITH AND FULFILMENT

    The following background information about Christian Zionist involvement in UNISCOP's work, though not a part of the CJN publication, is presented here to show that Christian action and support for a new State of Israel existed even prior to the 1947 UN "Resolution For The Partition of Palestine".

    Indeed, even earlier it was Christian Zionists in the British Government, including Cabinet Members, whose Biblical roots and understanding, led to the passing of the famous Balfour Declaration in 1917 saying in part: "Her Majesty's government views with favour the establishment of a national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine"; the said provision being incorporated into the adoption of the 1923 British Mandate Provision (which endured until May 14, 1948)

    For additional examples of Christian Zionist involvement please see our JUDEO-CHRISTIAN STUDIES Section, particularly the article "The Role of Gentile Christians in The Rebirth of the State of Israel"

CANADA

One of the non-Jewish residents of Jerusalem during the late 1940s, the end of the British Mandate and the first years of Israel's Independence, was a Canadian clergyman, the Rev. William L. Hull. He ran a little Bible shop, first in the Arab section of Jerusalem, and later, when Arab rioting forced him to seek refuge in the Jewish area of the city, on the "Street of the Prophet." Hull was an old-timer in Jerusalem; everybody knew him and he knew everybody, whether Jew or Arab. For a number of years he published a little periodical, The Voice of Zion, coincidentally the very name later assumed by the Radio Station of the new State of Israel!

Hull was the only Canadian then living in Jerusalem. He was a fundamentalist Protestant, steeped in the Scriptures, at the same time an alert observer of the events which were unfolding around him. When his tour of duty in Jerusalem was over, he published his eye-witness account of what he lived through, as it turned out, years of great moment: The Fall and Rise of Israel. In this account Hull gives the historical background of Israel's return home, coupled with a description of the momentous chain of events that culminated in the Proclamation of the State. His book is a valuable and reliable account of the modern rise of Israel.

When UNSCOP was set up, its Canadian member was Justice I.C. Rand of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa. Justice Rand had only scant information on the problem of Palestine, the Jewish people, the disaster that struck European Jewry under Hitler's Germany, and the urgent necessity for survivors to reach a safe haven for a new beginning in Palestine. The learned Judge was therefore fortunate, when he arrived in Palestine with UNSCOP, to find in Jerusalem a fellow Canadian, informed, well-versed in the problems, and equipped as well, with the vital spiritual dimension of The Return, without which much of its significance would be lost. Hull became Justice Rand's unofficial advisor and no doubt contributed substantially to the crystallization of the Judge's final stand on the Committee's recommendations: the partition of Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish and an Arab state. Writes Judge Rand in the Foreword to Hull's book:

It was a relief, then, when shortly after my arrival I had the good fortune to meet the author of this book. Here he was, a Canadian,... a clergyman,... a man of goodwill, well known to and knowing the many religious and racial groups in that amazing galaxy of rivalries and antagonisms. Whatever might be said of the soundness of his judgments, here, I thought, was one whom I could trust to express himself with honesty and frankness. Somewhat to my surprise, I listened to words of high admiration of the Jewish people, their standards of life and tremendous work they had done since returning to their ancient homeland.

In his Preface, Hull said he wished to write "so that the historical background leading up to, and the events which secured the establishment of the new State of Israel, may be more generally known." He then affirms his Christian approach:

Throughout this book it is assumed that all great events in history happen by the permissive will of God, and are direct results of the faith or lack of faith of people or leaders. Prophets of the Old Testament sounded warnings from time to time against evil and unbelief, and of punishment which would follow these. The Old Testament writings and subsequent history are proof of the truth of their messages. In their prophecy they not only warned of punishment to follow evil, but also told of the wonderful grace of God which He would manifest in forgiving sin, both of individuals and nations. History, then, whether recording a punishment or a blessing, is the fulfillment of prophecy, and this point has been uppermost in my mind while writing this book.

This was Hull's credo, and this was the basis of his interpretation of the U.N. decision of 1947 to partition Palestine and to initiate a Jewish and an Arab state:

In no place in the world did the decision mean more than in Jerusalem. For centuries of time Jews all over the world had taken their oath: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem... ", and in Jerusalem were those who, inspired by the sacredness of this spot, had come to make their homes there in a life-time remembrance of their oath. ... The night of November 29 we slept [Hull relates], but we must have been among the very few in Jewish Jerusalem who did. Our sleep was soon disturbed. There was seven hours difference in time, and it was after midnight when the result of the crucial vote was heard over the air from New York. Sleep fled, the street was full of riotous sound, but a riot of joy. Trucks passed, full of young and old, singing, shouting, waving flags, blowing trumpets. Above all rang out the triumphant cry: Medinat Ha'yehudim! Medinat Ha'yehudim! (A Jewish State!)... All that night and the next day Jewish Jerusalem gave itself over to a time devoted entirely to rejoicing. Young people danced the hora in the streets, British police and soldiers forgot their anti-Semitism and joined the Jews in their rejoicing, dancing and waving the blue and white flag of Zion. No one who was among the Jews in Jerusalem on Sunday, November 30, 1947, will forget it as long as he lives... We, too, joined the rejoicing crowds, and tears quickly came to our eyes as we met friends and shared their joy with them.

Thus the Rev. Hull, the Canadian Protestant, on the day he witnessed in Jerusalem the first sign of Israel's Homecoming, internationally sanctioned by the U.N.

When on May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion pronounced independence, Hull wrote:

After two thousand years of longing, hoping, suffering, praying the State of Israel was born. "Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, for keeping us alive, preserving us and permitting us to attain this day." Amen, Amen. ... People wept unashamedly. It was a historic moment, unique in world history since the day Abraham was called by God from Ur of the Chaldees to leave his home and come to a land he knew not, there to build a nation through which all the world was to be blessed. This day one could almost hear the trumpets sounding, heralding the approach of the Messiah."

Concluding, Hull says:

"We believe that true Zionism is a move of God and that those who are true Zionists with a love of the land God has given them will feel the urge to aid actively in Israel the rebuilding of Zion. In responding they will manifest a loyalty to God which transcends any earthly loyalty or obligation."

    FAITH AND FULFILMENT - Michael Pragai - Vallentine, Mitchell and Co. Ltd. London, England. 1985

http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/unscop3.html

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

United Nations Special Committee on Palestine


The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was formed in May, 1947[1][2] in response to a United Kingdom Government request that the General Assembly "make recommendations under article 10 of the Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine". The British government had also recommended the establishment of a special committee to prepare a report for the General Assembly. The General Assembly adopted the recommendation to set up the UNSCOP to investigate the cause of the conflict in Palestine, and, if possible, devise a solution. UNSCOP was made up of representatives of 11 nations. UNSCOP visited Palestine and gathered testimony from Zionist organisations in Palestine[3] and in the US. The Arab Higher Committee boycotted the Commission explaining that the Palestinian Arab's natural rights were self-evident and could not continue to be subject to investigation, but rather deserved to be recognized on the basis of the principles of the United Nations Charter.[4]

The committee actively followed the unravelling of the SS Exodus, carrying 4554 Jewish Holocaust refugees seeking to illegaly immigrate to Palestine. Some committee members were present at the port of Haifa when the Jewish immigrants were forcefully removed from the ship and deported back to Europe. The eye witness testimony of the Reverend John Stanley Grauel[5], who was on the Exodus, convinced UNSCOP to reverse an earlier decision. The committee decided to hear the testimony of the Jewish refugees in British detention camps in Palestine and in European Displaced Persons camps trying to gain admittance to Palestine.[6] Golda Meir, a later Prime Minister of Israel, observed that Reverend Grauel's testimony and advocacy for the creation of the Jewish State fundamentally and positively changed the United Nations' to support the creation of Israel.[7]
Contents


Members of UNSCOP

    * Australia
          o J. D. L. Hood, representative
          o S. L. Atyeo, alternate
    * Canada
          o Justice Ivan Rand, representative
          o Leon Mayrand, alternate
    * Czechoslovakia
          o Karel Lisicky, representative
          o Richard Peach, alternate
    * Guatemala
          o Dr. Jorge Garcia Granados, representative
          o E. Zea Gonzales, alternate
    * India
          o Sir Abdur Rahman, representative
          o Venkata Viswanathan, alternate
          o H. Dayal, second alternate
    * Iran
          o Nasrollah Entezam, representative
          o Dr. Ali Akdalan, alternate
    * Netherlands
          o Dr. N. S. Blom, representative
          o A. I. Spits, alternate
    * Peru
          o Dr. Alberto Ulloa, representative
          o Dr. Arturo Garcia Salazar, alternate
    * Sweden
          o Justice Emil Sandström, representative
          o Dr. Paul Mohn, alternate
    * Uruguay
          o Professor Enrique Rodriguez Fabregat, representative
          o Professor Óscar Secco Ellauri, alternate
          o Edmundo Sisto, secretary
    * Yugoslavia
          o Vladimir Simic, representative
          o Dr. Jože Brilej, alternate

The UNSCOP Recommendations: Chapter V

On the 3 September 1947 the UNSCOP recommended[8][9] that:-

Recommendation I Termination of the Mandate

It is recommended that

The Mandate for Palestine shall be terminated at the earliest practicable date.

Comment

Among the reasons for this unanimous conclusion are the following:

(a) All directly interested parties the mandatory Power, Arabs and Jews are in full accord that there is urgent need for a change in the status of Palestine. The mandatory Power has officially informed the Committee "that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable". Both Arabs and Jews urge the termination of the mandate and the grant of independence to Palestine, although they are in vigorous disagreement as to the form that independence should take.

(b) The outstanding feature of the Palestine situation today, is found in the clash between Jews and the mandatory Power on the one hand, and on the other the tension prevailing between Arabs and Jews. This conflict situation, which finds expression partly in an open breach between the organized Jewish community and the Administration and partly in organized terrorism and acts of violence, has steadily grown more intense and takes as its toll an ever-increasing loss of life and destruction of property.

(c) In the nature of the case, the Mandate implied only a temporary tutelage for Palestine. The terms of the Mandate include provisions which have proved contradictory in their practical application.

(d) It may be seriously questioned whether, in any event, the Mandate would now be possible of execution. The essential feature of the mandates system was that it gave an international status to the mandated territories. This involved a positive element of international responsibility for the mandated territories and an international accountability to the Council of the League of Nations on the part of each mandatory for the well being and development of the peoples of those territories. The Permanent Mandates Commission was created for the specific purpose of assisting the Council of the League in this function. But the League of Nations and the Mandates Commission have been dissolved, and there is now no means of discharging fully the international obligation with regard to a mandated territory other than by placing the territory under the International Trusteeship System of the United Nations.

(e) The International Trusteeship System, however, has not automatically taken over the functions of the mandates system with regard to mandated territories. Territories can be placed under Trusteeship only by means of individual Trusteeship Agreements approved by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly.

(f) The most the mandatory could now do, therefore, in the event of the continuation of the Mandate, would be to carry out its administration, in the spirit of the Mandate, without being able to discharge its international obligations in accordance with the intent of the mandates system. At the time of the termination of the Permanent Mandates Commission in April 1946, the mandatory Power did, in fact, declare its intention to carry on the administration of Palestine, pending a new arrangement, in accordance with the general principles of the Mandate. The mandatory Power has itself now referred the matter to the United Nations.[8][9]
[edit] Recommendation II. Independence

It is recommended that Independence shall be granted in Palestine at the earliest practicable date.

Comments:-

(a) Although sharply divided by political issues, the peoples of Palestine are sufficiently advanced to govern themselves independently.

(b) The Arab and Jewish peoples, after more than a quarter of a century of tutelage under the Mandate, both seek a means of effective expression for their national aspirations.

(c) It is highly unlikely that any arrangement which would fail to envisage independence at a reasonably early date would find the slightest welcome among either Arabs or Jews.[9][10]
[edit] Recommendation III. Transitional period

It is recommended that

There shall be a transitional period preceding the grant of independence in Palestine which shall be as short as possible, consistent with the achievement of the preparations and conditions essential to independence.

Comments:-

(a). A transitional period preceding independence is clearly imperative. it is scarcely conceivable, in view of the complicated nature of the Palestine problem, that independence could be responsibly granted without a prior period of preparation.

(b). The importance of the transitional period is that it would be the period in which the governmental organization would have to be established, and in which the guarantees for such vital matters as the protection of minorities, and the safeguarding of the Holy Places and religious interests could be ensured.

(c). A transitional period, however, would in all likelihood only serve to aggravate the present difficult situation in Palestine unless it were related to a specific and definitive solution which would go into effect immediately upon the termination of that period, and were to be of a positively stated duration, which, in any case, should not exceed a very few years.[9][10]


Recommendation IV. UN Responsibility

The sub-Committee recommended that United Nations responsibility during the transitional period was to be:-.

During the transitional period the authority entrusted with the task of administering Palestine and preparing it for independence shall be responsible to the United Nations.

Comments:-

(a). The responsibility for administering Palestine during the transitional period and preparing it for independence will be a heavy one. Whatever the solution, enforcement measures on an extensive scale may be necessary for some time. The Committee is keenly aware of the central importance of this aspect of any solution, but has not felt competent to come to any conclusive opinion or to formulate any precise recommendations on this matter.

(b). It is obvious that a solution which might be considered intrinsically as the best possible and most satisfactory from every technical point of view would be of no avail if it should appear that there would be no means of putting it into effect. Taking into account the fact that devising a solution which will be fully acceptable to both Jews and Arabs seems to be utterly impossible, the prospect of imposing a solution upon them would be a basic condition of any recommended proposal.

(c). Certain obstacles which may well confront the authority entrusted with the administration during the transitional period make it desirable that a close link be established with the United Nations.

(d). The relative success of the authority entrusted with the administration of Palestine during the transitional period in creating the proper atmosphere and in carrying out the necessary preparations for the assumption of independence will influence greatly the effectiveness of the final solution to be applied. It will be of the utmost importance to the discharge of its heavy responsibilities that, while being accountable to the United Nations for its actions in this regard, the authority concerned should be able to count upon the support of the United Nations in carrying out the directives of that body.[9][10]

Ad Hoc Committee Deliberations

The unanimous decision of the UNSCOP was for the termination of the mandate and two plans were drawn up for the Governance of Palestine on the termination of the Mandate. Seven members of the UNSCOP endorsed a partition plan (the Majority report) favoured by the Zionist leadership on 2 October 1947. Dr Able Hillel Silver, Chairman of the American Section of the Jewish Agency, made the case for a Jewish State to the Ad Hoc committee on Palestine and announced on behalf of the Jewish Agency acceptance of 10 of the eleven unanimous recommendations of the UN partition plan and rejection of the minority report. Of the Majority report (the Partition Plan areas) Dr Able Hillel Silver vacillates saying that he was prepared to "recommend to the Jewish people acceptance subject to further discussion of the constitutional and territorial provisions".[11] While three members endorsed a federal state (the minority report) similar to the Grady Morrison plan that had been rejected by both Jews and Arabs and the UNSCOP found that a canton system "might easily entail an excessive fragmentation of the governmental processes, and in its ultimate result, would be quite unworkable." No members of the UNSCOP endorsed a One-state solution as recommended by the Arab Higher Committee and on 29 September Mr Jamal al-Husayni Vice president of the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine (AHCP) acting for the AHPC announced opposition to the UN partition plan

Sub-Committee No. 1 to the Ad Hoc Committee

On 22 October the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine formed a sub-Committee to:-

1). To draw up a detailed plan for the future government of Palestine in accordance with the basic principles of the unanimous recommendations of the majority plan of the Special Committee on Palestine;

2). To incorporate this plan in the form of recommendations;

3). To consider the exercise of administrative responsibility in Palestine during the transitional period, including the possibility of application of Chapter III of the UN Charter and[12]

4. To consider methods by which recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine question under paragraph 1 above would be put into effect.

On 23 October 1947 the sub-committee held its first meeting and held 32 meeting and on 19 November recommended to the Ad Hoc committee that[13]:- There shall be a Commission appointed by the General Assembly comprising of 5 members representing Guatemala, Iceland, Norway, Poland and Uruguay

Britain was unwilling to implement a policy that was not acceptable to both sides and so refused to share with the UN Palestine Commission the administration of Palestine during the transitional period and on 20 November 1947 British Government informed the UN of a timetable for evacuating Palestine. On the Termination of the Mandate, Partition And Independence. Britain as the Mandatory Power was to use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, was to be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948. [14][15]

On 29 November the recommendations of the sub-committee having been incorporated into the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee were adopted by the United Nations General assembly as part of the Partition Plan.[16]
[edit] Tasks allotted to the Palestine Commission

From the first meeting the tasks that the Palestine Commission were allotted were:-

1). The establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the Assembly's recommendations on partition.

2). The progressive assumption of responsibility for the administration of Palestine as the Mandatory Power evacuates the country, pending the establishment of the independent States.

3). The establishment of Provisional Councils of Government in the Arab and Jewish States and the direction of their activities in the transitional period.

4). The approval of election regulations governing democratic elections to constituent assemblies in each State; and the appointment of the Preparatory Economic Commission which is to pave the way for the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board, envisaged in Resolution GA 181.[17][18]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... _Palestine