OT - Tiglath is an ignorant, biased, closed minded, Anti-Semitic shithead.

It comes down to a pretty simple question.

Do you trust the knowledge, judgement, and decision making of
leaders like Winston Churchill and Harry Truman (or more recently
on a rare topic that both Don Trump and Joe Biden agree on),
joined by a super majority of the United Nations,

or a constantly complaining, 'what-aboutist' shithead who could
not even bother to vote in the monumental Presidential Election
on November 8, 2016 between Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump,
or Gary Johnson ?

I will go with our leaders who have done the best they knew
how, to shape the world to be better than they found it.

-----------

Both groups, Jews and Palestinians had populations there.
But it was a thinly populated area. Terraces that had been
productive when Jews had the majority, but lost to military
conquest to Muhammad lay mostly neglected.
As many said, "A people without a land, for a land without a people."

But the Palestinians continued to make bad choices.
They picked the wrong side in WWI.
They picked the wrong side in WWII.
They refused to compromise, and refused the UN offer in 1947.
They chose to fight with 5 organized Arab Armies against the
Jewish militia and, surprising all, lost in 1948-49.
They made the bad choice to start a war in 1956.
They made the bad choice to start a was in 1967, and lost much land.
They made the bad choice to start a war in 1973.
They made the bad choice to start a war in 1982.
They made the bad choice to start a war in 2006.
They made the bad choice to refuse what POTUS Carter negotiated.
They made the bad choice to refuse what POTUS Clinton negotiated.

----------

Yes, the Palestinians do deserve a right to a homeland.
They were offered one, just as the Jews were offered one
when the UK gave up it's UN mandate.
The Jews accepted what was offered, even tho it was far
from ideal. They created Israel, and have flourished
and they made the desert bloom.
The Palestinians refused to share, and decided to kill
the Jews rather than share. Surprise! Even with the
Armies of five nations helping the Palestinians,
they failed.

And have been consumed by hatred, and refusal to share
for the last 75 years. Every time the Palestinians
are offered a chance to have their own state and
live in peace, they refuse.

Please read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

Contents hide
(Top)
Background
United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP)
Toggle United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) subsection
Ad hoc Committee
Toggle Ad hoc Committee subsection
The vote
Toggle The vote subsection
Reactions
Toggle Reactions subsection
Subsequent events
Toggle Subsequent events subsection
See also
References
Bibliography
Further reading
External links
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

Article
Talk
Read
View source
View history

Tools
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Partition of Palestine" redirects here. For the partition of Palestine
into Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, see 1949 Armistice
Agreements.
UN General Assembly
Resolution 181 (II)

UNSCOP (3 September 1947; see green line) and UN Ad Hoc Committee (25
November 1947) partition plans. The UN Ad Hoc Committee proposal was
voted on in the resolution.
Date 29 November 1947
Meeting no. 128
Code A/RES/181(II) (Document)
Voting summary
33 voted for
13 voted against
10 abstained
Result Adopted
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the
United Nations, which recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine at
the end of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the UN General
Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution 181 (II).[1]

The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish
States and a Special International Regime for the city of Jerusalem. The
Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution,
provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal
of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the
two States and Jerusalem. Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate
would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would
withdraw no later than 1 August 1948. The new states would come into
existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October
1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims
of two competing movements, Palestinian nationalism and Jewish
nationalism, or Zionism.[2][3] The Plan also called for Economic Union
between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and
minority rights.[4] While Jewish organizations collaborated with UNSCOP
during the deliberations, the Palestinian Arab leadership boycotted it.[5]

The proposed plan is considered to have been pro-Zionist by its
detractors, with 62% of the land allocated to the Jewish state despite
the Palestinian Arab population numbering twice the Jewish
population.[6] Consequently, the partition plan was accepted by Jewish
Agency for Palestine and most Zionist factions who viewed it as a
stepping stone to territorial expansion at an opportune time.[7][5] The
Arab Higher Committee, the Arab League and other Arab leaders and
governments rejected it on the basis that in addition to the Arabs
forming a two-thirds majority, they owned a majority of the lands.[8][9]
They also indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial
division,[10] arguing that it violated the principles of national
self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to
decide their own destiny.[5][11] They announced their intention to take
all necessary measures to prevent the implementation of the
resolution.[12][13][14][15] Subsequently a civil war broke out in
Palestine[16] and the plan was not implemented.[17]

Background
The British administration was formalized by the League of Nations under
the Palestine Mandate in 1923, as part of the Partitioning of the
Ottoman Empire following World War I. The Mandate reaffirmed the 1917
British commitment to the Balfour Declaration, for the establishment in
Palestine of a "National Home" for the Jewish people, with the
prerogative to carry it out.[18][19] A British census of 1918 estimated
700,000 Arabs and 56,000 Jews.[18]

In 1937, following a six-month-long Arab General Strike and armed
insurrection which aimed to pursue national independence and secure the
country from foreign control, the British established the Peel
Commission.[20] The Commission concluded that the Mandate had become
unworkable, and recommended Partition into an Arab state linked to
Transjordan; a small Jewish state; and a mandatory zone. To address
problems arising from the presence of national minorities in each area,
it suggested a land and population transfer[21] involving the transfer
of some 225,000 Arabs living in the envisaged Jewish state and 1,250
Jews living in a future Arab state, a measure deemed compulsory "in the
last resort".[21][22][23] To address any economic problems, the Plan
proposed avoiding interfering with Jewish immigration, since any
interference would be liable to produce an "economic crisis", most of
Palestine's wealth coming from the Jewish community. To solve the
predicted annual budget deficit of the Arab State and reduction in
public services due to loss of tax from the Jewish state, it was
proposed that the Jewish state pay an annual subsidy to the Arab state
and take on half of the latter's deficit.[21][22][24] The Palestinian
Arab leadership rejected partition as unacceptable, given the inequality
in the proposed population exchange and the transfer of one-third of
Palestine, including most of its best agricultural land, to recent
immigrants.[23] The Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion,
persuaded the Zionist Congress to lend provisional approval to the Peel
recommendations as a basis for further negotiations.[25][26][27][28] In
a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition
would be a first step to "possession of the land as a
whole".[29][30][31] The same sentiment, that acceptance of partition was
a temporary measure beyond which the Palestine would be "redeemed . . in
its entirety,"[32] was recorded by Ben-Gurion on other occasions, such
as at a meeting of the Jewish Agency executive in June 1938,[33] as well
as by Chaim Weizmann.[31][34]

The British Woodhead Commission was set up to examine the practicality
of partition. The Peel plan was rejected and two possible alternatives
were considered. In 1938 the British government issued a policy
statement declaring that "the political, administrative and financial
difficulties involved in the proposal to create independent Arab and
Jewish States inside Palestine are so great that this solution of the
problem is impracticable". Representatives of Arabs and Jews were
invited to London for the St. James Conference, which proved
unsuccessful.[35]

With World War II looming, British policies were influenced by a desire
to win Arab world support and could ill afford to engage with another
Arab uprising.[36] The MacDonald White Paper of May 1939 declared that
it was "not part of [the British government's] policy that Palestine
should become a Jewish State", sought to limit Jewish immigration to
Palestine and restricted Arab land sales to Jews. However, the League of
Nations commission held that the White Paper was in conflict with the
terms of the Mandate as put forth in the past. The outbreak of the
Second World War suspended any further deliberations.[37][38] The Jewish
Agency hoped to persuade the British to restore Jewish immigration
rights, and cooperated with the British in the war against Fascism.
Aliyah Bet was organized to spirit Jews out of Nazi controlled Europe,
despite the British prohibitions. The White Paper also led to the
formation of Lehi, a small Jewish organization which opposed the British.

After World War II, in August 1945 President Truman asked for the
admission of 100,000 Holocaust survivors into Palestine[39] but the
British maintained limits on Jewish immigration in line with the 1939
White Paper. The Jewish community rejected the restriction on
immigration and organized an armed resistance. These actions and United
States pressure to end the anti-immigration policy led to the
establishment of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. In April 1946,
the Committee reached a unanimous decision for the immediate admission
of 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe into Palestine, rescission of the
white paper restrictions of land sale to Jews, that the country be
neither Arab nor Jewish, and the extension of U.N. Trusteeship. The U.S.
endorsed the Commission's findings concerning Jewish immigration and
land purchase restrictions,[40] while the British made their agreement
to implementation conditional on U.S. assistance in case of another Arab
revolt.[40] In effect, the British continued to carry out their White
Paper policy.[41] The recommendations triggered violent demonstrations
in the Arab states, and calls for a Jihad and an annihilation of all
European Jews in Palestine.[42]

United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP)
Further information: UNSCOP

Map showing Jewish-owned land as of 31 December 1944, including land
owned in full, shared in undivided land, and State Lands under
concession. This constituted 6% of the total land area or 20% of
cultivatable land,[43] of which more than half was held by the JNF and
PICA[44]
Under the terms of League of Nations A-class mandates each such
mandatory territory was to become a sovereign state on termination of
its mandate. By the end of World War II, this occurred with all such
mandates except Palestine, however the League of Nations itself lapsed
in 1946 leading to a legal quandary.[45][46] In February 1947, Britain
announced its intent to terminate the Mandate for Palestine, referring
the matter of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.[47][48] The
hope was that a binational state would ensue, which meant an
unpartitioned Palestine. British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin's policy
was premised on the idea that an Arab majority would carry the day,
which met difficulties with Harry S. Truman who, sensitive to Zionist
electoral pressures in the United States, pressed for a British-Zionist
compromise.[49] In May, the UN formed the United Nations Special
Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) to prepare a report on recommendations
for Palestine. The Jewish Agency pressed for Jewish representation and
the exclusion of both Britain and Arab countries on the Committee,
sought visits to camps where Holocaust survivors were interned in Europe
as part of UNSCOP's brief, and in May won representation on the
Political Committee.[50] The Arab states, convinced statehood had been
subverted, and that the transition of authority from the League of
Nations to the UN was questionable in law, wished the issues to be
brought before an International Court, and refused to collaborate with
UNSCOP, which had extended an invitation for liaison also to the Arab
Higher Committee.[46][51] In August, after three months of conducting
hearings and a general survey of the situation in Palestine, a majority
report of the committee recommended that the region be partitioned into
an Arab state and a Jewish state, which should retain an economic union.
An international regime was envisioned for Jerusalem.

The Arab delegations at the UN had sought to keep separate the issue of
Palestine from the issue of Jewish refugees in Europe. During their
visit, UNSCOP members were shocked by the extent of Lehi and Irgun
violence, then at its apogee, and by the elaborate military presence
attested by endemic barb-wire, searchlights, and armoured-car patrols.
Committee members also witnessed the SS Exodus affair in Haifa and could
hardly have remained unaffected by it. On concluding their mission, they
dispatched a subcommittee to investigate Jewish refugee camps in
Europe.[52][53] The incident is mentioned in the report in relation to
Jewish distrust and resentment concerning the British enforcement of the
1939 White Paper.[54]

UNSCOP report
On 3 September 1947, the Committee reported to the General Assembly.
CHAPTER V: PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS (I), Section A of the Report
contained eleven proposed recommendations (I – XI) approved unanimously.
Section B contained one proposed recommendation approved by a
substantial majority dealing with the Jewish problem in general (XI).
CHAPTER VI: PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS (II) contained a Plan of Partition
with Economic Union to which seven members of the Committee (Canada,
Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay),
expressed themselves in favour. CHAPTER VII RECOMMENDATIONS (III)
contained a comprehensive proposal that was voted upon and supported by
three members (India, Iran, and Yugoslavia) for a Federal State of
Palestine. Australia abstained. In CHAPTER VIII a number of members of
the Committee expressed certain reservations and observations.[55]

Proposed partition
See also: Land ownership of the British Mandate of Palestine

Land ownership

Population distribution
Two maps reviewed by UN Subcommittee 2 in considering partition
The report of the majority of the Committee (CHAPTER VI) envisaged the
division of Palestine into three parts: an Arab State, a Jewish State
and the City of Jerusalem, linked by extraterritorial crossroads. The
proposed Arab State would include the central and part of western
Galilee, with the town of Acre, the hill country of Samaria and Judea,
an enclave at Jaffa, and the southern coast stretching from north of
Isdud (now Ashdod) and encompassing what is now the Gaza Strip, with a
section of desert along the Egyptian border. The proposed Jewish State
would include the fertile Eastern Galilee, the Coastal Plain, stretching
from Haifa to Rehovot and most of the Negev desert,[56] including the
southern outpost of Umm Rashrash (now Eilat). The Jerusalem Corpus
Separatum included Bethlehem and the surrounding areas.

The primary objectives of the majority of the Committee were political
division and economic unity between the two groups.[4] The Plan tried
its best to accommodate as many Jews as possible into the Jewish State.
In many specific cases,[citation needed] this meant including areas of
Arab majority (but with a significant Jewish minority) in the Jewish
state. Thus the Jewish State would have an overall large Arab minority.
Areas that were sparsely populated (like the Negev desert), were also
included in the Jewish state to create room for immigration. According
to the plan, Jews and Arabs living in the Jewish state would become
citizens of the Jewish state and Jews and Arabs living in the Arab state
would become citizens of the Arab state.

By virtue of Chapter 3, Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine
outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not
holding Palestinian citizenship, resided in Palestine outside the City
of Jerusalem would, upon the recognition of independence, become
citizens of the State in which they were resident and enjoy full civil
and political rights.

The Plan would have had the following demographics (data based on 1945).

Territory Arab and other population % Arab and other Jewish
population % Jewish Total population
Arab State 725,000 99% 10,000 1% 735,000
Jewish State 407,000 45% 498,000 55% 905,000
International 105,000 51% 100,000 49% 205,000
Total 1,237,000 67% 608,000 33% 1,845,000
Data from the Report of UNSCOP: 3 September 1947: CHAPTER 4: A
COMMENTARY ON PARTITION
The land allocated to the Arab State in the final plan included about
43% of Mandatory Palestine[57][58][59] and consisted of all of the
highlands, except for Jerusalem, plus one-third of the coastline. The
highlands contain the major aquifers of Palestine, which supplied water
to the coastal cities of central Palestine, including Tel Aviv.[citation
needed] The Jewish State allocated to the Jews, who constituted a third
of the population and owned about 7% of the land, was to receive 56% of
Mandatory Palestine, a slightly larger area to accommodate the
increasing numbers of Jews who would immigrate there.[58][59][60] The
Jewish State included three fertile lowland plains – the Sharon on the
coast, the Jezreel Valley and the upper Jordan Valley. The bulk of the
proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev
Desert,[56] which was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban
development at that time. The Jewish State would also be given sole
access to the Sea of Galilee, crucial for its water supply, and the
economically important Red Sea.

The committee voted for the plan, 25 to 13 (with 17 abstentions and 2
absentees) on 25 November 1947 and the General Assembly was called back
into a special session to vote on the proposal. Various sources noted
that this was one vote short of the two-thirds majority required in the
General Assembly.[60]

Ad hoc Committee
Map comparing the borders of the 1947 partition plan and the armistice
of 1949.
Boundaries defined in the 1947 UN Partition Plan for Palestine:

Area assigned for a Jewish state
Area assigned for an Arab state
Planned Corpus separatum with the intention that Jerusalem would be
neither Jewish nor Arab
Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949 (Green Line):

Israeli controlled territory from 1949
Egyptian and Jordanian controlled territory from 1948 until 1967
Main article: Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question
On 23 September 1947 the General Assembly established the Ad Hoc
Committee on the Palestinian Question to consider the UNSCOP report.
Representatives of the Arab Higher Committee and Jewish Agency were
invited and attended.[61]

During the committee's deliberations, the British government endorsed
the report's recommendations concerning the end of the mandate,
independence, and Jewish immigration.[citation needed] However, the
British did "not feel able to implement" any agreement unless it was
acceptable to both the Arabs and the Jews, and asked that the General
Assembly provide an alternative implementing authority if that proved to
be the case.

The Arab Higher Committee rejected both the majority and minority
recommendations within the UNSCOP report. They "concluded from a survey
of Palestine history that Zionist claims to that country had no legal or
moral basis". The Arab Higher Committee argued that only an Arab State
in the whole of Palestine would be consistent with the UN Charter.

The Jewish Agency expressed support for most of the UNSCOP
recommendations, but emphasized the "intense urge" of the overwhelming
majority of Jewish displaced persons to proceed to Palestine. The Jewish
Agency criticized the proposed boundaries, especially in the Western
Galilee and Western Jerusalem (outside of the old city), arguing that
these should be included in the Jewish state. However, they agreed to
accept the plan if "it would make possible the immediate
re-establishment of the Jewish State with sovereign control of its own
immigration."

Arab states requested representation on the UN ad hoc subcommittees of
October 1947, but were excluded from Subcommittee One, which had been
delegated the specific task of studying and, if thought necessary,
modifying the boundaries of the proposed partition.[62]

Sub-Committee 2
The Sub-Committee 2, set up on 23 October 1947 to draw up a detailed
plan based on proposals of Arab states presented its report within a few
weeks.[63]

Based on a reproduced British report, the Sub-Committee 2 criticised the
UNSCOP report for using inaccurate population figures, especially
concerning the Bedouin population. The British report, dated 1 November
1947, used the results of a new census in Beersheba in 1946 with
additional use of aerial photographs, and an estimate of the population
in other districts. It found that the size of the Bedouin population was
greatly understated in former enumerations. In Beersheba, 3,389 Bedouin
houses and 8,722 tents were counted. The total Bedouin population was
estimated at approximately 127,000; only 22,000 of them normally
resident in the Arab state under the UNSCOP majority plan. The British
report stated:

"the term Beersheba Bedouin has a meaning more definite than one would
expect in the case of a nomad population. These tribes, wherever they
are found in Palestine, will always describe themselves as Beersheba
tribes. Their attachment to the area arises from their land rights there
and their historic association with it."[64]

In respect of the UNSCOP report, the Sub-Committee concluded that the
earlier population "estimates must, however, be corrected in the light
of the information furnished to the Sub-Committee by the representative
of the United Kingdom regarding the Bedouin population. According to the
statement, 22,000 Bedouins may be taken as normally residing in the
areas allocated to the Arab State under the UNSCOP's majority plan, and
the balance of 105,000 as resident in the proposed Jewish State. It will
thus be seen that the proposed Jewish State will contain a total
population of 1,008,800, consisting of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews.
In other words, at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the
proposed Jewish State."[65]

The Sub-Committee 2 recommended to put the question of the Partition
Plan before the International Court of Justice (Resolution No. I [66]).
In respect of the Jewish refugees due to World War II, the Sub-Committee
recommended to request the countries of which the refugees belonged to
take them back as much as possible (Resolution No. II[67]). The
Sub-Committee proposed to establish a unitary state (Resolution No.
III[68]).

Boundary changes
The ad hoc committee made a number of boundary changes to the UNSCOP
recommendations before they were voted on by the General Assembly.

The predominantly Arab city of Jaffa, previously located within the
Jewish state, was constituted as an enclave of the Arab State. The
boundary of the Arab state was modified to include Beersheba and a strip
of the Negev desert along the Egyptian border,[56] while a section of
the Dead Sea shore and other additions were made to the Jewish State.
This move increased the Jewish percentage in the Jewish state from 55%
to 61%.[citation needed]

The proposed boundaries would also have placed 54 Arab villages on the
opposite side of the border from their farm land.[citation needed] In
response, the United Nations Palestine Commission established in 1948
was empowered to modify the boundaries "in such a way that village areas
as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing
reasons make that necessary". These modifications never occurred.

The vote

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, document
A/516, dated 25 November 1947. This was the document voted on by the UN
General Assembly on 29 November 1947, and became known as the "United
Nations Partition Plan for Palestine".[69]
Passage of the resolution required a two-thirds majority of the valid
votes, not counting abstaining and absent members, of the UN's then 57
member states. On 26 November, after filibustering by the Zionist
delegation, the vote was postponed by three days.[70][71] According to
multiple sources, had the vote been held on the original set date, it
would have received a majority, but less than the required
two-thirds.[71][72][73] Various compromise proposals and variations on a
single state, including federations and cantonal systems were debated
(including those previously rejected in committee).[74][75] The delay
was used by supporters of Zionism in New York to put extra pressure on
states not supporting the resolution.[70]

Reports of pressure for and against the Plan
Reports of pressure for the Plan
Zionists launched an intense White House lobby to have the UNSCOP plan
endorsed, and the effects were not trivial.[76] The Democratic Party, a
large part of whose contributions came from Jews,[77] informed Truman
that failure to live up to promises to support the Jews in Palestine
would constitute a danger to the party. The defection of Jewish votes in
congressional elections in 1946 had contributed to electoral losses.
Truman was, according to Roger Cohen, embittered by feelings of being a
hostage to the lobby and its 'unwarranted interference', which he blamed
for the contemporary impasse. When a formal American declaration in
favour of partition was given on 11 October, a public relations
authority declared to the Zionist Emergency Council in a closed meeting:
'under no circumstances should any of us believe or think we had won
because of the devotion of the American Government to our cause. We had
won because of the sheer pressure of political logistics that was
applied by the Jewish leadership in the United States'. State Department
advice critical of the controversial UNSCOP recommendation to give the
overwhelmingly Arab town of Jaffa, and the Negev, to the Jews was
overturned by an urgent and secret late meeting organized for Chaim
Weizman with Truman, which immediately countermanded the recommendation.
The United States initially refrained from pressuring smaller states to
vote either way, but Robert A. Lovett reported that America's U.N.
delegation's case suffered impediments from high pressure by Jewish
groups, and that indications existed that bribes and threats were being
used, even of American sanctions against Liberia and Nicaragua.[78] When
the UNSCOP plan failed to achieve the necessary majority on 25 November,
the lobby 'moved into high gear' and induced the President to overrule
the State Department, and let wavering governments know that the U.S.
strongly desired partition.[79]

Proponents of the Plan reportedly put pressure on nations to vote yes to
the Partition Plan. A telegram signed by 26 US Senators with influence
on foreign aid bills was sent to wavering countries, seeking their
support for the partition plan.[80] The US Senate was considering a
large aid package at the time, including 60 million dollars to
China.[81][82] Many nations reported pressure directed specifically at them:

United States (Vote: For): President Truman later noted, "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 I
ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I
had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist
leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political
threats—disturbed and annoyed me."[83]
India (Vote: Against): Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke
with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He
said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same
time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, the Indian ambassador to the UN,
had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless "she
voted right".[84] Pandit occasionally hinted that something might change
in favour of the Zionists. But another Indian delegate, Kavallam
Pannikar, said that India would vote for the Arab side, because of their
large Muslim minority, although they knew that the Jews had a case.[85]
Liberia (Vote: For): Liberia's Ambassador to the United States
complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several
countries.[86] Harvey S. Firestone, Jr., President of Firestone Natural
Rubber Company, with major holdings in the country, also pressured the
Liberian government[72][80]
Philippines (Vote: For): In the days before the vote, Philippines
representative General Carlos P. Romulo stated "We hold that the issue
is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should
accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which is clearly
repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of
Palestine. The Philippines Government holds that the United Nations
ought not to accept such responsibility." After a phone call from
Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines' vote
changed.[80]
Haiti (Vote: For): The promise of a five million dollar loan may or
may not have secured Haiti's vote for partition.[87]
France (Vote: For): Shortly before the vote, France's delegate to the
United Nations was visited by Bernard Baruch, a long-term Jewish
supporter of the Democratic Party who, during the recent world war, had
been an economic adviser to President Roosevelt, and had latterly been
appointed by President Truman as United States ambassador to the newly
created UN Atomic Energy Commission. He was, privately, a supporter of
the Irgun and its front organization, the American League for a Free
Palestine. Baruch implied that a French failure to support the
resolution might block planned American aid to France, which was badly
needed for reconstruction, French currency reserves being exhausted and
its balance of payments heavily in deficit. Previously, to avoid
antagonising its Arab colonies, France had not publicly supported the
resolution. After considering the danger of American aid being withheld,
France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France's neighbours,
Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.[70]
Venezuela (Vote: For): Carlos Eduardo Stolk, Chairman of the
Delegation of Venezuela, voted in favor of Resolution 181 .[88]
Cuba (Vote: Against): The Cuban delegation stated they would vote
against partition "in spite of pressure being brought to bear against
us" because they could not be party to coercing the majority in
Palestine.[89]
Siam (Absent): The credentials of the Siamese delegations were
cancelled after Siam voted against partition in committee on 25
November.[71][90]
There is also some evidence that Sam Zemurray put pressure on several
"banana republics" to change their votes.[91]

Reports of pressure against the Plan
According to the Israeli historian Benny Morris, Wasif Kamal, an Arab
Higher Committee official, tried to bribe a delegate to the United
Nations, perhaps a Russian.[92]

Concerning the welfare of Jews in Arab countries, a number of direct
threats were made:

Jamal Husseini promised, "The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle
East".[93]
Iraq’s prime minister Nuri al-Said told British diplomats that if the
United Nations solution was not "satisfactory", "severe measures should
be taken against all Jews in Arab countries".[94]
Concerning the welfare of Jews in Arab countries, a number of
predictions were made:

'"On 24 November the head of the Egyptian delegation to the General
Assembly, Muhammad Hussein Heykal Pasha, said that "the lives of
1,000,000 Jews in Moslem countries would be jeopardized by the
establishment of a Jewish state."[95] At the 29th Meeting of the UN Ad
Hoc Committee on Palestine on 24 November 1947, Dr Heykal Pasha, the
Egyptian delegate, said, "if the U.N decide to amputate a part of
Palestine in order to establish a Jewish state, no force on earth could
prevent blood from flowing there… Moreover… no force on earth can
confine it to the borders of Palestine itself… Jewish blood will
necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world… to place in certain and
serious danger a million Jews." Mahmud Bey Fawzi (Egypt) said: "…
imposed partition was sure to result in bloodshed in Palestine and in
the rest of the Arab world".[96]
In a speech at the General Assembly Hall at Flushing Meadow, New York,
on Friday, 28 November 1947, Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Fadel Jamall,
included the following statement: "Partition imposed against the will of
the majority of the people will jeopardize peace and harmony in the
Middle East. Not only the uprising of the Arabs of Palestine is to be
expected, but the masses in the Arab world cannot be restrained. The
Arab-Jewish relationship in the Arab world will greatly deteriorate.
There are more Jews in the Arab world outside of Palestine than there
are in Palestine. In Iraq alone, we have about one hundred and fifty
thousand Jews who share with Moslems and Christians all the advantages
of political and economic rights. Harmony prevails among Moslems,
Christians and Jews. But any injustice imposed upon the Arabs of
Palestine will disturb the harmony among Jews and non-Jews in Iraq; it
will breed inter-religious prejudice and hatred."[97]
The Arab states warned the Western Powers that endorsement of the
partition plan might be met by either or both an oil embargo and
realignment of the Arab states with the Soviet Bloc.[98]

Final vote

The 1947 meeting at the General Assembly meeting place between 1946 and
1951 in Flushing, New York
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13,
with 10 abstentions and 1 absent, in favour of the modified Partition
Plan. The final vote, consolidated here by modern United Nations
Regional Groups rather than contemporary groupings, was as follows:[99]

How UN members voted on Palestine's partition in 1947
In favour
Abstained
Against
Absent
In favour (33 countries, 72% of total votes)
Latin American and Caribbean (13 countries):

Bolivia
Brazil
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Guatemala
Haiti
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Uruguay
Venezuela
Western European and Others (8 countries):

Belgium
Denmark
France
Iceland
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Sweden
Eastern European (5 countries):

Byelorussian SSR
Czechoslovakia
Poland
Ukrainian SSR
Soviet Union
African (2 countries):

Liberia
South Africa
Asia-Pacific (3 countries)

Australia
New Zealand
Philippines
North America (2 countries)

Canada
United States
Against (13 countries, 28% of total votes)
Asia-Pacific (9 countries, primarily Middle East sub-area):

Afghanistan
India
Iran
Iraq
Lebanon
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Yemen
Western European and Others (2 countries):

Greece
Turkey
African (1 country):

Egypt
Latin American and Caribbean (1 country):

Cuba
Abstentions (10 countries)
Latin American and Caribbean (6 countries):

Argentina
Chile
Colombia
El Salvador
Honduras
Mexico
Asia-Pacific (1 country):

China
African (1 country):

Ethiopia
Western European and Others (1 country):

United Kingdom
Eastern European (1 country):

Yugoslavia
Absent (1 country)
Asia-Pacific (1 country):

Thailand
Votes by modern region
If analysed by the modern composition of what later came to be known as
the United Nations Regional Groups showed relatively aligned voting
styles in the final vote. This, however, does not reflect the regional
grouping at the time, as a major reshuffle of regional grouping occurred
in 1966. All Western nations voted for the resolution, with the
exception of the United Kingdom (the Mandate holder), Greece and Turkey.
The Soviet bloc also voted for partition, with the exception of
Yugoslavia, which was to be expelled from Cominform the following year.
The majority of Latin American nations following Brazilian
leadership[citation needed], voted for partition, with a sizeable
minority abstaining. Asian countries (primarily Middle Eastern
countries) voted against partition, with the exception of the
Philippines.[100]

Regional Group Members in UNGA181 vote UNGA181 For UNGA181
Against UNGA181 Abstained
African 4 2 1 1
Asia-Pacific 11 1 9 1
Eastern European 6 5 0 1
LatAm and Caribb. 20 13 1 6
Western Eur. & Others 15 12 2 1
Total UN members 56 33 13 10
Reactions
Jews
Most Jews in Palestine and around the world reacted to the UN resolution
with satisfaction, but some did not. Jews gathered in Tel Aviv and
Jerusalem to celebrate the U.N. resolution during the whole night after
the vote. Great bonfires blazed at Jewish collective farms in the north.
Many big cafes in Tel Aviv served free champagne.[7][101] Mainstream
Zionist leaders emphasized the "heavy responsibility" of building a
modern Jewish State, and committed to working towards a peaceful
coexistence with the region's other inhabitants:[102][103] Jewish groups
in the United States hailed the action by the United Nations. Most
welcomed the Palestine Plan but some felt it did not settle the
problem.[104]

Some Revisionist Zionists rejected the partition plan as a renunciation
of legitimately Jewish national territory.[104] The Irgun Tsvai Leumi,
led by Menachem Begin, and the Lehi (also known as the Stern Group or
Gang), the two Revisionist-affiliated underground organisations which
had been fighting against both the British and Arabs, stated their
opposition. Begin warned that the partition would not bring peace
because the Arabs would also attack the small state and that "in the war
ahead we'll have to stand on our own, it will be a war on our existence
and future."[105] He also stated that "the bisection of our homeland is
illegal. It will never be recognized."[106] Begin was sure that the
creation of a Jewish state would make territorial expansion possible,
"after the shedding of much blood."[107]

Some Post-Zionist scholars endorse Simha Flapan's view that it is a myth
that Zionists accepted the partition as a compromise by which the Jewish
community abandoned ambitions for the whole of Palestine and recognized
the rights of the Arab Palestinians to their own state. Rather, Flapan
argued, acceptance was only a tactical move that aimed to thwart the
creation of an Arab Palestinian state and, concomitantly, expand the
territory that had been assigned by the UN to the Jewish
state.[108][109][110][111][112] Baruch Kimmerling has said that Zionists
"officially accepted the partition plan, but invested all their efforts
towards improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries
while reducing the number of Arabs in them."[113]

Addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut (the Eretz Israel
Workers Party) days after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Ben-Gurion
expressed his apprehension, stating:

the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its
establishment will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews.
Such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a
Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity
and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even
be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the
Jewish majority... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so
long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%.[114]

Ben-Gurion said "I know of no greater achievement by the Jewish people
.... in its long history since it became a people."[115]

Arabs
Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the
resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of
partition.[9] The Arab states' delegations declared immediately after
the vote for partition that they would not be bound by the decision, and
walked out accompanied by the Indian and Pakistani delegates.[116]

They argued that it violated the principles of national
self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to
decide their own destiny.[5][11] The Arab delegations to the UN issued a
joint statement the day after that vote that stated: "the vote in regard
to the Partition of Palestine has been given under great pressure and
duress, and that this makes it doubly invalid."[117]

On 16 February 1948, the UN Palestine Commission reported to the
Security Council that: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside
Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are
engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement
envisaged therein."[118]

Arab states
A few weeks after UNSCOP released its report, Azzam Pasha, the General
Secretary of the Arab League, told an Egyptian newspaper "Personally I
hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of
elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will
record similarly to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the
Crusades."[119] (This statement from October 1947 has often been
incorrectly reported as having been made much later on 15 May
1948.)[120] Azzam told Alec Kirkbride "We will sweep them [the Jews]
into the sea." Syrian president Shukri al-Quwatli told his people: "We
shall eradicate Zionism."[121]

King Farouk of Egypt told the American ambassador to Egypt that in the
long run the Arabs would soundly defeat the Jews and drive them out of
Palestine.[122]

While Azzam Pasha repeated his threats of forceful prevention of
partition, the first important Arab voice to support partition was the
influential Egyptian daily Al Mokattam [d]: "We stand for partition
because we believe that it is the best final solution for the problem of
Palestine... rejection of partition... will lead to further
complications and will give the Zionists another space of time to
complete their plans of defense and attack... a delay of one more year
which would not benefit the Arabs but would benefit the Jews, especially
after the British evacuation."[123]

On 20 May 1948, Azzam told reporters "We are fighting for an Arab
Palestine. Whatever the outcome the Arabs will stick to their offer of
equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish
as they like. In areas where they predominate they will have complete
autonomy."[124]

The Arab League said that some of the Jews would have to be expelled
from a Palestinian Arab state.[125]

Abdullah appointed Ibrahim Hashem Pasha as Military Governor of the Arab
areas occupied by troops of the Transjordan Army. He was a former prime
minister of Transjordan who supported partition of Palestine as proposed
by the Peel Commission and the United Nations.[126]

Arabs in Palestine
Haj Amin al-Husseini said in March 1948 to an interviewer from the Jaffa
daily Al Sarih that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition
but "would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated."[121]

Zionists attributed Arab rejection of the plan to mere intransigence.
Palestinian Arabs opposed the very idea of partition but reiterated that
this partition plan was unfair: the majority of the land (56%) would go
to a Jewish state, when Jews at that stage legally owned only 6–7% of it
and remained a minority of the population (33% in
1946).[127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135] There were also
disproportionate allocations under the plan and the area under Jewish
control contained 45% of the Palestinian population. The proposed Arab
state was only given 45% of the land, much of which was unfit for
agriculture. Jaffa, though geographically separated, was to be part of
the Arab state.[135] However, most of the proposed Jewish state was the
Negev desert.[56][55] The plan allocated to the Jewish State most of the
Negev desert that was sparsely populated and unsuitable for agriculture
but also a "vital land bridge protecting British interests from the Suez
Canal to Iraq"[136][137]

Few Palestinian Arabs joined the Arab Liberation Army because they
suspected that the other Arab States did not plan on an independent
Palestinian state. According to Ian Bickerton, for that reason many of
them favored partition and indicated a willingness to live alongside a
Jewish state.[138] He also mentions that the Nashashibi family backed
King Abdullah and union with Transjordan.[139]

The Arab Higher Committee demanded that in a Palestinian Arab state, the
majority of the Jews should not be citizens (those who had not lived in
Palestine before the British Mandate).[93]

According to Musa Alami, the mufti would agree to partition if he were
promised that he would rule the future Arab state.[140]

The Arab Higher Committee responded to the partition resolution and
declared a three-day general strike in Palestine to begin the following
day.[141]

British government
When Bevin received the partition proposal, he promptly ordered for it
not to be imposed on the Arabs.[142][143] The plan was vigorously
debated in the British parliament.

In a British cabinet meeting at 4 December 1947, it was decided that the
Mandate would end at midnight 14 May 1948, the complete withdrawal by 1
August 1948, and Britain would not enforce the UN partition plan.[144]
On 11 December 1947, the British government publicly announced these
plans.[145] During the period in which the British withdrawal was
completed, Britain refused to share the administration of Palestine with
a proposed UN transition regime, to allow the UN Palestine Commission to
establish a presence in Palestine earlier than a fortnight before the
end of the Mandate, to allow the creation of official Jewish and Arab
militias or to assist in smoothly handing over territory or authority to
any successor.[146][147]

United States government
The United States declined to recognize the All-Palestine government in
Gaza by explaining that it had accepted the UN Mediator's proposal. The
Mediator had recommended that Palestine, as defined in the original
Mandate including Transjordan, might form a union.[148] Bernadotte's
diary said the Mufti had lost credibility on account of his unrealistic
predictions regarding the defeat of the Jewish militias. Bernadotte
noted "It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the
Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in
Transjordan."[149]

Subsequent events
The Partition Plan with Economic Union was not realized in the days
following 29 November 1947 resolution as envisaged by the General
Assembly.[17] It was followed by outbreaks of violence in Mandatory
Palestine between Palestinian Jews and Arabs known as the 1947–48 Civil
War.[16] After Alan Cunningham, the High Commissioner of Palestine, left
Jerusalem, on the morning of 14 May the British army left the city as
well. The British left a power vacuum in Jerusalem and made no measures
to establish the international regime in Jerusalem.[150] At midnight on
14 May 1948, the British Mandate expired,[151] and Britain disengaged
its forces. Earlier in the evening, the Jewish People's Council had
gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum (today known as Independence Hall), and
approved a proclamation, declaring "the establishment of a Jewish state
in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel".[5][152] The 1948
Arab–Israeli War began with the invasion of, or intervention in,
Palestine by the Arab States on 15 May 1948.[153]

Resolution 181 as a legal basis for Palestinian statehood
In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization published the Palestinian
Declaration of Independence relying on Resolution 181, arguing that the
resolution continues to provide international legitimacy for the right
of the Palestinian people to sovereignty and national independence.[154]
A number of scholars have written in support of this view.[155][156][157]

A General Assembly request for an advisory opinion, Resolution ES-10/14
(2004), specifically cited resolution 181(II) as a "relevant
resolution", and asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) what are
the legal consequences of the relevant Security Council and General
Assembly resolutions. Judge Abdul Koroma explained the majority opinion:
"The Court has also held that the right of self-determination as an
established and recognized right under international law applies to the
territory and to the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the exercise of
such right entitles the Palestinian people to a State of their own as
originally envisaged in resolution 181 (II) and subsequently
confirmed."[158] In response, Prof. Paul De Waart said that the Court
put the legality of the 1922 League of Nations Palestine Mandate and the
1947 UN Plan of Partition beyond doubt once and for all.[159]

Retrospect
In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that the 1947 Arab rejection of United
Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a mistake he hoped to rectify.[160]

Commemoration

Monument commemorating 1947 UN Partition Plan, Netanya
A street in the Katamon neighborhood of Jerusalem is named Kaf-tet
benovember (29th of November Street). On November 29, 2022, a monument
designed and executed by sculptor Sam Philipe was unveiled on a hilltop
in Netanya to mark the 75th anniversary of the UN Partition Plan for
Palestine.[161] The date also marks the annual International Day of
Solidarity with the Palestinian People.[162]

See also
Faisal–Weizmann Agreement
History of the State of Palestine
Israeli Declaration of Independence
Israeli–Palestinian conflict
Lausanne Conference of 1949
Minority Treaties
Sykes–Picot Agreement
Two-state solution
United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights
United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine
References