To better understand the Palestinian bid for membership in the United Nations, it is important to understand the original 1947 UN action on Israel-Palestine.
The common representation of Israelâ€™s birth is that the UN created Israel, that the world was in favor of this move, and that the US governmental establishment supported it. All these assumptions are demonstrably incorrect.
In reality, while the UN General Assembly recommended the creation of a Jewish state in part of Palestine, that recommendation was non-binding and never implemented by the Security Council.
Second, the General Assembly passed that recommendation only after Israel proponents threatened and bribed numerous countries in order to gain a required two-thirds of votes.
Third, the US administration supported the recommendation out of domestic electoral considerations, and took this position over the strenuous objections of the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon.
The passage of the General Assembly recommendation sparked increased violence in the region. Over the following months the armed wing of the pro-Israel movement, which had long been preparing for war, perpetrated a series of massacres and expulsions throughout Palestine, implementing a plan to clear the way for a majority-Jewish state.
It was this armed aggression, and the ethnic cleansing of at least three-quarters of a million indigenous Palestinians, that created the Jewish state on land that had been 95 per cent non-Jewish prior to Zionist immigration and that even after years of immigration remained 70 per cent non-Jewish. And despite the shallow patina of legality its partisans extracted from the General Assembly, Israel was born over the opposition of American experts and of governments around the world, who opposed it on both pragmatic and moral grounds.
Let us look at the specifics.
Background of the UN partition recommendation
In 1947 the UN took up the question of Palestine, a territory that was then administered by the British.
Approximately 50 years before, a movement called political Zionism had begun in Europe. Its intention was to create a Jewish state in Palestine through pushing out the Christian and Muslim inhabitants who made up over 95 per cent of its population and replacing them with Jewish immigrants.
As this colonial project grew through subsequent years, the indigenous Palestinians reacted with occasional bouts of violence; Zionists had anticipated this since people usually resist being expelled from their land. In various written documents cited by numerous Palestinian and Israeli historians, they discussed their strategy: they would buy up the land until all the previous inhabitants had emigrated, or, failing this, use violence to force them out.
When the buy-out effort was able to obtain only a few per cent of the land, Zionists created a number of terrorist groups to fight against both the Palestinians and the British. Terrorist and future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin later bragged that Zionists had brought terrorism both to the Middle East and to the world at large.
Finally, in 1947 the British announced that they would be ending their control of Palestine, which had been created through the League of Nations following World War One, and turned the question of Palestine over to the United Nations.
At this time, the Zionist immigration and buyout project had increased the Jewish population of Palestine to 30 per cent and land ownership from 1 per cent to approximately 6 per cent.
Since a founding principle of the UN was â€œself-determination of peoples,â€ one would have expected to the UN to support fair, democratic elections in which inhabitants could create their own independent country.
Instead, Zionists pushed for a General Assembly resolution in which they would be given a disproportionate 55 per cent of Palestine. (While they rarely announced this publicly, their stated plan was to later take the rest of Palestine.)
U.S. Officials Oppose Partition Plan
The U.S. State Department opposed this partition plan strenuously, considering Zionism contrary to both fundamental American principles and US interests.
Author Donald Neff reports that Loy Henderson, Director of the State Departmentâ€™s Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs, wrote a memo to the Secretary of State warning:
Â â€œâ€¦.support by the Government of the United States of a policy favoring the setting up of a Jewish State in Palestine would be contrary to the wishes of a large majority of the local inhabitants with respect to their form of government. Furthermore, it would have a strongly adverse effect upon American interests throughout the Near and Middle Eastâ€¦â€
Henderson went on to emphasize:
At the present time the United States has a moral prestige in the Near and Middle East unequaled by that of any other great power. We would lose that prestige and would be likely for many years to be considered as a betrayer of the high principles which we ourselves have enunciated during the period of the war.â€
When Zionists began pushing for a partition plan through the UN, Henderson recommended strongly against supporting their proposal. He warned that such a partition would have to be implemented by force and emphasized that it was â€œnot based on any principle.â€ He went on to write:
â€œâ€¦[partition] would guarantee that the Palestine problem would be permanent and still more complicated in the futureâ€¦â€
Henderson went on to emphasize:
â€¦.[proposals for partition] are in definite contravention to various principles laid down in the [UN] Charter as well as to principles on which American concepts of Government are based. These proposals, for instance, ignore such principles as self-determination and majority rule. They recognize the principle of a theocratic racial state and even go so far in several instances as to discriminate on grounds of religion and raceâ€¦â€
Henderson was far from alone in making his recommendations. He wrote that his views were not only those of the entire Near East Division but were shared by â€œnearly every member of the Foreign Service or of the Department who has worked to any appreciable extent on Near Eastern problems.â€
Henderson wasnâ€™t exaggerating. Official after official and agency after agency opposed Zionism.
In 1947 the CIA reported that Zionist leadership was pursuing objectives that would endanger both Jews and â€œthe strategic interests of the Western powers in the Near and Middle East.â€
Truman Accedes to Pro-Israel Lobby
President Harry Truman, however, ignored this advice. Trumanâ€™s political advisor, Clark Clifford, believed that the Jewish vote and contributions were essential to winning the upcoming presidential election, and that supporting the partition plan would garner that support. (Trumanâ€™s opponent, Dewey, took similar stands for similar reasons.)
Trumanâ€™s Secretary of State George Marshall, the renowned World War II General and author of the Marshall Plan, was furious to see electoral considerations taking precedence over policies based on national interest. He condemned what he called a â€œtransparent dodge to win a few votes,â€ which would cause â€œ[t]he great dignity of the office of President [to be] seriously diminished.â€
Marshall wrote that the counsel offered by Clifford â€œwas based on domestic political considerations, while the problem which confronted us was international. I said bluntly that if the President were to follow Mr. Cliffordâ€™s advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the Presidentâ€¦â€
Henry F. Grady, who has been called â€œAmericaâ€™s top diplomatic soldier for a critical period of the Cold War,â€ headed a 1946 commission aimed at coming up with a solution for Palestine. Grady later wrote about the Zionist lobby and its damaging effect on US national interests.
Grady argued that without Zionist pressure, the U.S. would not have had â€œthe ill-will with the Arab states, which are of such strategic importance in our â€˜cold warâ€™ with the soviets.â€ He also described the decisive power of the lobby:
â€œI have had a good deal of experience with lobbies but this group started where those of my experience had endedâ€¦.. I have headed a number of government missions but in no other have I ever experienced so much disloyaltyâ€â€¦â€¦ â€œin the United States, since there is no political force to counterbalance Zionism, its campaigns are apt to be decisive.â€
Former Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson also opposed Zionism. Achesonâ€™s biographer writes that Acheson â€œworried that the West would pay a high price for Israel.â€ Another Author, John Mulhall, records Achesonâ€™s warning:
Â â€œâ€¦to transform [Palestine] into a Jewish State capable of receiving a million or more immigrants would vastly exacerbate the political problem and imperil not only American but all Western interests in the Near East.â€
Secretary of Defense James Forrestal also tried, unsuccessfully, to oppose the Zionists. He was outraged that Trumanâ€™s Mideast policy was based on what he called â€œsqualid political purposes,â€ asserting that â€œUnited States policy should be based on United States national interests and not on domestic political considerations.â€
Forrestal represented the general Pentagon view when he said that â€œno group in this country should be permitted to influence our policy to the point where it could endanger our national security.â€
A report by the National Security Council warned that the Palestine turmoil was acutely endangering the security of the United States. A CIA report stressed the strategic importance of the Middle East and its oil resources.
Similarly, George F. Kennan, the State Departmentâ€™s Director of Policy Planning, issued a top-secret document on January 19, 1947 that outlined the enormous damage done to the US by the partition plan (â€œReport by the Policy Planning Staff on Position of the United States with Respect to Palestineâ€).
Kennan cautioned that â€œimportant U.S. oil concessions and air base rightsâ€ could be lost through US support for partition and warned that the USSR stood to gain by the partition plan.
Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy Rooseveltâ€™s nephew and a legendary intelligence agent, was another who was deeply disturbed by events, noting:
â€œThe process by which Zionist Jews have been able to promote American support for the partition of Palestine demonstrates the vital need of a foreign policy based on national rather than partisan interestsâ€¦ Only when the national interests of the United States, in their highest terms, take precedence over all other considerations, can a logical, farseeing foreign policy be evolved. No American political leader has the right to compromise American interests to gain partisan votesâ€¦â€
He went on:
â€œThe present course of world crisis will increasingly force upon Americans the realization that their national interests and those of the proposed Jewish state in Palestine are going to conflict. It is to be hoped that American Zionists and non-Zionists alike will come to grips with the realities of the problem.â€
The head of the State Departmentâ€™s Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Gordon P. Merriam, warned against the partition plan on moral grounds:
â€œU.S. support for partition of Palestine as a solution to that problem can be justified only on the basis of Arab and Jewish consent. Otherwise we should violate the principle of self-determination which has been written into the Atlantic Charter, the declaration of the United Nations, and the United Nations Charterâ€“a principle that is deeply embedded in our foreign policy. Even a United Nations determination in favor of partition would be, in the absence of such consent, a stultification and violation of UNâ€™s own charter.â€
Merriam added that without consent, â€œbloodshed and chaosâ€ would follow, a tragically accurate prediction.
An internal State Department memorandum accurately predicted how Israel would be born through armed aggression masked as defense:
â€œâ€¦the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UNâ€¦In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.â€
And American Vice Consul William J. Porter foresaw another outcome of the partition plan: that no Arab State would actually ever come to be in Palestine.
Pro-Israel Pressure on General Assembly Members
When it was clear that the Partition recommendation did not have the required two-thirds of the UN General Assembly to pass, Zionists pushed through a delay in the vote. They then used this period to pressure numerous nations into voting for the recommendation. A number of people later described this campaign.
Robert Nathan, a Zionist who had worked for the US government and who was particularly active in the Jewish Agency, wrote afterward, â€œWe used any tools at hand,â€ such as telling certain delegations that the Zionists would use their influence to block economic aid to any countries that did not vote the right way.
Another Zionist proudly stated:
â€œEvery clue was meticulously checked and pursued. Not the smallest or the remotest of nations, but was contacted and wooed. Nothing was left to chance.â€
Financier and longtime presidential advisor Bernard Baruch told France it would lose U.S. aid if it voted against partition. Top White House executive assistant David Niles organized pressure on Liberia; rubber magnate Harvey Firestone pressured Liberia.
Latin American delegates were told that the Pan-American highway construction project would be more likely if they voted yes. Delegatesâ€™ wives received mink coats (the wife of the Cuban delegate returned hers); Costa Ricaâ€™s President Jose Figueres reportedly received a blank checkbook. Haiti was promised economic aid if it would change its original vote opposing partition.
Longtime Zionist Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, along with ten senators and Truman domestic advisor Clark Clifford, threatened the Philippines (seven bills were pending on the Philippines in Congress).
Before the vote on the plan, the Philippine delegate had given a passionate speech against partition, defending the inviolable â€œprimordial rights of a people to determine their political future and to preserve the territorial integrity of their native landâ€¦â€
He went on to say that he could not believe that the General Assembly would sanction a move that would place the world â€œback on the road to the dangerous principles of racial exclusiveness and to the archaic documents of theocratic governments.â€
Twenty-four hours later, after intense Zionist pressure, the delegate voted in favor of partition.
The U.S. delegation to the U.N. was so outraged when Truman insisted that they support partition that the State Department director of U.N. Affairs was sent to New York to prevent the delegates from resigning en masse.
On Nov 29, 1947 the partition resolution, 181, passed. While this resolution is frequently cited, it was of limited (if any) legal impact. General Assembly resolutions, unlike Security Council resolutions, are not binding on member states. For this reason, the resolution requested that â€œ[t]he Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation,â€ which the Security Council never did. Legally, the General Assembly Resolution was a â€œrecommendationâ€ and did not create any states.
What it did do, however, was increase the fighting in Palestine. Within months (and before Israel dates the beginning of its founding war) the Zionists had forced out 413,794 people. Zionist military units had stealthily been preparing for war before the UN vote and had acquired massive weaponry, some of it through a widespread network of illicit gunrunning operations in the US under a number of front groups.
The UN eventually managed to create a temporary and very partial ceasefire. A Swedish UN mediator who had previously rescued thousands of Jews from the Nazis was dispatched to negotiate an end to the violence. Israeli assassins killed him and Israel continued what it was to call its â€œwar of independence.â€
At the end of this war, through a larger military force than that of its adversaries and the ruthless implementation of plans to push out as many non-Jews as possible, Israel came into existence on 78 per cent of Palestine.
At least 33 massacres of Palestinian civilians were perpetrated, half of them before a single Arab army had entered the conflict, hundreds of villages were depopulated and razed, and a team of cartographers was sent out to give every town, village, river, and hillock a new, Hebrew name. All vestiges of Palestinian habitation, history, and culture were to be erased from history, an effort that almost succeeded.
Israel, which claims to be the â€œonly democracy in the Middle East,â€™ decided not to declare official borders or to write a constitution, a situation which continues to this day. In 1967 it took still more Palestinian and Syrian land, which is now illegally occupied territory, since the annexation of land through military conquest is outlawed by modern international law. It has continued this campaign of growth through armed acquisition and illegal confiscation of land ever since.
Individual Israelis, like Palestinians and all people, are legally and morally entitled to an array of human rights.
On the other hand, the state of Israelâ€™s vaunted â€œright to existâ€ is based on an alleged â€œrightâ€ derived from might, an outmoded concept that international legal conventions do not recognize, and in fact specifically prohibit.
Alison Weir is president of the Council for the National Interest and executive director of If Americans Knew. See the â€œHistory of US-Israel Relationsâ€ on both the IAK and the CNI websites for detailed citations for the above information. Additional references can be found in â€œHow Palestine Became Israel.â€
- Who Cares What Obama Says? By ROBERT FISK
- We Told You So! – The Palestine Papers and What They Reveal About the US/Israeli Agenda – By KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
- Introducing The Palestine Papers
- A Growing Revulsion – Is the American Public About to Toss Israel? – Franklin Lamb
- Hard Facts About Israeli/Palestinian Peace Possibilities By JEFFERSON CHASE
- Why Tony Blair is the Most Useless Peace Envoy on the Planet – Tony and the Shah of Palestine By YVONNE RIDLEY
- Biden and the Settlements – Wiping the Spit Off His Face By URI AVNERY
- Israel has friends in Christian places – The Age – 04 Mar.10
- Obama Takes on the Muslim World – John Taylor
- The Myth of Muslim Conquest By PATRICK HAENNI and SAMI AMGHAR
- A Casualty of U.S. Foreign Policy – The Sovereignty of Muslim Nations – By LIAQUAT ALI KHAN
- Surprising Results of CFR Survey – What the U.S. Elite Really Thinks About Israel By JEFFREY BLANKFORT
- What Goldstone says about the US
- Our Shame is Complete – Abbas and the Goldstone Report By RAMZY BAROUD
- The Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary (PDF Book)
- Aust. public broadcaster SBS directed to no longer use the term “Palestinian land”
- Why Not Sanctions for Israel? By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
- Arab Family Sues Over “Racist Incitement”- Israeli School Apartheid By JONATHAN COOK
- First Goal: Stop Gaza War Crimes Revelations – Israel’s Campaign to Silence Human Rights Groups By Jonathon Cook
- Obama, Netanyahu and the Settlements By URI AVNERY
- Recognition or Resistance in the Age of Obama – Hamas’ Choice By ALI ABUNIMAH
- A Fascist Odor of the New Coalition – Racists for Democracy By URI AVNERY
- IT WASN’T MUSLIMS
- Israeli Scholar Disputes Founding Myth
- The State That Tolerates No Criticism – How Israel Gives Jews a Bad Name By SAUL LANDAU
- What Iran’s Jews say By Roger Cohen
- The economic, social and political disaster produced by the Zionist project – Jean Shaoul
- Israeli War Crimes – Under the Black Flag By URI AVNERY
- THE HISTORY OF PALESTINE
- Israeli Attack Injures 1.5 Million Gazans By JONATHAN COOK
- The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza
- Living on Borrowed Time in a Stolen Land By Gilad Atzmon
- Holocaust Denied – The lying silence of those who know by John Pilger
- Robert Fisk: Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask
- Film – Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land: Media & the Israel-Palestine Conflict
- Israel’s massacre in Gaza proves beyond doubt that the treacherous Muslim rulers must be removed
- How Israel is Multiplying Hamas by a Thousand By URI AVNERY
- Israel Has No Intention of Granting a Palestinian State – If Hamas Did Not Exist By JENNIFER LOEWENSTEIN
- A Look Under the Hood of an Obama Administration By JOSHUA FRANK
- Message of Massacre Lives on for Palestinians -The Executions at Kafr Qassem By JONATHAN COOK
- Israel soldier shoots arrested Palestinian on film
- Separation and Ethnic Cleansing- Israel’s Encaging of Gaza – Jonathon Cook
- Palestine Pre – 1947
- Al Nakba Commemoration – 60 Years of Great Courage, Suffering, Struggle and Survival
- Israel at 60 – Crusader Anxiety By Uri Avnery
- Are We Witnessing the Death of Israel by a Thousand Cuts? – Jonathon Power
- “Not You! You!!!” – Tibet and Palestine By URI AVNERY
- Israel to demolish Mosque because there is no building permit (Could that be because the Mosque was built 700 years ago)
- History Of Violence – Belly – The Truth
- It’s Not Just The Palestinians Who Won’t Recognize A “Jewish State” (hint..USA)
- After Annapolis By URI AVNERY
- The thugs of Palestine’s Fateh movement in action
- Palestine – Pictorial history
- At least 1,700 Palestinians were slaughtered on Israel’s say-so, 25 years ago this week
- Dark side of Jewish dream – SMH – 26.Aug.07
- “No American President Can Stand Up to Israel” – Paul Craig Roberts
- A Trap for Fools – Bush’s Latest, Ludicrous Doomed Plan for Israel and Palestine By URI AVNERY
- AIPAC and Mahmoud Abbas – The Undemocratic Road to Defeat By JAMES BROOKS
- Occupation? What Occupation? – A Dark Summit By URI AVNERY
- Crocodile Tears – The Gaza Cage By URI AVNERY
- The Wages of Corruption and Occupation – Welcome to “Palestine” – By ROBERT FISK
- Humiliation and Child Abuse at Israeli Checkpoints – Strip-Searching Children By ALISON WEIR
- Jewish coalition calls for open debate on Palestine – SMH – 05 Mar.07
- The Palestinian Accords – Facing Mecca – Uri Avnery
- Israel’s Provocations Threaten Jerusalem – Apocalyptic Archaeology – Sonja Karkar
- Abid Mustafa: Bushâ€™s Plan For Iraq and The Middle East
- The Restrictions Remain – Life Under Prohibition in Palestine By AMIRA HASS
- Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict
- How to Deal with The Lobby – The De-Zionization of the American Mind By JEAN BRICMONT
- 24 Hours in Palestine
- Quotes of peace
- The Balfour Decision Reconsidered
- Sonic Weapons Over Palestine
- Israeli Mother Addresses European Parliament March 8, 2005
- Usurping Palestine – 20 Quick facts – Did you know…