UN Partition of Palestine November 30, 2009

Partition copy

by Mazin Qumsiyeh PhD -  29 November 2009

The UN General assembly voted 29 November 1947 to recommend partition of Palestine to give the Zionist movement control over 55% of Palestine and leave the Palestinians with 45% of Palestine. The Palestinian natives were then more than 2/3rd of the population and owned 93% of the land.  Jews constituted a third of the population (most of them illegal new immigrants) who had land ownership of less than 7%.

In the planned “Jewish state”, there would be almost an equal number of Christian and Muslim Palestinians as Jews. The Zionist movement accepted the idea of a Jewish state but rejected the other parts of the proposal:  borders designated, Internationalization of Jerusalem, economic union, and no ethnic cleansing.  There were no viable local leaders of Palestinians (decimated by the British between 1936-1939 and sold-out by dictatorial Arab regimes).  The people (and here we are talking about Christians, Muslim, and Jewish native Palestinians) were however largely against partition of their country. The illegal “vote” at the UN (illegal because it violated the UN charter) succeeded because of significant pressure from the US government. President Truman pushed and pressured governments to adopt it because of his need for Jewish support in elections (see http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0994/9409074.htm  ).  Other factors sometimes cited are sympathy for the Zionist movement following the genocides of WWII and perhaps a way of getting rid of the “Jewish problem” in the West by dumping it on Palestine. There was however strong collaboration by the Zionist movement with both the Nazis themselves and the Nazi goals (see Lenni Brenner “51 Documents: history of the Nazi-Zionist collaboration and look at books and articles written about the successful efforts of the Zionist movement to prevent opening migration doors in Western countries to European Jews).

James Forestall, US Secretary of Defense at the time described in his diaries that “the method that has been used to bring coercion and duress on other nations in the General Assembly bordered on to scandal”. The power politics machinations that led to this infamous resolution (which violated the UN charter itself) were captured by an Arab diplomat of the time:

“The Arab delegations had tried actively to convince other delegations to vote against partition by appealing to logic, justice and law. Their efforts were successful with delegations who had a living conscience end an independent judgment. But some delegations were compelled to change their stand when they saw power end the material interests of their countries on the other side.  We remember how the delegate of Haiti shed tears when he was forced to change his country’s vote to one in favour of partition. We recall how General Romulo of the Philippines left the U.S.A, because of Zionist threats. Dr Arce of the Argentine, who had stood against partition, came to me and said that he was sorry that he had to abstain rather than to vote against partition, but this was the result of pressure on his government. These are a few of the several delegates who were forced to vote against their convictions. Sometime before the vote was taken I was talking with Lester Pearson, then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada and later Prime Minister. I said, “Mr Pearson, do you believe that the act of partitioning Palestine against the will of its inhabitants is an act dictated by conscience and law?” He answered me frankly, “Dr Jamali, politics doesn’t know conscience or law unless they are supported by power.  As for us today, we are obliged to comply with the policy of the U.S.A. in what she decides on Palestine.” Thus Lester Pearson remained a strong supporter of Zionism, not because of conscientious conviction or for legal reasons, but because power and political interests required it of him.  The same held true for the representative of Czechoslovakia who also said that the legal aspect of the Palestine problem had been ignored and that the politics of the Great Powers decided the issue and that the U.S.A. had the last word in the matter of Palestine.”
(Experiences in Arab Affairs 1943-1958 by Mohommed Fadhel Jamali, Former Prime Minister of Iraq)

The CIA predicted accurately the meaning of Truman’s push to partition Palestine (in order to ensure he would be elected) despite the wishes of its inhabitant and despite the UN charter and they wrote in a now declassified document (ORIGINAL November 28, 1947):

“Armed hostilities between Jews and Arabs will break out if the UN General Assembly accepts the plan to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states….The Jews are expected to be able to mobilize some 200,000 fighters in Palestine.. The Jewish armed groups in Palestine are well equipped and well trained in commando tactics. Initially they will achieve marked success over the Arabs because of superior organization and equipment….The US by supporting partition has already lost much of its prestige in the Near East In the event that partition is imposed on Palestine, the resulting conflict will seriously disturb the social, economic, and political stability of the Arab world, and US commercial and strategic interests will be dangerously jeopardized. ..The poverty, unrest, and hopelessness upon which Communist propaganda thrives will increase throughout the Arab world. (and later in the document, p. 6) US prestige on the other hand has steadily decreased with each new indication that the US supports the Zionists. The good will enjoyed by the US at the time of the Rosevelt-Ibn Saud Conference and following backing of Lebanese and Syrian claims for independence was short lived as a result of President Truman’s support of Jewish immigration to Palestine and of the Anglo-American Committee report. Because of the long standing cultural ties between the US and the Arab world, the friendly role that the US played in the achievement of Syrian and Lebanese independence, the partial dependence of certain Arab states on oil royalties from US companies, and the promise of increased royalties in the future, the Arab states would like to maintain friendly relations with the US.  … Little of this (positive) development will be possible, if the US supports a Jewish state in Palestine.”

As time showed, catering to Zionist greed for someone else’s land only brought death and destruction and not just on the native Palestinians themselves. Ramifications included many wars (most lately Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, and Afghanistan) that still try to feed the greed of the created apartheid regime and protect its loot.  The UN has tried to make-up for the injustice by humanitarian aid and by designating November 29 as an international day of solidarity with the Palestinians people.  For us, solidarity means boycotts, divestments, and sanctions on Israel until it complies with International law and basic human rights (starting with the internationally recognized basic right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands).

Dr Mazin Qumsiyeh describes himself as a bedouin in cyberspace, a villager ay home.


If you liked this article, please consider making a donation to Australians for Palestine by clicking on the PayPal link
Thank You.
Bookmark and Share

Add a Comment

required, use real name
required, will not be published
optional, your blog address