Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1943, The Near East and Africa, Volume IV

867N.01/2068

Memorandum by the Assistant Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Merriam)

[Washington,] October 15, 1943.

Palestine Question

The following is taken from a memorandum by Colonel Harold B. Hoskins of a conversation he had with the President on September 27, 1943:

“As to a solution of the Palestine problem, the President stated that his own thinking leaned toward a wider use of the idea of trusteeship for Palestine—of making Palestine a real Holy Land for all three religions, with a Jew, a Christian, and a Moslem as the three responsible trustees. He said he realized it might be difficult to get the agreement of the Jews to such a plan but if Moslems and Christians of the world were agreed he hoped the Jews could also be persuaded. This concept to be successful would, he also realized, have to be presented as a solution larger and more inclusive than the establishment of an Arab state or a Jewish state. He realized that this idea of course required further thought and needed to be worked out in greater detail, but at least that was the line along which his mind was running.”

It is apparent from the foregoing that the President is aware that for the time being, at least, the development of Palestine along normal “A” Mandate lines is impossible due to the two strongly competing nationalistic movements there present. Since development along national lines is stultified, he turns to a religious basis or framework for a solution.

PS⁹ has gone into the question of the internal administration of Palestine, and it is suggested, particularly in view of the President’s interest, that PS may now desire to consider how the basic relationship of Palestine to the rest of the interested world can be worked out in a satisfactory way.

NE¹⁰ believes that the conclusion implicit in the President’s remarks—that the handling of Palestine as an “A” Mandate has been a failure and will continue to be a failure if persisted in under existing circumstances—is entirely sound. His thought that Palestine be viewed in a religious rather than a political light may also be sound and at any rate is thoroughly worth exploring. Certainly the Christian (numerically the greatest) interest in Palestine, taken as a whole, is in the main religious. There is more alloy in the Moslem religious interest, but it is probable that the Moslem and, specifically, Arab political interest in Palestine, which furnishes the base metal, is more defensive against Zionist political ambitions than aggressive furtherance of Arab political ambitions. As to the Jews, while the Zionists are much heard from at present, that is because of the compassion felt for the Jews in Europe, and there is ground for believing that even now the main interest of most Jews in Palestine is religious and humanitarian, not political.

However, the governing of Palestine is a political, not a religious, job, and the normal and effective expression of interested outsiders toward Palestine is through governments. The Jews, being unamalgamated and a minority everywhere, are an exception. They cannot express themselves effectively as Jews through a government (though they frequently try to do so) but only through their own lay and religious organizations, which overlap and compete. The “mechanics” of expressing the Jewish attitude towards Palestine or even of the various Jewish attitudes toward Palestine thus presents a difficult problem.

With a view to outlining a basis for thought and discussion, the following suggestions are offered:

1. Great Britain to remain the mandatory power for Palestine.

While the British have incurred a good deal of criticism for their handling of Palestine, there are three points in favor of their continuing to do so which seem impressive: (a) The trained administrative personnel of some one country is required to handle the exceptionally difficult job of governing Palestine. So much pulling and hauling for political and other reasons would occur in any international administration that it would be almost certain to fail; (b) With all the mistakes of the British, no other country is in sight, including our own, which would be likely to do a better job in Palestine; (c) The British have learned a great deal by their experience of the past twenty years in Palestine.

2. The present conception of the Mandate for Palestine—preparation for independence—is to be abandoned until such time as the basic conditions in Palestine are far more propitious for independence than is now the case. Instead, Palestine is to be regarded primarily, for the time being, as a sacred repository of the interests of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

3. The basic responsibility for Palestine is to be removed from the League of Nations and reposed in interested Christian and Islamic nations and the Jews.

Great Britain would operate the mandate under the new conception, using Palestinians as much as possible in the work of governing. The economic development of Palestine would be encouraged, but not in derogation of the rights of any of the inhabitants. The development of the inhabitants along the road of common Palestinian interests in all fields and of a common Palestinian consciousness would be encouraged and the ultimate goal of independence would be kept constantly in sight and worked for, but the mandatory would not, as at present, be under legal obligation to hurry the pace.

4. Palestine to be opened up to Jewish immigration to the extent of its economic absorptive capacity, except that the number of Jews in Palestine is not, by reason of immigration, to exceed the number of Moslems there at any given time.

This would open up Palestine to about 500,000 Jews, which is the upper figure cited by such careful students of the problem as Dr. Nelson Glueck, of European Jews who will have to be taken care of outside Europe. If that number cannot be absorbed quickly, temporary provision for them could be made in Libya, for example. Of course, if it is not necessary to put 500,000 more Jews in Palestine, it would make things that much easier all around. As the Zionists wish for political reasons to place as many Jews in Palestine as possible, it will be necessary to see to it that European Jews are not dragooned into emigrating to Palestine in excess of the emigration that is absolutely required by their situation.

5. Trans Jordan to be released from mandate status and to form an independent Emirate presumably in treaty relations with the British and with adequate treaty safeguards for the United States and possibly other countries. Trans Jordan would have a customs union with Palestine or free-port and free-transit facilities there, but would be free to make political combination with one or more neighboring Arab states. It might be feasible to attach Transjordan to Syria and the Lebanon in the near future.

6. The following has to do with the basic responsibility for Palestine and suggests an arrangement for replacing the existing (on paper) League of Nations-Mandate Commission framework.

A body representing those nations which manifest a legitimate interest in Palestine and the Jews, will sit permanently in Palestine. The mandatory is to report to this body, at stated intervals and in response to the body’s specific requests which may be made at any time. Such reports and the body’s recommendations, if any, to be transmitted to the member nations and Jewish organizations. Complete suggestions for the body’s duties and privileges towards the mandatory and the member nations need, of course, further elaboration which is not attempted here.

Considering that there are in the world some 585,000,000 Christians, 220,000,000 Moslems, and 15,000,000 Jews, the body might have a membership of 6, consisting of 3 Christians, 2 Moslems, and 1 Jew. Each appointment might be for two years, one year for the appointee to learn his job and one year in which he could be really useful. As to the Christian appointees, one would be appointed by a predominantly Catholic country among the interested nations, one by a predominantly Protestant country, and one by a predominantly Orthodox country. The turn of each country to appoint one of its nationals would be reached by rotation in each group. The British Government would not appoint a representative (Protestant) but the self-governing Dominions would be included in the rotation of Protestant countries.

If it were desired to reflect the numbers of communicants more accurately, the body could consist of 6 Christians, 2 Moslems, and 1 Jew. There are about 338 million Roman Catholics, 135 million Protestants, and 128 million Orthodox. There might therefore be 3 representatives from Catholic countries, 2 from Protestant, and 1 from Orthodox. As the Catholics would be somewhat under-represented, they could perhaps be compensated by having permanent representation from the Vatican in one of the Catholic seats.

As to the Moslem appointees, instead of having differentiation on a sectarian basis, relative propinquity to Palestine and hence relative economic and political, as well as religious, interest in Palestine might form the basis. Thus one appointment could be from the group Syria-Iraq-Saudi Arabia-Egypt in rotation; the other appointment from the more outlying Moslem countries such as Turkey, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, India (a Moslem to be chosen by the Government of India), North Africa (a Moslem to be chosen or approved by the French).

One Jew representing, in rotation, Zionists, non-Zionists, and anti-Zionists. There may be a better basis of differentiation amongst the elements of the Jewish world but at the moment the foregoing appears to reflect the major attitudes of Jewry toward Palestine. The Zionists, at the present time, have a world organization to select the Zionist representative; the non-Zionists and the anti-Zionists do not. But, as each group would be called upon to make an appointment only once every six years, it might not be too much to expect that ad hoc arrangements could be made. The Jewish Agency could continue to be the mouthpiece of Jewry with respect to the Government of Palestine, as at present.

The British Government might appoint an Englishman to preside over the body, but he would have no vote except in case of a tie. Decisions would be reached in the body by majority vote.

7. Broadly speaking, the advantages of some such arrangement as the foregoing would appear to be as follows:

All of the religious interests concerned would be represented in a more logical and a fairer manner than is now the case.

Direct impact of pressure groups would be taken off the mandatory and individual countries such as our own. If a group were dissatisfied, its complaints would be to the body in Palestine which is always there to consider them. If the complaining group were in Palestine, the complaint would be submitted directly to the body. If the complaining group were outside Palestine, its complaint would be transmitted to the body through the government of the country where the complaint originated, to the proper representative on the body in Palestine, who would lay it before the body as a whole, which after considering the matter and making its investigations, inclusive of hearing the explanation of the mandatory, would take appropriate action; i.e. either reply that the complaint was unjustified or adjusted; or, if some major remedy seemed to be required, the matter could be submitted to all of the interested nations and to the Jewish organizations for decision by the majority of them.

The arrangement would have this advantage for the Jews: if, for example, a Zionist were sitting on the body and American non-Zionists did not like the way things were going, they could take their choice of presenting their complaints through the Zionist representative in Palestine or, through the United States Government, to the Protestant representative there.

In short, all complaints and suggestions relating to Palestine would first be sifted by the body in Palestine; and if it by majority vote considered that a remedy was required, it would submit the matter to the majority opinion of all the nations interested in Palestine and to the representative Jewish organizations, whereupon the mandatory would be appropriately instructed and would be bound to give effect to the directive. Alterations in the terms of the mandate might be similarly handled. We could cooperate and at the same time protect our position by suspending our existing treaty with respect to Palestine (after first making sure that the terms of the new mandate give us what we want), thus ensuring the maintenance of our rights if the new mandate breaks down or if Palestine eventually achieves independence.

9. Division of Political Studies.
10. Division of Near Eastern Affairs.