Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

501.BB Palestine/6–2347

The Consul General at Jerusalem (Macatee) to the Secretary of State

secret
No. 106

Jerusalem, June 23, 1947.

Subject: UNSCOP in Palestine—The First Week.

Sir: I have the honor to report that on Monday, June 16, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine found itself settled in Jerusalem and ready to commence its efforts to find a solution for the problems which hold this country in a state of continual crisis. The Chairman of the Committee, Chief Justice Emil Sandstrom of Sweden, had arrived on the previous day to join the great majority of the membership of the Committee and Secretariat already in this country for several days.

Confronted by the large and energetic press corps of Palestine when he stepped off the plane at Lydda airport on June 15, the Chairman immediately ran into the pressmen’s request for comment on Arab accusations that the Committee was biased, and the decision of the Arab Higher Executive to boycott its proceedings. Justice Sandstrom covered those two aspects of the Arab attitude by saying simply, “It would be easier and more correct, if they were right, to come and give their opinions.”

The Committee commenced on June 16 with an informal exchange of views on its program of work. On that day an Arab general strike, called by the Arab Higher Executive, was in progress, effectively tying up all Arab-controlled commerce and transportation. On that day, too, the Chairman of UNSCOP went on the air in a broadcast which seemed directed mainly toward the Arabs, and which was, in effect, a plea for cooperation.

“I cannot put it too strongly that this Committee has come to Palestine with a completely open mind . . . . We are impartial on this problem . . . . We have reached no conclusions . . . . .”he assured them.¹

During the afternoon of that first day, June 16, representatives of the Palestine Government appeared before the Committee² in private session, from which even the press was barred. UNSCOP, according to Justice Sandstrom, had agreed to this procedure as it felt that otherwise Government testimony would not have been heard. Though the Government representatives, among them Chief Secretary Sir Henry Gurney, presented little more than statistical information, the fact that they were received privately obviously irked the Jewish Agency whose English-language organ, The Palestine Post headlined the next day that “The Secret Session Was Not Needed”. If for reasons of security the public was excluded, the Post went on, then the presence of the Agency’s liaison officers with UNSCOP would not have endangered matters.

On the morning of June 17, members of UNSCOP met in secret session the principal item on the agenda being consideration of the Arab boycott. To the surprise of the other members, the Yugoslav alternate, M. Brilej, rose and read a long prepared statement censuring the Arab Higher Committee for its attitude. It was M. Brilej’s idea to have his statement accepted by the whole committee as its reaction to the boycott. After considerable discussion, as the Department was informed in telegram no. 254 of June 17, 5 p. m.,³ the Committee defeated this proposal by a nine-to-one vote, with Guatemala abstaining. Subsequently, the Committee decided to consider Justice Sandstrom’s radio appeal mentioned above as sufficient reply to the Arab move.

While this was going on, the Secretariat was involved in technical problems with both the Government and the Jewish Agency. The Government desired to search all persons attending open hearings, or alternatively, to strike off names of persons listed to receive tickets to such hearings, UNSCOP to provide lists four days in advance. There was strong resistance in the Secretariat to these suggestions, and the Government was finally forced to capitulate. Open hearings will, in fact, be open to the public, the YMCA now being outside the barbed-wire barrier which formerly enclosed it in Zone “B”.

On June 17, I also informed the Department (telegram no. 253³) of the contact established by the Irgun Zvai Leumi with the Committee through a letter delivered by a secret source to Mr. Victor Hoo, the personal representative of the Secretary-General of UNO with UNSCOP. The text of the letter is being forwarded to the Department. In effect, it more or less requests the Committee to bring pressure to bear upon the British Government to cease military trials and executions, with particular reference to the trials of those Irgunists apprehended after the Acre prison operations.

This attempt to involve UNSCOP in the processes of British military justice in Palestine was, from the Irgun’s point of view, most timely: At about the time the terrorists’ letter was delivered, a British military court was sentencing to death three of the five Irgunists captured at Acre. Their two comrades received life imprisonment. These sentences immediately evoked outcries in the Hebrew press that the Government was giving fresh impetus to the vicious circle of executions and more terrorism. There was nothing new in the direction Hebrew comment took. As we have pointed out to the Department in the past, the complete inability of Jewish legal organizations to cope with terrorism has been well illustrated. They choose, therefore, to emphasize the Government role in such matters.

On the afternoon of June 17, the Committee received from Mr. Moshe Shertok, Head of the Jewish Agency’s Political Department, an oral “picture of Palestine’s geography, people, industry, agriculture and potentialities”.⁴ Mr. Shertok’s hour and a quarter discourse was presented in the Committee’s first open hearing in the YMCA auditorium. At the hearing were rows of correspondents, newsreel cameramen, representatives of various Jewish bodies, consular officials—but no Arabs. Mr. Shertok took pains when commencing his speech to make it clear that he was not presenting the “Jewish case”, but was merely giving background information for the Committee’s benefit. In discussing his presentation with me later, however, he said that he went somewhat farther than that, to which I would not be disinclined to agree.

The main interest while Mr. Shertok and his colleague, Mr. Horowitz, were at the Committee table centered in the attitudes of, and questions put to him by, the various members. Seated by the Indian member, Sir Abdur Rahman, who regarded him with a somewhat unpleasant expression, Shertok answered all queries with his customary agility. The Indian, however, would not be put off on one or two matters, particularly with regard to immigration and land transfers. In connection with immigration, he asked Mr. Shertok if the latter would like to see all the immigration laws in the world disappear. Mr. Shertok replied that he would not go so far as to say that, but what had the Indian member’s question to do with the matter? The Indian then asked if Mr. Shertok would like to see such laws remain as they are now, to which the Jewish Agency’s representative replied he had no opinion on that.

On another matter when discussing land transactions, Mr. Shertok took occasion to say that the present restrictions were on a discriminatory racial basis. He was then asked by Sir Abdur Rahman if he, Mr. Shertok, was aware that such discrimination exists in other parts of the world, that, for example, a Sikh may not buy land in the Punjab. To this Mr. Shertok said there was a distinct provision in the Mandate that the Government should encourage the close settlement of Jews on the land.

Of interest, also, during this period, was the question posed by the Iranian member, M. Entezam, who politely inquired in French if, in view of the examples of Arab-Jewish cooperation cited by M. Shertok, that was not a good indication that both peoples might collaborate, “if, as and when a Palestinian state were created”. Mr. Shertok explained to the Iranian that the Jews felt they would be left in the lurch if subjected to an Arab majority with hostile leaders. Cooperation in day to day matters did not mean, Mr. Shertok added, that the Jews and Arabs are ready to compose their political differences and cooperate in one state. The Iranian member said he was satisfied with this reply for the moment, but would return to the subject at some future time.

Late in the evening of June 17 during a closed meeting, UNSCOP commenced consideration of a letter received from the parents of the three condemned terrorists.⁵ The fact that the activity of these groups was being carried on in all its deadly ferocity was revealed by the press of June 19, which gave considerable publicity to the foiling by Haganah of a tunneling operation which had been undertaken by Irgun with the intention of eventually blowing up Citrus House in Tel-Aviv, a fortress at present occupied by British officers and troops. Subsequent Irgun reaction to this Haganah activity is described in airgram no. 136.⁶

On the morning of June 19, the Committee commenced its travels around Palestine.⁷ The first day was taken up with visits to the Haifa district, followed on the 20th by a trip to Jericho and the Dead Sea. The sub-Committee formed to determine the itinerary was believed to have decided on journeys which would take up approximately two weeks’ time, during which there would be very little opportunity to hold hearings.

In the meantime, Mr. Moshe Shertok chose the morning of June 19 to call on me at the Consulate General, The Department will recall from my telegram no. 247⁸ of the irritation with American policy on Palestine which he expressed to an officer of the Consulate General in a talk on June 13. During his visit on the 19th, Mr. Shertok indicated that in presenting its case to UNSCOP the JA would:

1. Put aside Ben-Gurion Statement to Vaad Leumi on May 22 (in which JA Chairman expressed desire for Jewish state at once in part of Palestine, remaining “small portion” to continue under mandate for purpose facilitating Jewish immigration and settlement and raising Arab standard of living);

2. Put forward in public hearing a claim to all Palestine on historic basis;

3. Indicate in private hearing that JA would accept partition as settlement;

4. Present outline of Agency’s desires with respect to partition if requested to do so by UNSCOP.

Questioned later by a member of my staff as to the difference between this approach and that of Ben-Gurion, Dr. Leo Kohn of the Agency’s Political Department stated that whereas Ben-Gurion statement implied eventual absorption into Jewish state of areas not initially included therein, the United Nations Committee would be informed in connection with point no. 3 of the above that partition would be considered by the JA as a final political settlement.

As the week ended, UNSCOP found itself deadlocked over the issue as to whether it should bring pressure to bear on the Palestine Government in connection with the death sentences passed on three terrorists caught at Acre. After three long secret meetings, a majority decided to inform the parents of the condemned men, in reply to the letter received from them that:

“It is beyond the Committee’s instructions and function to interfere with the judicial administration in Palestine, but having regard in the circumstances to the task of the Committee, the matter is being brought to the attention of the proper authorities.”⁹

This was done through the medium of a “Resolution” to which a majority of the members of UNSCOP agreed, and which was forwarded to the Secretary General of the United Nations for transmission to the British Government. This resolution read:

“In view of the fact that the majority of the members of the Committee have expressed concern as to the possible unfavourable repercussions that execution of the three death sentences pronounced by the Military Court of Jerusalem on June 16, the day on which the Committee held its first meeting in Jerusalem, might have upon the fulfilment of the task with which the General Assembly of the U.N. has entrusted the Committee, and considering the opinion of such members as to the scope of the resolution on the Palestine question adopted on May 15 by the General Assembly, the Committee resolved-that the Chairman communicate to the Secretary General of the U.N. a copy of this resolution and of the letter received from the relatives of the condemned persons, for transmission to the Mandatory Powers.”

At about the time this resolution was made public, Mr. Ben-Gurion was writing the High Commissioner that “hangings don’t stop terror”, and terrorists were attempting to kidnap a high British police official from a bookshop within a hundred yards or so of UNSCOP’s seat of deliberations.

And so UNSCOP’s first week ended. We could discern no weakening of the boycott, and the Committee’s action in communicating to the Mandatory Government its fear of “possible unfavorable repercussions” will undoubtedly harden Arab opinion of its pro-Zionist bias. We shall attempt, in the weeks to come, to report on its travels, and public hearings, and to convey to the Department such indications as may become available as to its views on the situation it now finds itself in contact with.

Respectfully yours,

Robert B. Macatee

1. For full text of broadcast, see UNSCOP , vol. ii, p. 5.
2. For summary record of the hearing of the representatives of the Palestine Government, see ibid., vol. iv, p. 1.
3. Not printed.
3. Not printed.
4. For the summary record of the hearing of Mr. Shertok, see UNSCOP , vol. iii, p. 1.
5. For letter of June 17, see UNSCOP , vol. ii, p. 11.
6. Not printed.
7. For itinerary of the Special Committee, see UNSCOP , vol. ii, p. 4.
8. Not printed.
9. For full text of letter of June 22, signed by Chairman Sandstrom, see UNSCOP , vol.ii, p. 13.