501.BB Palestine/6–3047
The Consul General at Jerusalem (Macatee) to the Secretary of State
No. 113
Subject: UNSCOP in Palestine—the Second Week.
Sir: I have the honor to continue the chronicle begun in my despatch no. 106 of June 23, 1947, in which we commenced a weekly summary of the activities of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, together with such background information in relation thereto as we believe may be of interest to the Department and the field.
The beginning of its second week in Palestine found the Committee involved in a near-dispute with the Palestine Government and making no headway whatever toward changing the rigid line of non-cooperation adopted by the Arab Higher Committee. The Department will recall that on June 22, UNSCOP transmitted to the Secretary General of the U.N. a resolution to the effect that a majority of its members had “expressed concern as to the possible unfavourable repercussions” which might result if the Government carried out the death sentences of three convicted terrorists. The Secretary General was requested to forward the text of the resolution to the Mandatory Power.
The vote on this resolution, we are informed, was nine to one (the [Page 1114] Australian holding that such action exceeded the Committee’s terms of references) and the Yugoslav abstaining because he felt that the wording of the resolution was too weak.
The next day the Palestine Post, ever ready to create difficulties for the Government, announced that the Chief Secretary had “rebuked” UNSCOP for its action. In the text of Sir Henry Gurney’s message on this subject, the Chief Secretary, after observing that the Committee had in fact published such a resolution, went on to say that the Committee was, no doubt, aware “the sentences referred to above have not been confirmed …1 and the matter being sub judice it was necessary to avoid comment”. Referring to that part of the resolution which mentions that the death sentences were passed on June 16, the day on which the Committee held its first meeting in Jerusalem, the Chief Secretary said:
“It is presumably not suggested that the Court pronounced sentence on that day otherwise than in the course of judicial process. There would of course be no truth in any such suggestion.”2
I was informed by the Chief Secretary on June 23 that the Committee had sought the Government’s advice as to desirability of making a statement in reply to the letter received from the condemned persons’ parents, and had been told that the Government would consider it most inadvisable to do so. Nevertheless, the Committee had proceeded to issue its resolution.
Editorializing on the Chief Secretary’s statement the same day, the Post poured out the usual compliments to the Committee which we have been reading in the Hebrew press, and announced that the Chief Secretary “had ventured to give advice to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine”.
For once the Agency and the Irgun saw eye to eye, though the latter, in its broadcast of June 25, expressed itself somewhat more forcefully in referring to Sir Henry Gurney:
[Here follows the Irgun characterization of the Chief Secretary.]
As was to be expected, the Arabic press, led by the Mufti’s organ Al Wahda, laid down a barrage of editorial criticism of this “interference” and “additional evidence of bias” on the part of UNSCOP. Al Wahda hammered home the point that the Committee’s resolution merely confirmed the good judgment of the Arab Higher Committee in deciding on boycott from the start.
Though Monday, June 23, was supposed to be a day of rest, several members of the Committee and its secretariat, including the Chairman, journeyed to Rehovoth to lunch with Dr. Chaim Weizmann, erstwhile [Page 1115] President of the World Zionist Congress, now cast in the role of elder-statesman in retirement.
On June 24, UNSCOP visited the Jaffa District, accompanied by the usual group of Government liaison officials and journalists. The Municipal Council of Ramie, a nearby Arab town, had stipulated on the previous day that no representatives of the Jewish press be allowed to accompany the Committee on its visit to that municipality, and UNSCOP was simultaneously informed that only the Mayor of Ramle would greet the visitors but even he would not accompany them on their tour. This attitude was typical of what they encountered in Jaffa, where despite Arab objections Jewish pressmen insisted on being present. At one textile factory where the journalists crowded in, the management stalked out in protest.
In marked contrast to this Arab reception, was that accorded the Committee the next day in Tel-Aviv, where its members were confronted with “an almost staggering volume of information”. Crowds clapped and sang for the delegates and pressed around their cars to shake their hands. Hebrew newspapers extolled the individual members and at the Great Synagogue, the Committee heard Chief Rabbi Unterman call upon the Almighty “to instill in the hearts of the United Nations Committee knowledge, wisdom and intelligence, to judge honestly and to gather the people of Israel in their Holy Land to revive and rebuild it”.
The Indian Moslem member, Sir Abdur Rahman, did not participate in the Tel-Aviv tour.
While this reception was being accorded UNSCOP in the principal Jewish city of Palestine, Jewish terrorists in Jerusalem were making their second kidnapping attempt within four days. This time, a Government liaison officer with UNSCOP, Mr. Alan Major, was involved, but through his continued struggles after being struck on the head with a hammer and because his wife’s screams attracted considerable attention, the would-be kidnappers were forced to abandon their purpose.
On the following day, June 26, the Committee set out for the Negeb to examine Jewish settlements in that wasteland of the South. At Revivim, Nir Am and Hafetz Haim, they again encountered cheers and applauding settlers, and were assured that there was room in that region for “thousands and thousands” of young men and women.
On June 26, also, the Government of Palestine presented to UNSCOP a Memorandum on the Administration of Palestine under the Mandate. The complete text has been forwarded with despatch no. 112 of June 30, 1947.3 In it, the Government stressed, among other [Page 1116] things, its role in preserving a balance between conflicting obligations imposed by the Mandate.
This paper at once aroused the ire of the Jewish Agency, which voiced its rebuttal in the shape of an editorial in the Palestine Post of June 27. Said the Post:
[Here follow quotations from the editorial and from the political correspondent of the newspaper.]
Arab journals, while not allotting as much space, also tore into the Government paper. On June 27, Al Diffa editorialized:
[Here follow quotations from two Arab newspapers.]
UNSCOP remained in Jerusalem on Friday, June 27, devoting the early part of the day to visits to the Hebrew University and to Hadassah Hospital.
[Here follow accounts of UNSCOP’s visits to these two institutions and to the Arab areas of Ramallah, Nablus and Tulkarm and of the murder of three members of the British military by terrorists.]
This weekend orgy or [of?] murder, by no means unusual in this country, gave the Committee some food for thought. The Arab newspapers were still publicly proclaiming that the Committee had tried to appease the terrorists by its intervention on behalf of the convicted terrorists, described earlier in this despatch and the preceding chapter of this chronicle. Accordingly, the Chairman called a closed meeting on Sunday, June 29, at 9 p.m. After two hours’ deliberation, the following communiqué was published at 11 p.m.:
“At this evening’s meeting the members of the Committee, taking note of the published report of acts of violence, committed in Palestine since their arrival in the country, decided by nine votes (Australia and India abstaining), to record their sense that such acts constitute a flagrant disregard of the appeal made in the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations on May 15.
“The members of the Committee unanimously charged the Chairman to express their sympathy to Mr. Alan Major, Assistant to the Palestine Government’s Liaison Officer to UNSCOP, for the act of violence to which he was subject.”
By the time it got around to the issuance of this Resolution No. 2, the Committee was presumably getting acquainted with the facts of life in Palestine. If along with such knowledge there came a certain quality of bewilderment at the maelstrom into which they had been thrust, that is understandable. For at the end of their second week, despite the appeals of the General Assembly, and of UNSCOP itself, two facts stared the Committee-members in the face:
- 1.
- Jewish terrorism is as rampant as ever.
- 2.
- The Arab boycott is as firm as ever.
Respectfully yours,