501.BB Summaries/11–1147: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
1201.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
While the Arab Palestine plan developed in the Subcommittee was based on the establishment of a unitary state, the door was left “wide open” for cantonization,1 Beeley (UK) has informed USGADel. The Arabs, he explained, did not contemplate suggesting cantonization, but had been tentatively decided that Siam would suggest in the Palestine Committee that the plan be amended to include cantonization. The plan as originally drafted contained provisions predicated on UK assistance continuing to be available for implementation. However, Beeley had informed the Arabs that these provisions would be unacceptable to the UK since it was obvious the JA could not agree to the plan.
Developments in the Palestine Subcommittee had prompted him to believe that the only basis for a solution was a unitary state with Arab and Jewish cantons having wide autonomous local powers. Jewish immigration should be permitted into the Jewish cantons for a period such as five years, after which the unitary state would become fully sovereign in immigration, in Beeley’s opinion.
The hope that the US was under no misapprehension as to the seriousness of the UK Government’s intentions to withdraw its troops was [Page 1254] reiterated by Beeley. He said Bevin, in a reply to UKDel’s request for an opinion on the Soviet and US proposal of implementation of the partition plan, had commented that if the US were really concerned about keeping the SC out of the Palestine question why didn’t it abandon its support of partition.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- According to telegram 1157, November 6, 12:57 a. m., from New York, Mr. Chamoun of Lebanon, on November 5, had informed a member of the American Delegation, that the “Arab States would not themselves propose cantonization in Palestine, but would not oppose it if it were proposed by some other nations.” (501.BB Summaries/11–647)↩