501.A Summaries/11–1447: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
1213.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[Page 1259]“Ad Hoc” Committee on the Palestinian Question, Subcommittee 1 (10[20]th meeting)
After the two working groups on boundaries and implementation had met in closed session on Nov. 12, the full Subcommittee, at an evening meeting, completed its recommendations on all but two points of the boundary question.…
Chairman Pruszynski (Poland) then submitted the working group’s recommendation that Jaffa be made an Arab enclave, with the Arabs having the right to free transit through the Jewish state. He did not favor a corridor through the Jewish state to Jaffa. Johnson did not believe that a special road should be constructed for Arab use from Jaffa through Jewish state, as the two peoples must learn to live together in common amity.… The Subcommittee approved the working group’s recommendation for inclusion of Jaffa in the Arab state with free communication between this city and the Arab state.…
Passing to the question of Galilee, Pruszynski said the working group had been unable to formulate any definite proposal, but he recommended that a compromise on the JA proposals be worked out.… Shertok (JA) said that there was the possibility that an exchange might be effected of some of the land in the northern part of the Negeb which UNSCOP had placed in the Jewish state.
Johnson declared that the US could not approve assignment of any area in western Galilee to the Jewish state, since the population in this area was so predominantly Arab. In addition, this was virtually the only area which offered the Arabs any room for future expansion and development. The US, he said, would favor a slight adjustment in eastern Galilee for the benefit of the Jewish state and if possible this line might be drawn to include Safad in the Arab state, Shertok objected that Safad was one of the four Jewish holy places. Johnson replied that it was only a working suggestion.… Johnson said he believed that if western Galilee were given to the Jews it would seriously jeopardize the two-thirds vote for the partition scheme.…
Johnson proposed that some adjustment be made in the northern part of the Negeb, including the town of Beersheba, which would be in favor of the Arab state.…
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“Ad Hoc” Committee on Palestinian Question, Subcommittee 1 (21st meeting)
The UK announced in the Subcommittee on Nov. 13 that British troops would not be available as “the instrument for the enforcement of settlement in Palestine against either Arabs or Jews.”
[Page 1260]Cadogan (UK) made this announcement at the opening of the afternoon meeting. He said that in line with the UK statement of Sept. 26, plans were being made for an early withdrawal of British forces and administration from Palestine. Efforts were being made to reduce the time required for the military withdrawal to a minimum and the evacuation should be completed by Aug. 1, 1948. As long as British troops remain in any part of Palestine, he stated, they must maintain law and order in the areas which they occupy, but they will not be available as “the instrument for the enforcement of settlement in Palestine against either Arabs or Jews.”
The impracticability of withdrawing the last of the UK troops from Palestine before summer did not imply that a UK civil administration would be maintained for that length of time, Cadogan pointed out. “We reserve the right to lay down the mandate and to bring our civil administration to an end at any time after it has become evident that no settlement acceptable to both Jews and Arabs has been reached by the Assembly.” In the event of an interval between the termination of the mandate and the withdrawal of the last British troops, the UK would not maintain a civil administration and would confine itself to preserving order in the areas controlled by its remaining forces, he added.
Concluding, Cadogan told the Subcommittee that “if a UN commission were at work in Palestine taking preparatory steps for a settlement which would require enforcement it must not expect British authorities either to exercise administrative responsibility or to maintain law and order except in the limited areas of which they would necessarily remain in occupation during the process of withdrawal.”
At the conclusion of Cadogan’s statement, Garcia Granados (Guatemala) asked a series of questions. To the general question as to whether the UK would accept the recommendations of the GA on Palestine if those recommendations did not require it to play an active role of enforcement, Cadogan replied that if the GA, by a two-thirds majority, approved any solution, the UK would not take any action contrary to it. Asked whether the UK would accept the date of termination of the mandate that the GA recommends, Cadogan replied it was difficult to give a very affirmative answer without knowing more specifically the date. He referred to his earlier statement that “we reserve the right to lay down the mandate and bring our civil administration to an end at any time.”
To the questions whether the UK would agree not to obstruct the general task of the GA commission to implement partition, the establishment of provisional councils of government, the recruitment and organization of the militias for the two states, the work of the demarcation [Page 1261] of boundaries committee, and the GA recommendations on immigration and land regulations for the future Jewish state, Cadogan replied in the affirmative. However, his answer was conditioned by the reservation that the UK would have to retain a certain degree of control in-order to insure the safety of its troops and assure their orderly withdrawal.
Asked as to whether the mandatory power would, when requested, surrender the different branches of the administration in a gradual and progressive way to the UN commission, the provisional councils of government and the economic board, Cadogan answered that when the time comes, the UK might not be in the position to actually hand over all these functions. He said there would be no obstruction to the UN commission, the provisional councils, or economic board in their assuming those functions in the territory evacuated by the British, as and when it is evacuated. Cadogan could not give an absolutely affirmative answer to the question of whether the UK would obstruct the commission in obtaining whatever data it wanted, but he did not believe there would be any obstruction.
Pearson (Canada) declared that the working group on implementation would have to take this UK statement into consideration and make some modifications to its report. He hoped to produce a report soon which would be approved by the Subcommittee. Johnson questioned whether sufficient warning would be given and some form or [of?] agreement reached between the provisional councils of government and the UK in areas where the British civil administration had withdrawn prior to the withdrawal of UK troops. Cadogan replied that he could not answer this question without further instructions. However, he commented that UK authorities would not obstruct civil authorities assuming their functions in areas evacuated by the British. He did not contemplate that the provisional councils would come into being in areas where there was still military occupation. Garcia Granados asked whether there would be any area on the UN commission’s arrival where there were no troops and what exactly was meant by “military occupation.” Cadogan could not answer these questions, but promised to obtain the views of his Government.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“Ad Hoc” Committee on Palestinian Question, Subcommittee 1 (22nd meeting)
At a night meeting on Nov. 13, the Subcommittee modified the UNSCOP line in eastern Galilee, adding some additional territory to the Jewish state, but rejected JA claims to western and upper Galilee. Pruszynski (Poland) suggested a new line to the east of the one previously [Page 1262] presented by the working group, and the US proposed a line even farther east. The JA agreed to accept the line proposed by Pruszynski in the southern part of this area and that proposed by the US in the northern part, which would add the villages of El Maikija, Meirum, El Sammi’i, Farradiya and Kafir I’Nan with a population of 2,100 Arabs to the Jewish state. The Subcommittee agreed to this line, completing the boundary discussions, except for the Negeb region.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .