UNSCOP

This is in response to questions from a high school girl in Putney, Vermont, passed on to me for comment by a friend in Brattleboro, Vermont. These questions exhibit a serious and searching approach to the situation.
________________________________________________

Israel-Palestine Questions

1. In your opinion were the members of the UNSCOP (United Nations Special Committee on Palestine) fully prepared to handle the task of dividing up Israel?
The Members of UNSCOP spent 3 months and travelled thousands of miles in order to complete their task. They interviewed hundreds of persons directly involved in this issue. I think they were very responsible and arrived at the only feasible solution available to them. Incidentally, they did not strictly “divide Israel” but divided the Palestine Mandate that had been handed over to the UN because the British could not arrive at a solution.
2. Did Communism and the Western Bloc influence the UNSCOP decision or the eventual outcome?
There was only one communist-controlled member of UNSCOP, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, which was nominally Communist, but independent of Moscow. There is no evidence that the Communist bloc had any influence on the outcome. The members of the Committee were deliberately mainly from then “neutral” countries, i.e. India, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay. So the West had limited influence. Note that the British were against giving up their control of Palestine, while the US was in favor of a UN-sponsored solution.
3. What were the main reasons that the UNSCOP came to the conclusion that the state of Israel should be created?
There were two main reasons, first they saw for themselves the suffering and the degradation of the Jewish refugees arriving in Haifa from Displaced Person’s Camps and Concentration Camps in Europe (the small portion of Jews that had survived), and second they experienced the utter rejection of any external solution to the problem by the Arabs. The Arabs (not only the Palestinians, but including Egypt, Jordan, Syria Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia) all regarded the territory as theirs, despite the British Mandate and the UN decisions, and refused to cooperate. The UNSCOP members, like everyone else, assumed that if left alone, the Arabs would massacre the remaining Jews, as had just happened in Europe. They wanted to give the Jews a chance for survival. Also, the Jewish settlement in Palestine (the Yishuv) had established the organizations necessary for a working State, while the Arabs had not.
4. In hindsight do you believe this was the best course of action?
UNSCOP voted for partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish States. The Jews accepted this solution, but the Arabs rejected it and attacked the nascent State of Israel, expecting an easy victory (since they outnumbered the Jews ca. 5:1). But the Arabs were defeated, and were defeated in subsequent wars in every decade (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982). Eventually after 60 years some of them have come back belatedly to the two-State solution, although others (Iran, Hamas, Hizbollah) still reject that in favor of destruction of Israel (and killing of its Jewish inhabitants).
5. What factors might have influenced the UNSCOP’s decision in an unfair and biased way?
They might have been unfairly influenced by the suffering of the Jewish people in the Holocaust in Europe during WWII. But, nowadays, since Israel has been successful in defending itself and surviving, the pendulum has swung the other way and many people feel sympathy for the “poor, suffering” Palestinians. However, some would argue that they brought this suffering on themselves by rejecting all negotiated solutions and on the Arab States for not settling the refugees, as refugees from other conflicts have been settled (including the 750,000 Jews who fled or were expelled from Arab countries).
6. Did the Arab’s unwelcoming behavior when the UNSCOP was in Palestine have a detrimental effect on their case?
Of course it did. But, this was not only a matter of influencing the UN Committee, but also showing total rejection of any outside or “balanced” solution. As far as the Muslim/Arabs were (and are) concerned they have a God-given right to this land and they intended to take it by force. Now that they have been unable to do so, some of them are prepared to deal with Israel under the auspices of the USA. Note that although the Jews also felt they had a God-given right to the land, their leadership was secular and they were prepared to compromise from the beginning.
7. How large of a part did the Holocaust play in the creation of Israel?
This is a difficult and controversial question. Clearly the suffering of the Jews during the Holocaust did influence the members of the Committee and the world somewhat in their favor. But, I would maintain that the basis for a Jewish State already existed without the Holocaust. Before WWII there were ca. 650,000 Jews in Palestine and they had organized the basis of a nascent State. Further, when the Arabs armies (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia) attacked in 1948, the Jews already there were able to defend themselves and in fact throw back the attackers. This happened before any significant numbers of immigrants from post-WWII Europe had arrived. So even without the Holocaust and even without UNSCOP, a Jewish State would almost certainly have arisen in Palestine.
8. What is your opinion on Mahatma Gandhi’s letter “The Jews in Palestine 1938?”
Mahatma Gandhi was undoubtedly a great man. But, just as he was opposed to partition of India into Muslim and Hindu States, so he was against partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab States. His idealistic views were divorced from reality His advice to Jews to adopt non-violence against the Germans in WWII was spurious, since first there was no possibility of large scale armed Jewish resistance (notwithstanding this the Jews resisted in the Warsaw Ghetto) and he did not have personal experience of the ruthless Nazis and Communists. His letter(s) are purely of historic interest and had no practical influence on the situation.
9. Are there any other religious states similar to Israel?
There are actually many, for example most of the Arab and Muslim States (Iran, Indonesia, etc.) have Islam as their established religion, and in Saudi Arabia no other religions are even allowed! Israel is similar to India that has a majority of one religion (Hindus) but is a practicing democracy that allows other religions (Islam, Sikhs, Jews, etc.). The UK is also a “religious state” with an established religion the Church of England or Anglican faith
10. If so did they have similar problems?
It’s not clear what “problems” you are referring to. India had a War of Independence also in 1948 when the British (this time without the UN) declared partition into a Hindu State (India) and a Muslim State (Pakistan). There were several subsequent wars between the two, and the main problem, that of Kashmir, has not been resolved, since it is divided into two occupied zones. In fact this is a far larger and more dangerous problem than the Israel-Palestine dispute. In Britain there was a protracted Civil War that finally decided that Britain would be predominantly Protestant and not Catholic.
11. Could the constant warring in Israel today have been avoided?
It is unlikely that it could have been avoided. Each of the Arab States had its own agenda and expected to be able to carve up Mandatory Palestine between them. When they did not succeed they did not strongly support the humanitarian needs of the displaced Palestinians, but let them rot in camps, keeping the conflict alive. Also, it is a tenet of the Muslim faith that no territory that has been occupied by Muslims should be given up. That is why they have the concept of “jihad,” of war against the infidels (some claim that this is a purely spiritual battle, but the facts belie this).
12. Do you feel that it is the U.N.’s place to make the decision of dividing up a region?
The Security Council of the UN is endowed with the legal right, by its founding agreement, to protect “security” throughout the world. By contrast, the General Assembly resolutions are purely advisory. If the UN is to exist and perform its functions then it is its place to decide such issues. But, it must be by unanimous decision of the five permanent members of the SC, although Russia and China do not often agree with the US, UK and France. However, the current situation is that both sides to the Israel-Palestine conflict prefer the US as an honest broker between them rather than the UN. This is partly because the UN has turned out to be virulently anti-Israel, some 2/3 of the decisions of the UN Human Rights Council are anti-Israel (ignoring other humanitarian issues), and it is dominated by the Muslim States (ca. 40) and other anti-Western States (African, Asian).