United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations, which recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution 181 (II).[1] The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States linked economically and a Special International Regime for the city of Jerusalem and its surroundings.

Passage of the resolution required a two-thirds majority of the valid votes, not counting abstaining and absent members, of the UN’s then 57 member states. On 26 November, after filibustering by the Zionist delegation, the vote was postponed by three days. According to multiple sources, had the vote been held on the original set date, it would have received a majority, but less than the required two-thirds. Various compromise proposals and variations on a single state, including federations and cantonal systems were debated (including those previously rejected in committee). The delay was used by supporters of Zionism in New York to put extra pressure on states not supporting the resolution.[86]

United States (Vote: For): President Truman later noted, “The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats—disturbed and annoyed me."[99] India (Vote: Against): Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, the Indian ambassador to the UN, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless “she voted right”.[100] Pandit occasionally hinted that something might change in favour of the Zionists. But another Indian delegate, Kavallam Pannikar, said that India would vote for the Arab side, because of their large Muslim minority, although they knew that the Jews had a case.[101] Liberia (Vote: For): Liberia’s Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries.[102] Harvey S. Firestone Jr., President of Firestone Natural Rubber Company, with major holdings in the country, also pressured the Liberian government Philippines (Vote: For) […] After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines’ vote changed.[96] Haiti (Vote: For): The promise of a five million dollar loan may or may not have secured Haiti’s vote for partition.[103] France (Vote: For): […] After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France’s neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.[86] Cuba (Vote: Against): The Cuban delegation stated they would vote against partition “in spite of pressure being brought to bear against us” because they could not be party to coercing the majority in Palestine.[105]