867N.01/2–747
Memorandum by the Director of the Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs (Henderson) to the Under Secretary of State (Acheson)
Attached hereto is the summary of Mr. Bevin’s proposals of February 7, 1947 to the Jews and Arabs regarding Palestine.
[Here follows the proposals.]
It is interesting to note that the British Government is endeavoring gradually to reduce Palestine from a world to a local issue. Its proposals would mean that the Jews of Palestine through the Advisory Council, rather than the Jews of the world—particularly of the United States—through the Jewish Agency as at present would speak for the Jews. Furthermore, the Arabs of Palestine, rather than the representatives of Arab States, would speak for the Arabs.
The proposals, furthermore, seem to point more directly towards a binational state than did the Morrison-Grady plan. At the end of the five years, however, in case of failure of agreement between Arabs and Jews, partition, cantonization, binationalism, or any other form of state or states could apparently be recommended by the Trusteeship Council.
No reference is made in the summary to the holy places or to the rights of Palestinians who are neither Arab nor Jew. It is probable that the full proposals will have appropriate provisions of this character.
American Zionists will bitterly oppose the plan because:
- 1.
- It does not provide for an independent Jewish state.
- 2.
- It provides for local administrations which will be predominantly Arab in areas in which Arabs are at present in the majority.
- 3.
- It fails to give Jews the right to determine their own rates of immigration.
- 4.
- The rate of immigration is too low and for too short a period. American Zionists will certainly insist upon the admission of several hundred thousand Jews during any period of trusteeship.
- 5.
- It apparently does not give financial autonomy to the Jewish districts. They will lose a measure of control over the situation since the Agency in which they wield great influence will no longer act as a spokesman for the Jews. They will, nevertheless, be able through their financial power to bring much pressure on the Jews of Palestine.
The Arabs will also object because:
- 1.
- Provisions are made for further Jewish immigration. They are sure to be suspicious that the High Commissioner and the Arbitration Tribunal will admit large numbers of Jews during the last three years of the trusteeship.
- 2.
- There is no provision for the establishment of a Palestinian State based on majority rule.
In general, the plan should not be so objectionable to the Arabs as to the American Jews.
From the point of view of the American Government, one of the main defects is the slow rate of Jewish immigration. It would be preferable for the 100,000 to go to Palestine during the course of a year, beginning at once, rather than over a two-year period. The proposals are so worded that it is possible under them for immigration to begin at once if there is not too much opposition to them.
If we give our support to the proposals, even if amended so as to speed up the admission of the 100,000, American Zionists will probably charge that we have betrayed them. Nevertheless, the proposals seem to be somewhat nearer to the original Anglo-American plan1 than were the Morrison–Grady proposals. The British, furthermore, in preparing them were clearly endeavoring to live up to the letter of the mandate and to preserve strict impartiality as between Jews and Arabs.
We feel that it would be unwise for us to comment on the merits of the plan until the storm which its announcement will raise has subsided.
- For the report made on April 20, 1946, by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, see circular telegram of April 25 and footnote 22, Foreign Relations, 1946, vol. vii, pp. 585 and 588, respectively.↩