867N.01/871: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Everett) to the Secretary of State
[Received 8:15 p.m. ]
256. The session of the Mandates Commission has terminated. I have had an opportunity privately to examine the Commission’s report on the questions raised by the British Government’s proposal for the partition of Palestine.37
The report calls attention to the preliminary nature of its opinion, the complexity of the problem, the diversity of views among its members on a number of points and then “formulates in general terms a few conclusions”.
Following is a summary of the chief points in these conclusions:
1. After reviewing the inherent causes of the hostility between Arabs and Jews the report states that the very success of the Zionist experiment “aroused the hostility of the chiefs of the Arab movement and even tended to alarm a Mandatory Power which was anxious to maintain good relations with the Moslem world”. Intimating that notwithstanding the great difficulties involved the Mandatory Power by a firm policy might have prevented outbreaks of violence, the report states: “The present system became unworkable on the day on which it was publicly declared to be so by a British Royal Commission speaking with the double authority conferred upon it by its impartiality and unanimity and by the Government of the Mandatory Power itself. [Page 907] The most optimistic must recognize that the execution of the present mandate well interpreted and vigorously applied would be difficult in the present circumstances.” Interpreted as it has been and “applied by Government which has informed its own Parliament and its Palestine subjects that it no longer has any faith in its mission as originally conceived, the present mandate has been made practically unworkable by this fact alone”.
2. “The Commission therefore considers that the examination of the advantages and drawbacks of a new territorial solution deserves to be pursued.” The report calls attention, however, to the inherent difficulties which abide regardless of the solution adopted and states that “if the partition scheme should be applied its success would depend more on its effects with relations between Arabs and Jews than on the territorial solution adopted.”
3. “While declaring itself favorable in principle to an examination of a solution involving the partition of Palestine, the Commission is nevertheless opposed to the idea of the immediate creation of two new independent states.” The Commission feels that the projected states could not from their inception fulfill the conditions for independence laid down in 1931 in its report on its 20th session.38
4. The report mentions as a possible solution a régime analogous to that rejected by the Royal Commission under the name of “Cantonization”. It also mentions as a possible solution that the two entities resulting from partition might become fully independent of each other but remain under mandate until one or both gave sufficient proof of fitness for self government.
The Commission agreed that in case a scheme of partition were applied Jerusalem should be placed under a special régime.
5. The report terminates with a tribute to the Mandatory Power and an appeal to Jews and Arabs to abate their grievances and rather bear in mind the benefits they have received from Britain and from the mandatory régime.
In view of my knowledge of the discussions in the Commission I wish to make the following comment. It appears evident that the majority of the Commission consider the present mandate as inherently unworkable except under the constant menace of military force but the discussions show that the Commission desired to avoid a categorical statement to that effect in the report in order to leave a bridge for retreat in case the negotiations for a solution through partition or for some other solution should fail. This was stated in so many words by one member. This is the reason that the conclusion regarding the unworkability of the mandate is made to repose expressly on the Royal Commission’s report and its approval by the Government. Serious objections to the scheme of partition were raised during the discussions. Some, however, considered such a solution as probably unavoidable. Others leaned rather towards some immediate solution. It was admitted, however, in regard to the whole problem that it was a question of finding the least unsatisfactory solution. [Page 908] The British representative during the discussions repeatedly stated that his Government did not expect the Mandates Commission to approve the scheme of partition but desired complete freedom to explore that solution before any other proposals were considered. The report seems to meet that requirement.
Mailing report to Department and London.