Working Group Set Up to Reconcile Differences Between U.S. and Soviet Partition Plans
Menu JTA Search

Working Group Set Up to Reconcile Differences Between U.S. and Soviet Partition Plans

Download PDF for this date

A four-man working group consisting of the United States, the Soviet Union, Guatemala and Canada was set up today to reconcile the differences between the Russian and American proposals for implementing a U.N. decision for the partition of Palestine. The group is expected to report back within two days to the partition sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine.

In accepting participation in the group, Soviet delegate Semyon Tsarapkin made it clear that he does not consider it an official working body with power of committee, and that he was merely joining it for the purpose of exchanging information. The representative of Canada was included as a result of an announcement he made earlier that his delegation is preparing specific proposals with regard to implementation which will be presented at a later session. Meanwhile, he read a preliminary statement in which he analyzed the American and Soviet proposals and pointed out the infects of each.

The American delegation this afternoon held a special conference with representatives of public organizations at which Ambassador Herschel Johnson and Maj. Gen. John A. Hilldring reported on the American strategy with regard to the UNSCOP partition proposal and its implementation. Present at the conference were leaders of mater American Jewish groups who posed questions which the members of the American deletation answered freely. The officials said that they were doing their utmost to secure adoption of the partition proposal by the General Assembly.


The American delegation is inclined to accept the compromise offered unofficially by the Jewish Agency to bridge the differences between the implementation proposals presented by the U.S. and Russia, it was learned today by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The Soviet delegation, which was also approached by Agency representatives, has not yet committed itself in any way.

Under the Agency compromise, the United Nations Commission to implement the decision on partition would be appointed by the General Assembly from member states not necessarily members of the Security Council. However, the commission would be responsible to the Security Council. The effect of such a move would be that while Russia might not be represented on the implementation commission, she would still participate in supervising it through the Security Council. This would jibe with the American strategy of preventing Russia from being directly represented on the United Nations Commission, at the same time that it met the Russian desire to have a voice in the implementation procedure.

There are some Jewish leaders here who find the Soviet proposal more practical ## the American plan, since a Security Council implementation commission would virtually guarantee that there would be no violence in Palestine during the transition period, However, members of the American delegation are not certain that the partition plan would receive the necessary two-thirds vote at the Assembly if Russia has its way.

Since it is not likely that the Russian proposal will get a majority even in the Ad Hoc Committee, United Nations circles believe that Russia may be willing eventually to accept a compromise along the lines suggested by the Jewish Agency. The compromise will be discussed at the informal working group.


The Canadian proposals with regard to implementation were awaited with utmost interest at today’s sub-committee session, since it was assumed that they would indicate the mood prevailing among members of the British Empire concerning the differences between the American and the Russian implementation plans. However, the proposals were withheld at the last minute following instructions from Ottawa, where members of the Canadian Cabinet apparently disagreed on the text prepared by the Canadian delegation here. This left Canadian delegate Lester B. Pearson with nothing to do but read a preliminary statement merely analyzing the American and Russian proposals, without advancing any of his own.

Like the American delegation, the Canadian delegate emphasized the fact that the margin of difference between the American and Russian proposals was not wide. However, he called for a clear definition of measures to be taken during the transition period between the date of the Assembly decision on partition and the date of the withdrawal of the mandatory.

Canada, he said, agrees with the U.S. view that there should be no further transitional period following the withdrawal of the mandatory. At the same time, however, it realizes that a transitional period of some kind is unavoidable. “It does not seem to us the problem of this period can be dismissed as easily as has been done the representative of the United States,” Pearson said.


Such a transitional period, no matter how small, would create a legal vacuum in Palestine, the Canadian delegate said. He also urged the delegates to take into confideration the possibility that the settlement of the Palestine problem may not work {SPAN}##t{/SPAN} peaceably in the manner contemplated by the United Nations and that steps should be taken in advance to meet such an eventuality. Since the powers of the General Assembly are limited to recommendations only, it would be logical to entrust the implementation of the decision on Palestine either to the U.N. trusteeship system or to the Security Council, Pearson continued.

The Canadian delegate then went on to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of placing the Palestine issue under the supervision of either of these U.N. organs. He expressed the view that the Security Council would be most competent to take charge ##ing the transition period, but, at the same time, emphasized that “some practical difficulties” would result from use of the Security Council at this stage in the solution of the Palestine problem.

“The Security Council,” he said, “could not take effective action unless there are agreement among the permanent members that the present situation constitutes an ##sting threat to the peace. It would be necessary also that the permanent members ## as to the means of implementation. Before we make recommendations to the Security Council we should therefore make quite sure that there is general agreement among the permanent members in principle and to some extent also is detail on these two points.”


The fact that the United States and Russia at least got together today in a working body to seek unity on implementation of the UNSCOP partition plan was greeted in United Nations circles as an encouraging indication of the sincere desire of both major powers to secure the necessary two-thirds vote at the General Assembly. Although Soviet delegate Tsarapkin joined the body with certain reservations, a feeling of optimism prevailed that a unanimous implementation proposal may emerge from that body.

Meanwhile, the sub-committee dealing with coordination of Arab proposals today announced the approval of a proposed constitution for a unitary Arab state with a Jewish minority. The Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee of the General Assembly today began consideration of a joint proposal by Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon “on international cooperation to prevent immigration that is likely to disturb friendly relations between nations,” The resolution requests:

1. Member states of the United Nations should cease to accord aid and protection to individuals and organizations which, under humanitarian disguises, are aiming at promoting and encouraging immigration likely to disturb friendly relations between nations.

2. The Economic and Social Council to call immediately an international conference for the purpose of expediting the solution of the problem of refugees and displaced persons through the agency of the International Refugee Organization.


The working body on implementation started its deliberations this afternoon immedately after it was named, with Mr. Johnson representing the U.S. delegation. Si?tansously, it was announced by Chairman Ksawery Pruszynski of the sub-committee on partition that the working group on boundaries had completed its work and had submitted a report to him which will be distributed this evening to members of the sub-committee for consideration.

A general discussion on the boundaries, as well as on implementation, will be resumed by the sub-committee after the working group on implementation completes its deliberations. Mr. Pruszynski disclosed that the report on boundaries does not contain unanimous recommendations with regard to the requested revision of the Western ##les line.

The sub-committee unanimously adopted a clause empowering the joint economic ### to recommend fair and equal access of Palestine exports to the world markets. Commenting on this provision Dr. Jorge G. Granados of Guatemala said it was designed to discourage boycotts by one state against another, although he admitted that such boycotts in any case would be contrary to the spirit of the U.N. Charter.

The sub-committee adopted several amendments to the clauses relating to mutual freedom of transit and visit in the two states and in Jerusalem. The sub-committee ##ined the questions of: 1. A customs union; 2. A common currency; 3. Operations in the common interests of railways, interstate highways, postal, telephone and telegraph services and the ports of Haifa and Jaffa; 4. Joint economic development, especially ## irrigation, land reclamation and soil conservation; 5. A joint economic board.

Founding Funders

The digitization of the JTA Archive would not have been possible without the generous support of the following donors:
  • The Gottesman Fund
  • Righteous Persons Foundation
  • Charles H. Revson Foundation
  • Elisa Spungen Bildner and Robert Bildner, in honor of Norma Spungen
  • George S. Blumenthal
  • Grace and Scott Offen Charitable Fund