Canada obstructed solution for Palestine based on international law

The following quote concerns the deliberations of the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine, charged with recommending a course of action for the United Nations in Palestine after the British had terminated their mandate, in the autumn of 1947.(note;(a) 'Subcommittee 2' refers to the subcommittee charged with considering proposals for a unitary state in Palestine (b)'Pearson'refers to Lester Pearson, Canada's Undersecretary of State and head of Canada's UN Delegation);

 

"However, there was also the report of Subcommittee 2 to discuss in the ad hoc committee. Subcommittee 2 if fact submitted three separate proposals to the ad hoc committee;(a)to refer the Palestine question to the International court.(b)to resettle Jewish refugees elsewhere and not in Palestine(c)to establish a unitary(Arab) state in Palestine. At first, Pearson thought that the idea to refer the matter to the International Court had some legal basis and deserved a careful and objective consideration. However, delegates of the Jewish Agency, horrified by the idea, explained to him that this was just a strategem on the part of the Arabs to prevent the assembly from reaching a decision. Finally, the Canadian delegation decided to oppose it. While in theory it was "desirable", in practice it would delay the solution for years and the British were not going to wait. Subcommittee 2's second proposal, considered by the Canadians as racial discrimination against the refugees, was also opposed by them.

 

As for the proposal to establish a unitary state, Pearson asked the members of Subcommittee 2 if they believed their solution could be achieved peacefully and if, according to them, there was a juridical basis in the Charter for the assembly to establish that state. Zafrullah Khan answered on the first question that only the people of Palestine could answer that. It was dependent on their will to co-operate. On the second question he answered that the League of Nations had already recognized the partial independence of Palestine by committing it to a mandate, which meant it had only needed administrative assistance from a mandatory power to achieve full independence. This assistance was no longer needed, and would terminate anyway; and therefore, Palestine's partial independence should turn into full independence. Pearson's reaction to these explanations was that they had convinced him that Subcommittee 2's plan "does not really mean anything at all." It was a mere impractical recommendation. On 24 November all three proposals of Subcommittee 2 were rejected by the ad hoc committee."

 

- Eliezer Tauber, "Personal Policy Making; Canada's Role in the Adoption of the Palestine Partition Resolution", pp 54-55

 

comments; 

1. It would appear that by by the time that Subcommittee 2's recommendations came to be considered, Canada's role, for whatever reasons, had been reduced to running interference for the Zionists

2. Was it not a tad hypocritical of Canada to deem restrictions on immigration to tiny Palestine(which had absorbed more than 10 times the number of Jewish refugees as Canada had during the Nazi reign of terror)as "racial discrimination", when Canada had an immigration policy that for all practical purposes barred Jews("None is too many")?

3. Zafrullah Khan could have turned Pearson's question back on himself; if Pearson sincerely thought that partition could be achieved peacefully, he was incredibly naive, as events would prove.  And was basis did partition, without the consent of Palestine's Arab majority, have in international law.

 

 In recognition of his work, Pearson was awarded the medallion of valour by the newly created state of Israel. He would go on to become Prime Minister .