5
WEEK 1
Periods 3-4
UNSCOP partition plan
By the end of 1946, especially after the attack on the King David Hotel, the position of the British was becoming untenable.
READ PAGES 93- 94 then complete these tasks
TASK 1
QUESTION SHEET
1. What was UNSCOP?
2. Why was it set up and what was it supposed to do?
3. How did the Arab leaders react to it?
4. How did the Jews react to it?
5. What attack on British forces occurred in July 1947?
6. As far as the entire world was concerned, what was the biggest event that happened in Palestine in July 1947?
7; How did the British react to this?
8. What effect did this have on the Jews and the British
9. What was the date of the UNSCOP report?
10. When did Britain announce their intention to withdraw?
11. When was the UNSCOP plan voted on in the UN and what was the result?
Period 3
TASK 1
ANSWER SHEET
1. WHAT WAS UNSCOP?
The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) made of 11 neutral nations was formed in May, 1947.
2. Why was it set up and what was it supposed to do?
Britain asked the UN to do this. UNSCOP was to investigate the cause and devise a solution by visiting the Mandate and reporting back in September.
3. How did the Arab leaders react to it?
The Arab Higher Committee boycotted the Commission. They felt it was biased against them. They also claimed that the Palestinian Arab's natural rights were self-evident and cannot continue to be subject to investigation, but rather deserve to be recognized on the basis of the principles of the United Nations Charter.
4. How did the Jews react to it?
The Jews, on the other hand, co-operated fully.
5. What attack on British forces occurred in July 1947?
July 1947: The kidnapping and execution of two British soldiers by Irgun.
6. As far as the entire world was concerned, what was the biggest event that happened in Palestine in July 1947?
July 1947: Arrival of Haganah’s refugee ship the Exodus in Haifa, with 4500 Jewish refugees.
7; How did the British react to this?
The British sent them back to Europe – even though many of them had come from the concentration camps.
8. What effect did this have on the Kews and the British
This increased international sympathy for the Jews and their cause and undermined British reputation.
9. What was the date of the UNSCOP report?
August 1947: The UNSCOP Report
10. When did Britain announce their intention to withdraw?
September: Britain announce their intention to withdraw
11. When was the UNSCOP plan voted on in the UN and what was the result?
November: UN vote for partition by a 2/3rds majority 33 to 13 with 10 abstentions.
PERIOD 3
TASK 2
DO THE SOURCE BASED QUESTIONS ON PAGES 96-97.
THEN COMPARE YOUR ANSWERS WITH THE FOLLOWING AND MARK THEM YOURSELF.
P. 96 THE ATTACK ON THE KING DAVID HOTEL
Q 1.
(a) No, other than the hotel, according to Source B, was in the middle of Jerusalem. The fact that it was called the King David Hotel and was very posh (although this is not made clear in the sources) might have helped their decision in order to show who the dominant authority was, but this is not mentioned explicitly in the sources. Source D mentions the French being there too, but there is no indication that they chose it before or after the British, though it is most likely they chose it as their headquarters too after the British had chosen it. (3 marks)
(b) Only source F gives a sense of why it may have been delayed – possibly because Hagganah withdrew its support after speaking with Weizmann. It makes no mention of Begin then delaying it further. (2 marks)
Q.2 Source B does not give a reason for why the British did not evacuate the hotel, though it suggests indirectly that the British claim they were not given a warning.
By contrast, Source C suggests that the British did receive a warning, but that they deliberately chose to ignore it as they saw it as a question of authority and someone trying to tell them what to do, or in Sir John Shaw’s words “I don’t take orders from Jews”. Similarly Source D suggests that the British did receive a warning but denied it at first, though it does not explicitly state why the hotel was not evacuated.
3. The most immediate origin of Source A is a Jewish Website, alleging the existence of a member of British Parliament who in 1979 alleges he has evidence of a British Officer who overheard a conversation in which officers were saying that they were expecting terrorist attacks on the headquarters. There is no date for when this appeared on the website. The purpose of Source A seems to be to redress the balance in the argument about whether or not the British had been warned. The British had claimed for years that they had not been warned. Its main value is that it gives the Jewish side, and provides newly discovered evidence that was never in the official records. Its limitation lies in the fact that it does not clearly state who the MP is, nor whether or not he was speaking in Parliament. Thus it gives no direct evidence of what he said. Moreover his evidence is in part based on a claim about an officer whose name is not mentioned, and his evidence consists of an overheard conversation – so it is not written evidence.
The origin of Source E is a website called ‘deathmasters.com’. It is taken from an article on the massacre in a section entitled ‘Israeli Crimes’. Its purpose seems to be to provide readers with evidence of, in this case, Israeli Crimes in general, and the Kind David Attack or massacre as it calls it. Its value is that it makes some startling claims about the role of the Jewish Agency in the massacre, and potentially pens a new perspective on the debate, showing that it was not committed by independent fringe groups of terrorists. Its limitation is that is appears to be obviously biased against the Jews. Apart from the language used to describe the article and the website itself, it does not give any firm evidence of the claim that it makes about the role of the Jewish Agency.
The origin of Source F is a history book on the Arab-Israeli conflict written by Charles D Smith published in New York in 1988. Its purpose appears to be to give an accurate and objective account of the conflict, and differentiate between the role of the different agencies invovled. Its value is that, if it is based on thorough research then it will provide a more objective analysis of this controversial aspect of the conflict. Moreover, the fact that it says that the objective of Lehi and Irgun was to kill British soldiers rather than officers, suggests that no warning was given. However, its limitation is that it does not address this particular issue in any detail. Similarly, being an American one has to consider whether Mr Smith’s account is ultimately biased in favour off the Jews, though there is no obvious sign of that in this paragraph.
Q 4 . The attitude of the cartoonist of Source G seems to be one of sadness and sympathy with the British and those who were killed, and against the people responsible for the attack. It was published the next day. The attackers are called ‘Zionist terrorists.’ The soldiers look sad and angry. Moreover, the dead body is covered with a sheet on which is written ‘World Sympathy with Zionism’ suggesting that this attack will kill world sympathy with Zionism. Source H is a photograph and gives us some idea of the large scale of the explosion. It might give the British government a sense of what they are up against. They could influence British policy into becoming more severe with the Jews and Zionism, or perhaps to decide to wash their hands of an intractable problem. Having said that, there are no dead bodies in that photograph, so that makes it less powerful.
Q. 5
The comment of the Jewish Agency could be explained by suggesting that they are simply trying to distance themselves publically from the bombers, in order to suggest that they themselves are not base, have no connections with such criminals and so cannot be associated with it or blamed for it in any way by the British. That way, the British will have to blame an independent gang, not the Jewish Government itself, for , at that moment, this was the last thing they needed. It would not have gained them much international support to have been seen to have supported this attack on the King David Hotel.
Q.6
The fact that it was a year later that the British finally announced they were pulling out could be put down to the influence of this attack. So many deaths could certainly have reduced or even sapped the morality of British soldiers and officers, and made them think that the situation was now well and truly intractable and unresolveable. Having said that, they did not leave immediately. The explosion happened in 46, withdrew in 48. Moreover, it could have forced the British to retaliate against the Jews even more ferociously than they had been doing before the attack.
PERIOD 4
DETAILS OF THE PARTITON
POSSIBLE SOURCES
For the entire report see:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
For a Jewish Canadian account of its making, see:
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/unscop.html
MISCELLANEOUS RE THE EXODUS
For the account of one passenger on the Exodus, see
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1998/Jun-18-Thu-1998/lifestyles/7603038.html
For the Exodus see
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Immigration/exodus.html
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005419
jewish account
http://www.exodus1947.org/
for photos see
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blpdpexodus.htm
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/ministere_817/archives-patrimoine_3512/expositions_11556/expositions-ligne_14041/60e-anniversaire-etat-israel_18854/exodus-47_62427.html
For 2 videos from the Israel commission (downloaded) see
http://www.israelcommission.fr/mediatheque2.htm