PALESTINE COMMITTEE

The Palestine position is now as follows-
1. The full Committee [1] received not less than 17 draft
proposals some referring to problem as a whole, others to certain
aspects only. The two main proposals were-
(A) United States proposal to agree in principle with majority
plan for partition and economic unity in Palestine.

(B) Three Arab States' proposal for independence for Palestine as
Unitary State.

2. However, United States in debate had proposed to alter
boundaries proposed by majority report and to refer detailed
consideration of majority of plan to Sub-Committee.

3. Dr. Evatt proposed that no preliminary vote on the two
competing principles should be taken until full Committee knew
what was involved in United States proposal including vital
function of partitional Government. He said that otherwise there
would be a second long debate with nothing decided at its end.

4. Similarly Arab proposals should be supplemented by details of
implementation Unitary State [which] would of course involve
handing over 660,000 Jews to Independent State containing
1,200,000 Arabs preserving Arab majority.

5. Accepting Dr. Evatt's suggestion, two Committees were
appointed-
(A) Sub-Committee 1 to draw up plan in accordance with United
States proposals based on majority plan and unanimous
recommendations of Special Committee to incorporate this plan in
form of recommendation to consider administrative responsibility
in Palestine during transitional period and to consider method by
which recommendations of Palestine Committee would be brought into
effect.

(B) Sub-Committee 2 to draw up analogous plan in accordance with
principles of Arab proposals.

6. In addition Dr. Evatt suggested that he and Vice-Chairman be
given authority to conciliate between all parties in dispute in
order to increase area of agreement and reduce areas of
disagreement. This was agreed to unanimously.

7. The other proposals of Dr. Evatt as Chairman were accepted and
Sub-Committee[s] have commenced work with provisional deadline of
October 29th for report to General Committee.

8. Composition of two Sub-Committees is as follows-
(A) Sub-Committee No. 1: Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala,
Poland, South Africa, United States, U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.

(B) Sub-Committee No. 2: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq,
Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen.

9. After initial Meeting of 22nd October Sub-Committee No. 1
adjourned until 27th to enable closer examination of report of
Special Committee and also some clarification of the ideas of the
individual members regarding the means of implementation of
majority plan.

10. Sub-Committee No. 2 has divided into three working groups to
consider-
(A) Legal aspects, including the request for a ruling by the
International Court of Justice and the legal points involved in
regard to the implementation of a plan for Palestine by the United
Nations.

(B) A detailed plan for the future Government of Palestine in
accordance with the Arab proposals for a Unitary Independent
State, and
(C) The question of Jewish displaced persons.

11. The object of Dr. Evatt's taking initiative was to secure at
the earliest possible moment a full presentation to the Ad Hoc
Committee on behalf of each of the two groups advocating
respectively the setting up of two States and the establishment of
the single Unitary State. When these two competing proposals are
fully before the Main Committee the decisive vote will be taken.

In addition Dr. Evatt has already taken the initiative in
preliminary attempt at conciliation.

12. Because of its decision to withdraw from Palestine United
Kingdom has refrained from joining either Sub-Committee. Canada,
South Africa and New Zealand are now publicly committed to
majority report in principle.

13. Typical comment on Dr. Evatt's handling Committee was-'It was
Dr. Evatt's loose reign but firm control that kept the Committee
to the business on hand -procedure rather than representations
debate on the majority of the proposals'.

14. Dr. Evatt has received numerous communications from Australia,
including Bishop Pilcher [2] all supporting adoption of majority
plan.