• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

UN Middle East 1947

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

The majority proposal by UNSCOP is often citied as one of the "opportunities to miss an opportunity" by the Palestinians.1 But was it? The proposal put down that the Jews would get 55% of the land, the Arabs would get 42% and the around 3% was to be the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area under a corpus separatum to be governed under UN Trusteeship Council.2 The area that was allotted to each side were determined by the Jewish state having as few Arabs as possible and the Arab state having as few Jews as possible - i.e. demographics.3 However, it also took account of contiguity and, for the Jewish state, immigrant absorbent capacity.4 Fairness The plan looks reasonable but then comes the fact that the Jewish state had 45% Arab population.5 The population of Mandatory Palestine in its entirety was only 37% Jewish, meaning that the majority of the population was being denied what they wanted: a one state solution (or so it is presumed).6 The question of morality and democracy arises. But the answer is plain: there was no other alternative. ...read more.

Middle

This question heavily relies on your ideology: Zionists would say yes; the Arabs had been allotted Jordan and had vast areas of other Arab lands and Zionism was worth this price. However, this question becomes largely redundant when we consider the responses. Responses The Arabs said no.11 They even walked out of the General Assembly when they had lost the vote.12 It wasn't a matter of the Negev, or even the percentages of land that was going to be given. They wanted all of Palestine.13 As Tom Segev explains; In any case, still hostage to the rejectionist position they had adopted in 1917, they opposed partition and continued to demand independence in all of Palestine, promising to respect the rights of the Jewish minority.14 The Arab response was wrong, not only because the partition was arguably fair but because they completely flouted the idea of partition - based on any lies. Indeed, this was expected: they had already turned down 80%.15 They had also missed a tactical opportunity to regroup.16 The Jewish response is much more complex. ...read more.

Conclusion

And, given that no Palestinian Arab state was established, Israel was Mandate Palestine's successor state and heir to the state lands." 9 History of Palestine, Gudrun Kramer, p.307 (Princeton University Press, 2008) 10Ibid., p.307 11 There isn't any doubt about this whatsoever: Power, Faith and Fantasty, Michael Oren, p.491 (Norton, 2007), One Palestine, Complete, Tom Segev, p.496 (Abbacus, 2002), The Iron Wall, Avi Shlaim, p.27 (Penguin, 2000). 12 Righteous Victims, Benny Morris, p.186 (Vintage, 2001) 13 Kramer, p.307 14 Segev, p.496 can also be found here: http://www.passia.org/seminars/2000/israel/part3.html 15 Peel Commission (One State, Two State p.87-109) - I understand that one objection was to do with transfer but, as Segev stated, even without that deal would have be turned away because the Arabs rejected partition. 16 Segev, p.496 17 Shlaim, p.25 18 Segev, p.496 19 Righteous Victims, Morris, p.186 20 One State, Two State, Benny Morris, p.78 and Shlaim, p.29 21 Only speculation but given that what Ben-Gurion would have done in the absence of Arab rejectionism being unknown, it is the only thing I can do. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Why was the Six-day War of 1967 a Significant Turning Point in the History ...

    The west bank had now become a refugee centre. There was little hope for the future. This anger and hatred towards the Israelis led to many consequences. One of them being the 3 NOs. the Arabs were not prepared to accept the Israeli victory. In august 1967 the Arab leaders had a summit.

  2. American History.

    and, by 1814, was blockading almost every American port, which led the US gov't to the brink of bankruptcy. - In the Great Lakes a shipbuilding race began, which the US won, leading to their victory at the Battle of Put-in-Bay on September 10, 1813 and subsequent control over Lake Eerie.

  1. The role of Saddam Hussain in serving the aims of America in the Middle ...

    As a direct response, the industrial countries started to raise the prices of manufactured goods under the pretext that the cost of production had also increased due to the increase in oil prices, despite the fact that the rise in the prices of manufactured goods was not commensurate with the

  2. Dtente, meaning and definition.

    of his policy of the peaceful co-existence and strongly suggested the programme of the disarmament by all the states. He asked for a reduction of the foreign troops, establishment of an atom-free-zone in Central Europe and the withdrawal of the foreign troops and bases in foreign countries.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work