The United Nations (UN) Partition Plan for Palestine in November 1947 not only divided the region geographically, but also the opinion of the international community. The end of the First World War saw the acquisition of Palestine by the British and later the separation of the region into two states, one Arab and the other Jewish. In the years following, the territory has been ardently contested and continues to draw international attention due to ongoing tension. It will be argued that the support for the Partition Plan by the United States was substantially driven by domestic politics. The following issues will be examined in order to see how domestic politics influenced and was intertwined with foreign policy: the extensive Jewish lobbying …show more content…
efforts, the significance placed on the Jewish vote in the 1948 presidential election, and the political and economic pressures faced by the United States in relation to the mass immigration of Jewish refugees. In order to examine the United States’ domestic political impact on their support for the Partition Plan, it is first necessary to understand the nature of the problem. Under the League of Nations Mandate system, Great Britain was granted colonial power over Palestine after the Ottoman’s defeat in World War One (World Book, Inc., 2007). The Mandate’s requirements were for the British to promote an environment that would enable the indigenous population to self-govern (Reich, 1996). Shortly after the conclusion of the Second World War, Great Britain brought the ‘problem of Palestine’ to the newly formed United Nations. The basis for Britain’s submission to the United Nations was that they were faced with conflicting obligations in regards to the Mandate as well as economic and political pressures (United Nations, 1990). There, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), a committee of eleven members, was established to recommend answers for the question of Palestine (American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, 2015). The majority proposal by the UNSCOP was that Palestine should be partitioned into two independent states, one Arab and the other Jewish with Jerusalem internationalised (United Nations, 1990). The United Nations General Assembly adopted the proposal, Resolution 181, on the 29th November 1947 with a two-thirds majority (World Book, Inc., 2007). Thirty-three nations voted in favour of the resolution, thirteen against and ten abstentions (Reich, 1996). The United States and other Western nations, bar Great Britain, were the primary voters in favour of the proposal while Arab nations voted against the resolution. The efforts of the Jewish lobby in the United States influenced President Harry Truman’s position on Palestine and subsequently America’s support for the Partition. Although there were some, namely educators, missionaries and former diplomats who argued against the creation of a Jewish state, they were no match for the Zionists (Mattar, 2005). The Zionist Organization of America and their proxies are considered the primary force behind the lobby (Cohen, 1990). The strength of the Jewish lobby was dependent on whether they could persuade the administration that they held two valuable assets: the Jewish vote and Jewish finance. The Jewish lobby made it clear to the administration of what they wanted and were more effective than the Arab lobbyists who did not have the knowledge of how to pull the levers of power in Washington (Fraser, 1989). As T. G. Fraser asserts in The USA and the Middle East Since World War 2, the key to the Zionist’s success in lobbying for American support for a Jewish state was their well-honed campaign that guaranteed that American politicians and the public were aware of their desires in relation to Palestine. In May 1948, Truman stated, “As far as I am concerned, I don’t think there has ever been more lobbying and pulling and hauling than has been carried on by Jews in this Palestine difficulty with which we have faced.” (Fraser, 1989). This lobbying by Jewish organisations influenced America’s foreign policy affecting Palestine and was a key reason why America supported the proposal. Truman’s pro-Zionists advisors and acquaintances played a substantial role in the lobbying efforts for the Partition and consequently influenced America’s support for the Jewish state in Palestine.
There were members of Truman’s administration that were opposed to the Partition, due to the concern of it affecting American interests and relations in the Middle East, the potential for Russia to exert their influence and the possibility that it could contribute to future tension in the region. However, pro-Zionist staff in Truman’s administration and Jewish friends influenced Truman’s support for the issue (Fraser, 1989). Truman’s pro-Zionist advisors and aides played a significant role in the shaping of his policy regarding Palestine, without him feeling he was simply bowing to electoral blackmail due to the upcoming 1948 presidential election (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007). Due to the lobbyist’s efforts, both within Truman’s administration and outside of it Truman was well aware of the Zionist case and as a result shaped his support for the …show more content…
Partition. The pressure faced by Truman to obtain the Jewish vote and finance in the 1948 election influenced him to conform to Jewish wishes regarding the Partition of Palestine.
The election in 1948 played a noteworthy role in America’s position to support the partition (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007). Truman not only made the decision to support the Partition due to genuine sympathy for the Jewish case and his personal religious convictions, but also because he was aware that his decision was backed by many American Jews and would yield domestic political benefits (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007). Jewish voters made up approximately four per cent of the national vote in presidential elections and were important in not only in the highly sort after state of New York, but also larger states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois (Cohen, 1990). The Jewish vote was powerful not due to the number, but rather due to its ability to swing votes and therefore determine the result of the election. In addition, Jewish financial support was considered vital for electoral success, particularly for the Democratic Party (Cohen, 1990). Due to pressure to obtain the Jewish vote and finance in the 1948 presidential election, Truman and his administration were persuaded to support the Partition as being backed by Jewish Americans was seen as vital to electrical
success. The support for the partitioning of Palestine by the United States was also influenced by the domestic dissatisfaction with allowing large numbers of Jewish refugees into America. Following the Holocaust, that saw the death of 5.5 million Jews and over 330,000 Jewish refugees in camps awaiting relocation, the international community looked for a solution to the humanitarian crisis (McBride, n.d). Anti-Semitic feeling within America did not lessen after the Second World War and as a result, opposition to the immigration of displaced Jewish people remained strong (McBride, n.d.). Many Americans, although opposed to easing Jewish immigration quotas, were in support of Jewish immigration to Palestine. As a result, the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine became increasingly more popular as a solution for the refugees (McBride, n.d.). With Americans generally opposed to an increased in Jewish immigration, but in support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine the administration was influenced to back the Partition as it was domestically popular and would help them politically. Fear of economic repercussions clouded American public opinion on Jewish immigration and subsequently paved the way for America’s support for the Partition. As America emerged from the Great Depression, employment was scarce and there was a prevalent fear amongst Americans that with the return of soldiers from the war and the immigration of Jews, Americans would have to compete with cheap foreign labour (McBride, n.d.). There was also concern that with the increased Jewish immigration that they would put a strain on social services (UMBC, n.d.). Due to public opinion, Truman’s administration was influenced to support the Partition and therefore a solution to the refugee problem. The fear of economic and political consequences ensured domestic censure of Jewish immigration also extended to Congress. Due to the strong opposition by the American public to an increase in immigration, any politician who campaigned for an increase in immigration for refugees was condemning themselves politically (UMBC, n.d.). Truman knew there would be political consequences if he did not support the partition both from the general and Jewish population. When the resolution was voted on, public and political opinion was heavily in favour of the Partition of Palestine (Mattar, 2005). A survey in early April of 1945 showed that fifty-nine per cent of Americans supported the creation of a Jewish state and furthermore forty-two per cent of Americans welcomed America exerting influence to achieve it (Fraser, 1989). In addition, the fear of negative economic effects and an excess of labours if an increase of immigrants was allowed also contributed to a lack of congressional support (Shoah Resource Center, n.d.). This absence of support for increasing Jewish immigration due fear of economic and political repercussions and support from the general population influenced America’s foreign policy in relation to Palestine. Truman’s decisions regarding Palestine were often based on political expediency rather than adroit diplomacy. The support granted to the Partition was influenced heavily by domestic politics and public opinion. Truman’s conforming to Jewish lobbyists, the significance placed on the vote and opinion of Jews in the 1948 election as well as public opinion in favour of the Partition all influenced America’s support for the creation of two states.
The Middle East has historically rebuked Western influence during their process of establishing independence. When Britain and France left the Middle East after World War II, the region saw an unprecedented opportunity to establish independent and self-sufficient states free from the Western influence they had felt for hundreds of years. In an attempt to promote nationalistic independence, the states of the region immediately formed the League of Arab States in 1945. The League recognized and promoted the autonomy of its members and collaborated in regional opposition against the West until 1948 when Israel declared independence. Israel represented then and now an intrusive Western presence in the Arab world. The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict typifies this cultural antagonism. The Cold War refocused attention to the Middle East as a site of economic and strategic importance for both sides, yet the two hegemons of the Cold War now needed to recognize the sovereignty of the Middle Eastern states. With their statehood and power cemented, the Middle Easte...
There are many opinions surrounding the question: Was the decision by Truman to drop the atomic bomb ultimately the right or wrong decision? Not only can this question be answered in many different ways, it can be interpreted in many different ways as well. Overall, Truman ultimately made the right decision to drop the atomic bomb. This can be supported by the fact that the atomic bomb helped prevent the deaths of American troops, saved the lives of foreign citizens, and in comparison the atomic bomb was not as destructive as the firebombing in Tokyo.
Conflicts between people often have multiple causes and effects. A majority of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an argument that dates back to Biblical times. The Jewish argue Palestine was the historical site of all Jewish kingdoms, which was promised to Abraham and his descendants. The Arabs argue that Ishmael, forefather of Arabs, is the son of Abraham so God’s promise that the land should go to Abraham’s descendents includes Arabs as well . Some of the main causes which worsen the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the disparity between Sykes-Picot agreement and Balfour Declaration, The United Nation Partition plan of 1947, which was the separation of the boundaries, and Hitler’s Final Solution. While these causes affected both sides
Winter, J. (2002, Jan). The Death of American Antisemitism by Spencer Blakeslee. American Sociological Association. Retrieved Mar 2, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3089419
Harry S Truman and Dwight David Eisenhower were both Presidents of the United States from the 1940s to 1950s, with the latter succeeding Truman. Both these presidents served two consecutive terms, despite the fact that Truman’s first term was given by default as the result of a misfortune, which brought him the nickname of ‘Accidental President’, and the suspicion and doubt by many of his capabilities as President. Truman and Eisenhower are both from the South, though both were born into considerably poor families, Truman had actually experienced poverty whereas Eisenhower was more privileged, to receive a more sheltered beginning; their social background influenced greatly their general belief and stance, enactment of policies, and their views on domestic affairs. Despite their social setback, Truman endeavoured in law and politics, and became a career politician during the Interbellum period, whilst Eisenhower a career soldier, who rose to prominence and became a General known for his planning of Operation Overlord, factoring greatly into his likeness and favourability by Americans, yet showed him as an inexperienced politician. Truman and Eisenhower were of opposing parties, yet Eisenhower had no political stance originally, it was only after his siding with the Republican party that he received the nickname, the ‘Middle Road’, due to the moderate political stance and likeness by both parties he had despite his party affiliation, Eisenhower’s liberal side showed particularly in his actions concerning healthcare, education and welfare, such as his expansion of Social Security, which similarly paralleled Truman’s attitudes towards social welfare. Despite such si...
This paper discusses ethnic conflict between Jews and gentiles in the area of immigration policy. Immigration policy is, however, only one aspect of conflicts of interest between Jews and gentiles in America. The skirmishes between Jews and the gentile power structure beginning in the late nineteenth century always had strong overtones of anti- Semitism. These battles involved issues of Jewish upward mobility, quotas on Jewish representation in elite schools beginning in the nineteenth century and peaking in the 1920s and 1930s, the anti- Communist crusades in the post- World War II era, as well as the very powerful concern with the cultural influences of the major media extending from Henry Ford's writings in the 1920s to the Hollywood inquisitions of the McCarthy era and into the contemporary era. That anti- Semitism was involved in these issues can be seen from the fact that historians of Judaism (e. g., Sachar 1992, p. 620ff) feel compelled to include accounts of these events as important to the history of Jews in America, by the anti- Semitic pronouncements of many of the gentile participants, and by the self- conscious understanding of Jewish participants and observers.
The position on Zionism and Israel shows one of the major changes that the Reform Judaism has undergone. In the Pittsburgh Platform written in 1885, it displays the first look into what the goals were for the Reform movement. The Pittsburgh Platform states that the movement does not support the idea of a Jewish homeland. The Reform movement has given up on the idea of going back to Israel, and having a Jewish homeland. “ We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine…” (Roiter, Urowitz, Zeliger 131). This passage conveys the idea that a Jewish state is no longer needed because they consider themselves no l...
Criticisms of Truman’s actions fail to consider that he entered a leadership position set on an ideological collision course, was forced to further an established plan for an atomic monopoly, and dealt with a legacy of US-Russian tensions mobilized by Roosevelt prior to his death, all while being influenced by an alarmist and aggressive cabinet. Upon reviewing criticisms of Truman’s negotiations with Soviet diplomat Vyacheslav Molotov and his involvement in the atomic bomb drop, the influence of Roosevelt’s legacy and Truman’s cabinet will be discussed in order to minimize his blame for starting the Cold War. History does not often remember President Harry Truman fondly, with many revisionist scholars characterizing him as an ornery and undiplomatic politico who severely damaged US and Soviet relations.... ... middle of paper ...
Hertzberg, Arthur. (1973). The Jews of the United States. New York: Quadrangle/ The New York Times Book Co.
Offner, Arnold. “‘Another Such Victory’: President Truman, American Foreign Policy, and the Cold War.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views On Controversial Issues in United States History. Ed. Larry Madaras and James M. SoRelle. 14th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 291-301.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted for a partition resolution that led to the establishment of the nation of Israel in May, 1948. This was great news for Jews in Palestine and the diaspora as it meant the fulfillment of the quest for the rebirth of their nation in their previous homeland after many years of wandering (Pappe, 2006, p. 12). However, their Palestinian Arab counterparts opposed to the establishment from the start felt cheated by the international community and remained categorical that the final answer to the Jewish problem would only be solved in blood and fire (Karsh, 2002, p. 8).
New York: William Morrow. Lipsett, S. M. & Co., P.A. and Ladd, E. C. (1971) The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secon "Jewish Academics in the United States: Their Achievements, Culture and Politics." American Jewish Yearbook -. Cited for Zuckerman, Harriet (1977).
At the end of World War II, the military and foreign policies of the White House were moving in opposite directions. Militarily, the U.S. adopted a position of rapid demobilization after the war. Meanwhile, Truman had a strong desire to meet the communist ‘threat’ head on. Congress, however, did not share Truman’s view of needing "to meet the Communist challenge wherever it appeared." For example, Senator Robert Taft, a prominent Republican senator, "expressed the current mood when he objected to any attempt by the Administration to divide the world into communist and anti-communist zones, for "he did not want war with the Soviet Union." As for the sentiment of the American public, "there was no denying that the majority of the American people did not want to embark on a Crusade." With opposition from not only the American public but also from Congress, President Truman had to take action in order to convince Americans of the reality of the Soviet threat, in addition to the threat of communism in general. In fact, Truman was even told that he would need “to scare the hell out of the American people.” He did just that with the Truman Doctrine.
The partition plan for Palestine that was adopted by the UN in 1947 was disastrous; rather than solving the conflict, it exacerbated the problem. This partition plan created a massive refugee crisis, the loss of Palestinian Arab identity, ongoing war between Israel and the Arab states, and tremendous political instability in the Middle East. Essentially, the partition plan should have never been enacted. Instead, a plan which joined both sides in a common goal and allowed all parties to maintain political power should have been implemented. A modified version of the 1947 proposal for a federal solution would have decreased the future violence in the conflict because it would have balanced the power dynamics by giving both Palestinian Arabs and the Jewish
Since the inception of an Israeli nation-state in 1948, violence and conflict has played a major role in Israel’s brief history. In the Sixty-One year’s Israel has been a recognized nation-state, they have fought in 6 interstate wars, 2 civil wars, and over 144 dyadic militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) with some display of military force against other states (Maoz 5). Israel has been involved in constant conflict throughout the past half century. Israel’s tension against other states within the Middle East has spurred vast economic, social, and political unity that has fostered a sense of nationalism and unity in Israel not seen in most other states. Over the next several pages I will try and dissect the reasons for why the nation state of Israel has been emerged in constant conflict and how this conflict has helped foster national unity and identity among the people of Israel.