Talk:Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Proposals for the Future of Palestine

Are we sure that "Proposals for the Future of Palestine" was an Anglo-American Committee document? I can only find it mentioned as a British government document. Zero^talk 15:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This link states: "The Committee reported in Lausanne, Switzerland on 20 April 1946: Report of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry Regarding the Problems of European Jewry and Palestine (Miscellaneous No. 8 (1946) Cmd. 6808). The following year its long term recommendations were published Proposals for the Future of Palestine July, 1946-February, 1947 (Palestine No. 1 (1947) Cmd. 7044)."

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, I missed that. But I'm still not sure (call me fussy) since I looked at a lot of citations to it and none identified it as an AAC document. It is often used as a source for the Morrison-Grady plan, see the "Effects" section of this article. One book calls it "the Bevin plan". It could be that this is a UK document that includes the "long term recommendations" of the AAC. I will take a look at the document itself, but that might take a while (unless you can find it online). I can get all command papers but it's always a pain. Zero^talk 23:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I have examined original printed copies of both "Report of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry Regarding the Problems of European Jewry and Palestine" and "Proposals for the Future of Palestine". My report:

• "Report of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry Regarding the Problems of European Jewry and Palestine" matches the Avalon copy except that the title is longer and uses Enquiry rather than Inquiry (a US vs British spelling matter). Also the table of contents has some extras regarding maps that I'll report at Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine shortly.
• "Proposals for the Future of Palestine" is a British document that contains three items one after the other without any overall commentary.

(1) "Extract from the speech by the Right Hon. Herbert Morrison in the House of Commons on 31st July, 1946, describing the "Provincial Autonomy Plan" for Palestine (with explanatory map)". This is the part that could be (incorrectly) described as a further report of the A-A Committee. What Morrison actually says is that he is reporting on the examination by a team of US and British experts of the A-A Committee recommendations. Morrison/Viscount Addison's speech can found in Hansard but the last two paragraphs are different.

(2) "Constitutional proposals put forward by the Arab States Delegations to the Palestine Conference on 30th September, 1946". Proposes a unitary state with citizenship for any person who has been a resident of Palestine for the 10 years preceding his application for citizenship.

(3) "The proposals submitted by the British Delegation to the Palestine Conference on 7th February, 1947, and also communicated to representatives of the Jewish Agency". This proposes a 4-year trusteeship overseen by Britain followed by either a settlement agreed between Jews and Arabs or passing of the problem to the UN Trusteeship Council.

The Archives web page does not characterize this document correctly. It is definitely not an A-A Committee document. Zero^talk 10:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Zero - as you say, this seems to have been archived very oddly.

The Morrison speech is fascinating - particularly this part:

That brings me to a matter which I mention with some considerable reluctance. If we are ever going to achieve real Anglo-American co-operation, we must be perfectly frank with each other. Speaking entirely for myself, and on my own responsibility, I have been disappointed with the attitude to this problem taken up by the President of the United States. If I am correctly informed, and I think I am, his original request that 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe should be admitted into Palestine was made without any consultation either with the Mandatory Power or with the Arab State. This public comment on the Report, which contained, I would remind your Lordships, ten important recommendations, was merely to express delight that the Committee had decided to recommend admission of 100,000 Jews into Palestine. This gave a lead to powerful and unscrupulous American Zionist organizations to by-pass the body of the Report and focus public attention on one item only. That was certainly not the intention of the Committee. I hope that the President, who is a man with a load of trouble in his own country, has now found time to look a little deeper into this problem and that he has also realized that co-operation does not mean one nation telling another nation what it ought to do, but if it is to be real co-operation, it means sharing the task of carrying out the new policy formulated by a Committee, half of which was appointed by himself. We began our task by taking public evidence in Washington. I kept a diary and, if I may, would like to read to your Lordships very brief comments which I wrote on my way back to England. In Washington the following points impressed me: (1) The influence of the extreme Zionist movement in the United States is considerable, and they have powerful and influential support. (2) They insist on a Jewish majority and Jewish control in Palestine and nothing less. (3) The effect of their campaign in the United States is to discredit Britain in the minds of the American people and thus hinder the development of Anglo-American co-operation. (4) They are reluctant to admit that Jewish immigration into the United States might at least form part of the remedy for the problem of the homeless Jews of Europe and they are not interested in any plan for dealing with the victims of Nazi and Fascist persecution, except by sending them to Palestine. (5) Their failure to face up to the question of how peace and security can be preserved in Palestine; how and by whom opposition by Arabs, both inside and outside Palestine, would be kept in check; whether any defence force would be required, and, if so, whether they favoured a United States force to share the task of preserving peace and share the danger. These matters did not appear to interest them, and the conclusion I noted on my way back from America was that any proposals short of a Jewish State will be denounced as a betrayal of the Jewish cause.

Separately, in your points (2) and (3) above, do you know which "Palestine Conference" those documents refer to? UNSCOP perhaps?

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it was a separate ill-fated conference. See the new text in the "Effects" section. By the way, I'm not sure how the first and last paragraphs of that section fit into this article. Zero^talk 09:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Almost five years' later, and I have finally got round to creating Morrison-Grady Plan and London Conference of 1946-47.

I wondered from the above exchange whether you still have access to Cmd. 7044?

I might also create an article on the Bevin Plan.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: sorry for bothering you - i just found it in text format on this website. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Check your email anyway. Zero^talk 08:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: thank you sir. I have uploaded them all in djvu and in text. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleted paragraphs from lead

The following two paragraphs have been deleted from the lead. They were unsourced, but seem to be important context. Can anyone source these:

Although one of many committees of inquiry which examined the situation in Palestine, the Anglo-American committee was the only one to also examine the conditions of Jews in Europe. The committee held a large number of hearings in early 1946.

The British government suggested the inquiry in the belief that it would agree with their decision to halt Jewish migration into Palestine and thus disarm American pressure. To this end the British agreed to abide by the committee's findings, but made sure that British committee members had a record of supporting Palestinian-Arab aspirations. Within several days of the release of the Committee’s findings, its implementation was in jeopardy. U.S. President Harry S.Truman angered the British Labour Party by issuing a statement supporting the 100,000 refugees but refusing to acknowledge other aspects of the finding. The British government had asked for US assistance in implementing the recommendations.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If you do, don't forget to first introduce them to the article. The later is pretty much covered by the first paragraph in effects and has been represented by a short summary in the lead.(mostly missing the unsourced part about Truman). Also overall this article can do with a little more sources.--PLNR (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Going by an older revision, it seems that at some point, someone had a great idea to move part of the paragraph from effect into the lead. Instead of providing a summary of the event, thus creating the uncensored issue. I reintroduced it. Unless there any objections.--PLNR (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Recommendations

Hi, concerning this edit @Ykantor:

It seem to suggest that the committee unanimous recommendations was as a consequence of Bevin statement. It is not a conclusion that found in the second source, is it follows from the first? --PLNR (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo for use

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anglo-American_Committee_001.jpg

Needs a better description and source/verification. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)