Resolution 181

The Three Oaths and Joseph (4 December, 2014, 12 Kislev, 5775)

Contents:
1. The Three Oaths. Resolution 181
2. The Voting  for Resolution 181
3. The Wikipedia Account: How the USA Influenced the vote.
4. Subsequent Events. The Role of Britain
5. Analyzing the Vote
6. Osvaldo Aranha from Brazil. An Unsung Hero
7. Conclusion
===============================
===============================
1. The Three Oaths. Resolution 181

On the 23rd day of September 1947, a majority of UN member nation voted to partition Palestine and in effect recognize a Jewish State.
In Jewish religious thought this event was very important. It meant that the Nations of the World were giving the Jews permission to return and be independent.
The curse had ended.
See:
THE THREE OATHS, ISRAEL, and EPHRAIM by Alexander Zephyr.
http://hebrewnations.com/articles/guest/the-three-oaths,-israel,-and-ephraim-by-alexander-zephyr.html
In this article, Alexander Zephy, discusses the Three Oaths. He tries to claim they related to the Ten Tribes, but they did not.
They pertain to Judah.

Talmud, Ketubot 111a :

# What are these Three Oaths?
One, that Israel should not storm the wall (Rashi: forcefully return to the Land of Israel).

Two, the Holy One made Israel take an oath not to rebel against the nations of the world.

Three, the Holy one made the nations vow that they would not oppress Israel too much. #

Now these oaths are not halachically (legally) binding. The source itself is not considered authoritative and what exactly it means is not certain, etc.
Not only that but the oaths are considered as mutually dependent. Once the Gentiles persecuted the Jews overduly, as they did, then the oaths would no longer be binding.
Nevertheless, in case there were those who thought (and still think) there was still something to them, the UN vote had significance.
It meant the Jews had not rebelled against the Gentiles.  The Gentiles had given them permission. Once permission is given it cannot be circumscribed.
Someone who has a slave and then frees the slave makes the slave his equal.  He cannot revoke it. re.

In 2012  an overwhelming majority - 138 in favour to 9 against (Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States), with 41 abstentions. the General Assembly today accorded Palestine non-Member Observer State status in the United Nations.

The so-called entity of Palestine is in the territory of Israel over which the Jews have proprietary rights.
In  a spiritual sense the Jews are no longer subject to Gentile whims.  The Instinct of self-Preservation still prevails however so naturally the Jews should be careful not to unnecessarily antagonize their non-Jewish neighbors on this planet but their is a limit.   Resolution 181 established that.

At the  time of Resolution 181 the UN had only 56 member states since many now independent countries were then colonies of other powers. A few nations (e.g. Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland) had not joined out of choice whereas others (East and West Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc) had not been sufficiently reconstituted after WW2.
33 were to vote in favor of partition, 13 were against, 10 abstained, and 1 was absent.

===============================
===============================
2. The Voting  for Resolution 181

Here are extracts from an Arab or pro-Arab source:  Note that EVEN THOUGH Britain  abstained it persuaded its Commonwealth Partners to Vote in Favor!

Resolution 181: The Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947
http://www.1948.org.uk/un-resolution-181/
On the 23rd day of September 1947, the General Assembly assigned the question of partitioning of Palestine to its Ad Hoc Committee. Another sub-committee was to study the proposal of establishing a unitary State in Palestine in which the Democratic Constitution would guarantee the human rights and fundamental freedom of all its citizens without distinction as to race, language or religion. The two reports were submitted and after prolonged discussions, there was great pressure from the United States and Soviet Delegations to adopt the Resolution to Partition Palestine.

It was on 25 November 1947 that the world became acquainted for the first time with the final draft of the partition resolution: Resolution 181. The General Assembly refused a resolution to submit the Palestine question to the International Court of Justice to determine whether the UN had any jurisdiction to recommend the partition of Palestine or any other country.

For a draft resolution to become an official one, UN procedures required a two-third majority of its ad hoc committee. As two votes were lacking for such a majority, the draft was handed to the General Assembly. Both Zionist and Arab delegations were now in a race against time. Other delegates who had originally favoured the partition proposals, but now seemed to be wavering, were pressured and guided by the White House to ensure that a favourable outcome is secured. Concerted and remarkable lobbying by the Zionist lobby ensured at the last moment that those 8 wavering and doubtful votes, were swung into the partition lobby. The strength of the Jewish/Zionist lobby in Washington should not have come as a surprise to the world community.

Zionist politicians did not waste time to recruit and lobby wavering delegates. Intensive efforts were made by the Zionist leadership around the world to gain crucial votes: the French altered their position from abstention to supporting the resolution; Liberia, as a result of economic promises, offered support; the direct lobbying of President Truman and pro-Zionist senators and congressmen secured the votes of 12 out of 20 Latin American countries.

Not to be forgotten, the President of the General Assembly for that session was Oswaldo Aranha who is known to have lobbied as fiercely as the Zionists to sway the vote for acceptance. He even postponed the voting session for 3 days to ensure passage.

On Saturday morning, 29 November 1947, and against the will of the Palestinian people, the General Assembly in New York voted for the partition of Palestine and accepted Resolution 181. It was supported by 33 votes with 13 opposed and 10 abstentions including Britain, whose prime minister Clement Attlee saw to it that Britain's Commonwealth partners voted for it.

The roll-call vote was as follows: For (33) - Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, South Africa, Uruguay, the Soviet Union, the United States, Venezuela, White Russia.

Against (13) - Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Abstentions (10) - Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

Absent (1) - Siam.

===============================
===============================
3. The Wikipedia Account: How the USA Influenced the vote.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Reports_of_pressure_for_the_Plan
Extracts:

Proponents of the Plan reportedly put pressure on nations to vote yes to the Partition Plan. A telegram signed by 26 US senators with influence on foreign aid bills was sent to wavering countries, seeking their support for the partition plan.[61] Many nations reported pressure directed specifically at them...

Liberia (Vote: For): Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries.[65] Harvey S. Firestone, Jr., President of Firestone Natural Rubber Company, with major holdings in the country, also pressured the Liberian government[57][61]

Philippines (Vote: For): In the days before the vote, the Philippines' representative General Carlos P. Romulo stated "We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government holds that the United Nations ought not to accept such responsibility". After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines' vote changed.[61]

Haiti (Vote: For): The promise of a five million dollar loan may or may not have secured Haiti's vote for partition.[66]

France (Vote: For): Shortly before the vote, France's delegate to the United Nations was visited by Bernard Baruch, a long-term Jewish supporter of the Democratic Party who, during the recent world war, had been an economic adviser to President Roosevelt, and had latterly been appointed by President Truman as the United States' ambassador to the newly created UN Atomic Energy Commission. He was, privately, a supporter of the Irgun and its front organization, the American League for a Free Palestine. Baruch implied that a French failure to support the resolution might cause planned American aid to France, which was badly needed for reconstruction, French currency reserves being exhausted and its balance of payments heavily in deficit, not to materialise. Previously, in order to avoid antagonising its Arab colonies, France had not publicly supported the resolution. After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it.
So, too, did France's neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.[56]

===============================
===============================
4. Subsequent Events. The Role of Britain

British government[edit]
Wikipedia

In a British cabinet meeting at 4 December 1947, it was decided that the Mandate would end at midnight 14 May 1948, the complete withdrawal by 1 August 1948, and Britain would not enforce the UN partition plan.[109] On 11 December 1947, Britain announced the Mandate would end at midnight 14 May 1948 and its sole task would be to complete withdrawal by 1 August 1948.[110] During the period in which the British withdrawal was completed, Britain refused to share the administration of Palestine with a proposed UN transition regime, to allow the UN Palestine Commission to establish a presence in Palestine earlier than a fortnight before the end of the Mandate, to allow the creation of official Jewish and Arab militias or to assist in smoothly handing over territory or authority to any successor.[111][112]

The Partition Plan with Economic Union was not realized in the days following the 29 November 1947 resolution as envisaged by the General Assembly.[11] It was followed by outbreaks of violence in Mandatory Palestine between Palestinian Jews and Arabs known as the 1947-48 Civil War.[10] At midnight on 14 May 1948, the British Mandate expired,[115] and Britain disengaged its forces. Earlier in the evening, the Jewish People's Council had gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved a proclamation, declaring "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel".[6][116] The 1948 Arab-Israeli War began with the invasion of, or intervention in, Palestine[117] by the Arab States on 15 May 1948.

http://www.1948.org.uk/un-resolution-181/
... On the afternoon of May 14, 1948 the Jewish State of Israel was proclaimed just as the Sabbath began at sunset that day. At 6:11pm Washington time, U.S. President Harry Truman authorised the recognition of Israel. Truman's decision to recognise the new State was not shared by many of his high ranking advisors, such as Dean Rusk, Dean Acheson, Secretary of Defence James Forrestal and Secretary of State George Marshall (read details of White House showdown leading to this recognition by Truman).

The British mandate ended the next day on 15th May 1948 at noon.

Arab States invaded immediately afterwards.

The day before the British left, the Arabs in Palestine attacked the Jews attempting to massacre them.
The next day the armies of neighboring ARAB STATES  invaded the country.
They were in for a surprise.
Someone had changed the rules.

Before the British left  there were cases in which British officials and soldiers acted on behalf of the Arabs.
This created an optical illusion of Britain having been against the Jews.
Recent studies however such  as those of Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate, 2000, show that the British in effect enabled the Jews to take over.
This view has been criticized in a  Review by Efraim Karsh
http://www.meforum.org/1413/one-palestine-complete

Nevertheless, the overall impression is that Segev is correct on this point and in the views of some even more than he realizes.
There were also attempts by certain British politicians, officials, and soldiers to reverse the Jewish victory but these were undone largely by other Britishers.

Resolution 181 had had importance both in the eyes of the Jews and of the Gentiles.
===============================
===============================
5. Analyzing the Vote

We saw the importance of US support and US pressure on influencing the vote.
The British were also important.

The Final Vote in favor was:
For (33) - Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, South Africa, Uruguay, the Soviet Union, the United States, Venezuela, White Russia.

Note that Australia was the first to vote in country. This was since its name begins with A. Even so, it has significance.

All Nations, apart from Britain, whom we identify as basically Israelite voted in favor:
Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand,  Norway, Sweden, South Africa, the United States.

The USSR and all its satellite states also voted in favor.
This was a still unexplained aberration on behalf of the Communists. They had opposed Zionism before then and were to be against it even more vehemently afterwards.

Not one single Muslim state voted in favor. This exemplifies a phenomenon of Islam that should be taken note of: Just as everyone in the USA may consider themselves American and be patriotically American no matter what their ethnic group so too all Muslims consider themselves part of the Islamic nation.

Countries who voted Against (13) - Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Cuba, Greece, India, are the only non-Muslim nations here.
Cuba  is a Latin nation. 7 out of the 10 abstentions were also Latin.
Spain at that time was not a member of the UN.
Latin nations who voted in favor were:
Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti [French African but  Latin],  Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines [Malay-Spanish], Uruguay.
Some of these nations had intended to vote against but changed their mind (e.g., the Philippines) after US pressure.
The Latin bloc is basically negative if left to itself.
There are however exceptions concerning individuals from Latin Nations. One of these was Osvaldo Aranha from Brazil.
===============================
===============================
6. Osvaldo Aranha from Brazil. An Unsung Hero

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osvaldo_Aranha
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Osvaldo Euclides de Sousa[1] Aranha (February 15, 1894 - January 27, 1960) was a Brazilian politician, diplomat and statesman, who came to national prominence in 1930 under Getulio Vargas.[2]

He is known in international politics for lobbying for the creation of the State of Israel as head of the Brazilian delegation to the UN and President of the UN General Assembly in 1947.[3] As head of the Brazilian delegation, he was President of the United Nations General Assembly in 1947 during the UNGA 181 vote on the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, in which he postponed the vote for three days to ensure its passage.[4][5

Prior to that  Aranha had been influential in Brazil cutting (1942) all diplomatic ties with Nazi Germany,and  thereby siding with the USA and its Allies.
Eventually most Central and South American states did the same, with the exception of Argentina and Chile.
Both Argentina and Chile were to abstain from the vote.
Argentina is dominated by people of Spanish, Italian, and German ancestry.
Chile is mixed white and Amerindian with the whites dominating. Most of the whites are from Spain. About 3.2 million (20%) Chileans have a surname (one or both) of Basque origin. Germans are also important amongst the ruling class.
==============================
===============================
7. Conclusion

We identify western nations with the Lost Ten Tribes. The Tribes of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) are especially important amongst English-speaking peoples.
The involvement of these peoples with the State of Israel and the events leading up to it are consistent with these identifications.