{"created":"2024-03-28T09:11:37.116545+00:00","id":2009763,"links":{},"metadata":{"_buckets":{"deposit":"ea000a7a-29dc-43f5-8037-6ee0b2239263"},"_deposit":{"created_by":18,"id":"2009763","owner":"18","owners":[18],"pid":{"revision_id":0,"type":"depid","value":"2009763"},"status":"published"},"_oai":{"id":"oai:repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp:02009763","sets":["46:2942:1711605028564","9:504:2944:1711605142657"]},"author_link":[],"item_4_biblio_info_7":{"attribute_name":"書誌情報","attribute_value_mlt":[{"bibliographicIssueDates":{"bibliographicIssueDate":"2024-03-31","bibliographicIssueDateType":"Issued"},"bibliographicPageEnd":"253(244)","bibliographicPageStart":"434(63)","bibliographicVolumeNumber":"185","bibliographic_titles":[{"bibliographic_title":"東洋文化研究所紀要","bibliographic_titleLang":"ja"},{"bibliographic_title":"The memoirs of Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia","bibliographic_titleLang":"en"}]}]},"item_4_description_5":{"attribute_name":"抄録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"This study analyzes the The Proceedings of the Provisional Government Meetings, Vols.5-6（14 to 28 July 1948）and gives a review of its main contents, the Arab question. As a follow-up to my previous paper published in this journal in March 2022, this study is also intended to be a preliminary step toward revisiting the formative years of Israel, this time focusing on the five cabinet meetings between 14 July and 28 July 1948, during which serious debate over the beginning of the Second Truce, the demilitarization of Jerusalem, and the repatriation of refugees took place. There are three main arguments in this paper.\nFirst, I argue that Benny Morris’s conclusion in the Chapter 5 of his book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited that “The political decision to bar a return had matured over April-June” and that it “had become official policy in July” are correct and well-founded. As far as the proceedings of the cabinet meetings in June and July show, the cabinet consensus at the 16 June cabinet meeting that the repatriation of refugees could not be permitted during the war led to the formal cabinet decision at the 28 July cabinet meeting that during the war, refugees would not be permitted to return except in special cases. The 28 July cabinet decision became official policy of the Israeli Provisional Government when it was incorporated as a main argument into the 1 August Government response letter to Count Bernadotte, U.N. Mediator. On the other hand, Foreign Minister Moshe Shertok repeatedly stated both inside and outside Israeli political circles that “the return of Arab refugees would be an open question until the time of peace negotiations, when it would be given due consideration simultaneously with other matters.” This other policy, simultaneously substantiated within the Israeli Foreign Ministry during the latter half of June and July, continued to live --- though never securing official cabinet consensus --- as a palliative of strictness of the 16 June consensus and was finally incorporated into the above 1 August Government response letter, side by side with the main argument: the rejection of the return of the Arabs during the war. To put it differently, the compromise of not closing the door to the return of the Arabs after the war was added to the 16 June consensus of blatant rejection of the return of the refugees during the war, thus making the 16 June consensus palatable internationally and successfully elevating it to “official policy.” Included among the factors which, in spite of Ben-Gurion’s hawkish opposition, bolstered Shertok’s policy of tolerating the post-war return of the refugees with certain conditions were the newly generated mass refugees after the battles of “Ten Days”; pressures exerted by the United States and the United Nations on Israel to permit the return of refugees; and opinions expressed in the July cabinet meetings by the other ministers that, for example, women and children should be allowed back or that the refugees should be allowed back in exchange for the evacuation of the foreign armies from Israeli territory. Thus, Shertok’s policy that the return of refugees would not be allowed during the war but would rather depend on peace negotiations after the war successfully turned into official policy of Isarel at the end of July 1948.\nSecondly, this transformation of Shertok’s policy of tolerating the return of the refugees after the war into official government policy was rendered possible mainly because the moderates in the cabinet, who supported Shertok, numerically overpowered the activists, who supported Ben-Gurion. Although it is generally pointed out that Shertok himself was most hawkish in his life during this period, I argue in this paper that his “hawkishness” in this period may have been partly tactical, and if so, may be explained by the numerical superiority of his fellow moderates within the cabinet. To put it differently, Shertok might have deliberately tried to appear hawkish to prevent undesirable friction with Ben-Gurion and thus successfully finalize his cherished policy within the cabinet, leaving to the other moderate ministers the highly sensitive task of blocking Ben-Gurion’s opposition. The cabinet defense committee, which had just been established, enabled the cabinet to control Ben-Gurion’s aggressive policy more effectively than before. This situation might also have contributed to Shertok’s reassurance about the cabinet’s ability to control Ben-Gurion. On the other hand, it should be borne in mind that the moderate ministers themselves tended to lean to the right during this period and generally reached certain agreement with the activists on the critical issues: the Second Truce, the administration of the occupied Arab areas, the demilitarization of Jerusalem, and the repatriation of Arab refugees. This right tilt of the moderates in this period also contributed to the decrease of friction with the activists, thus leading to the government’s de facto acceptance of Shertok’s other policy as the official one authorized by the government as a whole.\nThirdly, regarding Jerusalem, the cabinet unanimously agreed on one point: that the city could not be handed over to Arabs. Fear of Arab domination over Jerusalem and strong distrust of Bernadotte, who suggested the demilitarization of Jerusalem which was thought would almost certainly lead to Arab domination over the city, made the Provisional Government rush to the decision about the appointment of a military governor and the application of Israeli laws in Jerusalem. This decision ultimately substantiated Ben-Gurion’s argument that “the United Nations Partition Resolution is dead.” Thereafter Isarel no longer officially supported the U.N. Resolution of 29 November, which designated Jerusalem as an international zone. Even more than the refugee problem, the matter of Jewish sovereign rule over Jerusalem, including the Old City, had the power to rally unanimous consent of the ministers, both moderate and activist. The current international community tends to view the refugee problem as the most vital issue to any resolution of the Palestine question. However, contrary to this tendency, the overwhelming importance of, and the enormous time consumed by, the Jerusalem question in the cabinet meetings in July 1948 strongly suggest that the question of Jewish sovereign rule over Jerusalem will most likely remain of the most vital importance to Israel for years to come, even more than the question of the return of the refugees and other issues.","subitem_description_language":"en","subitem_description_type":"Abstract"}]},"item_4_identifier_registration":{"attribute_name":"ID登録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_identifier_reg_text":"10.15083/0002009763","subitem_identifier_reg_type":"JaLC"}]},"item_4_publisher_20":{"attribute_name":"出版者","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_publisher":"東京大学東洋文化研究所","subitem_publisher_language":"ja"},{"subitem_publisher":"Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, The University of Tokyo","subitem_publisher_language":"en"}]},"item_4_source_id_10":{"attribute_name":"書誌レコードID","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"AN00170926","subitem_source_identifier_type":"NCID"}]},"item_4_source_id_8":{"attribute_name":"ISSN","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"05638089","subitem_source_identifier_type":"PISSN"}]},"item_4_text_4":{"attribute_name":"著者所属","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_text_language":"ja","subitem_text_value":"跡見学園女子大学文学部"}]},"item_creator":{"attribute_name":"著者","attribute_type":"creator","attribute_value_mlt":[{"creatorAffiliations":[{"affiliationNames":[{"affiliationName":"跡見学園女子大学","affiliationNameLang":"ja"}]}],"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"森, まり子","creatorNameLang":"ja"},{"creatorName":"MORI, Mariko","creatorNameLang":"en"}]}]},"item_files":{"attribute_name":"ファイル情報","attribute_type":"file","attribute_value_mlt":[{"accessrole":"open_access","date":[{"dateType":"Available","dateValue":"2024-03-28"}],"displaytype":"detail","filename":"ioc185007.pdf","filesize":[{"value":"1.2MB"}],"format":"application/pdf","licensetype":"license_note","mimetype":"application/pdf","url":{"objectType":"fulltext","url":"https://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/record/2009763/files/ioc185007.pdf"},"version_id":"9dc0052d-8712-472a-a07a-ef39f95787da"}]},"item_language":{"attribute_name":"言語","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_language":"jpn"}]},"item_resource_type":{"attribute_name":"資源タイプ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"resourcetype":"departmental bulletin paper","resourceuri":"http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501"}]},"item_title":"建国期のイスラエル内閣閣議議事録史料紹介と考察（七） : 『暫定政府会合議事録』第５〜６巻前半（１９４８年７月14日〜28日）に見る第二次停戦開始とエルサレムの非武装化・難民帰還をめぐる論議","item_titles":{"attribute_name":"タイトル","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_title":"建国期のイスラエル内閣閣議議事録史料紹介と考察（七） : 『暫定政府会合議事録』第５〜６巻前半（１９４８年７月14日〜28日）に見る第二次停戦開始とエルサレムの非武装化・難民帰還をめぐる論議","subitem_title_language":"ja"},{"subitem_title":"An Introduction to and a Preliminary Review of the Proceedings of the Israeli Cabinet Meetings at the Time of the Establishment of the State of Israel（7） : The Debates over the Beginning of the Second Truce, the Demilitarization of Jerusalem, and the Repatriation of Refugees in The Proceedings of the Provisional Government Meetings Vols.5-6（14 to 28 July 1948）","subitem_title_language":"en"}]},"item_type_id":"4","owner":"18","path":["1711605028564","1711605142657"],"pubdate":{"attribute_name":"PubDate","attribute_value":"2024-03-28"},"publish_date":"2024-03-28","publish_status":"0","recid":"2009763","relation_version_is_last":true,"title":["建国期のイスラエル内閣閣議議事録史料紹介と考察（七） : 『暫定政府会合議事録』第５〜６巻前半（１９４８年７月14日〜28日）に見る第二次停戦開始とエルサレムの非武装化・難民帰還をめぐる論議"],"weko_creator_id":"18","weko_shared_id":-1},"updated":"2024-03-28T09:16:38.778086+00:00"}