Thanks for the gold!

I'm not sure what "conference" the teacher is referring to, but it is completely false to assert that the Arab countries of the world did not have delegates that could work hard to stop the partition plan from passing the United Nations General Assembly. It may be useful here to discuss briefly the path of the resolution/plan for partition, so you can fully get the picture.

When the British announced that they were going to unilaterally end their responsibility for the Mandate of Palestine, and when they afterwards asked that the UN assume responsibility for finding a peaceful way to handle the situation, the UN created the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine. This commission was tasked with going to Palestine, talking to the leaders and people there, and seeing what would be the best way to end the struggle between Zionism (Jewish nationalism) and Palestinism (Palestinian nationalism). The commission was made up of 15 members, as follows:

• Australia

• Canada

• Czechoslovakia

• Guatemala

• India

• Iran

• Netherlands

• Peru

• Sweden

• Uruguay

• Yugoslavia

These members, with 2 representatives per country, were tasked with visiting Palestine, as I said, and writing a report. As you can see, there were no Arab representatives, no Jewish representatives, and no great powers involved. It's important to note that there were 2 resulting reports from this whole exercise: the majority report, which would be adopted by the United Nations General Assembly with some modifications, and the minority report. The majority report was approved by all except for the three countries that penned the minority report, which were India, Iran, and Yugoslavia.

The members of UNSCOP did their duty and went to Palestine. However, the Arab leadership of the area (or rather, what leadership there was) imposed an official boycott of UNSCOP, seeing any partition as unfair. This leadership, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), nevertheless organized some meetings with the members of UNSCOP. But overwhelmingly, UNSCOP was boycotted and slandered by the AHC. The AHC charged that UNSCOP was "pro-Zionist", saying that all of Palestine must be Arab, and even threatened death to any opposition figures who spoke with it. Historians write that UNSCOP was met with hostility and suspicion in Arab villages, while Jewish villages and towns were happy to welcome it. Indeed, Zionist leadership made use of the Exodus affair (where Jewish refugees from Europe were sent back by British authorities to Europe), to illustrate the plight of Jews seeking to emigrate to Palestine and create a Jewish state. The contrast could not have been clearer to UNSCOP, between the boycotting Palestinian-Arabs and cooperative Zionists.

Even so, when the majority plan for partition was proposed, it had to be passed by the UN General Assembly (which would request that the Security Council carry it out, the GA having no power of its own to do so really). What that meant is that it was amended, debated, and so on in subcommittees. It's important to note that Arab governments still had the ability to influence UNSCOP before it presented the plans too. Because of the boycott, the Indian representative was able to convince UNSCOP to hear from outside Arab leaders too, so they would get a fuller perspective. So UNSCOP met with the Prime Minister of Lebanon, and its Foreign Minister, multiple other Arab League representatives (such as the Iraqi Foreign Minister), and half of the team also flew to Jordan. There, they met with King Abdullah, as well as the Jordanian Prime Minister. So, obviously, there was Arab and Zionist/Jewish input while the report was being formulated.

Post-report, as I said, Arabs had the opportunity to exert influence as well. Between September 26 and November 29, three subcommittees were appointed as subcommittees to the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine of the UN (created just a few days before to consider the UNSCOP report). At each point, the Arabs and Zionists/Jews were able to lobby aggressively for their point of view. Some alterations were made, and no Arab representative was allowed on the subcommittee related to possible border changes (obviously, no Jewish representative was either, as no Jewish state existed to be a member). So lobbying was how both affected the outcomes.

Then came the actual lead-up to the vote itself, and the question of whether or not it would pass. There was no Palestinian representative who could vote, as there was no Palestinian state. There was no Jewish representative who could vote either, as there was no Jewish state. But Arabs were allowed to vote, as there were multiple Arab states in the UN who would be able to block the resolution. There were 56 members of the UN at the time of the vote. The resolution had to pass with a 2/3 majority, and there were 9 predominantly Arab or Muslim countries (all of which opposed the partition) that were eligible to vote. That meant that there needed to be (with the 10 abstentions that happened) at least 31 votes in favor, or 15 votes against (if my math is right).

That Arab/Muslim states opposed to the partition made up more than half of the votes against is clear. That they had the opportunity to lobby is also clear. Those who rejected were:

• Afghanistan

• Cuba

• Egypt

• Greece

• India

• Iran

• Iraq

• Lebanon

• Pakistan

• Saudi Arabia

• Syria

• Turkey

• Yemen

33 countries voted yes. The list would be a little too long for me to write up here, but you can find it on the Wiki here, which I would recommend for that part alone (try not to rely on Wiki for anything else, or at least take it with a grain of salt and find history books, not tertiary sources).

Failure to stop the resolution is, according to historian Benny Morris, not the result of Arab inability to have input. It is the result of Arab countries being overconfident in their abilities, and underestimating the ability of Zionist leaders to convince others that their cause was just and the partition a good solution. Morris:

But in general, until the last three days before the vote, Arab diplomats at the United Nations, and their governments, refused to believe that partition would gain a two-thirds majority and made no concerted effort to mobilize votes.

Also:

And the Arab states, given the shortness of time, their varying agendas, the poor communications between New York and their capitals, and fears of being branded soft on Zionism, failed to rally around a unified proposal.

This is echoed by Charles Smith, who writes:

At the United Nations, many expected that the General Assembly would deny partition; the non-European countries would sympathize with the Arabs, and the Soviets and their allies would presumably oppose the United States, which would lead to communist rejection of an independent Jewish state. For the Zionists, even United States' backing was not considered sure...

So the question of partitioning Palestine being a conference doesn't seem right to me, let alone the idea that Arabs had no representation and no ability to influence the proceedings. They simply failed to do so in a way that could beat Zionist lobbying efforts, partly as a result of their own failure to mobilize due to believing the vote would be a sure thing in their favor. Complacency was definitely a part of their downfall in that regard.

Well if there wasn't it was mostly because the Arab Higher Committee boycotted the Committee for Palestine. Now if you look at the list of members of that committee most of them are western Nations Australia,Canada,Netherlands for example. However there's was one Muslim country that also a member of the Committee and thst was Iran. Now whilst Iran is not an Arab country there is a sizeable minority of Arabs within Iran. Now I cannot fully answer the question since I do not know the backgrounds of every member of the Iranian Delegation but if there were any Arabs prescent that is where they would be.

Now as for the other question by u/SeeShark whilst the Arab Higher Committee boycotted the committee the Jewish Agency for Palestine attended the hearings and made their case to the committee.

Here is the report that covers the entire decision of the Special Committee for Palestine.

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3

My question to you: what subjects does the 'humanities' teacher cover, and what country are you in?

And while we're at it, how many Jews were there?