Day 70 of 599 of מלחמת העצמאות MILḤEMET HAʾAẒMAʾUT (War of Independence)

Ernest Chauvet's 7 February letter sought equal publicity for the Republic of Haiti's answer to the Arab Higher Committee. The enclosed statement connected support for the future of עם ישראל AM YISRAʾEL to the Republic of Haiti's own struggle for independence and to the murder of six million יהודים YEHUDIM. The full study, The Republic of Haiti defended its vote for partition., distinguishes the official rebuttal from the still-unresolved question of private diplomatic pressure.¹

It would be misleading to repeat the accusation as an established explanation of the vote while omitting this immediate answer. It would also overstate the evidence to treat the denial as a complete record of every private communication.

The foreign secretary of the English Empire and the prime minister of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan discussed entry by the Arab Legion into territory assigned to the proposed Arab state. Glubb interpreted. His later recollection describes an approving response accompanied by a warning against advancing into the area allotted to the state for יהודים YEHUDIM. The fuller study, Bevin and Abu al-Huda discussed an Arab Legion entry into ארץ ישראל EREẒ YISRAʾEL., preserves the dispute over whether this amounted to authorization.^{2 3}

The discussion belongs to the Mandate phase because it concerns planning before the end of imperial government. It does not date the later regular-army invasion to February.

The UN digest issued on 9 February preserved 7 February reporting that אליעזר קפלן ELIʾEZER KAPLAN, treasurer of הסוכנות היהודית HAʾSOḪNUT HAʾYEHUDIT, announced goals of seventy-five thousand immigrants in the first year and four hundred thousand in the next four. Those were projected arrivals, not people who entered that Saturday.⁴

The same digest reported an Arab League Council meeting in Cairo and consultation over military affairs. A report from Damascus attributed to Jamal الحسيني AL-ḤUSAYNI a warning that outside troops enforcing partition could provoke intervention by regular Arab armies. The conditional wording establishes a threat, not implementation of an invasion that day.

The digest also gave police figures of four dead among יהודים YEHUDIM and one Arab across the day's incidents. Without individual identification, those figures cannot be assigned to a single convoy attack or safely added to an existing running total.⁵

This is Day 70 of the 599-day civil-date series: 1948-02-07. Its public Ivrit route is 5708-11-27; after local sunset the adjacent Hebrew route is 5708-11-28.⁶

Chauvet's letter and the London meeting are dated 7 February. The UN digest's 9 February issue covers dispatches from both 7 and 8 February; only explicitly assigned 7 February material is used here for the day's plans and reported losses. The later UN distribution of the Republic of Haiti's letter and later publication of historical interpretations remain separate. Exact document transmission hours and local sunset boundaries are unverified.^{7 8 9}

• What evidence would distinguish diplomatic encouragement from military authorization?
• How does the Republic of Haiti’s own explanation change the account of its partition vote?