On 22 October the Ad Hoc Committee formed two subcommittees. Subcommittee 1 (chaired by [[Ksawery Pruszyński]]<ref name=ac1334s1>[https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1434.pdf 11 November 1947 UN Doc A/AC.14/34 Sub-committee 1]</ref>) comprised nine members ([[United States]], [[Soviet Union]], [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Poland]], [[Czechoslovakia]], [[Uruguay]], [[Guatemala]], [[Jewish Agency for Palestine]])<ref>https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1434.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=August 2025}}</ref> and was responsible for producing a plan of implementation of the UNSCOP majority report; and subcommittee 2 (chaired by [[Muhammad Zafarullah Khan]] after October 28<ref>[https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/1947/10/b755b788560cd65b8525697b005a9d8e_gapal34.pdf 28 October 1947, UN Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, 5th Meeting of the Sub-committee 2 Press Release]</ref>) was composed of six Arab delegates and three supporters of the minority plan and reviewed the UNSCOP minority report which was a plan for a single federal Palestinian state, with Jewish and Arab provinces and a split Jerusalem as federal capital. However, Subcommittee 2 was never taken seriously since the United States, Soviet Union and the UK sat on Subcommittee 1. The Jewish Agency for Palestine was consulted by Subcommittee 1 while the Arab Higher Committee was consulted by Subcommittee 2.<ref>{{cite book|author=H. Eugene Bovis|title=The Jerusalem Question, 1917-1968|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1L49R1xKA6QC&pg=PA45 |year=1971|publisher=Hoover Press|isbn=978-0-8179-3293-0|pages=45–}}</ref><ref name=”Cohen2014″>{{cite book|author=Michael J. Cohen|title=Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945-1948 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TKv_AwAAQBAJ |date=14 July 2014 |publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-1-4008-5357-1|quote=On October 22, 1947, the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine, chaired by Dr. Herbert E. Evatt of Australia, set up two subcommittees, to study the majority and minority reports and to bring forward detailed proposals to the full assembly. Subcommittee One, with nine members, all supporters of partition, was deputed to work on the majority report; Subcommittee Two, composed of six Arab delegates and three supporters of the minority plan, was to work out the details of the unitary state scheme. A third subcommittee was set the task of exploring the possibility of a settlement by conciliation. Subcommittee One, on which the United States and the Soviet Union both sat, received the most publicity and was the scene of the most important negotiations. Subcommittee Two was not really taken seriously, and the unitary state scheme was never considered at any length by the assembly. Evatt found his freedom of choice severely limited by the right of delegates to opt out of subcommittees, but nevertheless, he was criticized severely for composing them exclusively of delegates who already supported the schemes they were called upon to consider. The mutual exclusivity of the two reports was underlined by the fact that the Jewish Agency exploited to the full the opportunity afforded it to give evidence to Subcommittee One, while the HAC, which boycotted the first committee, was continually consulted by Subcommittee Two.}}</ref>
On 22 October the Ad Hoc Committee formed two subcommittees. Subcommittee 1 (chaired by [[Ksawery Pruszyński]]<ref name=ac1334s1>https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1434.pdf .</ref>) comprised nine members ([[United States]], [[Soviet Union]], [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Poland]], [[Czechoslovakia]], [[Uruguay]], [[Guatemala]], [[Jewish Agency for Palestine]])<ref>https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1434.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=August 2025}}</ref> and was responsible for producing a plan of implementation of the UNSCOP majority report; and subcommittee 2 (chaired by [[Muhammad Zafarullah Khan]] after October 28<ref>[https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/1947/10/b755b788560cd65b8525697b005a9d8e_gapal34.pdf 28 October 1947, UN Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, 5th Meeting of the Sub-committee 2 Press Release]</ref>) was composed of six Arab delegates and three supporters of the minority plan and reviewed the UNSCOP minority report which was a plan for a single federal Palestinian state, with Jewish and Arab provinces and a split Jerusalem as federal capital. However, Subcommittee 2 was never taken seriously since the United States, Soviet Union and the UK sat on Subcommittee 1. The Jewish Agency for Palestine was consulted by Subcommittee 1 while the Arab Higher Committee was consulted by Subcommittee 2.<ref>{{cite book|author=H. Eugene Bovis|title=The Jerusalem Question, 1917-1968|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1L49R1xKA6QC&pg=PA45 |year=1971|publisher=Hoover Press|isbn=978-0-8179-3293-0|pages=45–}}</ref><ref name=”Cohen2014″>{{cite book|author=Michael J. Cohen|title=Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945-1948 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TKv_AwAAQBAJ |date=14 July 2014 |publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-1-4008-5357-1|quote=On October 22, 1947, the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine, chaired by Dr. Herbert E. Evatt of Australia, set up two subcommittees, to study the majority and minority reports and to bring forward detailed proposals to the full assembly. Subcommittee One, with nine members, all supporters of partition, was deputed to work on the majority report; Subcommittee Two, composed of six Arab delegates and three supporters of the minority plan, was to work out the details of the unitary state scheme. A third subcommittee was set the task of exploring the possibility of a settlement by conciliation. Subcommittee One, on which the United States and the Soviet Union both sat, received the most publicity and was the scene of the most important negotiations. Subcommittee Two was not really taken seriously, and the unitary state scheme was never considered at any length by the assembly. Evatt found his freedom of choice severely limited by the right of delegates to opt out of subcommittees, but nevertheless, he was criticized severely for composing them exclusively of delegates who already supported the schemes they were called upon to consider. The mutual exclusivity of the two reports was underlined by the fact that the Jewish Agency exploited to the full the opportunity afforded it to give evidence to Subcommittee One, while the HAC, which boycotted the first committee, was continually consulted by Subcommittee Two.}}</ref>
Subcommittee 2 wanted the International Court of Justice to be asked for an advisory opinion on relevant legal questions. At the request of the representative of France, two votes were taken, one on the first seven questions, and the other on the eighth question, which read as follows:
Subcommittee 2 wanted the International Court of Justice to be asked for an advisory opinion on relevant legal questions. At the request of the representative of France, two votes were taken, one on the first seven questions, and the other on the eighth question, which read as follows:
