If the General Assembly had a power with respect to partition of Palestine, the question arose whether its resolution on partition had any binding effect, or rather whether it was a non-binding recommendation only. The resolution itself, it was argued, recited that only a recommendation was being made, and that the General Assembly did not claim to possess any broader power. Once it appeared that partition could not be achieved peacefully, the General Assembly considered an alternative of a United Nations' trusteeship over Palestine. The fact that the General Assembly did so was said to reflect the General Assembly’s understanding that its resolution on partition was a suggestion only. In response to that position, it was argued that while the resolution could be revoked, the resolution had reflected an acceptance of a right to Jewish statehood, and that that acceptance survived regardless of the fate of the resolution. It was also argued that the General Assembly’s resolution was an implied trust agreement between Britain and the United Nations and carried legal force on that basis. In response, it was argued that a trust agreement requires explicit acceptance between the United Nations and the state taking on the trust, and that this did not occur with respect to Palestine.