Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Department of Public Information (DPI)
31 December 1949
YEARBOOK
OF THE
UNITED NATIONS

1948-49

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION

UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK, 1949


III. Political and Security Questions 1/


A. THE PALESTINE QUESTION


The plan for the partition of Palestine with economic union was adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947.2/ By this resolution, a United Nations Commission on Palestine was set up to which the administration of Palestine was to be progressively turned over as the Mandatory Power progressively withdrew its armed forces, and different organs of the United Nations were charged with the responsibility of taking action on those aspects of the plan which came within the scope of their functions and activities. Thus, the Security Council was requested to take the necessary measures for the implementation of the plan, including steps, if required, under Chapter VII of the Charter, to strengthen the implementation provisions. The Trusteeship Council was asked to formulate a statute for the City of Jerusalem, while the Economic and Social Council was required to nominate three non-Palestinian members to the Joint Economic Board, by which the economic union of the Arab State, the Jewish State and the City of Jerusalem was to be administered.

A detailed account of how these organs of the United Nations discharged the tasks assigned to them by the General Assembly resolution up to the opening day of the third session of the General Assembly (21 September 1948), has been given in the Yearbook of the United Nations, 1947-48. The current volume of the Yearbook carries the story forward from that date to the end of 1949. It begins with a description of the action taken by the General Assembly at its third session, when it considered the report, dated 16 September 1948, submitted by the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, the late Count Folke Bernadotte, who was assassinated in Jerusalem on 17 September 1948. The discussion of the Mediators report was followed by the adoption of resolution 212 (III) of 19 November 1948, concerning assistance to the Palestine refugees, and of resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, establishing the Conciliation Commission. Resolution 273 (III) of 11 May 1949, admitting the State of Israel to membership in the United Nations, was adopted at the second part of the third session.

Next follows a section on the work of the Security Council pursuant to the Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947. From September to December 1948, the Council was principally concerned with the military phase of the Palestine question. During 1949, the Security Council action on Palestine related largely to the general armistice agreements between Israel, on the one hand, and Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, on the other, and with the problems involved in their implementation under United Nations supervision.

Following the consideration of the activities of the Security Council is a description of the action taken by the fourth session of the General Assembly, resulting in the adoption of resolution 303 (IV) of 9 December 1949, relating to the question of an international régime for the Jerusalem area and the protection of the Holy Places.

The Yearbook then treats of the action taken by the Trusteeship Council in pursuance of the General Assembly resolution on the internationalization of Jerusalem; the work of the Conciliation Commission which had been established by the General Assembly at its third session; and the question of assistance to the Palestine refugees, which was considered by the General Assembly both at its third and fourth sessions.

During the period under review, the question of the election of three members to the Joint Economic Board remained on the Economic and Social Councils agenda at its eighth and ninth sessions, but its consideration was further deferred.

The action taken by the Security Council and the General Assembly on Israel's admission to membership of the United Nations will be found in the section of the Yearbook on Admission of New Members.

The consideration by the Economic and Social Council of the communications by the World Jewish Congress in January and February 1948, urging action to prevent discrimination against, and possible destruction of, Jewish minorities in the Arab States, has been dealt with in the section on Non-Governmental Organizations.3/

1. Action of the General Assembly
at its Third Session

a. PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE

The United Nations Mediator on Palestine, in his progress report (A/648) of 16 September 1948 to the Secretary-General, summarized the activities regarding the mediation effort, truce supervision and assistance to refugees.4/

In the part dealing with the mediation effort, the report drew attention to a series of specific conclusions which might serve as a reasonable, equitable and workable basis for settlement. The Mediator expressed the belief that the existing indefinite truce in Palestine should be superseded by a formal peace or, at the minimum, an armistice. In his view, the frontiers between the Arab and Jewish territories, in the absence of agreement between Arabs and Jews, should be established by the United Nations, with the Negeb going to the Arabs and Galilee to the Jews, while Central Palestine might be divided according to the line established in resolution 181 (II). The Mediator also stated, on grounds of historical connexion and common interests, that there would be compelling reasons for merging the Arab territory of Palestine with the territory of Transjordan. Moreover, he proposed that the port of Haifa and the airport of Lydda should be declared free, with assurances of access to them and the employment of their facilities for Jerusalem and interested Arab countries. He suggested that the City of Jerusalem and the Holy Places be placed under effective United Nations control. He further advocated that the right of the Arab refugees to return to their homes in Jewish-controlled territory at the earliest possible date should be affirmed by the United Nations. Finally, to supervise the execution of these proposals, including the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the Arab refugees as well as payment of adequate compensation for the property of those choosing not to return to their former homes, the Mediator recommended the establishment by the United Nations of a conciliation commission for Palestine.

In the covering letter (A/647) attached to the progress report, the Mediator proposed that the Palestine question be included in the agenda of the third session of the General Assembly. He drew special attention to two matters which, in his opinion, required urgent consideration by the General Assembly, namely, decisions relating vitally to the peaceful settlement of the Palestine question and humanitarian measures to relieve the desperate condition of Arab refugees. The Secretary-General, accordingly, proposed (A/BUR/102) to the General Assembly, on 21 September 1948, that the progress report of the Mediator on Palestine should be placed on the agenda of the third session.

In tribute to the Mediator, who had been assassinated in Jerusalem on 17 September 1948,5/ and to the others who had fallen in the service of the United Nations in Palestine, the General Assembly observed one minute's silence at its 136th plenary meeting on 21 September.


b. DISCUSSION IN THE FIRST COMMITTEE

The General Assembly, on the recommendation of the General Committee, referred, for consideration and report, the progress report as a whole to the First Committee, and part three of the report, dealing with assistance to the Palestine refugees, to the Third Committee (see below).

The First Committee considered the Mediator's progress report at the 161st to 166th meetings, held from 15 to 20 October, and at the 200th to 228th meetings, held from 15 November to 4 December 1948.

At its 161st meeting, the First Committee invited the Acting Mediator to sit with the officers of the Committee for the duration of its consideration of the question. At the same meeting, the Committee decided that Transjordan, in accordance with its request (A/C.1/237), be admitted as an observer without the right to vote to the debates of the Committee. A similar request of the Provisional Government of Israel (A/C.1/331) was likewise approved, and its representative was admitted to the debates on the same basis as the representative of Transjordan.

At its 200th meeting on 15 November, the First Committee decided, by a vote of 48 to none, with 5 abstentions, to grant a hearing to the Arab Higher Committee, in accordance with its request (A/C.1/335), to express the views of the Arabs of Palestine on the question of Palestine and on the report of the Mediator. The Committee, however, made no allusion to the credentials of the Higher Committee as representing the All-Palestine Government, as had been requested by the Higher Committee and the All-Palestine Government (A/C.1/339).

The Acting Mediator opened the First Committee's discussion of the progress report at the 161st meeting with an oral statement.

At the 200th meeting, the representative of the Provisional Government of Israel, rejected the conclusions of the progress report, even as a basis for discussion. The representative of the Arab Higher Committee, in his statement at the 201st meeting, and the representatives of all the Arab delegations, in statements at subsequent meetings, also rejected the conclusions of the progress report, even as a basis for discussion.

The representative of the United Kingdom outlined the position of his delegation at the 203rd meeting, and submitted, on 18 November, a draft resolution (A/C.1/394), endorsing the conclusions of the late Mediator contained in the progress report, and providing for the establishment of a conciliation commission to assist the parties to arrive at a settlement based on those conclusions.

The representative of the United States made a preliminary statement at the Committee's 205th meeting on 20 November, supporting the general principles of the basic premises stated in the Mediator's report, in an effort to arrive at a settlement of the Palestine question. He proposed different terms of reference for the suggested conciliation commission, and emphasized the principle of consent with respect to territorial questions. On 23 November, he submitted a number of amendments (A/C.1/397) to the United Kingdom draft resolution, among which was a proposal to delete the paragraph endorsing the Mediator's specific conclusions as the basis for the final settlement of the Palestine question. On 24 November, the representative of Guatemala introduced amendments (A/C.1/398) to the United States amendments, which suggested, in part, that the proposed conciliation commission should be instructed to assist the parties to delimit the frontier in Palestine in conformity with the principles of the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947, without excluding any territorial settlement mutually acceptable to the parties.

The representative of the USSR, in his statement made at the 206th meeting on 22 November, considered the proposals contained in the Mediator's report as contrary to the resolution of the General Assembly of 29 November 1947, and urged, for the sake of a speedy settlement in Palestine, a complete implementation of that resolution. On 25 November, he submitted a draft resolution (A/C.1/401) recommending the immediate removal from Palestine of all foreign troops and foreign military personnel.

At the 208th meeting on 23 November, the representative of Australia made a statement and submitted a draft resolution (A/C.1/396) expressing, inter alia, the view that the basic starting point of a settlement of the Palestine question should be the resolution of 29 November 1947, and, accordingly, including all aspects of the question within the terms of reference for the proposed conciliation commission.

The representative of Colombia made a statement at the 209th meeting on 23 November, and, on the following day, submitted a draft resolution (A/C.1/399) which attempted to reconcile the various views contained in some of the draft resolutions and amendments.

The representative of Poland, on 25 November, submitted a draft resolution (A/C.1/400 and Corr.1), affirming the resolution of 29 November 1947 as the basis for the final settlement of the Palestine question and instructing the proposed conciliation commission in that regard.

The Acting Mediator told the First Committee at its 213th meeting on 25 November that in his opinion the General Assembly should reach unequivocal conclusions on the following points:

(1) An affirmation of the existence of the State of Israel, in accordance with the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947, and its right to a seat in the family of nations;

(2) A strong appeal to the parties to undertake to resolve their outstanding differences by negotiations, direct or indirect;

(3) The establishment of a conciliation commission to assist them in doing so and to undertake such other functions as might prove advisable;

(4) Clear guidance for that commission in the form of an expression of what the General Assembly would consider reasonable as regards maximum and minimum allocations of territory to Jews and Arabs respectively--subject to any and all modifications on which the parties themselves might agree--that was essential for the success of the efforts of the conciliation commission;

(5) Affirmation of the right of Arab refugees to return to their homes if they chose to do so, with just compensation for those who could not or would no; return or whose homes had been destroyed; and,

(6) Determination of the future of the Jerusalem area, as defined in the resolution of 29 November 1947, which should be accorded special international status under United Nations supervision, but with maximum local autonomy for the Jewish and Arab communities.

On 26 November, the representative of Syria submitted a draft resolution (A/C.1/402), in which it was provided, inter alia, that a commission should study and prepare proposals for the establishment of a single State in Palestine on a cantonal or federal basis.

At the conclusion of the general debate at the 213th meeting on 25 November, a discussion ensued regarding the method of procedure for the future work of the First Committee. At its 214th meeting on the following day, the Committee adopted an oral proposal of the Canadian representative to appoint a working group comprising the authors of the various draft resolutions and amendments, under the Chairmanship of the Rapporteur of the First Committee, with instructions to draw up a consolidated tabulation of the several texts under consideration. Discussion of the consolidated tabulation (A/C.1/403), which was presented to the Committee at its 215th meeting on 29 November, continued until the 220th meeting on 1 December.

The Committee, at its 220th meeting, rejected, by a vote of 20 to 20,6/ with 8 abstentions, a Syrian proposal that priority be given to a Syrian draft resolution (A/C.1/405), suggesting that the matter be referred to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on "the power of the General Assembly under the Charter to partition Palestine for the creation of a Jewish sovereign State, against the wishes of the majority of the Palestine population," and on "the international status of Palestine upon the termination of the Mandate...."

During the discussion of the consolidated tabulation, the representative of the United Kingdom introduced a second revision (A/C.1/394/Rev.2) of his draft resolution, which eliminated the paragraph endorsing the specific conclusions of the Mediator's report and provided for certain consequential changes. This revision met the major objections of the United States, which withdrew its proposed amendments (A/C.1/397), at the 219th meeting on 1 December. The representative of Guatemala introduced a second revised text (A/C.1/398/Rev.2) of his amendments embodying the content of a series of sub-amendments to the draft resolution of the United Kingdom, but now applying to the second revised draft resolution of the United Kingdom.

The representative of Australia introduced the essential parts of his draft resolution as an amendment (A/C.1/408/Rev.1) to the second revised draft resolution of the United Kingdom. The representative of Poland then submitted a series of amendments (A/C.1/409/Rev.1) to the Australian amendment, embodying essentially the principles of the earlier Polish draft resolution (A/C.1/400 and Corr.1).

Other amendments to the second revised draft resolution of the United Kingdom were later submitted by Colombia (A/C.1/412) and Guatemala (A/C.1/418), both dealing with Jerusalem.

The Committee then proceeded, at its 221st meeting on 1 December, to consider the draft resolutions in chronological order, beginning with the second revised draft resolution of the United Kingdom.

Supporting the second revised draft resolution of the United Kingdom (A/C.1/394/Rev.2) were the representatives of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Sweden, the Union of South Africa and the United States. Many of them urged changes in, and additions to, the United Kingdom text, but in general supported its aims. These representatives expressed the following general views. Neither Arabs nor Jews were satisfied with the report of the late Mediator, and this unfavourable reaction might be taken as proof that the Mediators report was impartial. In general terms, the representatives supporting the draft resolution were satisfied that the Mediator's conclusions translated into practical terms the wishes expressed by the General Assembly in its resolution a year before. The First Committee should also take into consideration the establishment by the Security Council of a truce, which now had lasted, with a few interruptions, some six months. It was evident that the chances of success of the Assembly and of the Security Council were interdependent and that if the Council succeeded in imposing its decisions in Palestine, the chances of acceptance for the General Assembly recommendations would be increased. In the absence of any stabilization of the situation as a result of the political decisions taken by the General Assembly, the Security Council would not be able to maintain an ill-defined and precarious status quo in Palestine indefinitely without encountering increasing difficulties.

In general, these representatives agreed that three basic objectives underlay the efforts of both the General Assembly and the Security Council: (1) the establishment and maintenance of peace in Palestine; (2) the early attainment of a constructive political settlement which would itself contribute to stability and to economic well-being throughout the Middle East; and (3) reconciliation between the Arab and Jewish communities.

Many of the representatives declared that the Assembly should not make any recommendations, especially in respect of the boundaries of the Jewish State, which were at variance with those contained in the resolution of 29 November 1947, except with the consent of both Arabs and Jews. The proposed conciliation commission should assist and encourage the interested parties to enter into direct negotiations to replace the existing truce by a permanent settlement. The welfare of both communities would only be achieved in the long run through co-operation between Arabs and Jews. If both parties could lay the basis for co-operation in social, economic and cultural matters, perhaps by beginning direct negotiations now, they would be assured of the good will of all the Member States.

These representatives opposed discussing the question of the withdrawal of foreign troops mainly on the grounds that the Security Council should continue to deal with the question of the armistice and troop withdrawals, while the First Committee should deal with the general aspect of the problem. Many of these representatives believed there would be considerable difficulty in defining what was meant by "foreign" troops in Palestine.

Concerning the establishment of a conciliation commission, most of the representatives supporting the United Kingdom's revised draft resolution recommended that the proposed commission make its recommendations to the General Assembly. Authority to issue instructions to the commission should not be divided between the General Assembly and the Security Council; the commission should act solely under the Assembly's authority.

In general, these representatives agreed that the functions to be assigned to the proposed conciliation commission should include the following points: (1) it should bring the parties concerned together; (2) it should initiate negotiations between the parties concerned; (3) it should assist in promoting agreement by making suggestions and proposals; (4) it should report to the Assembly, and, in the event of failure, should recommend suitable action for the Assembly's consideration; (5) its task should be one of conciliation only, without arbitration. In the case of Jerusalem, the commission's functions should exceed those of a conciliatory body. It should prepare a draft statute of the international régime for Jerusalem, to be submitted to the Assembly for consideration and adoption. It should be empowered to appoint a United Nations commissioner for Jerusalem, who would be charged with facilitating the administration of the city under the commission's guidance during the period preceding the establishment of the international régime.

Those supporting the USSR draft resolution (A/C.1/401) and the Polish amendments (A/C.1/409/Rev.1) to the United Kingdom revised draft resolution (A/C.1/394/Rev.2) included the representatives of the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR, Yugoslavia and in the final voting, Guatemala. These representatives expressed the following general views. There was no doubt that the General Assembly's decision of 29 November 1947 was the only right and equitable solution and that it was in conformity with the interests of the Arabs and Jews alike, both of whom had a right to self-determination. Instead, however, of carrying out this decision, the majority of the General Assembly, at a special session, had yielded to pressure from the United States and the United Kingdom, and had created the position of Mediator. The Mediator, instead of limiting himself to his functions of enforcing the truce and of bringing about a settlement by peaceful means, had gone beyond his terms of reference.

These representatives said that the Mediator's proposal for a union of Palestine including Transjordan would give control of Palestine to the United Kingdom, which dominated Transjordan. They charged that the aims of the United States and the United Kingdom were to prevent the carrying out of the resolution of 29 November 1947, and that this policy had led to military operations in Palestine. They alleged that the Mediator's proposals were in the interests of British and American monopolies. The terms of the November 1947 resolution must be carried out, and this implementation corresponded with the interests of both the Arabs and Jews in Palestine, since it recognized their right to self-determination and independence.

The General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947, these representatives said, was a remarkable achievement for, having been supported by the United States and the USSR, it had given the best proof that international co-operation was possible. The realism of that resolution was confirmed later when the State of Israel was established on territory roughly corresponding to that which had been assigned to it by the resolution. The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine unfortunately was prevented from carrying out the terms of the resolution by the fact that on the very day when the British Mandate in Palestine came to an end, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon had had recourse to armed force in Palestine.

The November 1947 resolution, they argued, must be the starting point for a solution of the problem. The Mediator's proposals must not be substituted for it. The solution applied must take into account the interests and aspirations of all the inhabitants of Palestine, whether Hebrew or Arab, Moslem, Jewish or Christian. Such a solution was in the interests of the Jews, for it meant the peaceful development of their National Home in the State of Israel. For the Arabs it meant emancipation from the semi-colonial domination which was the cause of their unfortunate military adventure.

Many problems, they said, muse be solved: economic union, co-operation between the parties, the detailed demarcation of boundaries. Those questions could be solved between the Arab States and the State of Israel by direct negotiation free from foreign interference. It was the duty of the United Nations to take the appropriate measures in order to encourage such negotiations. They declared that the proposed conciliation commission should not be an independent body, free to decide its own policy, but a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly whose directives it would implement; and that those directives could only be based on the resolution of 29 November 1947.

They called for the establishment of an independent Arab State in Palestine, but opposed extending the territory of Transjordan to include the Arab portion of Palestine and especially opposed assigning the Negeb to Transjordan.

On the question of the withdrawal of foreign troops, they asserted that the presence of foreign troops and military personnel which had invaded the country was responsible for the present disorders and the sufferings of the population. Moreover, the presence of foreign troops constituted an obstacle to the re-establishment of peace, the objective of the General Assembly. Foreign intervention was clearly manifest on the Arab side, for there was a British general Glubb Pasha and British officers commanding Transjordan troops. These troops, as well as those of Egypt, Syria and Lebanon had invaded the territory earmarked for the Arab State of Palestine. This State had not been established, as provided for in the 1947 resolution. On the other hand, the State of Israel had been set up within the territorial limits established by the General Assembly resolution. The withdrawal of troops was a necessary condition for the establishment of peace and for any settlement of the Palestine question in accordance with the 1947 resolution.

These representatives declared that the second revised United Kingdom draft resolution was designed to confuse the issue and to impede the attempts to carry out partition. Instead of implementing the terms of the General Assembly's 1947 resolution, this draft resolution proposed the transfer of the Negeb and the area set aside for the Arab State in Palestine to Transjordan, thus re-establishing indirect control for the United Kingdom over a large part of the area of Palestine.

The second revised draft resolution of the United Kingdom and the amendments to it were voted upon paragraph by paragraph. Before the vote was taken on the whole second revised draft resolution, as amended, the representative of Egypt asked that the Syrian resolution (A/C.1/402), providing for a commission to prepare proposals for a cantonal or federal State, be voted upon first. The Egyptian motion was rejected by 15 votes in favour to 23 against, with 16 abstentions. At the Committee's 227th meeting on 4 December, the United Kingdom resolution, as amended by the vote, was then voted upon as a whole, by roll-call, and was adopted by 25 votes to 21, with 9 abstentions.

At the 228th meeting on 4 December, the representatives of Australia, Colombia and Poland withdrew the draft resolutions submitted by their respective delegations (A/C.1/396, A/C.1/399 and A/C.1/400 and Corr.1).

The First Committee, at the same meeting, rejected, by a vote of 7 in favour to 33 against, with 8 abstentions, the draft resolution (A/C.1/401) of the USSR, providing for the withdrawal of foreign troops and foreign military personnel from Palestine.

It also rejected, by a vote of 14 in favour to 26 against, with 8 abstentions, the Syrian draft resolution (A/C.1/402) providing for a commission to prepare proposals for a cantonal or federal State.

Also at the 228th meeting of the First Committee, the representative of El Salvador orally proposed an amendment to the second Syrian draft resolution (A/C.1/405), which had called for a request to the International Court of Justice for a legal opinion. The amendment was then formally submitted (A/C.1/425) and accepted by the delegation of Syria; it provided for replacing the words for the creation of a Jewish sovereign State, against the wishes of the majority of the Palestine population by without first obtaining the consent of the majority of the Palestine population. The draft resolution, as amended, was rejected by a vote of 21 to 21, with 4 abstentions.


c. DISCUSSION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN PLENARY MEETING The General Assembly, at its 184th, 185th and 186th plenary meetings on 11 December, discussed the report (A/776) of the First Committee and a report (A/786) of the Fifth Committee on the financial implications of the First Committees draft resolution. The report of the Fifth Committee notified the Assembly that adoption of the First Committee's draft resolution would involve an additional expenditure of $3,000,000 for nine months in 1949; the Fifth Committee had approved this sum by a vote of 19 to 12, with 6 abstentions. Also before the Assembly were amendments to the First Committee's draft resolution submitted (1) jointly by Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, France and New Zealand (A/789); (2) by France (A/800/Rev.1); (3) by Belgium (A/791); (4) by Pakistan (A/803); (5) by El Salvador (A/801); and (6) by Poland (A/804 and A/805).

The joint amendment (A/789) asked for deletion of the preamble, which referred to the Assembly resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 14 May 1948, the Mediator's progress report, and the Security Council's truce and armistice resolutions, and proposed to substitute the words "The General Assembly, having considered further the situation in Palestine." It also called for deletion of paragraph 2 (c), instructing the Conciliation Commission to promote good relations between the State of Israel, the Arabs of Palestine and the neighbouring Arab States, and of paragraph 3, under which the Conciliation Commissions members would be chosen by an Assembly committee consisting of China, France, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States. The joint amendment further proposed that, in paragraph 5, the Governments and authorities concerned be directed to seek agreement by negotiation with, rather than through, the Conciliation Commission, and called for the deletion, in paragraph 11, of endorsement of the Mediator's conclusions on the subject of Arab refugees.

Concerning the membership of the Conciliation Commission, a French sub-amendment in its revised form (A/800/Rev.1) proposed that an Assembly committee, consisting of the five permanent members of the Security Council, should present proposals regarding membership for the approval of the current session of the Assembly.

An amendment (A/791) by Belgium proposed that Nazareth be included among the Holy Places mentioned in paragraph 7 of the First Committee's resolution.

Pakistan (A/803) proposed that, in the definition of the Jerusalem area (paragraph 8 of the First Committee's resolution), reference to the resolution of 29 November 1947 be replaced by a geographical description of the limits of the area. The wording used, though, was identical with that used in the resolution of 29 November 1947.

An El Salvador amendment (A/801) would have Nazareth included in the internationalized area.

Two amendments submitted by Poland (A/804, A/805) proposed that the Conciliation Commission consist of five members instead of three and provided for necessary changes in the wording of the First Committee's resolution and of the French sub-amendment.

The representatives of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, France and New Zealand, sponsors of the joint amendment (A/789), speaking in support of their joint proposal, stressed that the main purpose of the amendment was to gain broader support in the Assembly for the resolution which the First Committee had passed by such a narrow margin. The representative of Australia held that, while the resolution contained no explicit reference to the State of Israel, the existence of that State was one of the basic facts to be taken into consideration. He explained that the amended resolution would also further the establishment of economic co-operation between the two parts of Palestine, and was not intended to impose a settlement on the parties concerned. He stated that the Conciliation Commission should be under the authority of the Assembly, which would decide its size and choose its members in a democratic manner. According to the representative of Brazil, the three elements indispensable to a settlement were (1) negotiation between the parties concerned, (2) mediation by the United Nations, and (3) international supervision of the final settlement. The representative of Canada emphasized that the United Nations role in Palestine was both to give advice and to prevent the fighting from expanding into general war. He held that the future of Palestine would have to be settled by the people of Palestine, but that the United Nations could make dear its views on the moves to be taken and assist them in taking these moves. To adhere exclusively to the resolution of 29 November 1947, he declared, would result in the failure of the Assembly to adopt any resolution on the question and would thus encourage violence in Palestine. The representative of China stated that all sponsors of the joint amendment had accepted the revised version of the French sub-amendment (A/800/Rev.1), and he urged the elimination of controversial points from the resolution so as not to prejudge conciliation efforts. The representative of France emphasized that his country had always laid particular stress upon direct negotiations between the parties concerned, and stated that the amended resolution would promote a return to peace and ensure, as far as possible, the protection of the Holy Places.

The representative of the United Kingdom declared that the draft resolution adopted by the First Committee differed greatly from that submitted by his delegation, which had asked endorsement of the conclusions contained in the first part of the Mediator's report. While the Committee had rejected these conclusions, it had also rejected, and by a greater margin, the proposal to base the Conciliation Commissions directive exclusively on the resolution of 29 November 1947; thus, it seemed certain that the Assembly would not, except on the questions of Jerusalem, the Holy Places and refugees, find the necessary majority for any precise directive to the Commission. For this reason, the selection of a well-balanced, influential and effective commission was of the utmost importance, and he therefore supported the French sub-amendment. He supported also the joint resolution (A/789), agreeing that its sole objective was to remove from the resolution all phraseology likely to antagonize the parties directly concerned. He said that a final settlement could be reached only with the consent of the parties concerned, but that this consent might be passive rather than active and that, therefore, the Commission, while having no powers of arbitration, should be free to use all the powers of persuasion at its disposal. While he welcomed direct negotiations under the auspices of the Commission, he considered that the Commission should prevent whichever party might be at the moment militarily weaker from being driven into direct negotiations under duress.

The representative of the United States supported the First Committee's resolution, the joint amendment and the French sub-amendment. While he favoured giving the Commission detailed instructions, he now agreed to omit these instructions since their defeat had been brought about precisely by the strongest supporters of the Arab States as well as of Israel, and it thus seemed that the parties most immediately concerned preferred this arrangement. He stressed, however, that the principle of a settlement by peaceful means and the arrangements for Jerusalem and the Holy Places continued to remain matters of international concern.

The representative of Poland held that the war and misery in Palestine were due to the attitude of the United Kingdom and the United States, which had undermined the resolution of 29 November 1947. He stated that the Arab peoples and the State of Israel should learn that they could not gain real independence by reliance on certain Great Powers, and he was sure Israel understood that it must follow a close alliance with the democratic Powers and establish cordial relations with the peoples of the Arab States. The United Kingdom, he charged, had been trying to substitute for the resolution of 29 November 1947 the Bernadotte plan, in order to maintain a hold on the greater part of Palestine by giving Arab Palestine and the Negeb to Transjordan. While the First Committee had rejected this plan, its final draft resolution, instead of affirming the resolution of 29 November, was evasive, and its authors were playing a game of duplicity by interpreting its meaning differently to Arabs and to Jews. He charged that the provisions for Jerusalem contradicted the resolution of 29 November by which the Trusteeship Council had responsibility for drawing up a statute for the city; he also maintained that the appointment of a United Nations representative for Jerusalem would allow certain Powers to interfere in the administration of the City; and that, if a Conciliation Commission were appointed by a committee of the five Great Powers without the right of veto, it would actually be appointed by three or four supporters of the Bernadotte plan. He strongly objected to the deletion of paragraph 2 (c) of the First Committee's resolution which referred to the State of Israel by name. In conclusion, he asked for the creation of a five-member commission, and appealed to Arabs and Jews to enter into direct negotiations based on the resolution of 29 November. The representative of Czechoslovakia also based his viewpoints on the resolution of 29 November 1947, advancing arguments similar to those of the representative of Poland. In addition, he stated that, after the establishment of the State of Israel, the Assembly could no longer make fundamental territorial arrangements like those in 1947, as this would infringe upon Israel's sovereignty and would represent interference in the domestic affairs of a State, in violation of the Charter. Territorial exchanges, he stressed, were possible only by mutual agreement of both parties concerned. He opposed not only the Mediator's conclusions but also making mention of the resolution of 14 May 1948 establishing the office of Mediator, maintaining that the conditions under which this office was created had changed fundamentally with the proclamation of the State of Israel.

The representative of New Zealand rejected implications that the sponsors of the joint amendment were lending themselves to imperialistic and capitalistic machinations. He furthermore rejected the accusations levelled against the United States and the United Kingdom. The resolution of 29 November 1947 was not being set aside or weakened, he stressed, and the Mediator's report was being neither endorsed nor rejected. The Commission, he pointed out, would have only powers of conciliation and could not set aside a decision by the Assembly.

The representative of the USSR contended that the Mediator, instead of limiting himself to his functions in implementing the truce and in assisting a settlement by peaceful means, went beyond his terms of reference and submitted a new plan in an attempt to replace the Assembly's decision of 29 November 1947. This new plan, he explained, was rejected by both parties and brought damage to the prestige of the United Nations. He considered that the resolution of 29 November 1947 must be substantially implemented, and that this implementation corresponded with the interests of both the Arabs and Jews in Palestine, since it recognized their right to self-determination and independence. He also added that in order to establish peace in Palestine it was necessary to withdraw all foreign armed forces from the territory of the Jewish and Arab States which had been created by the Assembly's decision.

The representative of Guatemala pointed out that many countries, before voting extensive powers to a Conciliation Commission, might want to know the composition of this commission and have assurance of its impartiality. The representatives of El Salvador, Belgium, Pakistan and the Dominican Republic also addressed the Assembly, the first three primarily in support of their resolutions, the latter, in order to reject implications that the late Count Bernadotte had been an instrument of the United Kingdom and the United States.


d. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY The Assembly then proceeded to vote on the proposals before it. All parts of the joint amendment (A/789) were adopted, the votes in favour of the various paragraphs varying from 41 to 46, with the exception of paragraph 3, as amended by the French sub-amendment (A/800/Rev.1), which was adopted by 35 votes to 6, with 5 abstentions. The Belgian amendment (A/791) was adopted by 41 votes to none, with 10 abstentions, that of Pakistan (A/803) by 40 to 8, with 5 abstentions. The amendment of El Salvador (A/801) and Poland (A/804) were rejected by roll-call votes of, respectively, 11 in favour to 17 against, with 29 abstentions, and 6 in favour to 47 against, with 5 abstentions. The Polish sub-amendment (A/805) was thus not put to a vote.

The First Committee's draft resolution, as amended, was then adopted by a roll-call vote of 35 to 15, with 8 abstentions, as follows:
The Assembly, at its 186th meeting on 11 December 1948, thus adopted resolution 194 (III),7/ which read as follows:

"The General Assembly,

"Having considered further the situation in Palestine,


e. CONSTITUTION OF THE CONCILIATION COMMISSION

The committee, consisting of the five permanent members of the Security Council designated in paragraph 3 of the above resolution, met immediately after the resolution was adopted. Upon their return, the representative of France, who had been chosen to preside over their meeting, announced to the Assembly that four of the representatives had agreed on a Commission consisting of France, the United States ant Turkey; the representative of the USSR had opposed this agreement and had asked that his view be recorded that the Commission should consist of five members, small States, among them Poland.

The representative of the USSR then addressed the Assembly in support of his viewpoint. The representative of Guatemala expressed fears that the presence of Turkey on the Commission might impart a certain bias, and suggested the inclusion of Colombia instead. The Colombian representative while thanking the representative of Guatemala nevertheless refused to be considered as a candidate; he, too, favoured a five-member commission.

The President of the Assembly stated that the procedure for establishing the Conciliation Commission 8/ had been laid down in the resolution adopted by the Assembly and that therefore no amendments were possible.

The proposal of the committee was then adopted by the Assembly by a vote of 40 to 7, with 4 abstentions.

2. Action of the Security Council

The action taken by the Security Council on the Palestine question during the period under review can be divided into two parts. The first part relates to the military phase of the question and includes such matters as complaints of truce violations, truce supervision, observance of the extent to which the interested parties complied with the Council's orders regarding cease-fire, and instructions to negotiate armistice agreements. This action is covered by the Security Council's resolutions of 19 October (S/1044), 4 November (S/1070), 16 November (S/1080) and 29 December 1948 (S/1169).

The second part of the Council's activities during this period deals with the negotiation and conclusion of General Armistice Agreements between the Provisional Government of Israel, on the one hand, and Egypt (24 February 1949), Lebanon (22 March), Jordan (3 April), and Syria (20 July ), on the other. Following the conclusion of the last of these agreements the Council considered that the military phase was at an end, and by its resolution of 11 August 1949 (S/1376, II), it terminated the functions of the Acting Mediator, and while re-affirming the ceasefire order of 15 July 1948 (S/902) it declared that the armistice agreements hat superseded the truce provided for in that resolution. By the same resolution the Council also provided for the continuation of such personnel of the Truce Supervision Organization as might be required to observe and maintain the cease-fire order, and to assist the parties concerned in the supervision and application of the terms of the armistice agreements. The Palestine Question continued to be retained on the Council's agenda.

During this period, the Council also received, through the Secretary-General, five progress reports from the Conciliation Commission on Palestine (S/1290 on 15 March, S/1310 on 19 April, S/1341 on 21 June, S/1396 on 22 September and S/1435 on 14 December).9/


a. ACTING MEDIATOR'S COMMUNICATIONS ON TRUCE SUPERVISION In his cablegram (S/1022), dated 30 September 1948, the Acting Mediator described the increasingly serious situation in Palestine as underlined by the assassination of Count Bernadotte and Colonel Serot. He invited the Council's attention to a disturbing tendency on the part of both Arabs and Jews to withhold co-operation from the Truce Supervision Organization, and to place obstacles in the way of its effective operation. He stated that appropriate action by the Security Council would help in ensuring and maintaining an effective supervision of the truce in Palestine.

This cablegram was considered by the Security Council at its 365th meeting on 14 October 1948. At the same time, the Council also considered the Acting Mediator's report on the assassination of Count Bernadotte (S/1018), and a cablegram from the Chairman of the Truce Commission (S/1023), who described certain aspects of the truce supervision, and stated that the attitude adopted by the Jewish authorities of Jerusalem appeared to be expressly designed to hinder the carrying out of the Security Council resolution of 15 July 1948 (S/902).

Invited by the Council to sit at the Council table 10/ and make an oral statement, the Acting Mediator stated that in his view the situation in Palestine would be helped by an expression of the Council's firm expectation that the parties concerned would honour all obligations resting on them as a result of the Council's resolutions of 29 May 1948 (S/801), 15 July 1948 (S/902), and 19 August 1948 (S/983). By these resolutions, the Security Council, inter alia, ordered a truce, called upon the Governments and the authorities concerned to issue cease-fire orders and informed them that in case of non-compliance by any party, the Security Council would consider further action to be taken under Chapter VII of the Charter, which deals with threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. The truce could be effective and fair only if there was a reasonable degree of co-operation from the parties. He feared that if the existing tendency continued the reasonable minimum of co-operation would soon be lacking with most serious consequences to the preservation and supervision of the truce.

The representative of Syria said that while the Arabs had obtained no military advantage during the truce, the Jews had continuously smuggled arms and fighters into Palestine from Eastern Europe and other places.

The representative of the United Kingdom stated that the question was now one of a threat to the foundation of the truce and to the authority of the Security Council by which the truce was maintained. He submitted a draft resolution jointly with the representative of China (S/1032), requesting the Provisional Government of Israel to submit an account of the progress made in the investigation of the assassinations, and determining certain duties of the Governments and authorities of the parties in connexion with the truce.

The representative of Israel informed the Council that the leader of the organization suspected of responsibility for the assassination of Count Bernadotte had been arrested. He considered that the Arabs, by their violations of the truce, had thereby improved their military position, and the Government of Israel had therefore every right under the terms of the truce, to resist attempts by the Egyptians, in violation of the truce, to cut off communications with the Negeb, which was and would remain an integral part of the State of Israel. He described the charges made by the Truce Committee (S/1023) as mostly without substance.


b. RESOLUTIONS OF 19 OCTOBER 1948

The joint United Kingdom-Chinese draft resolution was unanimously adopted at the 367th meeting of the Council on 19 October 1948, as orally amended by the representative of the USSR, and read as follows (S/1045):

"The Security Council

At the same meeting (367th on 19 October), the Security Council considered: two communications from the Acting Foreign Minister of Egypt (S/1038 and S/1041), protesting against alleged Zionist attacks by air and by land in violation of the truce; a letter from the representative of the Provisional Government of Israel (S/1043), drawing attention to the breach of the truce by Egyptian forces in the Negeb; and the report of the Acting Mediator (S/1042) to the Secretary-General concerning the serious outbreak of fighting in the Negeb sector of Palestine.

The Acting Mediator noted with regard to the fighting in the Negeb area that the appeal which he had issued for a temporary unconditional ceasefire had been accepted by the Egyptian Government on the sole condition that it be accepted by Israel. The Israeli reply, however, amounted to a rejection since it offered to negotiate but ignored entirely the request for a cease-fire.

The representative of Syria proposed the adoption of the Acting Mediator's suggestions in paragraph 18 of his report (S/1042), calling for an immediate and effective cease-fire after which, according to the Acting Mediator's suggestions, the following conditions might well be considered as a basis for further negotiations looking towards the full observance of the truce:

It was the understanding of the representative of Israel that the above sub-paragraphs were each to be the subject of negotiation, and that their adoption by the Security Council would not prejudice the outcome of such negotiation, or commit the Council to any solution of any one of the matters raised in those sub-paragraphs. The President confirmed this interpretation, and the Syrian proposal, as amended, was voted on in two parts. The first part consisting of the first two sentences (see below) was adopted unanimously, and the remainder was adopted by 9 votes with 2 abstentions (Ukrainian SSR and USSR). The text of the resolution, as adopted, read as follows (S/1044):

In a letter, dared 23 October 1948 (S/1049), the Acting Mediator informed the Council that, pursuant to its resolution (S/1045), he had fixed the time for the cease-fire in the Negeb at 12:00 noon on 22 October 1948, and that both the Egyptian and the Israeli Governments had replied that the necessary cease-fire orders had been given.

At the 373rd meeting of the Council on 26 October 1948, the President drew attention to a communication (S/1052), dated 23 October 1948, from the permanent representative of Egypt, charging violations of the truce by the Zionist forces and requesting an emergency meeting of the Security Council. He next drew attention to two communications from the Acting Mediator, the first (S/1053) transmitting communications from the Government of Egypt and the Provisional Government of Israel indicating that they had accepted the Central Truce Supervision Board's decision in case no. 12 involving the passage of convoys to the Negeb settlements, and the second (S/1055), a preliminary report on the observance of the truce in the Negeb and Lebanese sectors of Palestine.

With regard to his communication, the representative of Egypt stated that the Israeli military movements at the beginning of the recent conflict in the Negeb had been of such a character as to preclude their having been undertaken without considerable preparation, and they could not be explained as mere reprisals for an attack on a convoy. His Government expected from the Council both a cease-fire order and an order to the Jews to return to the positions held before 14 October, and, above all, an energetic and vigorous attitude which would make impossible new acts of aggression.

The representative of Syria stated that the Jews had been using every means to make the world understand that they intended to keep the Negeb for themselves, and that they had been encouraged by certain States, even in the Security Council itself, to entertain such a hope of extending their frontiers and of expanding their territory.

The representative of Israel, commenting on the statement of the representative of Egypt, pointed out that, in its resolution of 19 October 1948 (S/1044), the Security Council had not distinguished between sub-paragraph (a) which referred to a suggested withdrawal to previous positions, and sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) concerning other questions, the solution of which has been referred to the parties with a recommendation for direct negotiations. As regards those negotiations, it must be clear that to return to the previously existing situation would be contrary to the main purpose of the resolution of 19 October, that of ensuring that similar outbreaks did not occur again. He said that a situation similar to that in the Negeb was developing in the north, where irregular forces under Lebanese command were attempting to control all communications in a manner reminiscent of similar Egyptian attempts in the Negeb in July.


c. RESOLUTION OF 4 NOVEMBER 1948

At the 374th meeting on 28 October 1948, the Acting Mediator informed the Council of identical communications (S/1058, dated 25 October 1948), which he had addressed to the Egyptian Government and the Provisional Government of Israel regarding procedures for the withdrawal of their respective troops to positions held on 14 October, and the establishment of provisional truce lines. He also drew attention to the reply (S/1057) of the Provisional Government of Israel stating that the return to the military status quo ante was defined by the Security Council as a possible subject for further negotiations and did not imply an absolute injunction. The Acting Mediator stated that a position had been reached at which it should be made clear that any resort to force in Palestine would not be tolerated. In this case, the truce was not sufficient even though it was of indefinite duration. Broader action was required, such as a declaration by the Council that the parties be required to negotiate, either directly or through the Truce Supervision Organization, a settlement of all outstanding truce problems in all sectors of Palestine with a view to achieving either formal peace or, at the minimum, an armistice.

In submitting jointly with the representative of China a draft resolution (S/1059), the representative of the United Kingdom said that the time had come for the Council to show its determination to uphold the truce, by taking certain preliminary steps in the direction of action under Chapter VII of the Charter, as was contemplated in the resolution of 29 May 1948 (S/801). The joint draft resolution endorsed the order communicated to the Government of Egypt and the Provisional Government of Israel by the Acting Mediator on 25 October 1948 (S/1058). It also provided for the appointment of a committee of the Council consisting of the five permanent members, together with Belgium and Colombia, to report to the Council on measures to be taken under Article 41 of the Charter (such as complete or partial interruption of economic relations and means of communication and the severance of diplomatic relations) if either party or both should refuse to comply with the order of the Acting Mediator.

The representative of Israel, referring to the Council's resolution of 19 October 1948, (S/1044), said that its wording indicated an explicit distinction between the various steps proposed. He drew attention to the face that he had requested a ruling on the meaning of that resolution, and the President had made an unchallenged statement to the effect that the negotiations were to be a prior condition of the withdrawal. He said that the present state of affairs was a result of the invasion by Egyptian forces of territory which was not theirs and of their violation of the truce for sixteen weeks. The representative of Israel said that the Acting Mediators statement, to the effect that the transition from a truce to a formal peace was an urgent objective, agreed fully with the viewpoint of his Government.

The representative of Lebanon disputed this interpretation of the Council's resolution of 19 October (S/1044), and remarked that the Israeli representative wanted negotiations to proceed on the basis of a fait accompli.

The representative of the United Kingdom considered that the wording of the resolution of 19 October meant that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) would be necessary preliminary conditions to further negotiations. The Acting Mediator's interpretation of the resolution of 19 October, and the draft resolution jointly submitted by the representatives of the United Kingdom and China were in turn supported by Canada and Belgium.

According to the representative of the USSR, the Council on 19 October had adopted a hasty resolution. Furthermore, the new draft resolution would be useless and confusing unless the Council could study it more fully and recommend measures justified by the existing situation and the interests of the parties.

A formal motion by the representative of Ukrainian SSR that consideration of the question be postponed for one or two days to give delegations an opportunity to examine the joint draft resolution failed of adoption, the vote being 4 in favour, 4 against, with 3 abstentions (United Kingdom, Argentina, China). The representative of France proposed amendments to the joint draft resolution, which were accepted by both the representatives of the United Kingdom and of China.

At the 375th meeting on 29 October, the representatives of the United Kingdom and China introduced a revised version of their joint draft resolution (S/1059/Rev.2). Before taking action on this draft however the Council adopted without vote the following resolution submitted by the representative of Canada (S/1062):

"The Security Council
At the 376th meeting of the Council on 4 November 1948, the representative of Belgium (Chairman of Sub-Committee 16 of the Council set up by the above resolution) presented the Sub-Committee's report (S/1064) which also contained a draft resolution. The representative of the United States submitted amendments (S/1067) which, inter alia, proposed the substitution of reference to Chapter VII of the Charter instead of to Article 41 of the Charter, as proposed in the draft resolution.

At the same meeting the representative of Ukrainian SSR submitted a draft resolution (S/1065) as follows:

The representative of France expressed reservations concerning references to Article 41 in the proposal submitted by the Sub-Committee, and to Chapter VII in the last amendment submitted by the United States, and proposed that these references be deleted. The representative of Israel said the circumstances did not warrant reference to Chapter VII since the subject before the Security Council was not a breach of peace or an act of aggression, but an anticipated or contingent violation of the Acting Mediator's instructions within the framework of the truce. He said that the draft resolution submitted by the representative of Ukrainian SSR offered a more valid approach to the problem at that time.

The representative of USSR said that the Council must first ensure the implementation of its resolution of 19 October (S/1044), that is, the beginning immediately of negotiations between the interested parties, instead of taking a new decision, as was being suggested in the draft resolution of the Sub-Committee. He supported the Ukrainian SSR draft resolution (S/1065).

The representative of Syria considered the Ukrainian SSR draft resolution unacceptable among other reasons because of the attitude adopted by the representative of Ukrainian SSR when he was President of the Council.

At the 377th meeting on 4 November, the draft resolution submitted by the Sub-Committee, as amended by the United States, was voted on paragraph by paragraph, and was adopted as a whole by 9 votes to 1 (Ukrainian SSR), with 1 abstention (USSR). It read as follows (S/1070):

The Ukrainian SSR draft resolution (S/1065) was voted upon at the same meeting (377th of 4 November 1948) paragraph by paragraph, and rejected by a vote of 2 in favour (Ukrainian SSR and USSR), 1 against (Syria), and 8 abstentions.

Following the adoption of the resolution (S/1070), there was debate on the point raised by the representative of Lebanon that this resolution should also apply to the situation in the Galilee sector. In this connexion, the representative of the United Kingdom submitted a draft resolution (S/1069) to the effect that, in view of the information supplied by the Acting Mediator concerning the situation in northern Palestine, the scope of the Council's resolution of 4 November should be extended to the Galilee sector. After a brief discussion this resolution was postponed for later consideration.11/


d. RESOLUTION OF 16 NOVEMBER 1948

At the request of the Acting Mediator, the Security Council held its 378th and 379th meetings in private on 9 and 10 November 1948, respectively, to hear his views on the truce situation in Palestine and on the possibilities for a more permanent arrangement. In his suggestions, which for the purpose of convenience were submitted to the Council in the form of a draft resolution (S/1076), the Acting Mediator said that transition from the truce to a definite end of hostilities was an indispensable condition to the ultimate peaceful settlement of basic political issues. He proposed, therefore, that the Security Council should call upon the parties to undertake, immediately and through the good offices of the Acting Mediator, the settlement of all outstanding problems of truce in all sectors and the establishment of an armistice. This would involve the separation of the armed forces engaged in the conflict by creating broad, demilitarized zones under United Nations observations; it would also involve the ultimate withdrawal and reduction of forces to ensure restoration of peace-time conditions to Palestine.

At the 379th meeting on 10 November, the representative of the USSR submitted amendments (S/1077) to these proposals. First, he said, the parties concerned should be asked to negotiate not only through the good offices of the Acting Mediator, but also directly. Secondly, the purpose of these negotiations should be the establishment of a formal peace for Palestine rather than an armistice, as had been suggested by the Acting Mediator. Finally, the USSR representative proposed the deletion of the provision for broad demilitarized zones and the withdrawal and reduction of the armed forces of the parties concerned.

The Council resumed its public discussion of the Acting Mediators proposals and the USSR amendments at its 380th meeting on 15 November. The representative of Canada, supported by the representatives of France and Belgium, submitted a new joint draft resolution (S/1079), calling for the establishment of an armistice in all sectors of Palestine, and also calling upon the parties concerned to negotiate either directly or through the Acting Mediator. The armistice negotiations were to include the delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines beyond which the armed forces of either parry should not move, and the withdrawal and reduction of forces to ensure the maintenance of the armistice during the transition to permanent peace.

The representative of Syria, referring to the joint Canadian-Belgian-French draft resolution (S/1079), stated that an armistice could not be imposed upon the parties, but had to be accepted by both sides when they found that it was consistent with their interests. The truce had to be respected and implemented before the further step of an armistice could be taken.

The Acting Mediator said that an armistice would differ from a truce by specifically and firmly providing for a separation of forces and their withdrawal and reduction to peace-time status. Such an armistice should be achieved by direct negotiations if possible, or by indirect negotiations through the United Nations intermediaries.

The representative of the USSR considered that the suggestions of the Acting Mediator, which his delegation had endorsed and to which it had also submitted certain amendments, should have priority of consideration. Elaborating his amendment that the word armistice should be replaced by the words formal peace, he said that it would be difficult to establish the difference between a state of truce and an armistice. Referring to the joint draft resolution (S/1079), he said that it moved even further from the idea of peace and a permanent peaceful settlement, and that the creation of demilitarized zones would only create new difficulties. With the adoption of the modifications suggested by his delegation, he would support the Acting Mediator's draft resolution.

The representative of France pointed out that an armistice was not synonymous with a truce, and that there was real value in the suggested change in the joint draft resolution.

The joint draft resolution was also supported by the representative of the United States, who said that it would offer the parties new hope, a new programme of armistice and of negotiated peace. At the 381st meeting of the Council on 16 November, the representative of Israel observed that references to the resolution of 4 November (S/1070) in the joint Canadian-Belgian-French draft resolution contradicted the central purpose of the latter resolution, that is, the termination of the truce and the institution of a new phase. The resolution of 4 November was incompatible in principle and effect with the purpose of a peace settlement and with the conditions for unprejudiced negotiations. According to the joint draft resolution, the permanent demarcation lines were to be established through a process of negotiation regarding the withdrawal and reduction of the forces of the parties. Withdrawal and reduction could not have the same effect for the forces which came from outside as for the forces locally based. It was his opinion that, in general terms, the balance should be between the withdrawal of outside forces and the corresponding reduction of local forces. Finally, the representative of Israel believed that a distinction should be made between the establishment of the armistice, which could be decreed by the Security Council, and its implementation which, of course, must be a matter for negotiation.

The representative of Syria stated that the Arabs would not be expected to negotiate on the basis of recognition of the existence of the Jews as a sovereign State, and drop all their claims, rights and position. He requested that the previous resolutions adopted by the Council be implemented before any new steps were taken.

The representative of China supported the joint draft resolution. The representative of the United Kingdom, likewise, supported the draft resolution, and withdrew his own draft resolution (S/1069), which sought to extend the scope of the resolution of 4 November (S/1070). The joint draft resolution was also supported by the representative of Colombia.

The representative of Egypt emphasized the determination of his Government not to negotiate with the Zionists, whom they did not recognize as a party. If there were to be negotiations, his delegation welcomed the idea that they should be carried out with the representatives of the United Nations.

The Acting Mediator said he interpreted the joint draft resolution as having the following objectives: that the existing truce be quickly superseded by an armistice as a necessary step towards a permanent peace in Palestine; that the armistice, in principle, would involve such withdrawal and such reduction of the armed forces now engaged in Palestine as would make further fighting there improbable; that negotiations, either directly or through United Nations intermediary, were to be promptly undertaken toward those ends. He was convinced that an armistice signalling the end of fighting in Palestine would be equally in the interests of the Arabs and the Jews.

The representative of Syria proposed an amendment to the effect that the resolution of 4 November should also be applied to the Galilee sector.

The draft resolution of the Acting Mediator, as amended and endorsed by the USSR representative, was rejected by 2 votes in favour (Ukrainian SSR, USSR), none against, and 9 abstentions. A Syrian amendment to the joint draft resolution submitted by Belgium, Canada and France, which would have applied the Councils resolution of 4 November (S/1070) to the Galilean area was rejected by 3 votes in favour (Belgium, China, Syria) and 8 abstentions. The joint draft resolution was adopted paragraph by paragraph, with 8 votes in favour, and 3 abstentions (Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Syria) except on the fourth and fifth paragraphs which the Syrian representative voted against. The resolution as adopted read as follows (S/1080):


e. RESOLUTION OF 29 DECEMBER 1948

On 23 and 24 December 1948, the Egyptian Foreign Minister (S/1147) and the permanent Egyptian Representative to the United Nations (S/1151) informed the Security Council that Zionist forces had launched a new, large-scale attack, and requested an urgent meeting of the Council. When the Security Council held its 394th meeting in Paris on 28 December to consider this new development, it had also before it detailed reports on the Negeb fighting submitted by the Acting Mediator (S/1152 and S/1153). The United Nations, the Acting Mediator reported, was unable to supervise effectively the truce in the Negeb as its observers were being refused access to the area on the Israeli side. The Acting Mediator further said:

Speaking first, the representative of Egypt declared that the latest situation had developed from a failure to implement the resolution calling for a withdrawal of troops to positions held on 14 October. The Zionists, he said, had attempted to find excuses for their aggressive attitude, and had declined to implement the resolution of 4 November (S/1070) before the Egyptian Government had accepted that of 16 November (S/1080). To eliminate any possible basis for these excuses, he said, the Egyptian Government had accepted the 16 November resolution "in principle", in a letter dated 20 December to General Riley, Chief of the Staff of the Truce Supervision.

The representative of the United Kingdom submitted a draft resolution (S/1163), which called upon the parties to implement the Council's resolution of 4 November. It also asked the Council's Sub-Committee 17, established by the resolution of 4 November (S/1070), to meet at Lake Success on 6 January 1949 to study and report on the situation, and on the observance of the new ceasefire. Finally, it invited the new Council members, Cuba and Norway, to replace the two retiring members, Belgium and Colombia, on the Sub-Committee.

The representative of Israel said that the present situation was dominated by the fact that Egypt had refused to implement the Council's resolution of 16 November (S/1080), and was invoking only those resolutions of the Security Council which were favourable to it, such as the resolution of 4 November, and ignoring the others. Criticizing the United Kingdom draft resolution (S/1163), he said that it did not take into account Egypt's refusal to comply with the Council's resolution of 16 November, but concentrated on certain insufficiently established data while neglecting other data.

The representatives of Belgium and France declared that they could not agree with the interpretation that the implementation of the one resolution depended on the implementation of the other.

The discussion of the draft resolution was continued at the 395th (28 December) and 396th (29 December) meetings of the Council, at which certain amendments proposed by Egypt and France were accepted by the representative of the United Kingdom.

The draft resolution was voted upon paragraph by paragraph, and, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 8 in favour, with 3 abstentions (Ukrainian SSR, USSR and United States). The text of the resolution read as follows (S/1169):


f. CEASE-FIRE AND ARMISTICE AGREEMENTS

On 6 January 1949, the Acting Mediator informed the President of the Security Council (S/1187) that the Governments of Egypt and the Provisional Government of Israel had unconditionally accepted a proposal providing for a ceasefire to be effective at 12:00 hours G.M.T. on 7 January 1949, to be immediately followed by direct negotiations, under United Nations chairmanship, on the implementation of the resolutions of 4 and 16 November.

In pursuance of the Council resolution of 29 December 1948 (S/1169), the Security Council Committee on the Palestinian Question (Committee 17) met to consider the report of the Acting Mediator (S/1187), and heard statements from him, the Chief of Staff of Truce Supervision and the representatives of Egypt and Israel. The Committee was of the opinion that no further action was required at the moment, and decided that the Chairman should so report to the Security Council (S/1191).

Negotiations for an armistice agreement between Egypt and Israel opened at Rhodes on 12 January 1949 under the chairmanship of the Acting Mediator. Emphasizing the great and hopeful significance of the meetings, the Acting Mediator told the delegations that the decisions which they would be called upon to make in achieving agreement were momentous. They could not afford to fail and he had faith that they would succeed.

In his report to the Security Council (S/1209), the Acting Mediator stated that the agenda was sufficiently broad to cover points regarding the implementation of the resolutions of 4 and 16 November 1948, and that meetings were to proceed on the substantive items on the following three levels: preliminary discussions separately with each delegation; informal meetings between heads of delegations and the United Nations; joint formal meetings of the two delegations.

After forty-two days of negotiations in Rhodes, an armistice agreement between Egypt and Israel was signed on 24 February 1949 (S/1264). This information, together with the text of the Egypt-Israel General Armistice Agreement (S/1264/Corr.1 and Add.1) was communicated to the Security Council by the Acting Mediator.

The text of the Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement contained a preamble and twelve articles. Appended to it were three annexes and a number of letters from and to the Acting Mediator regarding confirmation of certain understandings of the Armistice Agreement between the parties concerned.

The preamble recalled resolutions of the Security Council of November 1948, calling upon the parties concerned to facilitate the transition from the existing truce to permanent peace in Palestine. It declared that representatives of Egypt and Israel had been empowered to negotiate and conclude an armistice agreement under United Nations chairmanship.

Article 1 set forth the principles which both parties agreed to observe fully during the armistice. These were:

The establishment of a general armistice between the armed forces of Egypt and Israel was provided for in the second article.

The third article made provisions for the withdrawal of Egyptian military forces in the Al Faluja area.

Article 4 affirmed the following principles and purposes: (1) the recognition that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council; (2) the recognition that any advance of the military forces of either side beyond positions held at the time the armistice was signed--except as provided for in the armistice--would not serve the basic purposes and spirit of the armistice; and (3) the recognition that it was not the purpose of the armistice to establish, to recognize, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests which might be asserted by either Egypt or Israel in the area of Palestine.

The fifth article explained the basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line. This line, the article stated, was not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary.

Article 6 described in some detail the Armistice Demarcation Line.

Article 7 declared that Egypt and Israel recognized the fact that in certain sectors of the total area involved, the proximity of the forces of a third party not covered by this Armistice Agreement made impractical the full application of all provisions of the Agreement to such sectors. Pending the conclusion of an armistice agreement in place of the existing truce with that third party, the article provided for the reciprocal reduction and withdrawal of forces of Egypt and Israel only to the western front and not to the eastern front.

The eighth article defined the area comprising the village of El Auja and vicinity, and declared that it should be demilitarized; both Egyptian and Israeli armed forces were to be totally excluded from there.

Article 9 described the manner in which all prisoners of war detained by either Egypt or Israel were to be exchanged.

In the tenth article, provisions were made for the establishment of a Mixed Armistice Commission to supervise the execution of the provisions of the Armistice Agreement. The article stated that the Commission was to be composed of seven members, three designated by each party to the agreement, and the seventh (to act as Chairman) to be the United Nations Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization or a senior officer from the Observer personnel of that organization designated by him following consultation with both parties to the Agreement. Decisions of the Commission, with headquarters at El Auja, were, to the extent possible, to be based on the principle of unanimity. Lacking unanimity, decisions should be by majority vote. On questions of principle, appeal was to be to a special committee comprising the United Nations Chief of Staff and representatives of Egypt and Israel. Provision was made for observers. The Commission's expenses, other than those relating to United Nations observers, were to be apportioned in equal shares between Egypt and Israel.

Article 11 stated that no "provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question."

The last article, declaring that the Armistice Agreement was to come into force immediately upon being signed, made provisions for the revision and duration of the Agreement.

The first annex to the Armistice Agreement described the plan of withdrawal from Al Faluja. The second annex delineated the western and eastern fronts in Palestine, and the third annex gave a definition of the defensive forces.

On 1 March 1949, the Acting Mediator informed the Security Council (S/1269) that, pursuant to the Armistice Agreement, the Egyptian forces which had been pocketed at Al Faluja since the outbreak of fighting in the Negeb on 14 October 1948 had been completely evacuated under United Nations supervision to points beyond the Egyptian-Palestine frontier.

The communications of the Acting Mediator regarding the signing of the Egypt-Israel General Armistice Agreement (S/1264, S/1264/Add.1) and the beginning of the implementation of this Agreement by both parties, were considered by the Security Council at its 413th meeting on 3 March 1949. The President congratulated both parties on the efforts and sacrifices which they had made in order to reach agreement, and expressed the Council's gratitude for the untiring efforts of the Acting Mediator, and for the efficient co-operation which he had received from all members of his staff. A number of representatives associated themselves with the remarks made by the President.

The representative of Egypt thanked the President and the Council for their appreciation of his Government's role with regard to the armistice. Egypt, he said, was very glad to have been able to give still another proof of its desire for peace, its respect for the Security Council and its unfailing compliance with the Council's resolutions.

The second cease-fire agreement in Palestine was signed by Jordan and Israel on 11 March 1948. Its terms provided that it was to go into effect immediately, be complete and enduring, and apply to all military or para-military forces of the parties concerned, wherever located (S/1284 and Corr.l).

Armistice negotiations under United Nations chairmanship between Israel and Lebanon, which began at Ras-en-Naqura on 1 March 1949, resulted in a General Armistice Agreement which was signed on 22 March 1949 (S/1296/Corr.1 and 2 and Add.1).

Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan signed an armistice agreement on 3 April 1949 (S/1302 and Add.1 and Corr.1).

Negotiations for an armistice between Israel and Syria (S/1292) resulted in the signing of an agreement on 20 July 1949 (S/1353/Add.1 and 2 and Corr.1).

The armistice agreements between Israel on the one hand and Lebanon, Jordan and Syria on the other hand were similar in general content to the Egypt-Israel Agreement. All agreements contained the same basic provisions, and affirmed the same principles. The Israel-Jordan Agreement also provided for the replacement by Jordan forces of the forces of Iraq in the sector held by the latter. An important article in this Agreement provided for the appointment of representatives of Jordan and Israel to a special committee, the duty of which would be to arrange for the normal use of the Holy Places and cultural institutions, and the free movement of traffic on vital roads. Maps delineating the armistice demarcation lines were appended to the Israel-Jordan and the Israel-Syria armistice agreements.


g. THE ACTING MEDIATOR'S REPORT

On 21 July 1949, that is, the day after the signing of the agreement between Israel and Syria, the last of the Palestine armistice agreements, the Acting Mediator submitted to the Security Council a report (S/1357) on the status of the armistice negotiations and the truce in Palestine. He stated that, as a result of the conclusion of armistice agreements between Israel, on the one hand, and Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria respectively on the other, an armistice applied to all of the fighting fronts in Palestine, and the military phase of the Palestine conflict had ended. Each agreement, he said, incorporated what amounted to a non-aggression pact between the parties and provided for the withdrawal and reduction of forces. The Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948 (S/1080) had thus been fulfilled. In his conclusions, the Acting Mediator stated that the Security Council truce in Palestine, that is, the imposed truce of 18 July 1948, had thus been superseded by effective armistice agreements voluntarily negotiated by the parties in the transition from truce to permanent peace. Since all these agreements were self-enforcing, and established the necessary machinery for their supervision, with the assistance of the United Nations Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision and United Nations observers at his command, it would seem unnecessary longer to impose upon the States concerned the restrictive conditions of the Security Council truce provided for in its resolution of 15 July 1948 (S/902).12/

The Acting Mediator paid a tribute to the courageous service rendered to the cause of peace in Palestine by the military observers of Belgium, France and the United States, and the Swedish officers who had served with the Mediator, the late Count Bernadotte. He recalled that over a period of fourteen months, ten members, including the Mediator, had lost their lives, and twice that many had been wounded. With the truce obsolete, the armistice agreements concluded, and the Palestine Conciliation Commission conducting peace negotiations, the Acting Mediator stated that the mission of the Mediator had been fulfilled, and any further activity on his part would inevitably impinge upon the work of the Palestine Conciliation Commission. In an annex to the report, he set out, in the form of a draft resolution, the general lines of action which the Security Council might consider appropriate to take. Such action might declare unnecessary the prolongation of the truce provided for in the Council's resolution of 15 July 1948. It might also reaffirm the order in that resolution to the Governments and authorities concerned, according to Article 40 of the Charter, to desist from further military action, and might call upon the parties of the dispute to continue to observe an unconditional cease-fire.


h. RESOLUTIONS OF 11 AUGUST 1949

The Council considered the report of the Acting Mediator (S/1357) at its 433rd and 434th meetings on 4 August, its 435th meeting on 8 August, and its 437th meeting on 11 August, when a vote was reached. It invited the Acting Mediator to take a seat at the Council table. At their individual requests (S/1360 and S/1363), the representatives of Israel and Syria were also invited to take their places at the Council table to participate without vote in the Council's discussions.

The members of the Council were unanimous in their praise of the work of the Mediator, the late Count Bernadotte, and the Acting Mediator, Dr. Ralph J. Bunche, and a joint draft resolution, submitted by Canada and Norway (S/1362), was unanimously adopted. The text of the resolution read as follows (S/1376, I):

In an opening statement to the Council (433rd meeting), augmenting his report, the Acting Mediator suggested that the Council might wish merely to reaffirm the injunction against resort to military action, that is, the cease-fire order in the resolution of 15 July 1948 (S/902), and the remainder of the resolution should be considered henceforth as inapplicable. Restrictions on importation and immigration should be eliminated; and there should be free movement for legitimate shipping. The Council should not, however, prematurely detach itself completely from the Palestine situation. He reported that the truce supervision personnel had been drastically reduced, so that the observer corps now consisted only of thirty-five officers and thirty-four enlisted men; this number could be reduced still further, since it was estimated that not more than thirty or forty observers at the outside need be retained to assist the parties, at their request, in the supervision of the terms of the four armistice agreements.

Emphasizing that the armistice agreements were not peace treaties and did not prejudice a final territorial settlement in Palestine, the representative of Israel stated that his Government would take its stand on the meticulous observance of the agreements already reached. He expressed a doubt, however, as to whether the Arab States officially regarded the agreements as a final end to hostilities in the Middle East, or merely as an interlude and prelude to a second round. He declared that if the Council's restraints were entirely lifted, then the Near East would become the scene of an armaments race. He declared also that, due to Jordan's unwillingness to discuss plans, the restoration of normal, daily life in the Jerusalem area, one of the major provisions of the Armistice Agreements, had not been possible.

Speaking at the 434th meeting on 4 August, the representative of the United Kingdom supported the Acting Mediator's suggestion that the existing truce restrictions should be eliminated and normal conditions restored. The United Kingdom, he said, did not want an arms race developing in the Middle East, or anywhere else. Any arms supplies which the United Kingdom might send would be for internal security and defence needs of the States concerned, as that Government was not in favour of the acquisition by Middle East States of war supplies in excess of their legitimate defence requirements. He concurred generally in the conclusions of the Acting Mediator and in the substance of the draft resolution annexed to the report.

The representative of the United States affirmed the full concurrence of the United States with the Acting Mediator's recommendations, and stated that all Governments should avoid weakening in any way the newly established armistice agreements. The United States would not permit any arms exports which might start a competitive arms race in the Middle East. He agreed with the Acting Mediator that the export of arms to that area of the world should be strictly limited to such materials as were within the scope of legitimate security requirements.

The representative of Canada said that he was happy to sponsor the draft proposals contained in the Acting Mediator's report, with which he was in full accord. He, however, proposed to delete the provision for linking the Conciliation Commission with the observance of the cease-fire. This task should be left to the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization. He accordingly submitted a draft resolution to this effect (S/1365). The Acting Mediator agreed with this modification.

The representative of Syria emphatically denies the allegations made by the representative of Israel which, he said, seemed to impute bad faith to the Syrian Government. The representative of Israel, he pointed out, had referred to the moral force of a continued arms embargo without, however, the system of inspection which existed under the truce. Despite this system, said the representative of Syria, it was the Israeli forces and not the Arab forces which found ways and means of obtaining arms under the truce. As an independent Government, Syria, while fully respecting its international obligations, would take all necessary steps to protect itself. The representative of Egypt endorsed the views expressed by the Syrian representative, and asked the Council not to weaken the agreements nor to question the good faith of the parties concerned.

The representative of China also fully supported the draft proposals of the Acting Mediator. The representative of France proposed a series of amendments to the Acting Mediators draft resolution (S/1364). The first of these would explicitly state that the Security Council considered that the armistice agreements should replace the truce which was now purposeless. Another amendment would reaffirm, pending a final peace settlement, the order contained in the Councils resolution of 15 July 1948 (S/902), calling on the Governments and authorities concerned to desist from any military action. A third amendment would relieve the Acting Mediator of the functions assigned to him by the Council, while a final amendment would retain the Palestine question on the Council's agenda pending a final peace settlement. Referring to the arms embargo, the representative of France said that either there must be a full embargo with complete control, or there must be no embargo at all and all mention of it must be avoided.

When, at its 435th meeting on 8 August, the Security Council resumed discussion of the Acting Mediator's report, the representative of Canada announced that he and the representative of France were submitting a joint revised draft resolution (S/1367).13/ He, therefore, asked for permission to withdraw the former Canadian draft resolution (S/1365). The representative of Norway expressed his full agreement with the Acting Mediator's conclusions, and supported the new revised draft resolution.

Speaking as the representative of the USSR, the President said that, now that military activities had come to an end, in the view of his delegation, direct contacts between the parties were necessary, and permanent and final agreement should be achieved without any outside pressure or help. There was no further need of observers on the spot, and the United Nations observers must be recalled. All questions dealt with by the Mediator, the Acting Mediator and the Conciliation Commission should be handed over to the parties in Palestine. He submitted amendments to this effect (S/1375). He agreed to the retention of the Palestine question on the Council's agenda.

At the suggestion of the representative of Canada, the Council heard the views of the Acting Mediator on the USSR proposal to disband the observer organization in Palestine. This, said Dr. Bunche, would lead to a nullification of certain important provisions in the armistice agreements. The retention of a nucleus of thirty or forty observers was indispensable, because each of the four armistice agreements provided that the fifth member of the armistice commission would be the United Nations Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization or an officer from the personnel of that organization designated by him. Thus, the armistice commissions themselves could not operate without some personnel of this kind being there. Furthermore, the Acting Mediator continued, each of the agreements also provided that, in connexion with supervising the implementation of the agreement, the Commission would call on observers from Arab or Jewish ranks or from the ranks of the United Nations observers, and that when these United Nations observers were called on they would remain under the command of the Chief of Staff. Also, the Acting Mediator pointed out, each of the agreements contained specific provisions relating to special situations, such as neutral or demilitarized zones, in which United Nations observer personnel were to remain in control.

The representative of the Ukrainian SSR observed that, now that the States concerned had concluded a long-term armistice and the services of a United Nations Mediator were no longer considered necessary, it was irrational to hand over the responsibility for the settlement of all future conflicts or difficulties in Palestine to one State--the United States--as represented by the United Nations Chief of Staff. He thought that if the Council put its faith in the Governments concerned to implement the armistice agreements, which envisaged a durable peace in Palestine, it could also have confidence in those Governments to solve, as best as they could, any new problems or causes of friction which might arise in connexion with the final settlement.

At the suggestion of the representative of Norway, the Council heard the views of the representatives of Egypt, Syria and Israel on the problem. The representatives of Egypt and Syria, while agreeing that the principle of withdrawing all supervision was sound, stated that the proposed supervision of the truce should continue to the extent provided for in the armistice agreements. The representative of Israel favoured the retention of only such United Nations observation personnel as might be required under the agreements. Since the Chief of Staff's responsibilities derived from the armistice agreements, the Chief of Staff did not represent any particular country but the Security Council itself. With the adoption of the Canadian-French draft resolution, there would no longer be a truce or a truce supervision organization, so that the title of the Chief of Staff would be obsolete and could survive purely in the historical context.

At the Council's 437th meeting on 11 August 1949, the representative of France commented on the USSR amendments (S/1375). As regards the USSR suggestion to delete any reference to the Conciliation Commission and to the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948, the representative of France said that the Council, even if it so desired, had no authority to dispose of a General Assembly resolution. As regards the USSR suggestion for direct negotiations between the parties, he pointed out that, in the joint Canadian-French draft resolution, negotiation with the Commission was mentioned only in the second instance as an alternative to direct negotiation. Referring to the USSR amendments regarding the abolition of the truce machinery, the representative of France thought that the comments made in the Council and the text of the draft resolution itself were sufficient assurances. Moreover, the provision to relieve the Acting Mediator of any further responsibility under the Security Council resolutions was exactly in accordance with the wishes expressed in the USSR amendment.

The representative of the United States supported the joint draft resolution which, he said, made it clear that the Security Council reaffirmed and maintained its order for unconditional ceasefire contained in its resolution of 15 July (S/902). It was prudent and fitting for the Security Council to maintain this order until permanent peace was achieved. In opposing the amendments of the USSR, the United States representative adduced arguments similar to those advanced earlier by the representative of France.

The President, speaking as the representative of the Soviet Union, said that, while he shared certain views expressed in the joint draft resolution, he considered its provisions to be inconsistent. The main purpose of the USSR amendments was to make perfectly clear the objective of the Council to express full confidence in the parties concerned, and to entrust them completely with the task of continuing direct negotiations independently and without participation of third parties or persons, in order to reach a final peace settlement.

The Council then proceeded to a vote. The USSR amendments (S/1375) to the joint draft resolution of Canada and France (S/1367) were voted upon paragraph by paragraph. The first two paragraphs were rejected by a vote of 2 in favour (Ukrainian SSR and USSR), 2 against (United Kingdom and United States), with 7 abstentions. The third paragraph was rejected by a vote of 2 in favour (Ukrainian SSR and USSR), 6 against, with 3 abstentions (Argentina, China, Egypt).

The joint draft resolution (S/1367) was adopted by 9 votes in favour, with 2 abstentions (Ukrainian SSR and USSR). The text of the resolution read as follows (S/1376, II):

i. DEMILITARIZATION OF THE JERUSALEM AREA

In the General Assembly resolution appointing the Conciliation Commission on Palestine,14/ there was also a request to the Security Council to take further steps to ensure the demilitarization of Jerusalem at the earliest possible date. At the suggestion of the representative of Egypt, this item was put on the Council's agenda at its 450th meeting on 11 October 1949. It came up for consideration at the 453rd meeting of the Council on 25 October. The representative of Egypt stated that he wished to explore, in co-operation with other members of the Council, the possibility of taking steps for the demilitarization of the Jerusalem area by which, he explained, he meant a real and sustained demilitarization.

Explaining the parliamentary situation involved in the suggestion of the representative of Egypt, the President said that the situation in Jerusalem had been stabilized by the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement. There was no question of substance pending before the Council, no proposal of any kind had been presented, and there was no issue of fact nor any threat to the peace. Since the question of the demilitarization of Jerusalem was to come before the Political Committee of the General Assembly in a few weeks time, the President suggested the postponement of this item until receipt of a complaint, if such came prior to the report of the General Assembly, and, if no complaint was received, to await the Assembly's report.

The Council decided to adjourn further discussion of this question indefinitely, retaining the item on its agenda pending consideration of the matter by the General Assembly.

3. Action of the General Assembly
at its Fourth Session

The question of Palestine came before the General Assembly again at its fourth session. The agenda item dealing with (1) the proposals for a permanent international régime for the Jerusalem area, and (2) the protection of the Holy Places 15/ were considered by the Ad Hoc Political Committee at its 43rd to 50th and its 57th to 61st meetings, held, respectively, on 24 to 29 November and 5 to 7 December 1949.


a. DISCUSSIONS IN THE AD HOC POLITICAL COMMITTEE In response to a request (A/AC.31/L.38), dated 19 November, from the head of the delegation of the Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan, the Committee unanimously decided to invite the representative of Jordan to take part in the debates on the item, without the right to vote. The Chairman of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, who was invited to take his place at the table, made a statement at the 43rd meeting on 24 November, introducing the report of the Commission.

The Ad Hoc Committee, had inter alia, the following documents for consideration:

(a) The first, second, third and fourth progress reports of the United Nations Conciliation Commission 16/ for Palestine (A/819, A/838, A/927 and A/992), dated 15 March, 19 April, 21 June and 22 September 1949, respectively.

(b) Letter, dated 16 November 1949, from the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine to the Secretary-General concerning protection of, and free access to, the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites in Palestine outside the Jerusalem area (A/1113). The letter contained a draft declaration on the Holy Places, submitted by the Palestine Conciliation Commission, and a declaration on the same subject, submitted by the Arab delegations.

(c) Letter from the permanent representative of Israel to the United Nations, dated 15 November 1949, to the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Political Committee (A/AC.31/L.34), enclosing a memorandum regarding the Draft Instrument for Jerusalem (A/973) submitted to the General Assembly by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine.

(d) Two reports of the United Nations Conciliation Commission (A/973 and Add.1), dated 1 September and 9 November 1949, respectively, containing a proposal for a permanent international régime for the Jerusalem area.17/

At the 43rd meeting of the Ad Hoc Political Committee on 24 November 1949, the representative of Australia submitted a draft resolution (A/AC.31/L.37), proposing that the General Assembly should, inter alia, instruct the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine to give urgent reconsideration to a permanent international régime for Jerusalem, with a view to bringing its proposals into closer harmony with the proposals set out in the resolution of 29 November 1947 and to report, with a detailed plan, to the fifth session of the General Assembly. Under the terms of this draft resolution, the Commission would continue for a further term of one year and with a membership of seven.

At the 44th meeting on 25 November, the representative of the USSR submitted an amendment (A/AC.31/L.41) to the Australian draft resolution proposing, among other things, to delete the references to the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 and to the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, and to dissolve the Commission. The amendment also proposed that the Trusteeship Council, at its next session, should complete the preparation of the draft statute for Jerusalem (T/118/Rev.2) 18/ and approve it with certain amendments.

At the same meeting, the representative of Israel submitted a draft resolution (A/AC.31/L.42), proposing that the General Assembly should authorize the Secretary-General to sign on behalf of the United Nations an agreement with the State of Israel, relating to the supervision and protection of the Holy Places in Jerusalem, and request him to report to the fifth regular session on progress made with respect to the signature and implementation of this agreement. The text of a draft agreement was annexed to the draft resolution.

At the 45th meeting of the Committee on 25 November, the representative of El Salvador submitted an amendment (A/AC.31/L.40) to the Australian draft resolution, providing that the General Assembly should confirm specifically the provisions concerning the City of Jerusalem, contained in its resolution of 29 November 1947, and that Nazareth should be included in the permanent international régime under the administration of the United Nations.

A Cuban amendment (A/AC.31/L.43) to the draft Instrument submitted by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (A/973) proposed, inter alia, that Jerusalem be declared an international city, and defined the authority and jurisdiction respectively of the United Nations and of the authorities of the two zones in Jerusalem.

At the 48th meeting of the Committee on 28 November, it was agreed that a sub-committee should be established to study and report on the various proposals regarding Jerusalem which had been or would be introduced, and that representatives of Denmark, India and Mexico should consult together with a view to submitting a provisional list of members.

The representatives of Colombia and Lebanon, at the 49th meeting of the Committee, submitted joint amendments (A/AC.31/L.44) to the draft Instrument proposed by the Conciliation Commission. The amendment envisaged a redraft of the draft Instrument, in order to eliminate the division of the Jerusalem area into two zones and in order to establish the Jerusalem area as a corpus separatum under a special international régime administered by the United Nations. The amendment also proposed, among other things, that the Commissioner to be appointed should effect the restitution of all property within the Jerusalem area seized without the consent of its rightful owners.

At the 50th meeting of the Committee on 29 November, the general debate on the question of Jerusalem was concluded and the Committee discussed the composition of the proposed sub-committee. The Committee amended the provisional list submitted by the representatives of Denmark, India and Mexico, and decided to establish a sub-committee composed of Australia, Canada, Cuba, Egypt, El Salvador, Greece, India, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Mexico, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR and Uruguay, to study all draft resolutions and amendments submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee and to the subcommittee on the question of an international régime for the Jerusalem area and the protection of the Holy Places, and to submit its report at the end of three days.

A representative of Jordan was invited to sit, without vote, during the meetings of the sub-committee. The representative of Colombia, who had presented a draft resolution (A/AC.31/L.44) to the Ad Hoc Political Committee jointly with the representative of Lebanon, was also invited to attend the meetings. In addition, a representative of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine was asked to attend the meetings. The sub-committee adopted, by 9 votes to 6, with 2 abstentions, a revised and amended version of the Australian draft resolution. This called upon the General Assembly, inter alia, to restate its intention that Jerusalem should be placed under a permanent international régime, which should envisage appropriate guarantees for the protection of the Holy Places. The following specific provisions of the Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947 were to be confirmed: (1) the City of Jerusalem to be established as corpus separatum under a special international régime to be administered by the United Nations, (2) the Trusteeship Council to be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority, and (3) the City of Jerusalem to include the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns. It further provided that the Trusteeship Council should be requested at its next session to complete the preparation of the Statute of Jerusalem (T/118/Rev.2), omitting certain inapplicable provisions, and to proceed with its implementation. All States concerned were to be called upon to approach these matters with good will, and be guided by the terms of this resolution.

The Ad Hoc Political Committee considered the report (A/AC.31/11) of the sub-committee which contained the draft resolution on Jerusalem, from its 57th meeting on 5 December to its 61st meeting on 7 December.

At the 57th meeting, the representative of Bolivia introduced a draft resolution (A/AC.31/L.52), proposing that the General Assembly should give the Holy Places a juridical status, in order to provide for their internationalization. Such internationalization, the draft declared, was to be based upon an agreement between the United Nations, Israel and Jordan. The draft also proposed the establishment of a special commission of seven members to collaborate with the Secretary-General in formulating a juridical statute covering the internationalization of the Holy Places of Jerusalem.

The representatives of the Netherlands and Sweden submitted a joint draft resolution (A/AC.31/L.53), inviting the Governments of the States in Palestine to enter into certain pledges regarding the Holy Places in their territories, and to establish an international régime for the Jerusalem area, with a Commissioner to supervise the protection of the Holy Places and assure free access to them. It also provided for a special consular court of nine members to settle disputes. To this joint draft resolution, the representative of Chile, at the 59th meeting of the Committee, submitted amendments (A/AC.31/L.58) which would have deleted the provision for a consular court.

Amendments (A/AC.31/L.54) to the subcommittees draft resolution were submitted by the representative of Cuba. Instead of vesting administrative authority in the Trusteeship Council, as provided for in the sub-committees draft, the Cuban amendments provided for a United Nations Commissioner with certain minimum powers and duties. The Commissioner was to be assisted by a Consultative Council selected by the Commissioner from the religious groups concerned.

At the 58th meeting of the Ad Hoc Political Committee on 6 December, the representative of Bolivia withdrew his draft resolution (A/AC.31/L.52), while the representative of Cuba withdrew his amendment (A/AC.31/L.54) to the draft resolution recommended by the sub-committee and re-introduced it as a draft resolution (A/AC.31/L.57).

At the same meeting, the representative of the USSR submitted an amendment (A/AC.31/L.56) to the draft resolution recommended by the sub-committee, proposing that the General Assembly should dissolve the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine.

In addition to the above proposals, the Ad Hoc Political Committee also considered a statement by the representative of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, who expressed the hope that no form of internationalization would be adopted which was detrimental to the safety, integrity and interests of his country. Internationalization would serve no useful purpose, he said, since the Holy Places under the control of his Government were safe, and there was no need for a special régime.

At its 61st meeting on 7 December, the Committee concluded discussion of the question and proceeded to vote on the draft resolution recommended by the sub-committee (A/AC.31/11) and the amendment submitted by the representative of the USSR (A/AC.31/L.56). The USSR amendment was rejected by a vote of 5 in favour, 46 against, with 5 abstentions. After a paragraph-by-paragraph roll-call vote, the draft resolution recommended by the sub-committee was voted upon as a whole and adopted by 35 votes to 13 with 11 abstentions.

In view of the adoption of the draft resolution recommended by the sub-committee, the draft resolutions (A/AC.31/L.53 and 57) submitted jointly by the representatives of the Netherlands and Sweden and by Cuba, respectively, were not put to the vote.

The Ad Hoc Political Committee submitted its report (A/1222) to the General Assembly on 7 December 1949.


b. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FIFTH COMMITTEE

At its 235th meeting on 8 December, the Fifth Committee considered the provisional financial estimates (A/C.5/367) rendered by the Secretary-General for the implementation of the draft resolution on the internationalization of the City of Jerusalem and the protection of the Holy Places, and the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions on the estimates (A/1226). The Secretary-General recommended a sum of $8,150,000. The Advisory Committee proposed $8,000,000.

The representative of the USSR proposed an amendment to reduce the estimate to an amount of $3,000,000, and the representative of Poland proposed an estimate of $4,000,000. The USSR amendment was rejected by a vote of 10 in favour to 18 against, with 16 abstentations; the Polish amendment was rejected by a vote of 12 in favour to 19 against, with 13 abstentions.

The recommendation of the Advisory Committee ($8,000,000) was approved by a vote of 25 to 4, with 15 abstentions.

The Fifth Committee then discussed the estimates recommended by the Advisory Committee for the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine and for the supervision of the armistice agreements. The representative of the USSR proposed that the estimate of $700,000, recommended by the Advisory Committee, be reduced to $500,000.

The Committee rejected the USSR proposal by a vote of 6 in favour to 20 against, with 15 abstentions, and adopted the Advisory Committee's recommendation of $700,000 by a vote of 31 to 6, with 5 abstentions.


c. DISCUSSION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN PLENARY MEETING The General Assembly, at its 274th and 275th plenary meetings on 9 December, considered that part of the report (A/1222) of the Ad Hoc Political Committee dealing with the question of an international régime for the Jerusalem area and the protection of the Holy Places.19/The Assembly, at the same time, had before it a joint draft resolution submitted by the Netherlands and Sweden (A/1227) and a USSR amendment (A/1238/Rev.1) to the draft resolution recommended by the Ad Hoc Political Committee.

The joint draft resolution, inter alia, invited the Governments of the States in Palestine to establish an international régime in Jerusalem, and provided for the appointment of a Commissioner by the Secretary-General, on the nomination of a committee of the General Assembly consisting of the eleven members of the Security Council, to supervise the protection of, and free access to the Holy Places. The USSR amendment provided for the addition of a Section III to the resolution recommended by the Ad Hoc Political Committee which was divided into Sections I and II. This would dissolve the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine. Another section--Section IV--provided for in the USSR amendment would approve an appropriation in the budget estimates for 1950 of three million dollars in respect of the implementation of the draft resolution.

The draft resolution recommended by the Ad Hoc Political Committee was supported by a number of representatives, including those of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Cuba, Egypt, El Salvador, Greece, Haiti, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Peru, Syria and the USSR.

Representatives opposing this draft resolution included those of Canada, Denmark, Guatemala, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the Union of South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States and Yugoslavia.

The representatives supporting the draft resolution recommended by the Ad Hoc Political Committee believed that the implementation of that resolution would ensure peace and security in Jerusalem and would meet the interests of both the population of the city of Jerusalem and all religious groups.

The representative of Argentina declared that his country, traditionally and pre-eminently Catholic, could not but react favourably to the idea of internationalizing Jerusalem.

Affirming his support for the Ad Hoc Committees draft resolution, the representative of Brazil hoped that, in spite of the difficulties that certainly existed, Israel and Jordan would collaborate loyally to apply the Assembly's decision and would faithfully carry out the plan to be proposed to them by the Trusteeship Council.

The representative of Cuba considered it essential to establish an international régime which would safeguard the Holy City from all quarrels and ambitions which might lead to war and thus endanger the Holy Places and prevent free access to them by the faithful of all religions.

Jerusalem, the representative of Egypt stated, had been an Arab city since time immemorial, and both in justice and equity it should remain so. However, the General Assembly had decreed in 1947 that the city should be constituted a corpus separatum under a special international régime and should be administered by the United Nations. Israel, he said, opposed this, and had repeatedly defied the authority of the United Nations and affronted its authority with impunity; it was trying to intimidate the General Assembly into retracting its solemn decision. In contempt of the Assembly's resolution to internationalize Jerusalem, Israel had moved a number of its departments and central services into the city, where they were challenging the United Nations' authority. That challenge had to be met if the United Nations were to survive as an instrument of peace, and could be met if they adopted the Committee's draft resolution. He declared that continuation of Jewish rule in New Jerusalem, even if the area were demilitarized, constituted a threat to the Arabs and a grave danger to the Holy Places.

The resolution recommended by the Ad Hoc Political Committee, declared the representative of El Salvador, met the sentiments of the majority of the peoples of the world. He considered that if the United Kingdom had been able to administer Palestine, there was all the more reason to believe that the United Nations could do so, as it was an organization composed of fifty-nine States.

Supporting the Committee's draft resolution, the representative of Greece said the Holy Places belonged to all mankind and should be accessible to the pilgrims of the three great religions concerned Jews, Christians and Moslems. No solution, he remarked, could be regarded as satisfactory which did not protect the Holy Places from any temporal Power which at any moment, by a unilateral act might invalidate the most solemn guarantees.

The representative of Haiti stressed the fact that his country would accept the decision to internationalize Jerusalem, as such a decision would be in keeping with the wishes of Catholic countries.

The representative of Iraq recalled that his country had repeatedly opposed the Assembly resolution of 1947 under which Palestine had been partitioned. That had been a great blow to the sanctity of the Holy Land as a whole. As for Jerusalem, it should, in all justice and equity, be an Arab city within an Arab State. Since, regrettably, the Arab point of view did not prevail in international politics, he stated that Iraq was forced to accept full and complete internationalization as the lesser evil, and would accordingly vote in favour of the Committee's draft resolution.

The choice expounded the representative of Lebanon, lay between the interna- tionalization of Jerusalem and nationalization, which would make it a centre of nationalistic activity and that, he declared, would be most inappropriate. He added that the prestige of the United Nations was at stake, because the United Nations had already taken a firm decision on that matter previously.

The representative of Pakistan was of the opinion that a régime for the effective internationalization of Jerusalem must be adopted and put into effect.

Peace, declared the representative of Peru, required that there should be only one autonomous municipal authority for all the inhabitants of Jerusalem regardless of their creed or religion without any domination by one political group over another. To achieve that aim, he said, there must be an absolute régime of effective international control. What was needed was a peace in harmony with future needs which made it possible subsequently to reaffirm the full, absolute and definite authority of the United Nations in the Jerusalem area.

The General Assembly should cast a unanimous vote in favour of the complete interna- tionalization of a unified Jerusalem, the representative of Syria maintained. The urgency to save Jerusalem from destruction and to ensure free and undisturbed access to the Holy Places by believers of all religions should prevail over ideological considerations and political rivalries.

The discussion that had taken place in the Ad Hoc Political Committee on the question of Jerusalem, observed the USSR representative, had shown that some States wished to forget the Assembly's 1947 resolution, and it was clear that the United Kingdom, the former Administering Power, had not given up the idea of maintaining its control over Palestine. For its part, the United States had proposed the establishment of a trusteeship régime for Palestine. This plan would have allowed the British to remain masters of that country and the United States to take a hand in the management of affairs in Palestine. He argued that the United States, which had voted in favour of the 1947 resolution, had changed its position and rallied to the support of British policy in Palestine. That attitude had been forced upon it by the interests of the oil and other monopolies and by the anxiety of the joint Anglo-American military staffs, which regarded Palestine as an essential area in their strategic plan for the Middle East. He maintained that it was that conspiracy between the United Kingdom and the United States which had brought about the outbreak of war in Palestine and had thrown the Arab and Jewish peoples into conflict. He declared that he would vote for the draft resolution submitted by the Committee, as he believed that its implementation would ensure peace and security in Jerusalem and would meet the interests of both the population of the city and all religious groups.

Those representatives opposing the draft resolution recommended by the Ad Hoc Political Committee stressed the fact that its adoption might jeopardize the truce in Jerusalem, complicate the finances of the United Nations and be impossible to implement.

The representative of Canada stared that for the General Assembly to adopt a solution that would not work would be a great disservice to the United Nations, and, more particularly, would be an act of irresponsibility in regard to the Holy Places, the protection of which it must be the first duty of the General Assembly to ensure.

In view of the telegram from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Jordan (A/1231), informing the Assembly that Jordan would oppose the execution of any decision contrary to its rightful wishes, the representative of Denmark said that his delegation felt that the implementation of the Committee's draft resolution would be fraught with great difficulties. These difficulties, he maintained, might be so great that they might jeopardize the very aim of the draft resolution, the protection of the Holy Places, and might also endanger the work of the United Nations.

The representative of Guatemala considered that the Committee's draft resolution was impossible to apply, and that it would not give the Holy Places the effective protection which his delegation desired for them.

The representative of Israel declared that the draft resolution before the Assembly implied an attempt to fly in the face of legitimate and unalterable realities, to devise an arrangement impossible of execution, to set the United Nations on a course which seemed bound to end in a fiasco, and to leave the Holy Places without adequate provision. He said that if Jerusalem became a corpus separatum, the Government of Israel must leave and with it would go its services, amenities and subventions. The same was true of the Holy Places. If the Government of Israel remained the responsible authority, it must have full executive powers in its area and would then be ready, within that area, to honour its obligations with regard to sanctuaries. If, however the Government of Israel departed, all its obligations in Jerusalem would fall to the ground, and if the population, in the meantime, made the establishment of any other authority impossible, there would be no effective organ whatsoever to assume the protection of the Holy Places. He added that the prestige of the United Nations was bound to suffer a severe setback if an attempt to carry out the Committee's draft resolution failed, as it must fail. The Holy Places would remain unprotected if the existing authority was removed and no other substituted.

The representative of the Netherlands stated that he could not support the proposal for establishing Jerusalem as a separate body governed by the United Nations. To be successful, such a plan should be supported to some extent by the Governments most concerned. Yet, the plan for a corpus separatum had been rejected by Israel and Jordan alike. Consequently, Jerusalem and its Holy Places, administered by the Trusteeship Council, would be surrounded by hostile forces and a population hostile to the international agreement. Hostility would entail the need of defence against threats from outside and from within. Defence meant soldiers, munitions and equipment. He asked who was to provide these. The representative of Norway endorsed these views.

The representative of Sweden viewed the proposed action with concern; for it might upset the armistice in the Holy Land and entail measures that could not properly be estimated in advance. He questioned the cost of carrying out the proposal. If implementation did not work smoothly, the sums needed might total far more than the United Nations could afford. He declared that that was why Sweden and the Netherlands had again introduced the proposal they had submitted in the Ad Hoc Political Committee for internationalizing the Holy Places without disturbing the existing political situation in Jerusalem. He observed that this proposal aimed at ensuring the protection of the Holy Places with the collaboration of the parties most concerned.

The representative of South Africa agreed that protection of the Holy Places could best be achieved by international control, but such control should not disregard the legitimate rights and interests of those States in which Jerusalem was situated. The régime to be established there should, if at all possible, have the support of those at present responsible for the government of the city. He declared that he could not support the draft resolution submitted by the Committee because it was impractical and unrealistic and its enforcement might require action that could lead to an extremely dangerous situation.

The representative of the United Kingdom stated that he preferred the Conciliation Commissions proposals 20/ to those contained in the draft resolution before the Assembly. He asked those delegations which had voted for the draft resolution in the Committee how they proposed to implement it. Members of the United Nations were urged to consider whether the authority and prestige of the United Nations would be better upheld by the passing of a resolution which, viewed as a theoretical exercise, might be impeccable, but which was rather too far removed from reality and might therefore risk failure, or by continuing to search for agreement as provided in the Charter. He hoped that even at that juncture it might not be too late to persevere along the path of seeking agreement and compromise.

The representative of the United States considered that the adoption of the measures proposed would involve the United Nations in countless difficulties and responsibilities. He contended that the United Nations would be committed to a financial burden which might easily exceed the entire budget of the United Nations and, furthermore, might entail expenses which could not yet be calculated.

In the opinion of the representative of Yugoslavia, internationalization imposed by a United Nations decision would be fraught with new dangers for peace in Palestine. That scheme would complicate the situation and might, quite easily, create serious international problems. He felt that it would not be useful to create further tension, on the one hand, while exposing the United Nations to the risk of failure on the other. He pointed out that experience had shown that in Palestine itself adjustments and even settlements could be reached, despite all the difficulties, by direct agreement between the Arabs and the Jews.

In addition to its sponsors, the joint Netherlands-Swedish draft proposal was supported by a number of representatives, including those of Canada, Chile, Iceland and Norway. The sponsors of the joint draft resolution considered that their proposal was both workable and acceptable to all parties concerned, and their draft resolution was being submitted because the General Assembly should have an alternative proposal before it, in case the draft resolution submitted by the Ad Hoc Political Committee did not receive the necessary two-thirds majority. They believed that the adoption of the joint draft resolution was the only solution which might lead to conciliation between the parties concerned, and thus safeguard the Holy Places and ensure peace in the Holy Land.

The representative of Lebanon, among others, argued that the Netherlands-Swedish proposal was no more workable than the Ad Hoc Political Committees plan. He declared that he had been informed that Jordan, one of the States most directly concerned with the problem, considered the proposal more detrimental to its position in the long run than the full internationalization plan as proposed by the Ad Hoc Political Committee. He stated that there was nothing in the joint draft resolution to substantiate its claim to internationalization.


d. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY

At the 275th plenary meeting on 9 December, the representative of Uruguay introduced a draft resolution (A/1241), sponsored by his delegation and that of Denmark, proposing that debate on the question should be adjourned, and that a special session of the General Assembly should be called for further consideration of the problem. After some debate on procedure, this draft resolution was rejected by a roll-call vote of 20 in favour to 34 against, with 5 abstentions.

The Assembly then voted on the amendment submitted by the USSR representative (A/1238/Rev.1). The first part of the amendment, which called for the dissolution of the Palestine Conciliation Commission, was rejected by 5 votes in favour to 43 against, with 8 abstentions. The second part of the amendment, which called for the approval in the 1950 budgetary estimates of an appropriation of $3,000,000 for implementing the resolution on an international régime for Jerusalem, failed of adoption, having received a vote of 19 in favour, 14 against, and 16 abstentions.

The Assembly then proceeded to vote on the draft resolution recommended by the Ad Hoc Political Committee.

The first part of the draft resolution, comprising the preamble and paragraph 1 of section I down to and including the words page 146, was adopted by a roll-call vote of 39 to 14, with 6 abstentions.

Point (1) of paragraph 1 of section I was adopted by a roll-call vote of 39 to 14, with 6 abstentions.

Point (2) of paragraph 1 of section I was adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 to 15, with 6 abstentions.

Point (3) of paragraph 1 of section I was adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 to 14, with 8 abstentions.

The portion of the first sentence of paragraph (2) of section I, down to the words "approve the Statute", was adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 to 14, with 8 abstentions.

The latter part of the same sentence was adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 to 14, with 8 abstentions.

The remainder of paragraph 2, beginning with the words "The Trusteeship Council", was adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 to 14, with 8 abstentions.

Section II was adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 to 15, with 6 abstentions.

The resolution as a whole was adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 to 14, with 7 abstentions, as follows:
The President announced that since the Ad Hoc Committees draft resolution dealing with Palestine had been adopted, the draft resolution of the Netherlands and Sweden was superfluous and he would not put it to the vote.

The text of resolution 303 (IV), as adopted at the 275th plenary meeting on 9 December 1949 is as follows:21/

4. Action of the Trusteeship Council

In order to consider its responsibilities under resolution 303 (IV) (see above), the Trusteeship Council held its second special session from 8 to 20 December 1949. At the fourth meeting of this session on 13 December 1949, the Council granted requests of the Governments of Egypt, Lebanon and Syria that their representatives should be allowed to participate in its deliberations, in an advisory capacity, and without the right to vote.

Discussion of the method by which the Council should undertake its responsibilities in the matter proceeded at the fifth and sixth meetings of the session on 15 and 16 December. At the seventh meeting on 19 December, the Council adopted by 11 votes in favour, none against, and 1 abstention, a draft resolution submitted by the representative of Mexico (T/426), entrusting the President with the task of preparing a working paper on the Stature in accordance with the General Assembly resolution of 9 December 1949 (303 (IV)), to be submitted to the Council at the beginning of its sixth regular session in Geneva on 19 January 1950. The resolution also invited the members of the Trusteeship Council, if they so desired, and, similarly, the Governments participating without vote in the Council's deliberations to send to the President written suggestions or observations on the provisions of the draft Statute. The Council further authorized the President to ascertain the views of any other interested Governments, institutions or organizations (T/SR.201 of 21 December 1949).

At its eighth meeting (20 December), the Council adopted a further resolution (T/427), in which it expressed the opinion that the Government of Israel, in removing to Jerusalem certain of its ministries and central departments, was likely to render more difficult the implementation of the Statute. It requested the President (a) to invite the Government of Israel to submit a written statement on these matters, to revoke the measures which it had taken, and to abstain from any action liable to hinder the implementation of the General Assembly resolution, and (b) to keep closely in touch with the developments in Jerusalem while the Council was not in session.

5. United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine

The United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, established by General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948,22/ presented on 15 March, 19 April, 21 June, 22 September and 14 December 1949 five reports (A/819, A/838, A/927, A/992 and A/1252), giving details of its activities in relation to its general task of conciliation and to the problems of Jerusalem and of refugees.23/

The Conciliation Commission, on 24 January 1949, set up its official headquarters at Government House in the neutralized zone of Jerusalem. It began its work by establishing contact with the Governments concerned. To this end, it met informally with the Israeli Foreign Minister at Jerusalem and the Transjordan Foreign Minister at Jericho. Between 12 and 25 February, it made official visits to the Governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Transjordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Israel.

The Commission summarized its preliminary efforts in its first progress report (A/819). It reported that its most pressing task should be to use its good offices for the purpose of enabling the Governments concerned to meet and enter into negotiations--if possible direct--and to collaborate with them, in order that these negotiations might result in a final settlement of all outstanding questions. The Commission considered it advisable to allow the Acting United Nations Mediator to continue directing the negotiations on the military level at Rhodes, as the success of those negotiations might be jeopardized if the Security Council transferred their direction from the Acting Mediator to the Conciliation Commission. A special committee on Jerusalem and its Holy Places was established. The Commission invited the Arab States to meet in Beirut on 21 March to exchange views on the refugee question and, if desired, also on other questions.

The exchange of views with the Arab Governments, which took place in Beirut from 21 March to 5 April, and an interview with the Prime Minister of Israel in Tel Aviv on 7 April, were summarized in the second progress report (A/838). During the conversations at Beirut, the Arab delegation, in general, indicated acceptance of the principle of an international régime for the Jerusalem area, on condition that the United Nations should be in a position to offer the necessary guarantees regarding the stability and permanence of such a régime. On the other hand, the Prime Minister of Israel stated in Tel Aviv that the Government of Israel intended to request the General Assembly to revise part of its resolution of 11 December 1948. His Government accepted without reservation an international régime for, or international control of, the Holy Places in the city of Jerusalem, but could not accept the establishment of an international régime for the city. The Commission also reported that the special committee on Jerusalem and its Holy Places had held interviews with representatives of the Arab and Jewish central and local authorities, and had heard the views of the Christian, Moslem and Jewish religious authorities in Palestine.

The third progress report (A/927), covering the period 9 April to 8 June inclusive, outlined the talks held at Lausanne, which began on 27 April. The Commission reported that the exchange of views held in Lausanne, unlike those held in Beirut, concerned not only specific tasks entrusted to the Commission by the General Assembly, but also its general task of conciliating the respective points of view of the parties, with a view to achieving a final settlement.

The Commission, the report stated, was not able to engage the Arab and Israeli delegations in direct negotiations under its auspices. The Arab delegations insisted that the Commission should look upon them as a single party, carrying on all discussions and negotiations with them en bloc, whereas the Israeli delegation preferred to discuss each question separately with the State or States immediately concerned. The Commission did not relinquish the possibility of holding meetings with one or more Arab delegations separately when the nature of the questions made this step desirable.

The Commission constituted a General Committee, comprising the chief advisers of its members, to study, in collaboration with the delegations of the Arab States and of Israel, the questions submitted to it by the Commission. Subsequently, the General Committee examined certain questions concerning refugees and territorial adjustments.

On the proposal of the Commission, the Arab delegations and the Israeli delegation signed separately with the Commission, on 12 May 1949, a Protocol to which was annexed a map on which were indicated the boundaries defined in the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947. The Protocol was as follows:

Following upon the signature of the Protocol, the Commission urged the two parties to make known their views on outstanding questions.

During the discussion of the territorial questions, the delegation of Israel proposed, inter alia, that Israel's frontiers with Lebanon and Transjordan should remain the same as those between those countries and Palestine under the United Kingdom mandate. As regards the central area of Palestine, the Israeli delegation proposed that, without entering into the question of the future status of that area, the boundary between it and Israel should follow the present line between Israeli and Transjordanian military forces, subject to certain modifications in the interests of both parties, to be discussed at a later date. Until the future status of that area was settled, Israel would continue to recognize the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan as the de facto military occupying Power.

The Arab delegations indicated that their proposal concerning refugees bore a territorial aspect, since it envisaged the return of refugees to areas designated as Arab territory.

In conclusion, the Commission reported that its immediate problem consisted in linking together the negotiations on the refugee problem and those concerned with territorial questions.

The fourth progress report of the Conciliation Commission (A/992) covered the period 9 June to 15 September inclusive. It described the establishment of the Economic Survey Mission for the Middle East.24/ The Commission reported that on 1 September it had approved a draft text (A/973) of an Instrument establishing a permanent international régime for the Jerusalem area.

In the draft Instrument the Commission, taking into account the existing political situation in Jerusalem, proposed:

1. That the Jerusalem area should be permanently demilitarized and neutralized;

2. That the area should be divided into two zones, one Arab and one Israeli, to be administered by the respective authorities;

3. That four principal organs, namely, a United Nations Commissioner, a General Council, an International Tribunal and a Mixed Tribunal, should be see up to exercise certain specific powers concerning mainly the protection of and free access to the Holy Places in the Jerusalem area, the protection of human rights, the co-ordination of the public services of common interest and the solution of the various legal conflicts resulting from the existence of two separate zones.

The draft Instrument was transmitted to the Secretary-General for communication to the General Assembly.

In conformity with the Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948, the Commission communicated to all delegations and the Secretary-General the text of a draft declaration (A/1113) to be made by the Israeli and Arab Governments according to which they would guarantee the protection of and free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites of Palestine situated in the territory placed under their authority by the final settlement of the Palestine problem or, pending that settlement, in the territory then occupied by them under armistice agreements. In answer, the Arab Government submitted on 15 November 1949, a joint declaration guaranteeing the protection of and free access to the Holy Places. The Israeli Government reiterated its readiness to give similar guarantees. On 9 September, at the suggestion of the Secretary-General, the Conciliation Commission appointed Dr. Alberto Gonzalez Fernandez (Colombia) as United Nations representative in Jerusalem. (However, owing to personal reasons, Dr. Gonzalez Fernandez was unable to assume his duties and submitted his resignation on 19 September 1949. Pending further action by the Palestine Conciliation Commission, the Principal Secretary of the Commission was authorized to carry out the necessary co-operation with the local authorities in Jerusalem.)

The fifth progress report of the Conciliation Commission (A/1252) covered the period 16 September to 9 December 1949 inclusive. The Commission reported that it became aware that publication of its draft text (A/973) of the Instrument establishing a permanent international régime for the Jerusalem area had given rise to certain misconceptions and misrepresentations. The Commission accordingly circulated, as an addendum to its draft Instrument, a statement (A/973/Add.1) setting forth certain clarifications of its plan. In this statement, the Commission emphasized, inter alia, the fact that its proposed plan for the Jerusalem area was submitted to the General Assembly only after extensive consultation with all interested parties.

The report contained the text of the address of the Chairman of the Commission before the Ad Hoc Political Committee of the General Assembly on 24 November. In this address, the Chairman explained the principles which had guided the Commission in drawing up its draft Instrument for the internationalization of the Jerusalem area, and elucidated the internal structure of the Instrument itself.

On 8 and 15 November 1949, the report declared, the Israeli and Arab delegations respectively communicated (A/1113) to the Commission their Governments position with regard to the required guarantees for the protection of and free access to the Holy Places outside the Jerusalem area. The Arab delegations submitted a joint declaration guaranteeing the protection of and free access to the Holy Places. The Israeli delegation reiterated its readiness to give similar guarantees.

With respect to the territorial question, the Commission reported that the Arab delegations still adhered to the terms of the Protocol of 12 May and saw no reason to deviate from the proposals which they had already presented. The Israeli delegation reaffirmed its desire to open direct peace negotiations with each of the interested parties; it subsequently informed the Commission that since the whole future of the Conciliation Commission was under discussion in the General Assembly, it would be preferable to await the outcome of that discussion before embarking upon any long-term planning of the conciliation effort in the future.

6. Assistance to Palestine Refugees

The urgency of the problem of providing assistance to Arab refugees was emphasized by the United Nations Mediator on Palestine in his progress report of 16 September 1948 (A/648) to the General Assembly.25/ His recommendations included a proposal that the United Nations adopt a plan of assistance which would integrate the activities of the specialized agencies, the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, and appropriate voluntary bodies. As one of the minimum conditions for the success of any effort to bring peace to Palestine, he held that it was incumbent upon the international community to accept its share of responsibility for the refugees of that land. The Mediator asked the United Nations to affirm the right of the Arab refugees to return to their homes in Jewish-controlled territory at the earliest possible date, and he recommended the establishment by the United Nations of a conciliation commission for Palestine, which would supervise their repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation and also assure the payment of adequate compensation for the property of those choosing not to return to their former homes. In a covering letter attached to the progress report (A/647), the Mediator drew special attention to the necessity for humanitarian measures to relieve the desperate condition of Arab refugees, and he asked that the matter be included in the agenda of the third session of the General Assembly.


a. CONSIDERATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT ITS THIRD SESSION

At its 142nd plenary meeting on 24 September 1948, the General Assembly allocated part three of the Mediator's report, dealing with assistance to the Palestine refugees, to the Third Committee. The Committee also considered a second progress report (A/689/Corr.l/Add.1), submitted on 18 October by the Acting Mediator, who emphasized the rapid deterioration in conditions which had contributed to the marked increase in preventable deaths, especially among children. He stated that the voluntary response to the late Mediator's appeal for contributions had been far from adequate, and he described the problem as one which already exceeded the capacity of the Arab States and the refugees themselves. In recommending that provision be made to take care of 500,000 refugees, the Acting Mediator estimated that an adequate relief programme would entail an expenditure of $30,000,000.
(1) Discussions in the Third Committee

At the 108th meeting of the Third Committee on 20 October, the plight of the refugees was reviewed by the Acting Mediator and characterized as the most urgent aspect of the whole Palestine question. He was inclined to the belief that prompt relief would contribute materially to the creation of a more favourable atmosphere for the settlement of the political phase of the dispute. The director of Disaster Relief, appointed by the Mediator in September 1948 to initiate a relief programme, was also heard by the Committee. He reported that the approach of the winter season, coupled with threats of famine and disease, indicated a very critical situation.

The discussion was resumed at the 117th-118th meetings of the Third Committee on 29-30 October when a joint draft resolution was submitted by Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States (A/C.3/315). Its provisions embodied the principal recommendations of the Acting Mediator and sought to establish ways and means of implementing those measures with the least possible delay.

The general principles of the joint draft resolution were acceptable to the Members, although there was some difference of opinion with respect to points of detail. The advisability of having the Third Committee consider the problem exclusively from its humanitarian aspect was suggested by the representatives of Uruguay and Venezuela, but the United States delegation felt that any decision taken on one aspect of the problem should form a logical part of the general solution as a whole. The representatives of Egypt and India invited the Committee to pay particular attention to issues relating to repatriation and rehabilitation, and the representative of Poland warned that an almost insoluble refugee problem might develop if no general political solution could be reached. The USSR delegation contended that attempts to emphasize the humanitarian aspect were merely a manoeuvre to distract attention from the crux of the problem, and it placed responsibility for the plight of the refugees upon the United States and the United Kingdom. It held that the latter country had not loyally fulfilled the Assembly's resolution and had influenced a number of States to join in the war against Israel. A similar stand was taken by the representative of the Byelorussian SSR. Opposition to any plan for considering assistance to refugees as any part of a general solution of the Palestine problem was voiced by the representative of Saudi Arabia, who felt that this might be interpreted as disguised aid and would therefore constitute a threat to the future of Palestine. The delegations of Norway and Pakistan insisted that the United Nations had a direct responsibility towards the refugees, inasmuch as the present impasse had developed as a result of the General Assembly's resolution of 29 November 1947.

A number of delegations, including those of Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Uruguay and Venezuela, questioned the advisability of borrowing money from the Working Capital Fund, partly to avoid creating a precedent, but particularly in view of the fact that repayment would be dependent upon voluntary contributions.

The Secretary-General was of the opinion that the Secretariat should not be assigned operational responsibilities which it was not properly equipped to handle. He pointed out that the spirit of the Charter indicated that such responsibilities should be entrusted to a competent specialized agency and he suggested that, should this be impossible in the present circumstances, it would at lease be necessary for the Assembly to set up a continuing body to which the Secretary-General could refer all matters of principle and policy and with which he could share the operational responsibilities.

A draft resolution (A/C.3/316), supplementing the joint draft resolution (A/C.3/315), was submitted by the representative of Bolivia, who proposed that the Assembly establish 31 January 1949 as Palestine Refugee Day and recommend that Member States consider the possibility of organizing a public collection in order to constitute a fund for assisting Palestinian refugees. He also asked that the Assembly set up an ad hoc board to advise the Secretary-General on matters of policy arising in connexion with the refugee operations. Amendments to the joint draft resolution, presented by Norway (A/C.3/315) and Venezuela (A/C.3/316), suggested that all Member States make a contribution and that a limitation be placed upon contributions in kind.

At its 118th meeting on 30 October 1948, the Third Committee set up Sub-Committee 2 to examine all draft resolutions and amendments, to consult with the Secretary-General on administrative aspects of the question, and to draw up a unified draft resolution. The sub-committee, established by a vote of 31 to 4, with 5 abstentions, was composed of representatives of Belgium, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the USSR, the United Kingdom, the United States and Venezuela. The sub-committee held a total of nineteen meetings between 2 and 12 November and gave particular attention to the following three points: (a) the establishment of a special committee: (b) the economic and financial aspect of assistance to refugees; (c) the question of the equitable distribution of relief. In addition to the draft resolutions and amendments forwarded from the Third Committee, the sub-committee considered a report of the Fifth Committee (A/C.3/323) relating to the financial implications of draft resolution A/C.3/315 and consulted with the Secretary-General on the administrative aspects of the question. The Secretary-General submitted a working plan which would concentrate authority in the hands of the Director for Palestine Refugee Relief and of the Secretary-General himself. He was of the opinion that the plan, if adopted, would assure prompt action in bringing effective relief to the Palestine refugees. During the general debate, numerous amendments to the draft resolution (A/C.3/315) were considered, and, on 10 November, the sub-committee unanimously adopted a draft resolution (A/C.3/SC.2/13/Rev.1) which was incorporated as Annex I in its report to the Third Committee (A/C.3/337). A memorandum by the Secretary-General (A/C.3/SC.2/W.l/Corr.2/Rev.1), regarding organizational arrangements which might appear appropriate for the speedy and efficient implementation of a United Nations Palestine Refugee Programme, was included as Annex II to the report.

The sub-committees report was examined by the Third Committee at its 135th and 136th meetings on 13 November. There was some discussion as to whether the Director for Palestine Refugee Relief should be appointed by the Secretary-General or by the General Assembly, and whether his headquarters should be established at Lake Success, Geneva or in the Middle East. An amendment submitted by Egypt and Saudi Arabia (A/C.3/338), provided for the inclusion of the words who would establish headquarters in the area and was adopted by a vote of 20 to 9, with 17 abstentions. The Committee also took note of a memorandum from the Secretary-General (A/C.3/336), in which he outlined exploratory negotiations with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the League of Red Cross Societies, as well as with ocher voluntary organizations with a view to determining practical means by which such organizations could assume over-all responsibility for distribution of relief in the field.

The sub-committees proposal was adopted by 42 votes to none, with 4 abstentions, and its financial and administrative aspects were referred to the Fifth Committee for consideration and report. The draft resolution (A/725), as approved by the Third Committee, was submitted to the General Assembly for approval.
(2) Recommendations of the Fifth Committee

Three amendments were introduced during the debate on 5 November in the Fifth Committee. They provided for a ceiling of $2,500,000 on administrative and local expenses, ant authorized the Secretary-General to make advances from the Working Capital Fund in consultation with the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions. It was also proposed that the selection of the Directors headquarters be left to the discretion of the Secretary-General. Subject to these amendments, the draft resolution presented by the Third Committee was adopted by a vote of 27 to none, with 13 abstentions.
(3) Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly

The reports of the Third and Fifth Committees (A/725 and A/726) were discussed at the 163rd plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 19 November 1948. Differences of opinion with respect to the location of the Directors headquarters were reconciled by agreement to omit any reference to their location in order to hasten the adoption of the relief plan.

The representative of the United Kingdom observed that assistance to the refugees was one of the minimum conditions for re-establishing peace in Palestine, and he announced that his Government had decided to contribute one million pounds sterling for relief purposes. He suggested that the reputation of the General Assembly would be greatly enhanced if other States would record their sympathy for the refugees in practical terms. He credited the activities of the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund with having upheld the prestige of the United Nations up to the time of the formulation of the present draft resolution, and he urged all Member nations to adopt the resolution unanimously and make their own contributions as speedily as possible.

The draft resolution submitted by the Third Committee, as amended in the Fifth Committees report, was approved by the General Assembly which, at its 163rd plenary meeting, unanimously adopted resolution 212 (III), as follows:

At the 186th plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 11 December 1948, the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine was established to assist the Governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all outstanding questions. Specific reference was made to the Palestine refugees and paragraph 11 of the Assembly resolution 194 (III) which reads:
(4) Consideration by the General Assembly
at the Second Part of the Third Session

During the second part of the third session of the General Assembly, the plight of the Palestine refugees was referred to at different times during discussions in the Ad Hoc Political Committee, which was asked to consider Israel's application for membership in the United Nations. At the 45th meeting of the Committee on 5 May 1949, the representative of Lebanon suggested that action on Israel's application be postponed until the Israeli Government accepted the principle of the right of refugees to return to their homes.

The Israeli delegation insisted that the solution of the refugee problem was an inseparable part of the negotiations for a general peace settlement. It acknowledged an obligation to provide compensation for abandoned lands but favoured the resettlement of the refugees in Arab countries as the major point in any general solution of the problem.

A Lebanese proposal that the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine be instructed to ascertain, and report to the fourth session of the Assembly, whether Israel was prepared to accept the principle of allowing refugees to return home should they so desire, was rejected by a vote of 19 in favour to 25 against, with 12 abstentions.


b. CONSIDERATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT ITS FOURTH SESSION

At the fourth regular session of the General Assembly, the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine presented four progress reports (A/819, 838, 927 and 992) covering its activities during the period January-September 1949. Considered by the Ad Hoc Political Committee, these reports dealt extensively with the work of assisting the Palestine refugees.
(1) Progress Reports of the Conciliation Commission

The first progress report (A/819) reviewed the preliminary arrangements for the establishment of close relations with the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and with the Governments concerned. The Commission stated that, as a result of preliminary talks, held with the authorities in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Transjordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Israel, it found the Governments of the Arab States and the Government of Israel to be in an attitude of mind definitely favourable to peace. The continuation of negotiations by repeated visits to the various capitals was considered a practical impossibility, and the Commission had decided to invite the Arab States to hold meetings for the purpose of exchanging views on the refugee problem.

The second progress report (A/838) reviewed the substance of preliminary talks held in Beirut with the Arab delegations and in Tel Aviv with the Prime Minister of Israel. The principal subject of those conversations had been the refugee question. Separate meetings between the Commission and each of the Arab delegations were held in Beirut from 21 March to 5 April 1949, and the Arab representatives were unanimous in recognizing: (a) the necessity of giving absolute priority to the refugee question; (b) the requirement that any solution of the problem must be contingent upon the acceptance by the Government of Israel of the principle established in General Assembly resolution 194 (III) 26/ of 11 December 1948.

The Arab delegations pointed out that the Government of Israel had not accepted the principle of allowing refugees to return to their homes, and had made its practical application almost impossible. They referred to the complete absence of security for the Arabs in areas under Israeli control as well as a lack of those guarantees provided for minorities under the Partition Plan. They also complained of measures taken by the Israeli Government to block the bank accounts of the refugees and to liquidate their real and personal property. The Israeli absentee law was strongly condemned, and the Commission was requested to obtain from the Government of Israel positive clarifications of its position.

On 7 April, the Commission proceeded to Tel Aviv where it informed the Prime Minister of Israel of its exchange of views with the representatives of the Arab States. Without giving a direct reply as to whether the Government of Israel accepted the principle established by the General Assembly resolution, which would permit refugees to return to their homes should they so desire, the Prime Minister pointed out that the resolution specified that refugees who wished to return to their homes should live in peace with their neighbours. He contended that this passage made the possibility of a return of the refugees contingent on the establishment of peace. He did not, however, exclude the possibility of acceptance for repatriation of a limited number of Arab refugees, but made it clear that his Government considered that a real solution of the major part of the refugee question lay in the resettlement of the refugees in Arab States. The Prime Minister stated that his Government would co-operate sincerely in efforts to reach a solution of the problem, but that it adhered to the belief that the refugee question should be examined and solved during the general negotiations for the establishment of peace in Palestine. Subject to confirmation by his Government, he accepted the Commission's invitation to send a delegation to continue conversations with the Commission in a neutral place where representatives of the Arab States would also be present. It was understood that these new conversations would nor be confined exclusively to the question of refugees.

The Conciliation Commission commented upon the deplorable material and moral situation of the refugees, and stated that it was imperative that measures be taken towards a prompt and permanent solution of the problem. It would be necessary to obtain an agreement, in principle, by the Arab States with respect to the resettlement of those refugees who did not desire to return to their homes. It also believed that, for purely physical reasons, it would be necessary, in a certain number of cases, to envisage the return of the Arab refugees as taking place according to the general plans for resettlement under the control and supervision of the United Nations. The refugees should therefore be fully informed of the conditions under which they would return, particularly of the obligations which they might incur and of the rights that would be guaranteed to them.

The Commission, which also received and heard representatives of non-governmental organizations, church dignitaries, committees of refugees and delegates from Arab and international organizations contributing to the work of assisting the refugees, was of the opinion that the problem could not be permanently solved unless other political questions, notably the question of boundaries, were also solved.

It was convinced that a considerable amount of preparatory work of a technical nature would be required in order to carry out satisfactorily any plan of repatriation to Israel or resettlement in Arab territories. These conclusions led the Commission to contemplate the creation of a technical committee which, functioning under the immediate supervision of the Commission, would be entrusted with the preparatory work involved. It had in mind a programme of public works to be undertaken by Israel and the Arab States which would make possible the return of the refugees and the immediate absorbing of those who did not desire to return to their former homes.

The Commission's third progress report (A/927) covered the discussions which took place in Lausanne, Switzerland, during the period 27 April to 8 June 1949. In support of its contention that the refugee question and the territorial question were closely interlinked, the Commission drafted a protocol which accepted the use of a specific map of Palestine as a basis for discussions. The map showed the territory attributed to the Arab and Jewish States respectively, by the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947. The protocol was signed by the Commission and the Arab delegations (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria) on the one hand, and by the Commission and the Israeli delegation on the other.

The Commission reported that, as a result of the exchange of views, it had been possible to make a precise distinction between the problem of repatriation, resettlement and social and economic rehabilitation of the refugees, and the problem raised by the immediate preliminary measures which might be taken by the Government of Israel to safeguard the rights and property of the refugees.

The Arab delegations insisted that the first step must be the acceptance by the Government of Israel of the principle of the repatriation of refugees who wished to return to their homes. The Commission was unable to obtain Israeli acceptance of this principle, and it found nothing in the Lausanne talks to justify any change in the observations made in its second progress report. No action was possible on the proposal that Arab States agree to the resettlement of those refugees who did not desire to return to their homes.

On the general subject of repatriation and resettlement of the refugees, the delegation of Israel declared that if the Gaza area were incorporated in the State of Israel, its Government would be prepared to accept as citizens of Israel the entire Arab population of the area, both inhabitants and refugees, on the understanding that resettlement of the refugees in Israeli territory would be subject to such international aid as would be available for refugee settlement in general. The Israeli delegation stated, however, that it was not in a position to submit to the Commission proposals concerning the number of refugees it would accept in the event that the Gaza area were not incorporated in Israel.

The Arab delegations submitted a proposal directed toward the immediate return of the refugees coming from the territory then under Israeli authority and which formed part of the Arab zone shown on the map attached to the protocol of 12 May.

The Commission transmitted the above suggestions to the different delegations, but no agreement on them was reached.

The study of preliminary measures necessary for the preservation of the rights and property of the refugees occupied a large part of the Commission's attention and activity. Oral and written communications presented by the Arab delegations requested measures to facilitate the return of the proprietors of orange groves, the reunion of families separated as a result of hostilities, and access to bank accounts now blocked by the Government of Israel. All these matters provided the subject of continuing discussions between the Commission and the Israeli delegation.

At a meeting, held on 7 June with representatives of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees (UNRPR) and of the three organizations responsible for the actual distribution of relief, considerable concern was expressed with regard to the financial aspect of the question. The representatives of the relief organizations stated that any interruption of the relief work during the winter months would constitute a catastrophe for which they would refuse to take any responsibility whatever. The Commission drew the attention of the Secretary-General to the gravity of the situation, and suggested that it would be useful if the question of new funds for refugee relief were included among the first matters to be examined by the General Assembly.

The Commission reported that the technical committee had been created and would proceed immediately to Palestine to inaugurate preliminary studies in the field concerning the refugees.

In reaching its conclusions, the Commission stated that its immediate problem consisted in linking together negotiations on the refugee problem and those concerned with territorial questions. It held that a solution of the refugee problem must relate not only to the general aspect of the question, that of the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees, but also to its more immediate aspect concerning preliminary measures to be taken for the safeguarding of their rights and property.

The fourth progress report of the Commission (A/922), covering the period 9 June to 15 September 1949, noted a willingness of the Israeli Government to give immediate consideration to the problem of refugees, with the proviso that its contribution to the solution of the question would be limited by considerations affecting the security and the economy of the State. Subject to certain conditions which provided that the refugees would be settled in areas where they would not come in contact with possible enemies of Israel, and that it reserved the right to resettle repatriated refugees in specific locations in order to ensure that their reinstallation would fir into the general plan of Israel's economic development, the Israeli Government would be prepared to accept the return to Israel, in its present limits, of 100,000 refugees. This figure was in addition to the total Arab population existing at the end of hostilities and would increase the total number of that population to a maximum of 250,000. It was further stated that this repatriation would form part of a general plan for resettlement of refugees which would be established by a special organ to be created for the purpose by the United Nations.

The Commission considered the proposal of the Israeli delegation to be unsatisfactory, and limited itself to communicating this proposal unofficially to the Arab delegations for their information. The Arab delegations, also unofficially, transmitted a memorandum, in which they asserted that the Israeli proposal was contrary to the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948, and was also contrary to the protocol of 12 May 1949, under the terms of which the proposal could bear only upon the territories allotted to Israel according to the map attached to that document. The Arab delegations protested the contention of the Israeli delegation that the settlement of Arabs in Israeli territory must be subordinated to economic and strategic considerations but they were not averse to discussing the disposition of refugees originating in areas allocated to Israel on the map in question. They also favoured compensation in kind for the refugees who might not return to their homes.

On 15 August, the Commission submitted to all delegations present in Lausanne a memorandum asking whether the various delegations were prepared to sign a declaration according to which (a) the solution of the refugee problem should be sought in the repatriation of refugees in Israeli-controlled territory, and in the resettlement of those not repatriated in Arab countries or in the zone of Palestine not under Israeli control; (b) in the event that an Economic Mission was charged by the United Nations with the establishment of major work projects in the Middle East, all parties would undertake to facilitate the task of the Mission and aid in the implementation of such solutions as it might propose; (c) agreement to the above-mentioned conditions should not prejudice the rights reserved in connexion with the final settlement of the territorial question; (d) renewal of funds for emergency aid to refugees until technical and financial aid should be allotted by the international community.

The delegations were also asked to present a provisional estimate of the approximate number of refugees which their Governments would be ready to accept.

The reply from the Arab delegations, received on 29 August, indicated that they were prepared to study the implementation of the Commission's proposal with respect to repatriation and resettlement, subject to observations contained in their earlier memorandum, which asked for international guarantees against discrimination on grounds of race or faith. With regard to work which might be undertaken by the Economic Mission, the Arab delegations undertook to recommend that their Governments facilitate its operations and assist in the implementation of such solutions as it might propose.

The delegations of Jordan and Syria stated that their Governments were prepared to receive such refugees as might not return to their homes, but the representatives of Egypt and Lebanon declared that it would be difficult to contemplate the resettlement of a number of refugees on their existing territory. They would, however, study the question in the light of the prevailing situation and within the framework of international technical and financial aid. Collectively, the Arab delegations urged that the United Nations continue to supply the funds necessary for emergency aid to refugees.

The Government of Israel, in its reply of 31 August, announced its willingness to sign a declaration subject to precision on the following points: (a) that solution of the problem be sought primarily in resettlement in Arab territories; (b) that Israel would facilitate the task of the Economic Mission without binding itself in advance to implement the solutions proposed; (c) that non-discrimination against refugees also apply to Arab States; (d) that international financial assistance also be extended to the resettlement of Jewish refugees from Arab-controlled areas of Palestine.

The Israeli delegation reiterated its previous offer with regard to the number of refugees the Government of Israel was prepared to accept, and repeated that this must be considered as part of an over-all settlement of the Palestine problem.

The Commission subsequently advised all delegations that it would await the conclusions and recommendations of the Economic Mission before formulating its own suggestions regarding the general solution of the refugee problem. It further stated that it had relied to a great extent on the report prepared by the Technical Committee (A/AC.25/3) dealing with the various problems of refugees. The dissolution of the Technical Committee was announced.

The Conciliation Commission charged the General Committee with the study of the various points raised by the Arab delegations. In dealing with the matter of orange groves belonging to Arabs and situated in Israeli-controlled territory, the General Committee considered a report of the Technical Committee, which showed that the orange groves were in a state of progressive deterioration. It proposed the establishment of a mixed Arab-Israeli working group to recommend practical measures for the preservation of the orange groves and to facilitate the implementation of such measures and evaluate the damage sustained. The Israeli delegation declined to accept the proposal and contended that the Israeli custodian of enemy property was doing his best to care for the groves. The Commission expressed regret that its efforts to save this economic asset had produced no results.

On the question of reuniting refugee families separated by the war, the Government of Israel agreed to permit the readmission of wives and minor children of Arab breadwinners lawfully resident in Israel, and to consider other compassionate cases for readmission. The Arab delegations considered the scope of this measure too restricted and asked for a wider interpretation of the term family in accordance with the Oriental concept. They agreed, however, to appoint their representatives on the Mixed Armistice Commissions to enter into contact with the competent Israeli authorities to discuss and carry out the administrative aspects of the return.

Some progress was made with respect to the question of blocked assets, and the Government of Israel stated it was prepared to discuss a reciprocal arrangement with the Arab States whereby the Arab assets blocked both in Israel and in the Arab States could be mutually released in equal proportion. Arab agreement to discuss the proposal made it possible to set up a mixed committee of experts to study and recommend to the Commission the means by which the release of these funds could be put into effect. The committee, composed of one Israeli member, one Arab representative and the Commission's principal secretary who acted as chairman, provided the first instance when Arab and Israeli representatives entered into direct contact. The committee's deliberations had not reached the stage of concrete suggestions and the Commission's principal secretary was entrusted with pursuing the matter further.

Referring to a proposal made by the General Committee that certain Arabs living in territory under Arab control but close to the armistice demarcation lines be permitted to cultivate their lands which lay within territory under Israeli control, the delegation of Israel maintained that this question fell within the competence of the Mixed Armistice Commission. The Commission's principal secretary was instructed to continue negotiations.

The Commission reported that it still had under study the questions of guarantees to returning refugees and of Wakf 27/ property.

In its report, the Commission announced the establishment of an Economic Survey Mission pursuant to the authorization granted under paragraph 12 of the General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948. The Mission stopped in Lausanne on 8 September 1949 for discussions with the Commission, the Arab and Israeli delegations and various specialized agencies of the United Nations, and departed on 11 September for Beirut where headquarters were established. The terms of reference of the Economic Survey Mission were contained in Annex I to the Commissions fourth progress report (A/992).

A fifth progress report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (A/1252) covered the period 16 September to 9 December 1949 and was submitted later during the session. The Commission reconvened in New York on 19 October and reported that conversations with regard to blocked Arab accounts were proceeding favourably in an effort to arrive at a mutually acceptable method of unfreezing the accounts in question.

In connexion with the reunion of separated refugee families, it was reported that Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan had appointed representatives to discuss and carry out, in collaboration with the competent Israeli authorities, the actual plan for the return of these refugees. Syria had also indicated its readiness to appoint a representative.

Further discussions relative to arrangements for Arabs living in territory under Arab control dose to the Armistice demarcation line, to cultivate their lands which lie within territory under Israeli control, resulted in an agreement to discuss the matter in the Special Committee set up by the Armistice Agreement.28/

The question of compensation to be paid to refugees not wishing to return to their homes was included in the terms of reference given to the Economic Survey Mission, and the Commission reported that it proposed taking the matter up again in January 1950 after having heard from the Mission.

The Commission noted that the Economic Survey Mission had prepared an interim report (A/1106) and stated that it constituted a constructive approach to the Palestine refugee problem and merited urgent consideration by the General Assembly. It also drew attention to arrangements made by the Secretary-General with the organizations administering relief to the refugees.

Adjournment of the Commission meetings until 16 January 1950 was announced. At that time the Commission planned to meet in Geneva to consider the final report from the Economic Survey Mission and to continue its negotiations with the delegations of the Arab States and Israel.
(2) United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees
(UNRPR )

The Ad Hoc Political Committee also had before it the Secretary-General's report (A/1060) covering the activities of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees (UNRPR) for the period 1 December 1948 to 30 September 1949.

UNRPR came into existence on 1 December 1948 at which time the Secretary-General appointed its Director in accordance with the terms of the General Assembly resolution 212 (III) of 19 November 1948. The problem of refugees became acute in July 1948 and was dealt with principally by the Governments of Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Egypt, with some outside assistance received from voluntary organizations in response to appeals by the late United Nations Mediator for Palestine. During the month of September, a Disaster Relief Project was initiated by the Mediator and continued until it was replaced by UNRPR. A UNICEF Middle East feeding programme also contributed substantially to the relief work.

Agreements were signed by UNRPR on 19 December 1948 with the International Committee of the Red Cross, the League of Red Cross Societies and the American Friends Service Committee, whereby the three agencies, as independent and autonomous organizations, assumed full responsibility for the distribution of supplies to be obtained and allocated by UNRPR. Arrangements were also made for UNICEF to continue its work of caring for Palestine refugee mothers and children as an integral phase of the UNRPR relief programme.

The geographical assignment of responsibilities for relief operations was as follows: International Committee of the Red Cross--Israel, Israeli-occupied areas and Transjordanian-occupied areas of Palestine; League of Red Cross Societies--Lebanon, Syria and Jordan; American Friends Service Committee--Gaza area, under Egyptian occupation, and a degree of participation in Israel by arrangement between the agencies.

The operation of the relief programme was examined by the ad hoc Advisory Committee on Palestine Refugees on 20 April 1949, at which time the Secretary-General and the Director of UNRPR reviewed measures which had already been taken and made recommendations with respect to future activities. It was felt that operations could be maintained until November 1949 provided the full amount of $25,000,000, pledged by twenty-one Governments, was received. The Committee was hopeful that the whole question of Palestine refugees would be reviewed by the General Assembly at its fourth regular session and that further action would then be taken. The Committee fully endorsed the Secretary-General's intention to extend UNRPR operations until the fourth session, provided sufficient funds were forthcoming.

In June 1949, the agreements with the three operating agencies were extended. Certain reservations were made regarding the maintenance of the level of rations and other supplies, notification as to the availability of funds, and other operational phases of the work. The agencies also stated that they could not continue a purely relief programme indefinitely.

The financial status of UNRPR was again considered by the ad hoc Advisory Committee on 4 October 1949 and, as a result of the discussions, the Secretary-General appealed to the three operating agencies to continue their collaboration through March 1950. His request was also communicated to UNICEF, WHO, IRO, UNESCO and FAO. In every instance the Secretary-General received assurance of continued collaboration.

The first shipload of UNRPR supplies reached Beirut on New Year's Day 1949 and total daily rations were initially established at 600,000. The number increased steadily, and from June through September 1949 it reached 940,000. It was possible to provide slightly less than 1,600 calories per daily ration in the three areas of operation, in addition to which shelter, clothing and fuel were made available as circumstances permitted. UNICEF beneficiaries represented over half of the refugee population cared for and substantial supplies were donated by IRO. No serious or widespread malnutrition had been observed among the refugee population during the period UNRPR was in operation, but it was stressed that the food programme, measured by any normal acceptable standard for meeting human needs, had been dangerously low.

Health and medical services were given high priority in the UNRPR programme, and a relatively adequate health programme was instituted in collaboration with WHO. There was provision for emergency surgery and a number of polyclinics, public health clinics and mobile clinics were established.

Shelter for refugees was totally inadequate during the winter of 1948-49, and many people were obliged to live in caves, huts or even out in the open air. In spite of the acquisition of approximately 36,000 tents and over 1,000,000 blankets, it was estimated that requirements for the winter 1949-50 would still be short.

The need for clothing was stressed and, it was stated that, in spite of numerous donations of used clothing and cotton piece goods, supplies were totally insufficient for the needs of the refugees.

In dealing with the health programme, the report drew attention to the recommendation of the Acting Mediator, who suggested a total of $3,600,000 for health services for the nine-month period of December 1948 to August 1949 on the assumption that the number of refugees would average about 500,000. In January 1949, the UNRPR medical officer, in the light of the situation as then known, proposed a budget of $2,252,000 for the seven-month period of February-August 1949 on the basis of 600,000 refugees. However, total cash resources available to UNRPR for this co-ordinated medical programme of the three operating agencies were less than $1,000,000, including a cash grant of 350,000 from WHO and grants totalling $310,000 received from UNICEF. In spite of additional costs defrayed by WHO, contributions in cash and kind made directly to the three operating agencies by national groups throughout the world, and sanitation works and other tasks performed by local Governments and military forces, the health services, it was stated, were attempting to care for nearly double the number of refugees with only half the amount of money originally recommended.

In the field of educational services, it was stated that the programme of educational relief for Arab refugee children in the Middle East was making good progress under the sponsorship of UNESCO. As a result of contributions from the UNESCO Emergency Fund, Norwegian UNAC Committee, Lord Mayor of London's Fund, Arab League, Australian Government, Belgian UNAC Committee, and from the Council for Education in World Citizenship (Great Britain), it was possible to sponsor the establishment of thirty-nine schools, which were attended by over 21,000 children and placed under the supervision of the three operating agencies.

The report observed that the relief programme would have suffered greatly in effectiveness except for the help of UNICEF, of the specialized agencies, and of interested public and private organizations. Details were given of the assistance rendered by UNICEF, WHO, IRO, UNESCO, FAO, local Governments, religious and welfare organizations.29/

In his annual report (A/930) to the General Assembly at its fourth session, the Secretary-General stated that, while it was hardly possible to anticipate the scope and character of any programme which the General Assembly might establish during the session, the facts indicated that there would probably be considerable need for international provision of assistance to refugees in 1950, particularly while any measures for permanent rehabilitation were first being implemented.

(3) Economic Survey Mission

The Ad Hoc Political Committee was also asked to consider an interim report (A/1106) prepared by the Economic Survey Mission, which had been created by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine on 29 August 1949. The Mission examined the possibility of introducing measures which might alleviate economic dislocations resulting from hostilities in Palestine, and sought to stabilize the economic life of the area. It also undertook a study of problems relating to repatriation, resettlement and social and economic rehabilitation of the refugees. The Mission, frequently referred to as the Clapp Mission, consisted of a chairman nominated by the United States and three deputy chairmen nominated respectively by the United Kingdom, France and Turkey.

The Mission estimated that a total of 652,000 persons were eligible for relief from the United Nations. After describing their location, their effect on local resources and their dilemma, the report asserted that the repatriation of Arab refugees required political decisions outside the competence of the Economic Survey Mission, and indicated that the only immediate constructive step in sight was to give the refugees an opportunity to work in their current location.

In presenting its interim findings on 16 November 1949, the Mission stated that the refugees themselves were the most serious manifestation of economic dislocation created by the Arab-Israeli hostilities and that they represented about 7 per cent of the population in the countries in which they had sought refuge. It contended that to resolve the refugee problem with its demoralizing, unproductive and costly aspects was the most immediate requirement conducive to the maintenance of peace and stability in the area, and added that the continuing political stalemate in the relations between the Arab countries and Israel precluded any early solution of the problem by means of repatriation or large-scale resettlement.

The interim report commended UNRPR, UNICEF, WHO and the many local and foreign voluntary agencies, the relief activities of which had averted a worse calamity, and it expressed the belief that many refugees would face a winter of disease and starvation should all direct relief be cut off. Nevertheless, it recommended that the extent of direct relief provided through United Nations funds should be stringently curtailed and pointed out that useful, gainful employment could be found for all the refugees able and willing to work.

In the light of these findings, the Economic Survey Mission recommended that the present UNRPR system of relief be continued through the winter months until 1 April 1950 without reducing the existing minimum ration but with the number of rations reduced from 940,000 to 652,000. It advocated the adoption of a programme of public works calculated to improve the productivity of the area, and such continuing relief as it would be necessary to organize in co-operation with the Governments of the countries where the refugees were located.

It was suggested that the United Nations should be prepared to continue the works programme until 30 June 1951 and that the programme be planned and arrangements negotiated with the appropriate Near Eastern Governments to begin 1 April 1950. These Governments should assume responsibility for the maintenance of such refugees as might remain within their territories after 31 December 1950, and no further rations should be supplied by the United Nations after that date unless otherwise ordered by the General Assembly at its fifth session. The cost of relief and works projects for the eighteen-month period of 1 January to 30 June 1951 was estimated at $53,700,000.

The Economic Survey Mission recommended that an agency be established to organize and, on or after 1 April 1950, direct the programmes of relief and public works, and it asked that the personnel and assets of the UNRPR be turned over to the new agency in order that the functions of direct relief be directed by the new agency in appropriate relation to the works programme.30/
(4) Discussions in the Ad Hoc Political Committee

The Ad Hoc Political Committee began consideration of the question of assistance to Palestine refugees at its 43rd meeting on 24 November 1949, at which time the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission introduced his reports. The President of the International Red Cross presented a statement at the following meeting and the general debate on the various reports relating to refugees was opened at the Committee's 51st meeting on 30 November.

The delegations of France, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States submitted a joint draft resolution (A/AC.31/L.46/Rev.l) proposing, inter alia, the establishment of a Near East Relief and Works Agency to supersede the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees (UNRPR) and to carry out the direct relief and works programmes as recommended by the Economic Survey Mission. It also provided for the establishment of an Advisory Commission to assist the Director of the Agency in the execution of its programme. It was estimated that an equivalent of $54,900,000, to be obtained by voluntary contributions, would be required for the period from 1 January 1950 to 30 June 1951. A Chilean amendment (A/AC.31/L.47) proposed a new paragraph relating to the co-ordination of the activities of the Agency with the technical assistance programmes of the United Nations. With the approval of the sponsors of the joint resolution the proposal was incorporated. Similar action was taken with respect to an amendment presented by the delegation of Egypt (A/AC.31/L.48/Rev.l), which asked for a reaffirmation of the provisions of paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) regarding the right of Palestine refugees to return to their homes should they wish to do so. It also asked for greater flexibility in the terms of reference of the new relief agency, for permitting the extension of the deadline for the termination of direct relief, for changing the title of the new relief agency, and for consultation with the Near Eastern Governments regarding the work projects. An Australian amendment (A/AC.31/L.49) asked that the proposed Advisory Commission be given power to add not more than three additional members from contributing Governments. The amendment was accepted by the authors of the joint resolution, who also agreed to an oral suggestion made by the representatives of Iraq and Lebanon that the name of the new agency be changed to read "The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East".

The representative of the Secretary-General stated that, while the Secretary-General did not suggest any modification of paragraph 14 of the joint draft resolution which authorized the advance of funds from the Working Capital Fund, he wished to point out that, as far as could be foreseen at the present time, the maximum sum available for advances during the first half of 1950 would be nearer $3,000,000 than $5,000,000.

At the 55th meeting of the Ad Hoc Political Committee on 2 December 1949, the revised joint draft resolution, as amended, was voted on by roll-call and adopted by 48 votes to none, with 6 abstentions.

The report of the Ad Hoc Political Committee (A/1222) was submitted to the General Assembly on 7 December 1949 and, on the same day, the Fifth Committee concurred unanimously with the report (A/C.5/366) of the Secretary-General on the financial implications of the draft resolution on assistance to Palestine refugees, as approved by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (A/1210).

(5) Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly

The joint draft resolution proposed by the Ad Hoc Political Committee (A/1222), was considered at the 273rd plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 8 December 1949, and adopted by a vote of 47 to none, with 6 abstentions. The resolution adopted by the Assembly (302(IV)) read as follows:

- - - - -




Notes


1/ For further information, see:

Official Records of the General Assembly for its third and fourth sessions, including (a) summary records of plenary meetings (separate vols. covering meetings 136 to 187, 188 to 219, 220 to 276, and separate annex to each vol.), (b) summary records of meetings of the First (Political and Security) Committee (separate vols. covering meetings 142 to 236, 237 to 272, 273 to 344 and separate annex to each vol.), (c) summary records of meetings of the Ad Hoc Political Committee (separate vols. covering meetings 1 to 28, 29 to 54 at third session and meetings 1 to 61 at fourth session and separate annex to each vol.).

Official Records of the Security Council, Third Year, Nos. 111 to 137 (covering meetings 359 to 396), Fourth Year, Nos. 1 to 54 (covering meetings 397 to 458) and monthly supplements (containing relevant documents) for September 1948 to December 1949 and special supplements Nos. 1 to 4 (Armistice Agreements between Israel and Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon).

Official Records of the Atomic Energy Commission Fourth Year, Nos. 1 to 8 (covering meetings 17 to 24), and special supplements Nos. 1 and 2.

Official Records of the Trusteeship Council, second special session, including summary records of meetings 8 to 20, and supplement No. 1.

See also publications and documents referred to in text, e.g., reports of special bodies in the Balkans, Korea India and Pakistan, Palestine, United Nations Guard.

2/ See Yearbook of the United Nations, 1947-48, pp. 247-57.

3/ See p. 711.

4/ For summary of the report and full text of conclusions on the mediation effort, see Yearbook of the United Nations, 1947-48, pp. 304-13.

5/ See Yearbook of the United Nations, 1947-48, p. 450.

6/ According to the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly relating to voting in Committees, if a vote is equally divided on matters other than elections, the proposal shall be regarded as rejected.

7/ For resolution adopted by the General Assembly on Assistance to Palestine Refugees, see pp. 202-3.

8/ For work of the Conciliation Commission, see pp. 197-99.

9/ These reports are also listed as A/819, A/838, A/927, A/992, and A/1252; for details, see pp. 197-99, 203-7.

10/ The Acting Mediator participated in the Security Council meetings dealing with the Palestine question until the 381st meeting on 16 November 1948.

11/ See p. 182.

12/ See Yearbook of the United Nations, 1947-48, pp. 435-41.

13/ For text of this resolution as adopted (S/1376 11), see p. 189.

14/ See pp. 174-76.

15/ For Assembly action on assistance to Palestine refugees, see pp. 203-12.

16/ For the reports and proposals of the Conciliation Commission, see pp. 197-99.

17/ See p. 199.

18/ See p. 197.

19/ For that part of the report dealing with assistance to refugees, see pp. 210-11.

20/ See p. 199.

21/ For text of resolution regarding assistance to refugees (302(1V)), see pp. 211-12.

22/ See pp. 174-76.

23/ For work of Commission regarding refugees, see pp. 203-7.

24/ See pp. 209-10.

25/ See United Nations Yearbook, 1947-48, pp. 304-12.

26/ See pp. 174-76.

27/ In English, "Trust".

28/ See p. 185.

29/ Financial statements covering UNRPR operations and supporting schedules of contributions received in cash and kind, for the period of 1 December 1948 to 30 June 1949, were shown in a supplementary document (A/1060/Add.1).

30/ The Mission's report also included annexes giving an analysis of refugees and relief recipients and an illustrative outline of works projects and estimates of the costs.

4. Admission of Israel

By a letter dated 29 November 1948 (S/1093) to the Secretary-General, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Government of Israel applied, on behalf of his Government, for admission to membership in the United Nations. A declaration of acceptance of the obligations contained in the Charter was submitted with the letter.

(a) DISCUSSION IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL

The Security Council considered the application at its 383rd meeting on 2 December 1948.

The representative of the United States supported the application, and urged early approval so as to permit favourable action by the General Assembly before the end of the third session. Pointing out that the United States had extended full recognition to the State of Israel and had recognized the Provisional Government of Israel as the effective authority of the new State, the United States representative declared that, in the opinion of his Government, the State of Israel fulfilled the requirements set out in the Charter. Israel was clearly an independent State having a people and a territory. Both reason and history demonstrated that the concept of territory did not necessarily include precise delimitations of the boundaries of that territory. The record of Israel's relations with the United Nations, and the repeatedly expressed willingness of the Provisional Government of Israel to negotiate on all outstanding problems between Israel and other (Governments and authorities, demonstrated that the new State was peace-loving. It was clear that the State of Israel was able to carry out the obligations of the Charter.

The representative of the United Kingdom considered that the application was premature and rather doubtful. The First Committee was at that time still discussing the future of Palestine, and the State of Israel still had to prove compliance with the recent resolutions of the Security Council regarding the truce and armistice.

The representative of France also considered that no decision should be taken on the application of Israel before the First Committee of the General Assembly had been given an opportunity to complete its study of the Palestine question.

The representative of Canada stated that the application for membership must of necessity be closely related to the consideration as to whether the Israeli authorities would be able and willing to carry out recommendations of the General Assembly with respect to the situation in Palestine. Israel's qualifications, he maintained, could be judged only in relation to whatever decision the General Assembly adopted at its third session with regard to Palestine.

The representative of Syria insisted that the State of Israel had consistently flouted the wishes of the United Nations, and he repudiated the contention of the United States representative that it was a peace-loving State which met all the provisions of Article 4 of the Charter.

The representative of the USSR recalled that his delegation had supported General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 as the only decision which met the fundamental national interests of the Jewish and Arab peoples of Palestine. The USSR delegation had adhered to a single position and still felt that the only correct solution of the Palestine question was the implementation of that decision. The Government of the USSR, he said, supported the application of Israel and would give the same attention to the consideration of a membership application submitted by an Arab State which might be created on the territory of Palestine pursuant to resolution 181 (II). Unfortunately, due to certain circumstances, such an Arab State, he said, had not yet been created.

At the end of the meeting, the application of Israel was referred to the Council's Committee on the Admission of New Members.

On 7 December, the Committee reported (S/1110) that it did not then possess the information necessary to enable it to come to a decision.

At the Council's 384th meeting on 15 December, the representative of France orally proposed that the Committee on the Admission of New Members reconsider the matter in view of resolution 194 (III) concerning Palestine adopted on 11 December by the General Assembly.31/

That view was opposed by the representative of Syria, who considered that there was nothing new in the resolution which could help the Committee come to a final decision. Pointing out that the Security Council had followed the principle that no military or political advantage should be gained by either parry during the period of truce or armistice, the representative of Syria considered that a resolution recommending the admission of the Jews would represent a great political advantage gained by them during the truce. He contended that the debate in the General Assembly had indicated that the proclamation of the Jewish State in Palestine had not been accepted. Approval of the application under discussion at that stage would destroy and frustrate the activities and chances of success of the Conciliation Commission which had been established by the Assembly. He urged that consideration of the application be delayed.

The representative of China said that his delegation had always stood for two principles in the Palestine question: (1) that the United Nations should enforce peace in Palestine; and (2) that the United Nations should try to mediate or conciliate or, in other words, that it would be unwise for the United Nations to impose a particular kind of settlement. Since the admission of Israel to the United Nations at that moment was looked upon with great disfavour by the Arab States, approval of the application would be interpreted to mean the Security Council was partial to one side and would diminish the chances of successfully conciliating the dispute.

The representative of the USSR, stating that the Conciliation Commission had been set up, not to dissolve the State of Israel but to promote a peaceful settlement of the differences between it and its neighbours, considered that a decision of the Security Council to admit the State of Israel to membership in the United Nations would expedite a peaceful settlement in Palestine. He saw no reason to defer a decision on the matter.

The representative of the United Kingdom said that, as soon as the major questions at issue, notably the question of the frontiers in Palestine, had been resolved under the auspices of the Conciliation Commission appointed by the General Assembly, his Government would give sympathetic consideration both to its own recognition of the Jewish State and to that States application for membership, in the United Nations. The attitude of his Government was not due to any doubts concerning the obvious fact that the Jewish State was then in process of formation and that it would continue to exist. He declared that the Security Council could not, however, make a favourable recommendation on the application under discussion without first assuring itself that serious obligations which it had imposed under a number of resolutions had been satisfactorily fulfilled. The Jewish authorities had never submitted the requested account of their investigation into the assassination of Count Bernadotte and Colonel Sérot. He submitted a draft resolution (S/1121) calling for postponement of the consideration of the application.

The representative of the United States considered that it would help the Conciliation Commission in its work if the Security Council were to recommend the admission of Israel to the United Nations.

The representative of the USSR maintained that the territory of the State of Israel had been defined by General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which was still in force.

At the 385th meeting of the Council on 15 December, the representative of Syria pointed out that the vote in the First Committee of the General Assembly indicated that there were many delegations who favoured an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice regarding the Palestine question. He therefore submitted a draft resolution (S/1125), proposing that the Court should be asked for an advisory opinion on various matters relating to legal aspects of the Palestine question.

At the same meeting the representative of France submitted a draft resolution (S/1127), proposing that a decision on the application of Israel be postponed for a month.

At the 386th meeting on 17 December, the Security Council put to the vote the three draft resolutions and the application of Israel.

The United Kingdom draft resolution (S/1121) was not adopted. There were 4 votes in favour (Belgium, China, Syria and the United Kingdom), with 7 abstentions.

The French draft resolution (S/1127) was not adopted. There were 6 votes in favour, with 5 abstentions.

The Syrian draft resolution (S/1125) was not adopted. There were 2 votes in favour (Belgium and Syria), with 9 abstentions.

The Israeli application for admission to membership in the United Nations did not receive the recommendation of the Security Council. There were 5 votes in favour, 1 against (Syria), with 5 abstentions (Belgium, Canada, China, France and the United Kingdom).
By a letter dated 24 February 1949 (S/1267) to the Secretary-General, The representative of Israel requested that renewed consideration be given to his Government's application (S/1093) for membership in the United Nations.

The Security Council resumed consideration of the application of Israel at the 413th meeting on 3 March 1949.

The representative of the United Kingdom stated that his Government, before deciding how to cast its vote, would require clarification of the Israeli Government's attitude with regard to the Assembly's recommendation in favour of the internationalization of the whole area of Jerusalem. He also asked that the Israeli government clarify its position with respect to the Assembly's recommendation on behalf of Arab refugees, and explained that without having a clarification of these points his delegation would prefer to see consideration of the application deferred. However, he added that, inasmuch as his Government had previously signified its intention of renouncing the use of its privileged vote to block the admission of any State which obtained the requisite majority, his delegation would have no other alternative than to abstain from voting should the matter come to a vote at the present time.

The representative of Norway said that, in principle, his Government favoured the admission of Israel and would support the application despite doubts as to the timing of the decision. In opposition to the application, the representative of Egypt contended that it would not only be wrong for the Security Council to take action at the present time, but would, in his estimation, "be an affront to humanity and a sacrilege to the Organization we are supposed to represent. He said that the Jews were driving three-quarters of the people of Palestine from their homes, and there were many other considerations tending against accepting the Jewish application. The people of the Middle East, he declared, could hardly have great confidence in, and reverence for, the United Nations if that application was accepted and, indeed, given preferred treatment. After reviewing the sufferings of the Arab people, he declared that his delegation and his country washed their hands of any act of the Security Council which would recommend Israel's admission to membership at the present time.

The representative of Canada shared the opinion of the French delegation that the situation had been somewhat clarified as a result of recent developments and, therefore, he supported Israel's application.

The representatives of Cuba, the Ukrainian SSR, the USSR and the United States also spoke in support of the application, the latter representative submitting a draft resolution (S/1276), recommending to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations. The United States draft resolution was adopted by 9 votes to 1 (Egypt), with 1 abstention (United Kingdom).

The representative of Argentina noted that the draft resolution had not been supported by the five permanent members of the Council as required in Article 27, Paragraph 3 of the Charter, and said he did not believe the Security Council could establish principles to modify the Charter whenever it thought fit. This argument was supported by the representative of Egypt, but the representative of the USSR explained that, in accordance with the established practice of the Security Council, when a permanent member of the Council abstains from voting, such action is not interpreted in the way that the representatives of Argentina and Egypt had sought to interpret it.


b. CONSIDERATION BY THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY AT ITS THIRD SESSION

On 7 March 1949, the President of the Security Council transmitted the Council's resolution to the President of the General Assembly (A/818). After a debate in the General Committee and in the plenary meeting of the Assembly as to whether the item should be deferred or included in the agenda, and, if included in the agenda, whether it should be considered by the Assembly in plenary session or referred to a committee, the General Assembly (1) decided by 46 votes to, with 3 abstentions, to include the item in the agenda and (2) decided by 31 votes to 18, with 17 abstentions, ro refer it to the First Committee. On 2 May 1949, it re-allocated the question to the Ad Hoc Political Committee, which considered it at its 42nd to 51st meetings from 3 to 9 May.

(1) Discussions in the Ad Hoc Political Committee

One of the first questions discussed in the Ad Hoc Political Committee was the Security Councils practice of not considering an abstention by one of the permanent members of the Council as a veto.

(a) QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE SECURITY
COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION

At the Committee's 42nd meeting on 31 May, the representative of Iraq declared that he considered that the abstention of one permanent member (the United Kingdom) in the vote on the admission of Israel had made the final recommendation defective. In view of the importance of the question, he thought it would be wise to ask the Council to reconsider its position. If that did not prove feasible, he said, then there could be no harm in consulting a competent legal body such as the International Court of Justice. He therefore submitted a draft resolution (A/AC.24/64), asking that an inquiry should be sent to the Security Council "seeking further explanation for the validity of the vote taken with regard to the application of Israel to membership in the United Nations," in view of the abstention of one of the permanent members, and, "without prejudice to the discussion of the merits of the case," that an advisory opinion be sought from the International Court of Justice upon the nature of this vote.

The representative of the United Kingdom stated that the abstention of his delegation in the Security Council had been in accordance with the practice adopted in the Council by the five permanent members, and reaffirmed that the abstention of one of the permanent members did not constitute a veto, and thee such an abstention permitted the Council to take action without the affirmative vote of that permanent member when a resolution was supported by seven or more votes.

The representative of Pakistan stated that the recommendation of the Security Council did not comply with the terms of Article 27 of the Charter as it had not received the concurring votes of the five permanent members of the Council. Moreover, the United Kingdom had, both generally and specifically, made it clear that its abstention could not be construed as an affirmation. He contended that the Committee had before it no Security Council decision which had been taken in accordance with the terms laid down in the Charter, and proposed either returning the recommendation to the Security Council or obtaining an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. The representative of Egypt expressed himself in complete agreement with these arguments.

The Chairman considered that it was beyond the Committee's competence to question the regularity of the vote in the Security Council and the validity of the decision taken. The representatives of Canada and China supported the Chairman's ruling and stated that it was not open to the General Assembly, still less to the Committee, to cast doubt upon the validity of the decision adopted.

The representative of Argentina observed that, whereas his Government was definitely opposed to the use of the veto in relation to the admission of new Members, it also objected to the fact that the permanent members of the Council voluntarily abandoned the privilege on an arbitrary basis without considering the wishes of the rest of the Organization.

The representative of Iraq declared, at the 44th meeting on 4 May, that "taking note of the general tone of the discussion," he would not press for a vote on his draft resolution, but he reserved the right to raise that point, if necessary, either in the Committee or the General Assembly at a later date.

(b) INVITATION TO ISRAEL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION

The representative of El Salvador presented, at the Committee's 42nd meeting on 3 May, a draft resolution (A/AC.24/60) proposing that the Government of Israel should be invited to send a representative to participate without vote in the discussions of the Committee, with a view to clarifying that Government's attitude with regard to the execution of the General Assembly's resolutions or the internationalization of Jerusalem and the adjacent area and on the problem of refugees.

This draft resolution was revised (A/AC.24/60/Rev.l) as a result of amendments submitted by the representatives of Australia (A/AC.24/65) and Denmark (A/AC.24/66). The revised draft invited the Government of Israel to send a representative to the Ad Hoc Political Committee with a view to answering such questions and making such statements as the Committee might deem desirable before reporting to the General Assembly on the question of the admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations. This revised draft resolution was adopted at the Committee's 44th meeting on 4 May by a roll-call vote of 35 in favour to 6 against, with 11 abstentions.

(c) INVITATION TO THE HOLY SEE TO PRESENT ITS VIEWS

At the Committee's 42nd meeting on 3 May, the representative of Argentina introduced a draft resolution (A/AC.24/61) to invite the Holy See to submit a report on the guarantees which it considered necessary for the protection of the Holy Places and for safeguarding free access to them. Amendments to the draft were submitted by the representatives of Greece (A/AC.24/63) and Saudi Arabia (A/AC.24/67/Rev.l), suggesting that the invitation be extended to the Orthodox Patriarchate and to the Moslem religious authorities as represented by the Supreme Council of the Ulema Al-Azhar. The USSR representative stated that there were no grounds for calling for a report from the Vatican, and he observed that no religious groups had been represented during, the Palestine discussions in the General Assembly. The representative of Denmark did not feel that any useful purpose would be served by hearing the representatives of various religious bodies until the Committee knew what would be the attitude of the Government of Israel with respect to the Assembly resolutions. The representative of the United States was of the opinion that it would be preferable ro have any proposals from religious groups directed to the Conciliation Commission for Palestine, which was charged with the implementation of the Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 32/ relating ro the protection of and access to the Holy Places. By a vote of 21 to 20, with 6 abstentions, it was decided at the Committee's 44th meeting on 4 May to adjourn debate on the Argentine draft resolution until after the representative of Israel had stated the attitude of his Government with regard to the Assembly resolutions.

(d) STATEMENTS OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ISRAEL

In a statement presented to the Committee at its 45th meeting on 5 May, the representative of Israel said that the task of finding solutions to the problem of Arab refugees having been allocated to the United Nations Conciliation Commission, the only question that remained was the eligibility of Israel for membership within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, which in the view of his Government was the only relevant factor governing admission of States to the United Nations. He declared that Israel held no views and pursued no policies on any questions which were inconsistent with the Charter or with the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council.

Jerusalem - Summing up his Governments attitude on the question of Jerusalem, the Israeli representative stressed that his Government had co-operated to the fullest extent in the implementation of the Statute drawn up by the General Assembly in November 1947, and bore no responsibility for the failure of that project. That failure was due rather to the armed resistance of the Arab States and the refusal of United Nations organs to assume the obligations necessary for the implementation of the Statute.

He stated that the Government of Israel advocated the establishment by the United Nations of an international régime for Jerusalem, which should be concerned exclusively with the control and protection of the Holy Places. It would co-operate with such a régime, and would also agree to place under international control Holy Places in parts of its territory outside Jerusalem. It further supported the suggestion that guarantees should be given for the protection of the Holy Places in Palestine and for free access thereto.

The Government of Israel was prepared to offer the fullest safeguards and guarantees for the security of religious institutions in the exercise of their functions, and, with that end in view, was willing to negotiate immediately with all religious authorities concerned. In fact, negotiations of that nature had already been opened between the Government of Israel and the Papal Envoy to Jerusalem. Similar negotiations had also begun with other Governments interested in obtaining the safeguards in question, notably the Government of France.

The Israeli Government would persevere in its efforts to repair the damage inflicted on religious buildings and sites in the course of the war "launched by the Arab States".

The Government of Israel, he maintained, would continue to seek agreement with the Arab interests concerned in the maintenance and preservation of peace and in restoring access into and free movement within Jerusalem. Negotiations on that subject would not, however, affect the juridical status of Jerusalem, which should be defined by international consent.

Israel would give its full attention to all proposals for satisfying international interests in Jerusalem, in the firm belief that the United Nations should assume only such responsibilities as it was willing and able to exercise and such as did not exceed what was necessary for the genuine satisfaction of universal religious interests.

Arab Refugees - The representative of Israel stated that he was authorized by his Government to make the following statement on the principles governing its approach to the question of Arab refugees:

"1. The problem of the Arab refugees was a direct consequence of the war launched by the Arab States which were entirely responsible for that as well as for other forms of suffering inflicted by that war;

2. The ensuing problem had raised a humanitarian issue and also had serious implications for the future peace, development and welfare of the Middle East. The Government of Israel believed that a solution of the problem was inseparably linked with a solution of the outstanding issues between it and the Arab States and that no satisfactory solution was possible except by the restoration of peace in the Middle East. A solution could be found only within a final settlement creating conditions of co-operation between Israel and its neighbours."

The representative of Israel assured the Committee that his Government was earnestly anxious to contribute to the solution of the problem and proposed that a resettlement of refugees in neighbouring areas, rather than in Israel, should be considered as the main principle of the solution. He recalled that his Government had already announced its acceptance of obligations to make compensation for abandoned lands and he suggested that the entire question of compensation, as well as the general question of reparations and war damage, might well be settled by negotiations at Lausanne. The Government of Israel reaffirmed its obligation to protect the persons and property of all communities living within its borders and was prepared to lend its assistance to the efforts of international, governmental and non-governmental agencies to alleviate the immediate plight of those refugees suffering hardships as a result of the war.

Boundary Questions - In the opinion of his Government, the representative of Israel stated, the question of the resettlement of Arab refugees was closely linked with the boundary question. It held that adjustment of the territorial provisions laid down in resolution 194 (III) should not be arbitrarily imposed from outside but should be freely negotiated by the Governments concerned. This was also, he contended, the intention of this resolution, which his Government interpreted as a directive to the Governments concerned to settle their territorial and other differences by negotiation. The success of armistice negotiations between the military forces of these Governments in Palestine encouraged the belief that the same process would be followed in the forthcoming boundary discussions.

Assassination of the United Nations Mediator - The representative of Israel stated that a report (S/1315) on the measures taken following the assassination in Jerusalem of Count Folke Bernadotte, the United Nations Mediator, and of Colonel André Sérot, a United Nations observer, had been submitted to the Security Council, and had also been conveyed by an envoy of the Israeli Government to the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Stockholm. That communication contained a report of the police investigation and court proceedings. The incident had been a source of deep distress and acute mortification to the Government and people of Israel. Despite all efforts to discover and bring to justice the perpetrators and instigators of the crime, the results had thus far been disappointingly negative. The Government of Israel, however, by no means regarded the assassination as a closed chapter and would continue to make all possible efforts to discover and punish the assassins.

While admitting that failure had been reported in the functioning of its security system in the past, the Government of Israel, he contended, could not admit that any conclusions could be drawn from that event with respect to its present capacity to fulfil its international obligations.

(e) QUESTIONS ASKED OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ISRAEL

During the 46th, 47th, 48th, 50th and 51st meetings of the Committee, the representative of Israel replied to questions put by the representatives of Poland, Lebanon, El Salvador, Greece, Denmark, Argentina, Belgium and Cuba.

In reply to the representative of Poland, he observed that in order to obtain an impression of religious opinion on Jerusalem or on any other question, it would be necessary to consult various authorities and representatives numbering a dozen or more people. He also answered a number of questions of the representative of Poland relative to the topography of the Holy Places in Jerusalem and other localities in the Holy Land.

The representative of Lebanon asked who, if the Government of Israel was willing to accept an international régime for the Holy Places, would have sovereignty over the new city of Jerusalem. The representative of Israel stated that his Government believed that the reconciliation of universal religious interests with the national sentiment and allegiance of the population of Jerusalem would best be served if an international régime were to confine itself to securing the protection and immunity of the Holy Places. He stated that his Government believed that the integration of the Jewish part of Jerusalem into the State of Israel was a healthy and natural process for which in due time, it would seek juridical confirmation. The representative of Lebanon referred to a statement made by the Prime Minister of Israel, as reproduced in the second progress report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (A/838), in which he was said to have declared that for "historical, political and religious reasons, the State of Israel could not accept the establishment of an international régime for the city of Jerusalem." The representative of Israel maintained that advocacy of that proposal did not in itself create the fact which was advocated. He added that the Prime Minister was outlining to the Conciliation Commission the trend of thought of the Government of Israel on the problem of Jerusalem and it was merely part of a statement of policy by the Government of Israel. That did not give an accurate impression unless the statement as a whole was read.

Referring to a further statement by the Prime Minister of Israel that his Government would, when in a position to do so on an equal footing with the Arab States, request the Assembly to revise part of the resolution of 11 December 1948, relating to Jerusalem, the representative of Lebanon asked whether the Government of Israel would be willing to respect the resolutions of the General Assembly if the Assembly failed to grant a modification of the resolution of 11 December 1948. The representative of Israel replied that if his Government were a Member of the General Assembly, its attitude to the General Assembly's recommendations would be influenced by its views in favour of an increase in the compelling moral force of General Assembly resolutions. His Government did not accept the theory, adduced by Arab States over the last six or eight months, that Assembly resolutions were optional and might be discarded at will. The representative of Lebanon also asked whether the Prime Minister's expressed belief that the real solution of the major part of the refugee question lay in the resettlement of refugees in Arab States did not reject the conditions laid down in the Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948. The Israeli representative replied that such was not the case, as the Israeli Prime Minister had contended that the return of refugees to their homes was contingent on the establishment of peace.

The representative of El Salvador asked whether, in view of his earlier statements, the representative of Israel could assure the Committee that the State of Israel would do everything in its power to co-operate with the United Nations, in order to put into effect the Assembly resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948. The Israeli spokesman reviewed his Government's legal interpretation of the resolutions concerning Jerusalem and observed that the Statute adopted on 29 November 1947 was never ratified and therefore never consummated in the legal or practical sense. His Government, however, accepted the idea that special and separate treatment should be accorded to Jerusalem in view of its association with three world religions. Not only was the Government of Israel prepared to co-operate with the United Nations in working out a scheme to give effect to paragraph 8 of the Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948, but it had already made proposals which substantially met the principles of that resolution. In so far as the question of refugees was concerned, he observed that even the full co-operation of his Government would not avail to solve this problem unless it was considered against the general background of the Near East, and unless similar co-operation was received from other Governments. In answer to a further question as to who would exercise sovereignty over Jerusalem and the surrounding area, if Jerusalem were only partially internationalized, the representative of Israel stated that his Government would suggest that the incorporation of the Jewish part of Jerusalem in the State of Israel receive formal recognition by the General Assembly, and that the General Assembly acknowledge the right of the State of Israel to exercise its functions in that area.

After answering inquiries made by the representative of Greece concerning the protection of the Holy Places, the representative of Israel was asked by the representative of Denmark to explain his Governments attitude with respect to Arab refugees. He said that the Prime Minister of Israel had not stated that the principle of repatriation should be rejected but had merely outlined the factors which governed its realization.

In reply to a question by the representative of Argentina, the representative of Israel indicated that his Government was acting in conformity with the objectives contained in the Papal encyclical concerning Jerusalem and the Holy Places.

The representative of Belgium asked whether the State of Israel, if admitted to membership, would agree to co-operate subsequently with the General Assembly in settling the question of Jerusalem and the refugee problem or whether, on the contrary, it would invoke Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter, which deals with the domestic jurisdiction of States. The representative of Israel stated that he did not believe the Article in question could possibly affect the Jerusalem problem, and he did not believe it would be wise to refer to it in relation to the question of refugees.

(f) LEBANESE PROPOSAL

At the 45th meeting of the Committee on 5 May, the representative of Lebanon introduced a draft resolution (A/AC.24/62), proposing that action on the admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations be postponed until the Government of Israel "(1) has accepted the principle of the internationalization of Jerusalem, and (2) has accepted the principle that the refugees who wish to return to their homes should be allowed to do so,and instructing the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine "to conduct negotiations with the Government of Israel with a view to ascertaining its acceptance of the two principles referred to . . . above, and to report to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly." This draft resolution was subsequently revised at the 49th and 50th meetings. In its final form (A/AC.24/62/Rev.3), the operative part of the draft resolution contained a recommendation to the General Assembly to defer to its fourth regular session action on the admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations.

The representative of Lebanon stated that the General Assembly not only had to determine whether Israel complied with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Charter, but also had to consider the cardinal question of whether the new State, in its present structure, conformed to the previous decisions affecting it which had been adopted by the United Nations itself. He asserted that the State of Israel directly contravened these decisions in at least three important respects: in its attitude on the problem of Arab refugees, on the delimitation of its territorial boundaries, and on the question of Jerusalem. Referring specifically to the position of the Arab States concerning the internationalization of Jerusalem, he denied reports that the Arabs did not favour such a policy and stated that he was authorized to assert that they were fully committed to such a régime. He also stated that if Israel were then admitted as a Member of the United Nations without some assurance that Jerusalem would be internationalized, the city would, in face, be partitioned.

The Lebanese draft resolution was supported by, among others, the representatives of Brazil, Denmark, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

The representative of Brazil stated that the explanations offered by the representative of Israel had not completely dispelled the doubts and fears expressed by his delegation concerning the implementation of the Assembly resolutions relating to the internationalization of Jerusalem and concerning the Arab refugees. This view was also held by the representative of Bolivia.

The representative of Denmark did nor believe that the Assembly was entitled to make it a condition to the admission of Israel that it should accept the terms of the Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948, but could only require of the State of Israel that it should accept its obligations under the Charter if, and when, it became a Member of the United Nations. He stated that the Committee was not entirely satisfied with the explanations given by the representative of Israel and he suggested that the admission of Israel be suspended until peace had been achieved between Israel and its neighbours. He was prepared to support the Lebanese draft resolution provided it excluded reference to the Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947.

The representative of Pakistan expressed serious concern over the fate of approximately 800,000 Arab refugees and was critical of the Israeli Government for its failure to adhere to the Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948.

The representative of Syria reviewed the history of Israeli activities in Palestine and stated that Israel's admission to membership, without a previous assurance that the wishes of the United Nations would be carried out, would adversely affect the progress of negotiations then being carried on at Lausanne. He added that a statement of intentions on the part of Israel was not sufficient.

The representative of Turkey did not feel that he could support Israel's application until a clear indication had been given of the manner in which the Assembly resolutions would be implemented. The representative of the United Kingdom stated that he was not convinced by the explanations given by the representative of Israel and regretted that the application for admission had been pressed at the present stage.

The revised draft resolution presented by the representative of Lebanon (A/AC.24/62/Rev.3) was put to a vote at the Committee's 51st meeting on 9 May. It was rejected by a roll-call vote of 19 in favour to 25 against, with 12 abstentions.

At the 51st meeting of the Committee on 9 May, the representative of Argentina withdrew his draft resolution inviting the Holy See to present its views, following which the representatives of Greece and Saudi Arabia withdrew their amendments to this draft resolution.

The representative of Argentina requested however, that the report of the Ad Hoc Political Committee to the General Assembly (A/855) express the desire of the Committee that the United Nations Conciliation Commission should when studying the question of the internationalization of Jerusalem and the problem of the protection of the Holy Places and free access to them along the lines of the resolutions of the General Assembly of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948, take into account the views of the Holy See and those other religious authorities which desired to present their position with regard to this matter. He suggested that the report should also include reference to the fact that the Ad Hoc Political Committee had taken note of the assurances given by the representative of the State of Israel with regard to the internationalization of Jerusalem (see above), including the question of guarantees for the protection of the Holy Places, and free access thereto. The Argentine proposal was endorsed by the Committee by 38 votes to 6, with 11 abstentions.

The representative of Norway, supported by the representatives of Denmark and Sweden, requested that the report should also include a reference to the Commission of Churches on International Affairs, an organization created by the World Council of Churches and the International Missionary Council, in case other religious authorities were mentioned.

(g) JOINT DRAFT RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE ADMISSION OF ISRAEL

At the Committee's 47th meeting on 6 May, the representative of Australia introduced a joint draft resolution (A/AC.24/68) of Australia, Canada, Guatemala, Haiti, Panama, the United States and Uruguay, recommending that the General Assembly admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

The representative of Chile presented an amendment (A/AC.24/69), the first part of which would recall the Assembly's resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and take note of the statements and explanations made by the representative of Israel in respect to their implementation. The second part of the amendment provided for a reference to the matters being dealt with by the United Nations Conciliation Commission.

The representative of Peru submitted an amendment (A/AC.24/72) proposing an addition to the second part of the Chilean amendment and also relating to matters being dealt with by the United Nations Conciliation Commission.

The representative of Australia explained that he found it difficult to accept the Chilean and Peruvian amendments, and suggested that the points raised might be disposed of by referring to them in the Committee's report, with the expectation that the United Nations Conciliation Commission would examine them thoroughly and report on them at the fourth session of the Assembly.

The representative of Chile, however, considered it necessary to retain the first part of the amendment. This was accepted by the representative of Australia and the other sponsors of the joint draft resolution, in the interest of obtaining a larger area of agreement on the joint draft resolution. The representative of Peru withdrew his amendment.

The draft resolution was opposed by the representatives of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Syria. The representative of Iraq insisted that this was not the appropriate time to consider the admission of Israel, as that State was not peace-loving according to the terms of the Charter and had repeatedly flouted decisions both of the General Assembly and the Security Council.

The representative of Saudi Arabia strongly objected to Israel's admittance to membership. He referred to Israeli violations of the Assembly resolutions and contended that the history of the Zionists was nothing but a series of broken promises. He agreed that the General Assembly and the Security Council were strictly bound to consider only the criteria set forth in Article 4 of the Charter and, in this respect, he held that the State of Israel was not qualified.

The representative of Yemen viewed the replies given by the representative of Israel as evasive and said they actually meant an unequivocal rejection of United Nations decisions. He added that to admit the applicant State prematurely would be to prejudice the outcome of the Conciliation Commissions negotiations.

The representative of Syria declared that if it were decided to admit Israel to the United Nations before certain questions were solved in a manner entirely satisfactory to followers of the three great religions of the world, the General Assembly would be revoking all the decisions it had already taken. He also stated that if any of the established rights of these great religions were explicitly or implicitly surrendered, the United Nations would be alienating powerful and valuable support of which it stood in need in its fight for peace.

In addition to its sponsors, the joint draft resolution was supported by the representatives of Nicaragua, the Netherlands, Poland, the Philippines, Panama, Honduras, Chile and Uruguay. The representative of Greece qualified his approval by a caution against excessive haste, which might prejudice the settlement of a question pregnant with consequences for Israel, the Arab States and the world in general. The admission of Israel was recommended by the representative of China who, nevertheless, found the Government's attitude on the repatriation of Arab refugees to be somewhat disturbing.

The representative of Norway observed that the statement made by the representative of Israel with regard to the assassination of Count Bernadotte and Colonel Sérot was hardly satisfactory, but that his comment with respect to the Holy Places in Palestine might well serve as a basis for further discussion. He added that he was not entirely satisfied with the explanations given concerning the problem of refugees, and suggested that Israel would be well advised to bear in mind, during future negotiations, the views expressed in the Committee both by those in favour and those opposing its admission to membership. His delegation was, however, prepared to support the seven-Power draft resolution recommending Israel's admittance. The representative of Colombia was of a somewhat similar opinion.

The representative of Ecuador stated that, ad-mitting the direct connexion existing between the admission of Israel and the fate of the city of Jerusalem - a connexion which did not, however, signify the interdependence of those two questions - Israel could still be admitted to the United Nations, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Charter, without that signifying that the General Assembly's resolutions concerning a legal Statute for Jerusalem were in any way impaired.

The representative of France asserted that among the obligations to be assumed by Israel, if it became a Member of the United Nations, was the obligation to carry out the resolutions adopted by the United Nations and to do nothing which would run counter to the policy followed by it or its agencies. He added that he would abstain from voting on the joint draft resolution before the Committee and that his vote in the General Assembly would depend upon the undertakings which Israel might assume.

The representative of the Union of South Africa observed that Israel's attitude with regard to the problem of Arab refugees and the question of Jerusalem caused doubts to be entertained as to its qualifications for membership. The assurances given by the representative of Israel were to a certain extent satisfactory but did not constitute a complete guarantee or afford any certainty that circumstances would permit the fulfilment of all the promises made by Israel. He explained that his Government was reviewing its position in the matter and, unless the vote was postponed until a later date, he would be obliged to abstain, pending receipt of definite instructions.

The representative of the USSR declared that his delegation had voted in favour of the admission of Israel in the Security Council and would vote in favour of the joint draft resolution. He added, however, that it would vote against the Chilean amendment to the joint draft resolution, as he considered that admission of Israel should not be conditioned by any question arising from the discussion of the Palestine issue which had taken place in the General Assembly.

At its 51st meeting on 9 May, the Committee adopted the first part of the Chilean amendment (A/AC.24/69)) by 27 votes to 7, with 21 abstentions.

The amended joint draft resolution (A/AC.24/74) was -then adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 to 11, with 13 abstentions.

(2) Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly

The report of the Ad Hoc Political Committee (A/855), containing the resolution recommending the admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, was considered by the General Assembly at its 207th plenary meeting on 11 May 1949. Twenty of the fifty-eight Members of the United Nations participated in the Assembly discussion.

The following representatives supported the Committee's draft resolution: Poland, the United States, the Netherlands, Canada, Guatemala, France, New Zealand, Uruguay, Bolivia, Cuba, Iceland and Peru.

The following representatives opposed the Committee's draft resolution: Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

The following representatives declared their intention of abstaining: El Salvador and Belgium.

The representative of Poland stated that Israel, within the framework of the United Nations, could make an important contribution to peace and progress. He recalled that Poland had actively assisted the Jews in their aspirations, not only for a national home but also for full statehood, and charged that United Kingdom and United States diplomacy had been ready to betray the new State before its birth.

The representative of the United States maintained that the point at issue in the current discussion was whether the State of Israel was eligible for membership under Article 4 of the Charter. He was satisfied that Israel fulfilled the conditions of the Charter, and stressed the fact that the representative of the new State had reiterated the solemn pledges of his Government to carry out the obligations of the Charter.

The representatives of Canada, Uruguay and Bolivia all based their position in respect to the admission of Israel on Article 4 of the Charter and were convinced that Israel would recognize the responsibilities and obligations of Member States to live in peace with other nations and to settle disputes by peaceful means.

In recording their support in favour of Israel's admission, the representatives of the Netherlands and New Zealand stressed that they expected the Government of Israel to respect the Assembly's resolutions, particularly those with respect to the Holy Places and the Arab refugees.

The representatives of Cuba, Iceland and Peru were also satisfied Israel would fulfil the assurances and pledges it had given, and the representative of France observed that the new State was offered the opportunity to exercise its responsibilities.

The representative of Iraq again raised the question of the abstention of the United Kingdom, a permanent member, in the Security Council's vote recommending Israel for membership. Article 27 of the Charter, the representative of Iraq said, calls for the affirmative concurrence of the five permanent members of the Council, and, he argued, an abstention does not constitute an affirmative vote of concurrence. The Assembly, he submitted, would do well to clarify that point in order to be certain of being on solid legal ground. He contended that the Security Council decision was invalid and that the decision of the Ad Hoc Political Committee, based on the recommendation of the Council, was therefore null and void. He asked the Assembly to consult the International Court of Justice on the matter. He also expressed the opinion that the admission of Israel to the United Nations would be the highest consummation of injustice and would "drive another nail into the coffin of the United Nations".

The representative of Egypt stated that the representative of Israel had failed to give satisfactory answers on any one of the three main issues raised in the Ad Hoc Political Committee, and he expressed the hope that the decision to be reached by the General Assembly would be in keeping with the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the dictates of peace in the Middle East and all over the world.

Opposing Israel's application for admission, the representative of Syria asserted that it would not be a happy omen for the United Nations if it were to reward aggression by approval and admit to membership a Government which had not only disregarded the wishes of the United Nations, but had also indicated its intention to continue to do so.

The representative of Lebanon reiterated his earlier contention that the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Charter could not be fairly held to be the only determining factors for the admission of Israel to membership. He held that Israel was too intimately related to the United Nations, and too deeply indebted to it, for Members to deny the relevance of previous decisions to the paramount question of its admission.

The representative of Yemen maintained that by admitting Israel, the United Nations would be offering shelter to a group which had not only imposed its rule by force on the people of Palestine, but which had also driven from their homes almost a million of those people.

The representative of Saudi Arabia stated that it would be unwise to admit an artificially-created State with a record of systematic aggression and flagrant violation of the basic principles of the Charter.

The representatives of El Salvador and Belgium stated that, as they were not satisfied with the answers of the representative of Israel concerning that countrys readiness to implement the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, they would be forced to abstain from voting.

Before putting the draft resolution recommended by the Ad Hoc Political Committee to the vote, the President of the General Assembly endorsed the ruling of the Committee's Chairman that the recommendation of the Security Council was in accordance with the requirements of the Charter.

The draft resolution was then adopted by the General Assembly, at its 207th plenary meeting on 11 May, by 37 votes to 12, with 9 abstentions. The vote, taken by roll-call, was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, United States, Uruguay Venezuela, Yugoslavia.

Against: Afghanistan, Burma, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen.

Abstaining: Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, El Salvador, Greece, Sweden, Thailand (Siam), Turkey, United Kingdom.

The resolution (273 (III)) read as follows:

"Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,

"Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,

"Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,

"Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it 'unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations',

"Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

"The General Assembly,

"Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,

"1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;

"2. Decided to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations."




Notes


31/ See pp. 174-76.

32/ See pp. 174-76.



















qpgaitem
status.isr
181note.99

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter