Home || Permalink


2 September 1950

Original: English


Held at Government House, Jerusalem, on
Saturday, 2 September, 1950 at 10 a.m.

Chairman:Mr. PALMER (United States of America)
Mr. de BOISANGER (France)
Mr. ARAS (Turkey)
Mr. de AZCARATEPrincipal Secretary

1. Draft letters to be sent to the Government of Jordan and the Government of Israel concerning the Special Committee.

The CHAIRMAN communicated to the Commission a draft letter which Mr. de Boisanger had suggested the Commission might send to the Government of Jordan and the Government of Israel to convey to them its satisfaction at the fact that the Special Committee set up under Article VIII of the Rhodes Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel had resumed its activities, and to express the hope that its work would be fruitful. In the letter the Commission informed the parties that its good offices were at their disposal if they desired them.

The Commission approved the text of the letter.

2. Draft letters to the Governments concerned informing them of the conclusion of the Commission’s work at Jerusalem.

The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY read the draft of a letter, which might be sent to all the Governments concerned to inform them that the Commission had decided to discontinue its work at Jerusalem on 8 September and to resume it in New York on 2 October.

The text of the draft letter was approved.

3. Creation of a subsidiary body to study the technical and legal aspects of compensation.

The CHAIRMAN recalled the conversations recently held by members of the Commission on the question of refugees in general and compensation in particular and remarked that the time seemed ripe for a thorough study of the technical and legal aspects of the question. He therefore considered that the Commission might set up a subsidiary body as provided for in paragraph 12 of the resolution of 11 December 1948 and entrust it with the task of undertaking a study of the legal and technical aspects of the question of compensation in accordance with paragraph 11 of the same resolution. Such a subsidiary body might consist of en economic expert, a legal expert and a person possessing a thorough knowledge of real estate in Palestine.

Mr. de BOISANGER (France) said he considered that such a study would be of great value to the Commission for its future work. It would, however, perhaps be sufficient, for the time being at any rate, to decide upon the creation of the subsidiary body, which could be asked to meet, with a request to study the question and report to the Commission. Its terms of reference could be drawn up when work was resumed at Lake Success.

The CHAIRMAN and Mr. ARAS (Turkey) supported these views.

The Commission accordingly decided to set up a subsidiary body to study the technical and legal aspects of compensation and approved the text of a telegram informing the Secretary-General of its decision.

4. Approval of the general progress report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.


The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY submitted to the Commission the draft text of the Introduction as reworded according to the suggestions put forward at the previous meeting. He remarked that, according to the proposed new formula, the report should no longer be regarded as a final report but as a periodical general report. If that were so, it would perhaps be advisable to specify the nature of the report and to indicate that the Commission intended to submit to the Secretary-General a further report containing an analysis of the situation as it now stood in Palestine, with the addition of any suggestions or recommendations which it might consider useful.

Mr. ARAS (Turkey) thought it would be worth while to state that the Commission had established contact with the Governments during its visits to the various capitals, but it would be premature to say too much about possible suggestions on the part of the Commission since it did not yet know whether it would be in a position to make any. The Commission might therefore confine itself to announcing the submission of a report covering its activity during its stay in the Middle East.

Mr. de BOISANGER (France) also considered that the report should be regarded merely as a more complete periodic report; it should not deal in detail with the Commission’s activity in the Middle East, as that question would form the subject of a further report which the Commission intended to complete when it resumed its work in New York.

The draft Introduction was adopted, it being understood that the Secretariat would incorporate the suggested changes.

Chapter A. The conciliation effort.

After noting the draft text drawn up for paragraphs 55, 56 and 57, which gave a brief account of the Commission’s visits to the various Governments during its stay in the Middle East end stated the problem of compensation as it now stood, the Commission also examined the draft text of paragraphs 58 and 59, at the end of the report, which stated that the Commission had decided to go to Ankara to visit the Turkish Government, and then to stop work at Jerusalem on 8 September and to resume in New York on 2 October.

Paragraphs 56, 57, 58 and 59 were adopted.

Chapter B. The question of Jerusalem and the Holy Places.

Chapter B was adopted without discussion.

Chapter C. The refuge problem.

Chapter C; redrafted in accordance with the Commission’s instructions, was adopted.

Chapter D. The territorial question.

A discussion took place on the question whether in paragraph 5 the words “without mentioning the resolution itself” should be allowed to remain in the sentence following the text of the Protocol of 12 May 1949. Mr. de Boisanger reconsidered that that phrase might give rise to criticism by the Arab States.

Mr. WALDO (United States of America) thought that the expression, which was not a very happy one, might well be deleted and that the map attached to the Protocol, might be included in the report as an annex.

This suggestion gave rise to e discussion from which it emerged that, though it would undoubtedly be useful., from a documentary point of view, to insert the map annexed to the Protocol, there was a danger that, by giving prominence to a question which was no longer topical, the old argument regarding the partition plan might be reopened, without throwing any fresh light on the matter, since the position of the parties on-the territorial question had in no way altered.

Accordingly, it was decided to retain the sentence in Paragraph 5 following the text of the Protocol of 12 May 1948, the words “without mentioning the resolution itself” being deleted.

Some drafting changes were then made in paragraphs 10 and 21. Chapter D, ‘The territorial question’, was adopted, with the changes indicated above.

The draft general progress report to the Secretary-General was adopted as a whole.

Press communiqué.

The CHAIRMAN said he considered that a press communiqué should be issued announcing the Commission’s visit to Ankara.

It was so decided.

The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY reported that, following the Commission’s decision to receive representatives of the Congress of Refugees of Ramalleh, he had informed them that the Commission was prepared to receive them the same day at 4.30 p.m. at Husseini House, in the Arab quarter of Jerusalem.

The CHAIRMAN considered that it would perhaps be desirable after the meeting to issue a. special press communiqué announcing that the Commission had interviewed representatives of the Congress of Refugees of Ramallah.

It was so decided.

The meeting rose at 12 noon.

Document in PDF format