Home || Permalink


3 October 1951

Original: English


Held in the Hôtel de Crillon, Paris,
on Wednesday, 3 October 1951, at 6 p.m.

— Preparation for future meetings with the delegations of the parties (continued)

Chairman:Mr. PALMERUnited States of America
Members:Mr. MARCHALFrance
Mr. ARASTurkey
Alternates:Mr. BARCOUnited States of America
Mr. de NICOLAYFrance
Secretariat:Mr. de AZCARATEPrincipal Secretary
Mr. FISHERPolitical Officer


The CHAIRMAN stated that at the conclusion of the Commission’s last meeting, the Principal Secretary had been asked to prepare the draft of a letter to be addressed to the delegations. Its purpose would be to indicate to the parties that, in the Commission’s opinion, by presenting their draft declarations they had contributed to the creation of an atmosphere favourable to the discussions. The Commission’s draft declaration would be incorporated in the letter and the Arab and Israel drafts attached as annexes. He invited the Commission to consider the Secretariat’s draft.

After an exchange of views during which the CHAIRMAN and Mr. MARCHAL (France) .proposed a few minor changes in the draft, the Commission adopted the following text:


In submitting to the delegations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria and to the delegation of Israel a comprehensive pattern of proposals towards a solution of outstanding questions, the Conciliation Commission for Palestine, both in its opening statement to the delegations and in its comprehensive proposals, emphasized the importance of a reaffirmation of the undertakings of the parties as signatories to the Armistice Agreements and as United Nations Members.

In the preamble to its comprehensive proposals, the Commission recommended that this reaffirmation be given in the following form:

‘In accordance with the obligations of States Members of the United Nations and of signatories to Armistice Agreements, the Governments of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria and the Government of Israel solemnly, affirm their intention and undertake to settle all differences, present or future, solely by resort to pacific procedures, refraining from any use of force or acts of hostility, with full respect for the right of each party to security and freedom from fear of attack, and by these means to promote the return of peace in Palestine.’

On 21 September, in reply to the Chairman’s opening statement, the delegation of Israel informed the Commission that, as a first step towards the achievement of peace, it was willing to subscribe to a declaration such as that indicated in the opening statement. Subsequently the delegation of Israel suggested that this affirmation by the parties of their pacific intentions take the form of a non-aggression pact (attached to this letter as Annexe A).

On 3 October 1951 the delegations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria assured the Conciliation Commission of their desire to promote the establishment of an atmosphere necessary for continuance of the Commission’s work and to facilitate the pacific settlement of the Palestine problem; to that end they submitted the declaration attached to this letter as Annex B.

The Conciliation Commission is aware of the disparity between the formulations suggested by the parties, However, the Commission considers that the parties, by offering these formulations, have contributed to the creation of a favourable atmosphere for the present discussions, and for the promotion of the return of permanent peace in Palestine.

In the opinion of the Commission, these formulations constitute a basis for the consideration of its comprehensive pattern of proposals. The Commission is accordingly ready to proceed with consideration of its proposal’s with the delegations.

Please accept, Sir, the renewed assurances f my high consideration.

(signed) Ely E. Palmer


The CHAIRMAN recalled that the letter was to be sent in form to all the parties.

Mr. MARCHAL (France) thought it should not be addressed to the parties officially before assurances were obtained that their replies would be in the affirmative. It would perhaps be wise to meet the various delegations unofficially in order to find out their reactions to the letter. In fact, if its acceptance by the Arab delegations was almost certain, that was not the case with Israel, and the Commission knew quite well that a formal refusal by Israel would mean the end of the conference.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the Arab delegations had unofficially communicated their draft declaration to the Commission. They must therefore be given an opportunity to present it officially at a meeting, so that they could give any explanations they might wish to make concerning it. Moreover, as the Commission had to adopt strictly identical procedures with the parties, it must give Israel the same opportunity, particularly as it had not yet had any discussion of the question of non-aggression with the Israel delegation. An official discussion with the latter might possibly reveal that it was ready to accept .a formula that went less far than its proposed pact.

Mr. MARCHAL (France) also thought the Commission should treat the parties in a strictly identical way. He agreed with the Chairman that the Commission ought to meet at least once with the Israel delegation in order to permit the latter to express its views on the matter of the declaration. The Israel delegation was well aware that the Commission had met with the Arab delegations to examine that matter and might cite the fact that it had not had the same possibility; as justification for a refusal which would be fatal.

Mr. ARAS (Turkey) shared the views of the Chairman and the French representative.

The CHAIRMAN, in conclusion, proposed that the Commission should meet with the Arab delegations and then with the Israel delegation, in order to hear the views of the two parties concerning their respective proposals. At those two meetings no mention would be made of the letter just agreed upon by the Commission, which would be communicated to the various delegations later. The Commission could meet the Arab delegations at 11 a.m. on the following day and the Israel delegation in the late afternoon.

It was so decided.

Mr. MARCHAL (France) pointed out that that procedure would have the additional advantage of enabling the Commission to amend the text of the letter if, necessary, in the light of observations which the two parties might make.

The meeting rose at 7 p.m.

Document in PDF format

Préparation des prochaines séances avec les délégations (suite) - 245e séance de CCNUP (Paris) – Compte rendu Français