SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY-FOURTH MEETING
Held in the Hôtel de Crillon, Paris,
on Thursday, 18 October 1951, at 11 a.m.
PUBLICATION OF THE COMMISSION’S REPLY TO THE LETTER FROM THE ISRAEL DELEGATION AND COMMUNICATION OF THE REPLY TO THE ARAB DELEGATIONS
The CHAIRMAN invited the Press Officer to give the Commission some information on the situation with regard to publication in the press of the correspondence exchanged between the Israel delegation and the Commission.
Mr. JANKOWSKI (Secretariat) informed the Commission that its letter of 6 October had been published in the press but had not received much publicity. The Israel delegation, in addition, had made known its intention of publishing the text of its reply to the Commission’s letter. The reply had appeared in extenso in the “New York Times” two days previously.
As to the Commission’s reply to the letter from Israel, it could be published in two ways: (a) by merely communicating the full text to the press, or (b) by preparing a communiqué which would indicate what the Commission considered to be the main idea in the letter. Mr. Jankowski favoured the second method as the first would permit different newspapers themselves to pick out the main idea and comment upon it.
Mr. ARAS (Turkey) thought the Commission should avoid stressing the idea it considered most important, as journalists would tend to exploit the fact and emphasize what, according to them, the Commission had tended to hide. It would be preferable to give them the text of the reply without comment and leave them to write their articles in their own way.
Mr. MARCHAL (France) agreed. The important fact for the Commission was the publication of the reply. Comment was not very important and, in any case, in no way changed the respective positions of all the parties concerned. He thought it would be best to publish the letter twenty-four hours after sending it to the Israel delegation and to communicate it to the Arab delegations before publishing it.
The CHAIRMAN thought that as a matter of courtesy the Commission should inform the Israel delegation that it intended to publish its reply to Israel. He recalled that the Israel delegation had done the same with regard to the Commission.
Mr. ARAS (Turkey) agreed to that procedure in the case in point but emphasized that it should not be considered a precedent binding the Commission for the future.
The CHAIRMAN agreed to that reservation and added that the Commission should decide in each case on the procedure to be followed.
He recalled that the Commission would soon have before it the draft reply to the Arab delegations and the working document on the comprehensive proposals. As it should study these texts before receiving the parties, the Commission might meet in the morning of Monday, 22 October, for that purpose.
It was so decided.
Réponse à la lettre d'Israël et communication de cette lettre aux Délégations Arabes - 254e séance de la CCNUP (Paris) - Compte Rendu Français