Home || Permalink


12 September 1951

Original: English


held in the Hotel de Crillon, Paris,
on Wednesday, 12 September 1951, at 11.30 a.m.

-- Arrangement for the opening of the conference (continued)
Draft comprehensive proposal for submission by the Commission to the parties (continued)
Draft of the opening statement by the Chairman

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


Draft comprehensive proposal for submission by the Commission to the parties continued

Mr. MARCHAL (France) said he approved the draft comprehensive proposal in its present form.

The CHAIRMAN was glad that the French representative had been able to give his approval to the text amended at the previous meeting. The way in which the members of the Commission had reached agreement was yet another proof of the cordiality and understanding they had always shown in the discussions.

Mr. ARAS (Turkey) was glad that the Commission had reached agreement and associated himself with the Chairman’s remarks.

The draft comprehensive proposal was adopted.

Draft of the opening statement the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN invited the Commission to examine the draft of the statement he was to make to the parties. It had already been somewhat revised in line with the observations made.

Mr. MARCHAL (France) pointed out the need to avoid giving the parties the impression that the proposals must be accepted or rejected as a whole. He therefore proposed that the words “as an integral whole” at the end of the ninth paragraph of the draft should be deleted and the end of the paragraph worded as follows: “We have come to the conclusion that the Palestine problem must be considered in its entirety, and that its solution must be sought in a fair and realistic spirit of give-and-take”.

In the following paragraph he proposed that the words “as a comprehensive unit” should likewise be replaced by the words “in its entirety” for the reason just explained. Further, he suggested that the end of the next sentence, after the hyphen, be replaced by the following: “emphasize” the general character of the Palestine problem”.

He proposed that the end of the same paragraph worded as follows:

“It is impossible to miss the meaning of this call and the clear emphasis of the resolution on the interdependence of the various elements of the Palestine problem”.

The amendments proposed representative were adopted.

After a brief discussion in which the CHAIRMAN, Mr. MARCHAL (France) and Mr. de AZCARATE (Principal Secretary) took part, the Commission decided to word the eleventh paragraph as follows: “Experience has shown that concentration on one or the other isolated paragraph of the resolution out of context has not helped in the promotion of peace in Palestine All the elements are necessary, but they are useful only if linked together according to an overall plan. For example, the resolution instructs us to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of refugees, and we did not forget that instruction when we drafted our proposals for the conference. Nor did we forget the instruction given us in the same resolution, to seek agreements between the governments which will facilitate the economic development of the area, including arrangements for free access to ports and airfields and the use of transportation and communication facilities. On the one hand, a sound economic development is impossible in an area with hundreds of thousands of homeless people uncertain of the future and their standing in society. On the other hand, refugees — and non-refugees for that matter — cannot be settled securely anywhere in an area badly lacking economic development,”

The CHAIRMAN proposed that the words “in fairness” in paragraph thirteen, should be deleted; the idea they suggested was self-evident and need not be mentioned.

The amendment was adopted.

Mr. MARCHAL (France) made the same observation concerning the words “must be settled” in the previous sentence and proposed the following simplified wording for that sentence: “In drafting these proposals, we have considered that any solution of the refugee question will involve important commitment by Israel”.

This amendment was adopted.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that it would perhaps be advisable to amend the first sentence of the next paragraph, where the word “reintegration” was applied without distinction to all the refugees in question. One could hardly speak of reintegrating someone in a place where he had never been.

Mr. MARCHAL (France) shared the Chairman’s view and also emphasized the need to amend the text. He further pointed out that the idea expressed in the first part of the paragraph was certainly related to the need to create additional land.

The CHAIRMAN acknowledged the aptness of the French representative’s comment and proposed to make two separate paragraphs, one dealing with the repatriation, integration and resettlement of refugees and the second developing the idea just expressed by the French representative.

Mr. MARCHAL (France) agreed to the above suggestion. However, he feared that the expression “the signature of certain economic agreements” was too specific and direct and he proposed to change it to “and if necessary, certain appropriate arrangements”.

After a short discussion, the Commission decided to draft the passage in question as follows, taking into account the suggestions just made:

“The solution of the refugee problem proposed by the Commission envisages the repatriation and integration of some of the refugees in Israel and the resettlement of others in Arab countries.

Such undertakings will necessitate the creation of additional land by means of development and irrigation and agreements between the parties on the use of water resources. These agreements will, in turn, involve revisions or extensions in the scope of the existing Armistice Agreements as well as appropriate economic arrangements”.

Mr. MARCHAL (France) thought that the first sentence of the following paragraph imposed too severe conditions upon Israel and he proposed it should simply be deleted. The paragraph would then begin with the next sentence, which should be slightly changed in order to bring the wording into line with the preamble. The concluding paragraph of the statement would then read as follows: “These are the considerations which have inspired the comprehensive proposals which the Commission will place before you as the pattern for this conference.”

The Commission could leave it to the Chairman to draft the final words in his own terms.

The amendments and suggestion of the French representative were removed.

The draft statement thus amended was adopted,

The CHAIRMAN thanked the Commission for having reached agreement on the text of the opening statement and reminded the members that they were to meet the representatives of the Arab Governments on the following morning and the Israel representatives in the afternoon.

The meeting rose at 1 p.m.

Document in PDF format

Arrangements, propositions et déclaration d'ouverture du Conférence de Paris – 235e séance de CCNUP Paris ) – Compte rendu Français