Question of Palestine home
9 May 1949
Held at Lake Success, New York,
on Monday, 9 May 1949, at 10.30 a.m.
General Carlos P. ROMULO
57. Application of Israel for admission
to membership in the United Nations (
Mr. C. MALIK (Lebanon)recalled that the Committee and had before it the revised draft resolution submitted by his delegation (A/AC.24/62/Rev.1). With a view to further simplification, the Lebanese delegation had decided to alter the operative part by omitting paragraph 2 and substituting the following text for the paragraph 1: “Resolves to defer to its fourth regular session action on the admission of Israel to membership of the United Nations”. The preamble of document A/AC.24/62/Rev.2 remained as it appeared in document A/AC.24/62/Rev.1.
Mr. Malik thought the discussion on the application of Israel had thrown considerable light on the question and had shown how wise it had been to refer this problem to a Committee. Those who voted in favour of the immediate admission of Israel to the United Nations would be able to weigh all the consequences of their attitude. Those, on the other hand, who preferred that Israel should be admitted only during the fourth regular session of the General Assembly, would also know what their attitude implied. Israel itself would benefit from that procedure, for, if it were admitted to membership at the third session, it could always in the future take advantage of the fact that it had been admitted to the United Nations after making its attitude quite clear on some points, and purposefully leaving its position on certain other questions vague. If, on the contrary, Israel’[s admission to the Organization was deferred to the fourth session, Israel would know that it must conform to the decisions and wishes of the United Nations.
Mr. Malik wished to deal only with the three main issues involved in the question of the admission of Israel and, at the same time, with the arguments advanced by the representative of Israel. These were, first, the question of the connexion between the acceptance by Israel of the decisions of the General Assembly and its admission to the United Nations; secondly, the problem of refugees; and thirdly, the fate of Jerusalem.
With respect to the negotiations at Lausanne, Mr. Malik recalled that the representative of Israel had declared at the 45th meeting that the Government of Israel had informed the Conciliation Commission that it regarded the Lausanne Conference not as a preliminary exchange of views but as an attempt by the two parties to arrive at a final settlement. The representative of Israel had further stated that his Government was awaiting the reply of the Arab States and that the whole issue of peace and stability in the Near East depended on that reply. That statement seemed to indicate that, while Israel desired a final settlement of the questions, the Arab States had not yet expressed such a wish.
Complete document in PDF format