Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search

English (pdf) ||Arabic||Chinese||Français||Русский||Español||



Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS

UNITED
NATIONS
A

      General Assembly
Distr.
DECLASSIFIED
A/AC.13/SR.22
11 July 1947

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-SECOND MEETING (PRIVATE)

Held at the Y.M.C.A. Building, Jerusalem,

Tuesday, 8 July 1947, at 1:00 p.m.


The Chairman called the meeting to order at 1.30 p.m.

Adoption of the Agenda

The Chairman said he wished to add another item to the agenda which should be considered before:the other items. This was the proposal made by the Yugoslav representative at the Seventh Meeting(x) namely the question of an appeal to the Arabs to cooperate with the Committee.

Decision:

The Agenda, as revised, was adopted.

Communication by the Chairman

The Chairman informed the Committee of the arrest at the Kadimah Flats of two girls and a boy while engaged in delivering statements from the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel (Stern Group). He was told by Mr. MacGillivray (Government of Palestine) that the arrests were a mistake on the part of the police. The documents had since been handed over to the Committee and the arrested persons released. In view of this, he considered the incident closed and no objection was raised.

Proposal for Seeking Arab co-operation with the Committee,

Mr. SIMIC (Yugoslavia) stressed the acute and serious nature of the Palestine question, and called the Committee's attention to a point already stressed by the Yugoslav delegation which was of the utmost significance for the further work of the Committee, namely the cooperation of the Arab people with the Committee. The Committee had admitted publicly that, until now, it had failed in hearing the opinions of one of the main interested parties: the Arabs. The Committee was acquainted with only the basic line of the Arab stand in regard to the Palestine question, but this was not sufficient for a final solution of the problem. The cooperation of all interested parties was necessary for a just and democratic solution of the problem and it was the Committee's task to seek such a solution. The Yugoslav delegation considered the question of the cooperation of the Arab population with the Committee as one of the most important unsolved questions before it, and proposed again that the Committee should most seriously consider the situation created by the boycott proclaimed by the Arab Higher Committee. He concluded by submitting again the proposal already made by the Yugoslav representative at the Seventh Meeting (xx).

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that all attempts to establish contact with the Arab Higher Committee had been unsuccessful. If any appeal were to be made to the Arabs, it should be made forthwith. He asked members whether they considered it appropriate to make an appeal to the Arab to appear before the Committee.

Sir ABDUR RAHMAN (India) agreed with the suggestion made by Mr. Hood (Australia) that his own proposal contained in his letter to the Chairman dated July 2, 1947 and circulated to the Committee should be discussed together with the Yugoslav proposal.

LISICKY (Czechoslovakia) maintained that the two proposals dealt with separate questions.

GARCIA GRANADOS (Guatemala) pointed out that Sir Abdur Rahman had raised two different questions : one dealing with the Arabs and the other with the DP camps. He suggested that the Committee should examine the question of Arab co­operation first.

Mr. SIMIC (Yugoslavia) said that the Committee should first examine his own proposal - an appeal for the cooperation of the Arabs in Palestine - and later Sir Abdur Rahman's proposal - consultation of the neighbouring Arab states.

The CHAIRMAN ruled that the order, given by Mr. Simic be adopted.

Mr. ENTEZAM (Iran) expressed appreciation of Mr. Simic's proposal, but expressed doubts as to its outcome. An earlier appeal by the Chairman and subsequent informal approaches had failed. A second refusal by the Arabs to cooperate might be somewhat offensive to the Committee.

Mr. LISICKY (Czechoslovakia) agreed with Mr. Entezam's doubts as to the practical effect of a further appeal. He maintained that the Committee should consider the Yugoslav proposal from the viewpoint of its own interests, that is, as a sort of alibi for itself because it had been entrusted by the General Assembly with the task of finding facts from both the Jewish and Arab sections of, the population of Palestine. If the Committee failed in its task, it should record in a document for the General Assembly that the Committee was not responsible for such a failure. He, therefore, seconded the proposal of Mr. Simic.

Sir ABDUR RAHMAN (India) declared that if attempts to approach the Arab Higher Committee - of which he was unaware - had been unsuccessful, it would be useless to make a formal request again. He supported Mr. Simic's proposal provided that members were assured that there had been no definite replies to any of those members who might have privately approached the Arab Higher Committee.

The CHAIRMAN, in reply to Mr. Rand (Canada), who had asked for further elucidation of Mr. Simic's proposal, said that the proposal was to make a public and direct appeal to the Arabs to cooperate with the Committee.

Mr. GARCIA ROBLES (Secretary) read out the draft proposed by Mr. Simic, which, with minor changes, was the same as that proposed by the Yugoslav representative at the Seventh Meeting.

Mr. HOOD (Australia) expressed his approval of the suggested approach to both the-Arab Higher Committee and to the Arab States. He enquired, however, whether it would not be more proper for such approach to be made through the Secretary-General of the united Nations. If this course were acceptable, the Secretary-General would be requested to inform the Arab States of the Committee's approach to the Arab Higher Committee and intimate simultaneously to the Arab' States the Committee's desire to make contact with them also.

The CHAIRMAN said the Committee, should first discuss the question of the appeal to the Arab Higher Committee and then take up the question of approaching the Arab States. He was of the opinion that the anneal would be fruitless.

Mr. GARCIA GRANADOS (Guatemala) declared he would gladly vote in favour of both proposals but only if there were assu­rances that they would-be accented by the respective parties.

Mr. BLOM (Netherlands) supported the view expressed by Mr. Lisicky. He thought that, instead of a public appeal, the Committee should merely write a letter to the Arab Higher Committee and make public the fact that it had done so.

Mr. RAND (Canada) objected to the wording of the last paragraph, of Mr. Simic's proposal. He declined to accept the implication that, without Arab cooperation, the Committee would be unable to make a full report and just proposals. In his opinion, the Committee had available everything that could be said, since all phases of the Arab case had been expounded over the past two years. He would vote against the proposal on account of the language in which it was couched.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the question under discussion was whether a further attempt should be made to induce the Arab Higher Committee to cooperate with the Committee, and not the wording of the appeal itself.

FABREGAT (Uruguay) stated that he supported the Yugoslav proposal, but he wished the text to be modified. He suggested that the Committee should no longer ask the cooperation of the whole population of Palestine, since a great part of the population had already cooperated, but cooperation offered from another part of the population had been refused by the Committee. He referred to the Committee's refusal to hear certain persons representing a section of the population which had been imprisoned for political reasons.

The CHAIRMAN at this point adjourned the meeting and fixed the next meeting, for five o'clock in the afternoon.

The meeting adjourned at 2.15 p.m.

---

(x) Document A/AC.13/SR.7

xx Document A/AC.I3/SR.7, pages 5 and 6.



Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter