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

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question
6 October 1947



UNITED NATIONS
Department of Public Information
Press and Publications Bureau
Lake Success, New York
Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine
6th Meeting
(AM) SUMMARY
Press Release GA/PAL/6
6 October 1947
COMMITTEE ON PALESTINIAN QUESTION HEARS
SPEAKERS FOR PANAMA, IRAQ AND URUGUAY
At this morning’s meeting, the Committee continued discussion of the question of Palestine and heard the views of the Representatives of Panama, Iraq and Uruguay.

Dr. Juan Rivera Reyes (Panama) indicated his support of the partition proposal put forward by the majority of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), but suggested that the modern Jewish part of the city of Jerusalem be left to the proposed Jewish State.

General Nuri As-Said (Iraq) traced the history of the Palestine dispute from World War I. Promises had been made, he said, by Great Britain of Arab independence and one year later of a Jewish National Home. The Zionists, he asserted, had endeavoured to expand the promise to include a Jewish Commonwealth. He suggested the course now to be taken would be for Great Britain to emancipate Palestine at once or for the United Nations to settle the problem under the principles of its Charter. General As-Said termed the administration of Palestine suggested in the UNSCOP Report as “fantastic” and suggested that the Ad Hoc Committee transfer the problem of settlement of Jewish refugees in Europe to the International Refugee Organization.

Dr. M.F. Jamali (Iraq) laid down specific proposals which, he declared, if followed, would put the Palestine problem on the road to a solution. His first point was the right of ownership through long possession, or “Palestine for the Palestinians”. The second point was the right of self-determination by the inhabitants of a country and freedom from foreign interference. Thirdly, he asked that democracy be allowed to work in Palestine - specifically, the will of the majority. Lastly, he suggested that Zionism be differentiated from Judaism, declaring the former to be a modern political movement.

Prof. Henrique-Rodriguez Fabregat (Uruguay) described the work of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, and gave his support to proposal for partition. He made, however, reservations concerning the exclusion of Western Galilee from the proposed Jewish state, and of Jaffa from the Arab State. Prof. Fabregat proposed that 30,000 Jewish orphans from Central and Eastern Europe be immediately admitted into Palestine.

The Committee will reconvene tomorrow (Tuesday) at 11 a.m.

(A chronological account of this meeting is given in Take #1 through #6, which follow this Summary.)

The Chairman, Dr. H. V. Evatt (Australia) called the meeting to order at 11:10 a m. and gave the floor to Dr. Juan Rivera Reyes (Panama).

Dr. Reyes began by stressing the need to reach a peaceful solution of the Palestine problem, and he pleaded for greater cooperation among the delegates.

Dr. Reyes said that the proposal for partition of Palestine put forward by the majority of the UN Special Committee on Palestine, had much to be said in its favor, and he indicated his support, in principle for this proposal.

The end of the Mandate, said Dr. Reyes, would raise three questions:

settlement of the Jewish territorial claims, granting of independence to Palestine protection of the Holy Places.

Dr. Reyes pointed out that Palestine, with an area approximately equal to that of Belgium or the Netherlands, had a much smaller population, and he did not agree with those who maintained that an increase in the Jewish population of Palestine would threaten the neighboring Arab countries.

He expressed, however, the view that the modern Jewish part of the city of Jerusalem should be left to the proposed Jewish state.

Concluding, Mr. Reyes reminded the Committee that the solution of partition had been successfully resorted to in the Irish and Indian problem, and he urged representatives to put an end to the present Palestinian deadlocks.


(END OF TAKE #1)



UNITED NATIONS,
Department of Public Information
Press and Publications Bureau
Lake Success, New York

Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine Sixth Meeting
Sixth Meeting
(AM) TAKE #2
Press Release GA/PAL/6
6 October 1947


(AM) TAKE #2
Palestine

The second speaker, General Nuri As-Said, Chairman of the Delegation Iraq traced the history of the Palestine dispute from World War I, at which time he declared the British Government promised the Arabs independence of the Ottoman Empire.

The next year, General As-Said said, the Balfour Declaration, with the sanction of the British Government, promised to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people.

This was done, said the General, “on the clear understanding that nothing would be done to prejudice the existing civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities.”

Since that time, be declared, Great Britain has found her promises to the Arabs and Jews variously interpreted, The Jews, General As-Said contended, have endeavored to expand the original British promise to include a Jewish commonwealth, despite repeated British assurances to the Arabs that this was not the case.

The General declared, further, that when France fell in 1940, and Axis Propaganda agents doubled their activities to gain Arab support, the Iraqi Government offered to declare war on the Axis powers if Great Britain would start implementing the policy laid down in the 1939 White Paper. Great Britain was prevented from accepting the offer, he stated, because of the intervention of the Jewish Agency.

Returning to the problem at hand, General As-Said asserted that Great Britain failed in Palestine because, during her 25 years of stewardship, “she made no attempt to fulfil her promise to the Arabs, as well as her obligations under the Mandate to establish self-governing Institutions in Palestine and to assist the people of Palestine to attain full independence.”

Great Britain, he continued, waited until she had settled a half million Jews in Palestine before finding out that it was her own policy in Palestine that made it impossible for her to carry out her duty under the League of Nations Covenant.

The General then went on to say that the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, in its report, failed to put forward a final solution due to the existence of conflicting policies and promises laid down in the Mandate. He charged that the Palestine administration proposed by UNSCOP was more fantastic than anything imagined in the Arabian Nights or the fantasies of H.G. Wells.”

The two courses open to the Ad Hoc Committee, General As-Said suggested, were either for Great Britain to emancipate Palestine at once, declaring it an independent state, or to formulate a settlement of the Palestine problem based upon the principles of the United Nations Charter. Of these two, he endorsed the second course.

Two tasks, according to the General, confront the Ad Hoc Committee: the establishment of a regime which will ensure peace and prosperity in Palestine, and the second, the settlement of Jewish refugees in Europe.

This latter, he said, was not within the province of the Ad Hoc Committee, insofar as the United Nations has set up an International Refugee Organization to deal with all refugees and displaced persons, including the Jews. He therefore suggested the transfer of the second task to the IRO.

At the conclusion of his talk, General As-Said asked that his colleague, Dr. M. F. Jamali, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq be allowed to give a detailed criticism of the UNSCOP Report.


(END OF (AM) TAKE #2)


UNITED NATIONS.
Department of Public Information
Press and Publications Bureau
Lake Success, New York


Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine Sixth Meeting
6th Meeting
(AM) TAKE #3
Press Release GA/PAL/6
6 October 1947

(AM) TAKE #3
Palestine


The Minister of Foreign .Affairs for Iraq, Dr. Mr. M.F. Jamali, followed General As-Said, presenting Iraq’s recommendations for the solution to the Palestine problem.

Dr. Jamali set forth six principles, namely “Palestine for the Palestinian self-determination, democracy, non-interference in other people’s internal affairs without their consent, separation of Judaism and Zionism, and separation of the Palestine problem from that of the displaced persons.”

Palestine, said Dr. Jamali, belongs to the Palestinians alone. Not only, he said, is it theirs through the right of ownership through long possession, but also by right of “prescription”. No one, other than the rightful inhabitants of Palestine, has any right to Palestine, said Dr. Jamali.

The right of the inhabitants of any country to self-determination was the second principle laid down by the Iraq Minister of Foreign Affairs. The peoples of the world, he said, must be entitled to enjoy freedom and independence in the choice of their own government and the management of their own affairs. Self-determination, he declared, is the spirit of the Atlantic Charter which was embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.

The next point he made was that the inhabitants of a country are the sole authority on the admission of immigrants into their country. This he termed a corollary to the principle of self-determination. In any country of the world, he said, only the citizens of that country are entitled to decide who can enter their country and in what number.

Dr. Jamali declared that what free nations do not accept for themselves should not be forced on others, and that the practice of forcing immigration on an unwilling country should be condemned. Freedom from foreign interfere he added, was another collary to the right of self-determination.

Any form of democratic living together in Palestine, Dr. Jamali declared, has been thwarted for the past thirty years because of minorities and outside pressure working against the will of the majority.

The homelessness of the Jews, he asserted, was an acquired feeling, developed and encouraged by the Zionists. A Jew, he declared, like a Christian or a Moslem, should feel at home in the country where he lives.

While endorsing the principle of humanitarian help for all displaced persons, he stressed that the burden should not fall more heavily on one country than another.

Zionism, said Dr. Jamali, is not a remedy for the displaced persons. It has, he charged, a political and not a humanitarian motive. In making a distinction between Zionism and Judaism, Dr. Jamali said that while the former was a modern political movement, the latter was a world religion.

The problem of Palestine, Dr. Jamali concluded, would be very simple if treated according to the well-established rules of democracy, justice and international law.


(End of Take #3)



UNITED NATIONS
Department of Public Information
Bureau of the Press & Publications
Lake Success, New York


Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine Sixth Meeting
6th Meeting
(AM) TAKE #4
Press Release GA/PAL/6
6 October 1947

(AM) Take # 4

Palestine


The fourth speaker was Professor Enrique, Rodriguez Fabregat of Uruguay, who recalled that on the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine none of the Great Powers were represented, and that all the members on the Committee had been inspired only by their desire to restore peace to Palestine.

As a member of the Special Committee, Professor Fabregat described the work of this Committee.

He declared that his Delegation had, with the majority of the Committee advocatde a territorial solution of the Jewish problem, the creation of a Jewish State and economic cooperation of this state with the Arab State which the majority also proposed to create.

Professor Fabregat quoted from a letter of Marshall Sauts to Dr. Weizmann in which the forcer expressed himself in favor of partition as the only solution capable of bringing peace to Palestine,


(END OF TAKE #4)



UNITED NATIONS
Department of Public Information
Bureau of the Press & Publications
Lake Success, New York


Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine Sixth Meeting
Sixth Meeting
(AM) TAKE #5
Press Release GA/PAL/6
6 October 1947

(AM) TAKE #5

Palestine


Prof. Fabregat (Uruguay) suggested that the proposals of the majority of the UN Special Committee on Palestine be adopted as a basis for discussion, subject to the amendment by the Delegations.

Prof. Fabregat made reservations concerning the non-inclusion of Western Galilee in the proposed Jewish State, as well as the exclusion of the city of Jafa from the processed Arab State. Regarding Jerusalem, Prof. Fabregat said his Delegation was opposed to the setting up of the city as an autonomous territory with too large an area.

Passing on to Jewish immigration, Prof Fabregat stressed its contribution to the development of Palestine, and the fact that these immigrants were fleeing prosecution.


(END OF TAKE #5)



UNITED NATIONS
Department of Public Information
Bureau of the Press & Publications
Lake Success, New York


Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine Sixth Meeting
6th Meeting
(AM) TAKE #4
Press Release GA?PAL/6
6 October 1947

(AM) TAKE #6
Palestine


It is not, said Professor Fabregat, all the Jews of the world but only those who, in Europe, suffered at the hands of the Nazis and escaped death, who today desire to settle in Palestine.

In this connection, Professor Fabregat insisted that special sympathy be shown towards the Jewish orphans, and he proposed that 30,000 of them be immediately admitted into Palestine.

Concluding, Professor Fabregat stated that the Arabs and the Jews of Palestine constituted distinct nationalities, both fully entitled to independence and that only partition, combined with the creation of an Arab and a Jewish state could solve the problem which confronts the United Nations.

The Committee adjourned shortly after 1:30 p.m., and will reconvene tomorrow, Tuesday, at 11:00 a.m.

(End of Take #6 and end of Press Release GA/PAL/6).


###


Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter