Home || Permalink
U N I T E D N A T I O N S

Distr.
RESTRICTED

A/AC.25/SR/LM/18
9 June 1949

Original: English


UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE

SUMMARY RECORD OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE CONCILIATION COMMISSION
AND THE DELEGATIONS OF THE ARAB STATES

held in Lausanne on Thursday,
9 June 1949, at 10:30 a.m.


Present:
Mr. Yalcin

(Turkey)

Chairman
Mr. de Boisanger(France)
Mr. Ethridge(U.S.A.)
Mr. AzcaratePrincipal Secretary
H.E. Abdel Monem Mostafa BeyRepresentative of Egypt
H.E. Fawzi Pasha MulkiRepresentative of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom
H.E. Fouad Bey AmmounRepresentative of Lebanon
H.E. Dr. Farid ZeineddineRepresentative of Syria


MULKI PASHA (Hashemite Jordan Kingdom) made the following statement, which he wished to appear verbatim in the Records:

“The Hashemite Jordan Delegation yesterday received official information from Amman that on the evening of the sixth of June the Jews performed yet another act of aggression, in the southern district of Jerusalem near Government House, occupying the Arab College, the School of Agriculture and certain other buildings in that area.

“It is not out of place to remind the Conciliation Commission in this connection that this district was and still is an internationalized zone and that the Conciliation Commission itself has used. Government House as its official headquarters and stationed its guards in the Arab College which was the object of this latest aggression.

“No doubt, and in view of these facts, the responsibility for the protection of this district is the sole responsibility of the United Nations; consequently this act of aggression must be considered as if directed against the authority of the United Nations and the Conciliation Commission, apart from being a flagrant violation of the Armistice in that sector. It will necessarily have grave consequences on the work of conciliation.

“The Arab delegations have given this development due attention and found it incompatible with the nature of the work now in progress at Lausanne. They have concluded that unless effective and speedy measures are adopted to restore the situation to what it was before they will find themselves compelled to reconsider their position in relation to the, present discussions.”

MOSTAFA BEY (Egypt) found it hard to believe that such actions could be tolerated in view of the joy with which the United Nations and the Great Powers had welcomed the Armistice in Palestine as a prelude to peace. The act in question was not isolated but was part of a systematic Jewish policy of presenting the world with faits accomplis. Up till now, that policy had produced no reaction from the United Nations. Would world opinion tolerate such a situation, bringing as it did an obvious danger of a renewal of hostilities? Would it be possible for the Arab forces to remain inactive under such conditions? The Arab delegations turned to the United Nations so that every effort should be made to resolve the situation by pacific means; otherwise, they could not be answerable for the consequences. It would then be unjust, if hostilities were resumed, to blame the Arabs as aggressors; the responsibility would lie elsewhere. It was therefore essential that the United Nations should take action if they wished for peace. He implored the Commission to do its utmost to bring about a restoration of the situation as it had previously existed. He entirely supported the statement of Mulki Pasha.

Mr. AMMOUN (Lebanon) likewise gave the Jordanian statement entire support. What had taken place in Jerusalem involved the responsibility not only of the Jews but of the United Nations, from which the Jews had grown accustomed to receive undue indulgence. Of such indulgence, he would give two examples. The Security Council had been informed of three violations of the truce on the part of the Jews, two in the Negev and one in Western Galilee. It had laid down the principle that no party should be allowed to profit by a violation of the truce to obtain military or political advantages, and that the lines established by the Truce should be restored. Dr. Bunche had communicated that decision to the truce control officers, with a plan for the withdrawal of the Jews, but the Security Council had repudiated his plan, allowing the Jews to remain in the areas they had seized. That they had three times violated the truce had been testified by the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary, in a statement to the House of Commons.

Again, in the General Assembly, the Jews had been admitted to membership of the United Nations in disregard of the request advanced by several delegations that they should first give assurances of their readiness to respect the decisions of the United Nations, especially in regard to the return of the refugees and to the Holy Places. If today the Jews, in spite of their membership of the United Nations, continued a policy of aggression, it was because they had become accustomed to receive indulgence. It was time for the United Nations to intervene; for the Commission to raise its voice. If not, the conversations in Lausanne would be seriously affected.

Mr. ZEINEDDINE (Syria) said that since it had been recognized that all the Arab delegations had the same concern and took the same view over the problems of Palestine, it was superfluous for him to say that he entirely supported the attitude of the other delegations. The Jewish action in Jerusalem of 6 June, the Jewish attitude of rebellion against the United Nations decision on the refugees, their demand territorial aggrandisement forwarded by the Commission as being in accordance with the Protocol of 12 May, were all expressions of one and the same policy. A policy which knew no law other than the perfidious use of force in violation of the truce, in order to produce faits accomplis. That policy was inimical to conciliation, being founded on recurrent acts of aggression which must necessarily lead to acts of defence, hence to renewal of conflict. It could not have developed without the constant encouragement given it by the United Nations. Further examples to those provided by the head of the Lebanese delegation could be given. He did not, however, wish to dwell on them, but merely to point out that the Jews had hitherto found that they could proceed by fait accomplis, counting on the United Nations to throw over them a cloak of legality.

Their latest action in Jerusalem, at a time when conciliation was proceeding, spoke louder than any arguments as to Jewish good will. The attitude which might be adopted by the United Nations would indicate where the Arabs stood in their relationships to both the Jews and the organs of the United Nations. The Arabs had been asked to have confidence in the United Nations and to cooperate with them in solving the Palestine problem. It remained the sincere intention of the Arab delegations to seek a settlement of that problem, but their confidence in the United Nations could only be regained if all parties, including the Jews and the Commission itself, proved ready to abide by the decisions of the United Nations. He hoped serious efforts would be made to induce the Jews to conform to the lines laid down in the United Nations Resolutions. If that was done, the Arabs would meet them. Those lines were the only lines the Arabs would accept. Therefore, the Jewish policy, of which the latest expression had been their conduct in Jerusalem, was of a nature to shatter all efforts at conciliation and perhaps to frustrate the whole work of the Conciliation Commission.

The CHAIRMAN inquired whether a protest had been lodged with the Security Council.

MULKI PASHA said that Major General Riley and the United Nations observers on the spot had been officially informed. He himself had been asked by his government to approach the Commission so that it should take appropriate measures. To a question from the Chairman whether the area concerned was the subject of negotiations in the Mixed Armistice Commission or Special Committee, he replied that under the Israeli-Jordan Kingdom Armistice, the Mixed Armistice Commission had been created to deal with the application of the armistice terms, while the Special Committee was concerned with questions which it had preyed impossible to settle at the Rhodes Conference. Through an error, the question of the Government House area had at one time been discussed by the Mixed Armistice Commission, instead of by the Special Committee. General Riley had said that it fell outside the scope of both, as an internationalized zone.

The CHAIRMAN said that the declaration of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom had been noted, and that the Commission would do everything in its power to ease the situation. In reply to a request from the Syrian representative that the Commission should give its views on the matter, he hoped that it would be soon in a position to do so.


Document in PDF format

Incidents de Jérusalem - Rencontre avec les délégations arabes - 18e séance de la CCNUP (Lausanne) - Compte rendu analytique Français