SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH MEETING OF THE
Lake Success, New York
Thursday, 29 January 1948, at 11.00 a.m.
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS
The SECRETARY informed the Commission that the Documents Division had received a request from a Member State of the United Nations which was not a member of the Commission for copies of all the documents that had been issued by the Commission. It was the practice of the Secretariat to furnish all documents requested by Members unless it had received specific instructions to the contrary. He asked the Commission to take a decision in the matter since virtually all of the Commission’s documents lied been classified as “Restricted”.
At the suggestion of Mr. SOBOLEV (Assistant Secretary-General), the Commission decided to postpone a decision on the question until after he had had an opportunity to consult with the Acting Secretary-General.
The CHAIRMAN observed that any decision taken would refer to documents already issued. Any documents that the Commission might issue as informal working papers and that were not handled by the Documents Division were not to be distributed outside the Commission.
CONTINUATION OF THE SECOND READING OF THE DRAFT REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL
Section 9: Consultation with the Representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine
It was felt that some mention should be made of the fact that Mr. Shertok had appeared before the Commission twice. After several suggestions had been considered, it was decided to add at the end of the first sentence of the first paragraph, “and at the 22nd meeting on 27 January 1940”.
Sub-paragraph (a) was re-drafted to read:
“The Jewish Agency for Palestine, on behalf of the Jewish people, will co-operate in the implementation of the Assembly’s recommendations, although from their viewpoint the Assembly’s solution is only a compromise solution”.
After some discussion of the advisibility of including sub-paragraph (b), in view of the fact that Mr. Shertok had not presented evidence to support his opinion and of the danger that the Security Council might feel that the Commission was endorsing Mr. Shertok’s view, it was decided to delete the sub-paragraph.
Some fear was expressed that the second clause of sub-paragraph (c), “that Jews there receive inadequate protection from the British”, might not convey accurately what Mr. Shertok had said. The Commission decided to delete the clause.
In reply to a suggestion that the last two clauses of sub-paragraph (c) might also be deleted, Mr. SOBOLEV (Assistant Secretary-General) stressed the importance of bringing to the attention of the Council the view of the representative of the Jewish Agency that an international force for Palestine was highly essential.
After some discussion of the words “Jewish State” in the last clause, the Commission decided to change them to read “Jewish Community”, which were less specific.
It was decided to reverse the order of the last two clauses of sub-paragraph (c).
The last part of sub-paragraph (d) seemed unnecessary at the present date, and it was therefore deleted. The sentence then ended after the word “problem”.
It was agreed that the sub-paragraphs adopted should not be listed separately, but should run on as part of the first paragraph.
Section 10: Conclusions Concerning Current Situation in Palestine
The first sentence of Section 10 was re-drafted to road as follows:
Section 11: Questions Put to the Mandatory Power
Section 11 was approved, with the exception of paragraph (b), which was deleted.
Section 12: Questions and Responses Concerning Immigration
The word “response” was changed to “answer” throughout the section.
Following a suggestion that the last paragraph of the Memorandum of 28 January 1945 from the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations Palestine Commission should be substituted for Sir Alexander Cadogan’s oral reply given in paragraph (b) on page 19 of the draft report, a discussion took place concerning the necessity for distinguishing between the two statements. It was decided that as the Commission had asked Sir Alexander to prepare a final answer and send it to the Commission, the two statements could be considered complementary and treated as one. Paragraph (b) would then be deleted and a second paragraph should be added to the reply to question (ii) on page 18, which would begin: “In addition to the above-quoted formal answer to this question, Sir Alexander Cadogan also informed the Commission that:” and the statement in the United Kingdom Memorandum would follow.
It was decided to delete the last sentence of paragraph (c) on page 20.
Section 13: Economic Matters
Section 13 was approved without discussion.
Section 15: Conclusion
The point was raised that it might be advisable to delete all of paragraph (b) unless the Commission were prepared to state more clearly its position regarding the attitude of the Mandatory Power. It was decided, however, that the paragraph should be retained, for the Security Council should be informed of the situation; but the last clause was changed to read: “The Commission attaches the greatest importance to the progress of its negotiations with the Mandatory Power”.
Mr. SOBOLEV (Assistant Secretary-General) reminded the Commission that its report to the Security Council would he reproduced as an unrestricted Security Council document unless there was a special request that it should be treated otherwise.
The meeting rose at 1.10 p.m.