SUMMARY RECORD OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-SECOND MEETING
Held in the Hôtel de Crillon, Paris,
on Thursday, 22 November 1951, at 11 a.m.
CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT CONCLUSIONS OR INSERTION IN THE REPORT TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL
The CHAIRMAN recalled that at the last meeting it had been decided that the Secretariat should prepare draft conclusions for insertion in the report to the Secretary-General on the basis of the suggestions made by the three delegations. He personally thought that the Commission should confine itself to submitting conclusions and should leave it to the respective national delegations of its members to put forward recommendations when the Palestine question was discussed in the General Assembly.
Mr. MARCHAL (France) considered that the Commission’s report should at least contain the substance of those recommendations, on the basis of which delegations could submit proposals during the General Assembly.
Mr. ARAS (Turkey) thought that in its conclusions the Commission might indicate the general lines of the recommendations it thought appropriate, leaving it to the delegations concerned to work out the details and conditions of application.
The CHAIRMAN wondered whether in the case of paragraph 7 it was really necessary to stress the fact that all aspects of the Palestinian problem were inter-related and should be treated as a single whole, since that might prevent Israel from making-a gesture to help to solve the refugee problem.
Mr. ARAS (Turkey) agreed with the text of the conclusions as a whole. He would merely like some emphasis to be placed on the fact that any modification of the Armistice Agreements must represent a step in the direction of peace. He also thought that the passage dealing with the attitude of the parties was somewhat one-sided. If the intransigent attitude of the Arab States was noted, then mention should also be made of Israel’s refusal to comply with the General Assembly resolution on repatriation.
Mr. MARCHAL (France) agreed with the substance of the draft conclusions prepared by the Secretariat. Paragraph 8 might, however, give a clearer indication of how the Palestine question should be dealt with in future.
As Mr. Aras had pointed out, the text would not serve as a basis for the suggestions which might be made by delegations in the General Assembly. It would be advisable to state the Commission’s view that there should be a political agency with general competence in the Palestine question, that in view of the circumstances it was inadvisable for such an agency to have its permanent headquarters in Palestine and lastly, that the agency might have a broader membership than the Conciliation Commission.
Mr. de AZCARATE (Secretariat) pointed out that paragraph 8 stated that the attitude of the parties had made it impossible for the Commission to carry out its mandate, while paragraph 9 dealt with the organizational aspect of the problem. It might perhaps be possible to embody Mr. Marchal’s suggestions in a new paragraph combining the texts of paragraphs 8 and 9.
The CHAIRMAN wondered whether those suggestions would not be better placed in the recommendations than the conclusions.
Mr. MARCHAL (France) thought it essential to point out that the Commission’s present mandate was no longer applicable not only on account of the unwillingness of the parties, but also on account of changes in the situation in the Middle East since 1948.
Mr. ARAS (Turkey) added that the changes in the situation might be briefly mentioned by referring the reader to the relevant passage in the detailed account of the Commission’s activities since its last progress report.
It was decided to continue the consideration of the draft conclusions at the following meeting.
Projet de conclusions à insérer dans le 10e rapport au Secrétaire Général - 272e séance de la CCNUP (Paris) - Compte rendu Français