S/PV.297 Security Council

1 have received two telegrams from the Chairman of the Security Council's Truce Commission in Palestine, retransmitted from Paris. 1 think that 1 should, ficit of aIl, read these telegrams to you as there has not been sufficient time yet to distribute them as documents. The first telegram [document S/758] reads as follows: . ~I\.rab States. The only practical means of preventing or limiting attacks on the Jewish zone would be strong diplomatie or military pressure on the Arab States. V. .th regard to Jerusalem the King stated ne was prepared to refrain from intervention if the Jews cease aIl attaeks against the Arabs. Unless very strong diplomatie pressure is exereised or military action is taken as suggested in my telegram of 17th 1 eonsider the participatien of the Arab Legion in the battle of Jerusalem absolutely inevitable. On returning from Amman we went into the Old City to establish contact with Arab military and politieal leaders. We spent the night there returning here yesterday evening. The Jews in the Old City were. besieged in the Great Syna- . gogue. During the night between Sunday and Monday negotiations for surrender' were held 'without any resultby various religious dignitaries. On entering the Old City 1 offered my good offices to enter into contact with the Jew.;. ish Agency in order to discover its intentions regarding the surrender of the Jews besieged in the Synag9gue. 1 reached fun agreement with the local Arab military and political leaders but the Jewish Agency gave me a negative reply formally rejecting thècbnditions offered by the Arabs. During our journey to Amman and even in the Old City we were told that the Jews . would only surrender to the Arab Legion as it was a regularanny ftom which they might expect respect for Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war. Perhàps thîs was the pretext for the Arabs induciug the Legion to enter the Old City yesterday aftemoon. Before leaving thé Old City 1 asked the Jewish Agency whether there was any truth in these rumours and once again 1 was met by a negative answer the Jewish Agenèy .affinnin~r that the Jewish .military situation had gteatly impI'oved in the last few hours. A bitter battle is being waged inside the -Old City the Arabs are co:ntinuing their aÙacks on the Jews sheltering in the Sytlagogue whom reinforcements from t;he almost entirely Jewishcontroll€d new city are end~avouring to reach. We have heard that as many as 300 combatants and 200 non-combatants are besiegedin the Synagogue. The situation of the Jews in the rest of the city who are deprived of water el~tricity and provisions is extremely difficult and precarious. In the course of our interview with King Abdullah Mr. Azcarate temporary municipal conûnissioner raîsed· the· qu~tion of Water wb!-ch is brought from sorne distance away from "'NIEUWENHUYS, Chairman of Security Council Truce Comm.ission in Palestine' "NEUVILLE, French Co~sulate in Jerusalem" The second te1egram [document 8/759] reads asfollows: "Chairman of the Security Council Truce Commission instructs me to transmit to you the following message further to preyious telegram. "'Jewish armed force'l in night penetrated defences Old City and joincd up with their comrades. besieged in Synagogue, have brought them fresh. supplies of provisions, arms and ammunitian and estàblmhed lines of communication with new city. Jewish Agency this morning suggested armistice. Am immediate1y transmitting proposais ta Arab authorities shall inform you of results. "'NIEUWENHUYS, Chairman of Security Council Truce Commission in Palestine' "NEUVILLE, French Consulate in Jerusalem" 1 should like to make two remarks in connexion with these te1egrams. In the first place, one of them refers to a previous te1egram, dated 17 May, which, to my knowledge, has not been received. _ Secondly, bath te1egrams were retransmitted from Paris at about 10 o'dock last nigllt, but there is not the slightest indication as to when exactly they were despatched from Jerusalem. It is highly probable that they were sent sorne time yesterday. Following my usual practice, l am now going to read two other te1egrams sent from the French Consulate in Jerusalem· and retransmitted from Paris, one last·night and the other this morning. They will complete the information 'we already have. The text of the first te1egram reads as follows: "The Jews at 2330 hours last night renewed with redoubled violence their attack against the Old City. At 3 a.m. this morning they pené- tr~ted the Zion .Gate, xe-establishing contact wlth the Jewish Quarter besieged by the Arab Legion. The latter had already sent sorne elementsinto the Old City, and have brought up a new motorized unit coming from Transjordan, in the geneZ:al direction of Mount The second of these cables reads as follows: "We have been vi6lently shelled, together with the new city, since 1720 hours last night brheavy artillery. "NEUVILLE, French Consulate in Jerusalem" If you have no comment to make on these two communications, 1 shall calI upon the fust of the speakers who were on my list last night, the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Mr. TARASENKO (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (translated trom Russian): Before 1 make my statement, 1 should like to draw attention to a passage in the speech made by the United Kingdom representative to the Securi.:cy Council yesterday at the 296th meeting. Among other things, the United Kingdom representative stated that from the legal point of view, he- .that is to say, the United Kingdom Govemment -doubted whether a threat to international peace existeds or whether there was a breach of intemationai peace. Perhaps from the legal pobt of view the United llingdom representative may doubt whether there is a threat to or a breach of the peace in Palestine. Perhaps he can quote sorne legal text dealing with international law. 1 do not know whether there are any such references to prove that all is quiet in Palestine at the present tÏme. But if we base our views not on legal premises of a vague and doubtful character, but on comrnon sense, on the actual facts of the situation in Palestine, can we reach the conclusion which was reached by the United Kingdom representative at yesterday's meeting of the Security Council? 1 strongly doubt it. The situation in Palestine gives no such grounds for a conclusion such às that reached by the United Kingdom representative yesterday. In any case, there can be no grounds for doubting the existence of an exceptionally grave and dangerous situation in Palestine, however much one may desire to find such grounds. We are concemed with the plain fact that a number of Palestine's neighbour States have sent their troops into Palestine. Ourknowledge of that fact is not based on rumours, or on newspaper reports, but on official documents signed by the Govemments of those States informing the Security Council that their troops have entered Palestine. 1 refer, in particular, to the documents signed and sent by the Govemments of Egypt [document 8/743] and Transjordan [document 8/748]. In these circumstances it is difficult to deny that we are faced with a situation involving a br.each of the peace; a situation whieh threatens peace and security in wide areas of the Near and Middle East. 1 should like to point out in passing that none of the States whose troops have entered Palestine can daim that Palestine forms part of its territory. It is an altogether separate territory without any relationship to the territories of the States which have sent their troops into Pale;,;- tine. AIl these facts justify us in disagreeing with the United Kingdom representative's assertion that the Security Council may doubt the existence of a threat to peace and a breach of the peace in Palestine. The facts prove the contrary. 1 ehould like to dra'\\>: the attention of the members of the Security Council to one detail, or rather to one aspect of the question under discussion.We have before us a document received from the King of Transjordan [document $'/748], stc,ting that, in accordance with his orders, troops of the Arab Legion have entered the territory of the Jewish State. We have proof that those forces are engaged in military operations against the armed forces of the State of Israel. We have the King of Transjordan's explanation, or rather bis attempt to explain the nature of his actions. But it may be useful to point out that the responsibility for these actions of the King of Transjordan, which are manifestly illegal and manifestly aimed at a breach of the peace in Palestine, lies upon the United Kingdom Government which really inspired these military measures and is in fact responsible for the operations of the armed forces of Transjordan. Sometimes attempts are ma.de to prove to us that th~ United Kingdom has nothing to do with the matter, and that the actions of Transjordan are due to its own initiative for which the United Kingdom cannot be held responsible. But.that is not so. Both de' jure and de facto, the Ulllted Kingdom bears full responsibility for the actions of Transjordan's armed forces in the State of Israel. The United Kingdom bears the responsibiIity, because it has inspired the actions of Transjordan's armed forces. These forces are In these circumstances, how can the United Kingdom Government be an impartial judge or .observer in this matter? Of course, it cannot. The Uniteù Kingdum Government must assume full responsibility, both moral and legal, for the actions of the Transjordan armed forces, for the fact .that up to the present day it has been impossible to stop the fighting in Palestine and that Palestine ~ still without order, which certain neighbouring foreign States say they wish to restore. The disorders in Palestine are caused not by the Jewish or Arab peoples living there, but to a large extent-as far as Transjordan is concerned-by armed forces subject to the United Kingdom Government and directed by British . military aùthorities. Only yesterday we received a telegram [document 8/754J reporting that transports canying arms and supplies for the Arab Legion had left Suez for Aqaba. These transports were equipped and financed by the British authorities. This is taking place at a time when an anned conflict is going on in Palestine. It is Cl. direct intervention not only by the British armed forces but by the British imperial authorities in favour of one of the' parties in the conflict. It clearly proves the responsibility of the Unit,ed Kingdom Government and its com· ,plicity in the disorders in Palestine. The situation is a rather interesting one. The United Kingdom representative on the Security Council discusses, with the appearance of the utmost gravity, the draft resolution submitted by the United States v:'ith the abject of finding a means to remedy to a certain extent the serious position in Palestine. He submits amendments and suggests additions to that tesolution, creat· ing the impression that the United Kingdom Government, through its representative on the Security Council, is doing its ùtmost to end, as soon as possible, the serious situation created in Palestine by the circumstances which we know. But, on the other hand, the United Kingdom Government is doing aIl.it can to thwart the possibility of putting an end to the disorders in Palestine; to thwart the possibility of stopping the fighting. It is doing everything possible to pralong the fighting and to increase the amount of destruction and the number of casualties among the Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. To me this situatipn seems rather strange. Considering the fact that the so·called Arab Legion, nominally under the command of 1 have repeatedly had occasion ta express the Ukrainian delegation's fear that the United Kingdom Goverr..ment did not intend ta allow the peoples of Palestine-the Jews <lnd the ,Arabs-to decide their fate independendy on the termination of the Mandate, and that the United Kingdom Government was oruy changing the methods by which it intended to consolidate its influence over Palestine. The name given to such a state of afIairs-whether it is called a mandate or sorne other statute-does not matter. What does matter is the fact that the United Kingdom Government persists in its reluctance ta allow the peoples of Palestine ta determine, independently, their future as a nation and as a State, and that ir wishes to maintain its influence and its power over Palestine by ail means, from the use of armed force ta the application of economic sanctions or diplomatic pressure. Had there been no resistance on the part of the United Kingdom Govermnent, the Palestine question would long aga have been removed from the agenda of the United Nations and the Security Council. Peace and arder would have been established long aga, and the Arab and Jewish populatior_ would now be living amicably side by ~ide. A few more words regarding the United Kingdom representative's statement. 1 was surprised to hear him drop casually the following remarks concerning Article 39 of the United Nations Charter. 1 quote the United Kingdom representative's words [296th meeting]: "Article 39, it is true, provides that: 'The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression . . .' "1 may be wrong, but 1 think that in ail other passages in the Charter where peace and security are mentioned these wordsare qualified by the adjective 'international' .. ." The representative of the United Kingdom then gave the following concrete example concerning the use of the word "mternational": "Certainly that adjective does appear in the cases of Articles 33, 34 and 37. 1 believe that the omission of the ward 'international' in the first part of Article 39 may be due ta an oversigh!." This seems to me to be a rather strange procedure. It is the first time that 1 have met with an attempt to treat the United Nations Charter so freely and to interpret it and adapt it in sa free and arbitrary a manner. Anything can be said, but you would not say that arguments based on an Article of the United Nations Charter éÙtered in such an arbitrary maIller are likely to be serious <md convincing. The:se arè the remarks which 1 wished to make at the present stage of the discussion of the United Kingdom amendment to the United States draft resolution. 1 reserve the right to revert to it later. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): 1 do not wish to waste more of the time of the Security Council on the discussion of the prohlem from tbis point of view, especially since we heard [296th meeting] the elaborate and able statements of the representatives of the United :K,ingdom, Belgium and China. Nor is it necessary for me to repeat what has been said by me and by other representatives on previous occasions. There is, however, one point-raised yesterday and referred to again today by the representative of the Ukrainian SSR-concerning the interpretation of Article 39 of the Charter, and the fact that the references therein to threats to and breaches of the peace do not specify "international" peace. My view is that, as explained by the representative of the United States yesterday, the terms "any" threat to and "any" breach of the peace would cover any kind of peace, whether international or otherwise. SA far as my knowledge of the English language enables me ta understand it, the ward "any"is an adjective qualifting the threat or breach, but not the peace itself. "Any" threat ta peace or "any" breach of peace does not imply "any" pp.ace. There may he "arious forms of threat to or breach of the peace, but there a.re not various fonns o~ peace. In ~~ inte;,n~- 1 la tlOnal documents a~d mstt;Iments peace lS 1 understood to me~n mten:atlOnal peace. I~ does not mean law anû order m any one partlcular 1 think that those representatives who know the English language well would agree that although the word "international" is not mentioned in the first part of Article 39 it is understood, because the second part of that same Article continues with the words, ce••• and shall make recommendations . . . to maintain or restore international peace and security." If we omit the matter of aggression, which has the same meaning under the other Articles, Article 39 would read thus: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, . . . and shaH make recommendations . . . to maintain or rest'.lre international peace and security." It is clear that the peace intended here is .international peace and no oth~r kind. As we have said before, the position is that the international status of Palestine should be studied to ascertain whether or not international peace is being disturbed. It would be disturbed, for e.'l:ample, by a dispute between two or more States fighting over a certain situation; but such is not thé case in Palestine and Article 39 does not apply. Another point which 1 wish to mention is that the third paragraph of the United States draft resolution states that the Security Council "Orders ail Governments and authorities to cease and desist ..." and so on. 1 do not know whether there is any justification for the use of the wœ:d "orders". In the first place, it does not appear in the Charter at aIl. The Charter always refers to the Security Council's "making recommendations" or "calling upon". Certainly those who drafted the Charter paid attention to the point that it would not be consistent with the sovereignty of the States to address orders to them. 1 do not krlow whether the use of this phrase in, the present instance was an oversight or whether it was intentionaJ out 1 think tliat "caUs upon" or "recommends" would be more in keeping with the terms of the Charter. In reply to a question by the representative of Egypt yesterday regarding the meaning of the phrase "the Jewish area", the representative of the United States said that it meant the p'rea defined by the proclamation of the State of Israel, which was taken from the partition plan of 29 November last: The Jewish authorities were assuming and exercising de facto authôrity over that area. 1 know, however,. that that is not true because more than haH of the arpa mentioned in the proclamation was not occu pied by the Jews, nàr were they exercising any administrative âllthority there. It is not correct to say that de facto authority was exercisedover the area contained within the boundaries menl do not wish to add anything further, except to say that we do not accept the draft resolution submitted by the United States. Jamal Bey HUSSEINI (Arab Higher Committee): l desire at this stage ta clarify the attitude of the ove.rwhelming majority of the people of Palestine with regard ta developments in their country since the termination of the Mandate. The principle of self-determination, upheld by both the Covenant of the League of Nations under which Palestine was governed, and the United Nations Charter, grants ta the Arab majority of the people of Palestine the unquestionable natural right of complete sovereignty over aIl that country. The Arab population of Palestine, that constituted over 90 per cent. of the population in 1919, expressed its desire for independence and rejected Zionism bëfore the Plebiscite Committee [King-Crane Commission] that was sent to Palestine by the Peace Conf":rence of that year. In -1922, however, the League of Nations placed Palestine under the mandate of the United Kingdom to be administered in conformity with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Paragraph 4 of that Article which concerns the territory of Palestine reads as follows: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone ..." The independence of the indigenous population of Palestine was thu~ provisionally recognized, with the understanding that it would be realized when they were able to stand alone. Ever since that date, they have continuously struggled and fought for its realization. On 26 September 1947, the United Kingdom delegation declared, in the second meeting of the ad hoc Committee on Palestine of the second session of the General Assembly of the United Nations: . "That they endorse, without reservation, the view that the Mandate should now be tenninated. It was the original intention of the League of Nations that the mandatory regime Now that the British Mandate has been brought to an end, with no Palestinian government in existence owing to the Mandatory Power's failure to establish one, the dutY devolved on the majority of the people of Palestine to reach their goal of independence by the establishment of a sovereign .government in the whole of their country. The population at the present time consists roughly of 1,350,000 Palestinian Arabs and 258,000 Palestînian Jews, who are legitimately entitled to express their opinion with regard to the futuregovernment of their country. The remaining 450,000 foreign residents of diverse nationalities, mostly of the Jewish faith, cannot, on any legal or moral grounds, be entitled to a say in the formation .of this govemment. No person in the world is allowed to have a double nationality, and Jews in Palestine or elsewhere cannot he an exception to this universal rule. The Arab majority is prepared te give the most generousconsideration to the foreign residents and to their needs. Furthermore, Palestinian Jews, who form one- .sixth of the population, can have no legal or moral justification for seceding as a separate body, to become independent within the boundaries of Palestine. No such privilege could ever he granted to any minority. If it were to be ?bta.ined by force of arms, it would become a precedent that would· upset the equilibrium of .the whole world. The recommendation of the General Assembly of 29 November 1947, proposing that the Jews should have the greater part of Palestine in which they would establish an independent State, has been categorically rejected by the overwhelmiQ.g majority as illegal, impracticable and unjust. As a mere recommendation to that majority, having no legal, ·binding value, it has become an unaccepted, dead proposition. The Jewish-impused immigrant minority in the country, however, assisted by alien Jews and Iedby an international Jewish Agency, ha~ conducted ,and organized an unlawful movement, backed by a terroristcampaign first against the In .preparing for their actual seizure of the country, Jews of diverse nationalities, in Palestine and in' other countries in Europe and America, uildertook the training of tens of thousanàs of young Jews in war-making and terroristic activities, and sent them over to Palestine, together with huge supplies of arms and ammunition. Huge amounts of money were collected in the United States and in other countries for that aggressive purpose. The Governments of the countries in which these illegal activities were perpetrated have been repeatedly notified of such activities, which had for their aim an ob~ously aggressive act against a peaceful and friendly people. As is weIl known, aIl such protests were of no avail. The Jewish minority of Palestine has thus armed and prepared itself for 'an unlawful seizure of Arab patrimony in Palestine. During the last two years, Jewish activities designed to promote and to bring about such a . seizure have been intensified and accelerated. Zionists have even st3.rted to seize Government property and to establish their authority wherever it was possible for them so to do. When the withdrawing Mandatory Power failed to put an end to these unlawful activities, it became the bounden dutY of the majority of the population to stop the Jewish minority's aggressive actions. It did so to the best of its ability. Under the circumstances that prevailed in Palestine during the last six months, the Arab majority came to the conclusion that if it desired to reinstate peace and stability in its country with a minimum of sacrifice and thne, it should have recourse to the assistance of the neigh~ bouring States members of the Arab League, who are equally interested in the welfare of the Holy Land. The Arabs of Palestine therefore, in order to help to extinguish the fire that was started in their country by the Jewish Agency, solicited the assistance of each and all of these States in the most urgent, insistent and pressing terms, on the understanding that after restoration of tranquillity in the country, they would withdraw to make it possible for the Palestinian population of aIl creeds to express its free will on the future government of its country by means of a general plebiscite. The Arab States, however, since their union in the Arab -League, have considered Palestine . an independent country, the independence of which was in abeyance only because of the existence of the Mandate. The Arab League has actually a:ccepted Palestine as a member of the League and has received its representatives on an equal basis. As a member of' the Arab League, the Palestine Arab population, as represented by the Arab Higher Committee, has a legitimate claim on the other members for assista.nce in the restoration of peace and order in its country. The troops of the States of the juridique grosse nous raineté tant dans dants nationalités, lèges autres en séparé, menace conditions, appel nous le paix tion

1 have no more speakers on my list, and 1 suggest, therefore, that we adjourn the meeting now and meet again this afternoon at 3 p.m. inscrit la après-midi TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY-EIGHTH MEETING Held at Lake Success, New York, on Thursday, 20 May 1948, at 3 p.m. President: Ml'. A. PAROOI (France). Present: The representatives of the following countries: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, China, . Colombia, France, Syria, Ukrainian Soviet So- cialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Re- publics, United Kingdom, United States of America. .Argentine, France, d'Ukraine, soviétiques, rique. 63. Continuation of the discussion on the Palestine question 63. General McNAUGHTON (Canada): The issue now before the Security Council is a grave one, and 1 agree that the Security Council should take prompt measures to meet this most serious duit vant d'accord