S/PV.307 Security Council

poes the representative of the United ,Kingdom propose to reply? , Sir Alexander'CADOGAN .(United Kingdom): J would have certain things to say in regard to what h~ just been said, but 1 thought the question was not addressed to me; 1 thought it was addressed ta the President ane1 to the Secretariat. • Mr..MALIK (Lebanon): The understanding of. the United Kingdom representative is perfectly correct. Mr.• SOBOLEV (AsSistant Secretary-General in Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): The United States supports the draft resolution proposed by the Union of Soviet Sociali"t Republics. My delegation thinks that a substantial addition ta the evidence has been given to the Security Council, since the resolution proposed by the United States [document 8/749] was rejected by the ·Seeurity Council [302nd meeting] and since the moderate resolution for a cease-fire [document 8/773] was adopted on 22 May. We be1ieve, of course, that when we offered our resolution-and when it was rejected-there existed the fact of a threat to the peace and a breach of the peace. We did not at fust discuss whether it was of ,an international character, but subsequently we saw that it was and we then discussed' that question. We began on the assumption that it was '~any threat," as stated in Article 39 of the Charter. But gradually the evidence of its international character became more persuasive, until nobody was able to deny it. Nobody can escape it. There is no evading it. The Security Council has before it replies from the Arab States which define the character of the warfare that is going on in the lIoly Land. The last sentence of the cablegram from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia reads: "The Arabs, in their present situation, are no more than defendant against unhuman zionist aggression which surpassed the bitterest aggression in humanitarian history [Document 8/783]. Is that not a declaration of an international relationship? That is what is seen from. the pomt of view of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia, and he is transmitting it to tp p Security Council. li correct, it isa description L .. àn international affair of grave importance. What does the representative of Egypt say to the Security Council? It should be borne in mind that the statertlent 1 am about to read was made after 22 May; 1 am quoting it as additional evidence of the international character of this threat to the peaœ and'breach of the peace. The representative of Egypt stated at the 305th meeting of the Council: "The Egyptian Government have taken note of thF. ,:J.;..~isïon of the Security Council of 22 May 1948 [document 8/773] inviting all Governments and all authorities, without prejudice to the rights, claims or POSitiOIl--S of the parties concerned, to .abstain from all hostile military operations in Palestine. In this "The cease-fire in the fami recommended by the Security Council, following the proclamation of the alleged State of Israel, on 15 May 1948, will only prejuflice the situation of Palestine as a political entity, and will jeopardize the position of the Arabs who have repeatedly announced that the only equitable solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of a united Palestinian State. This attitude has been supported by aU the Arab States and has been fully maintained by them." Could there by any clearer or more unequivocal way of saying that they are in Palestine for a political purpose-an objective which is international in its character? Of course, we do not forget, in referring to this çharacterization of their act of penetrating Palestine, that they also claim that they are there to maintain peace-a peculiar way of maintaining peace. The representative of the Arab Higher Committee, Jamal Bey Husseini, said the following, thereby disclosing the special political character of this penetration into Palestine: "Thirty years aga, imperialist ambitions intervened to segregate the one country into several territories and thus to divide the members of one family from one another within different fictitious boundaries where there exist no boundaries, and to make of one nation several nations where there exist no racial, social or physical distinctions. This geographical, ethnic and traditional unity of so. many centuries, which has outlived several historic reverses, will not and cannot be obIiterated by a dedaration of poIitical expediency or by any adverse movement of a quarter of a century." [S06th meeting]. That is a pretty definite declaration of purpose, and it describes, of course, an international question. Again, at the same meeting, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee said: "Our position, finalIy, is defensive and 110t aggresive ..." A funny way, is it not, to defênd yourself-to march into a neighbouring country with your armed forces-five armies marching in that tiny little territory of Palestine? "Defensive"- against whom? Oh, ·zionist bands of terrorists! It takes five armies surrounding this smalI area, in the crescent which has its h," horns on the Mediterranean, to overwhelm terrorist bands in that little place about the size of my native state. "Our position, finalIy, is defensive and not aggressiv~. Our demands are lawful and not arbitrary. We are for democracy, which is the rule of the mlljority. We stand for that, an": we That is to say, "We are there only for the purpose of overwhelming the Provisional Government of Israel; we are going to overwhelm the status quo by power, and we are going to determine an international question ourselves." Let us take a look at this further evidence, and see if we can avoid or evade passing a judgment that this threat is a threat to the security and peace of the whole world, fu.'1 international threat. This is the reply for the regional organization given by Mr. Naji Al-Asil of Iraq at the .305th meeting: "1 have the honour to submit to the Security Couneil the reply of the Arab League to the cease-fire resolution of the Security Council as communicated by the Secretary-General of the League on behalf of all the ~ab States." Omitting sorne of it, we come upon the following, which throws light upon and characterizes the penetration of Palestine by the armies of all the Arab States: "Vpon, the termination of the Mandate, the zionists attacked Jerusalem, ignoring the ceasefire order previously agreed upon by both sides, as well as the cruce agreement presented by the Mandatory Power with the concurrence of the Truce Commission and the Arabs themselves, on 12 May. On 14 May, the zionists prodaimed their Statein disregard of the Security Council's resolution of 17 April. That ::.-esnlution was observed by the Arabs in Pakstine aIld. the Arab States in so far as their Palestinian State was not proclaimed. In that situation and in view of the continuous terrorist activities, the Arab States had no alternative but to take co-ordinated action for the preservation of Arab rights in Palestine, the repatriation of the quarter million displaced Arabs, and the restoration of peace and order. "Now, after the Jews have taken the utmost advantage in changing the political and military status before 15 May in utter disregard of the Security Council's resolution of 17 April, the Arab States are being aSked to stop their measures aÏ..."Iled at protecting themselves,and restoring peace and order." Then, we now come to this passage: "The important questions to be asked in this respe:i are these: Is the cease-fire likely to put a stop to the flow of Jewish immigrants into Palestine ta fight the Arabs, as well as the importation of arms? Is the cease-fire likely to stop the terrorists undertaking acts of violence and guarantee the safety of the Arab civilian paplùation?" [30Sth meeting.] ti~ting a cease-fire-~ter we have tried five times andfailed."· We know, of course, that this is a violation of the Charter. We know that the Arab States did not come to the Security Council, that they did not submit the case and ask permission to go into "Palestine and, as they say, restore peace. We know, from their own confession, that t.'tey are attempting enforcement by a regiQnal manoeuvre, and we know that that is a violation of Article 53 of the Charter. . How can the Security Council turn clown the resolution presented by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as it did in the case of the United States resolution? In any case, the United States delegation will vote for that resolution. The, PRESIDENT (translated trom French): If there is no objection, the Security Council will now adjourn. The next meeting will he held at 2.30 p.m. today. THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTH MEETING Held at Lake Success, New York, on Friday, 28 May 1948, at 3 p.m. Preside~:t: Mr. A. PARODI (France). Present: The representatives of thç following countries: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, China, Col6mbia, France, Syria, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist ,Republics, United Kingdom, Unite~ States of America.