S/PV.340 Security Council

As the representative of Syria waived bis right to speak after saying a few words this morning and as there are no mC'e speakers on my list, 1 propose we proceed to the vo~e. Mahmoud Bey FAWZI (Egypt): The draft resolution submitted by the representative of Syria [S/ 894] has my full support. 1 shall confine my remar~s to the discussion of it, and in At the previous meeting rcference was made to other cases which are entirely inapplicable and irrelevant. 1 should be quite willing to go iuto the details of these points if it is so desired. Meanwhile, 1 would sîmply say that the resort to irrelevance is not the proper way to prove a point. At this morning's meeting it was said that reference of the Palestine question to the International Court of Justice, as suggested by the representativl. of Syria, would create doubts and uncertainties in connexion with the question of Palestine and with the work of the Mediator. With all due respect, 1 submit that the contrary is true. As long as the reque.st ta refer sorne of the basic legal elements of the Pal~stine question to the International Court of Justice for au advisory opinion is denied, as long as there is refusal ta throw sufficient light upon these basic elements, doubts and uncertainties will continue and will grow. The representative of Canada said today that the Security Council might do weL to refer one point or another ta the International Court of Justice upon a request from the Mediator. l suppose that the representative of Canada meant sorne matters of detail concerning which the Mediator might wish to have an opinion from the International Court of Justice. 1 find there a very clear contradiction. Why refer to the International Court of Justice sorne secondai)' matters and refuse ta refer basic matters? Sorne people-fortunately they are quite few in number-have said, "But now you are late." VVe have been requesting reference to the International Court of Justice for many months-for almost a year-and our request has been con- -;"tentIy refused by the very same delegatio:t;lS, wnich now say that we are late, including the delegation oi the United States which never supported at any ~tage-evena year ago--reference ta the International Court of Justice. And now they say, "But you are late." We have heard that so many~ times recentIy. 1 think if this procedure, if this-allow me ta say-escapist policy from justice and from right continues, we shall also soon speak of "the late United Nations." 1 hope we shall not reach that point. Now 1 come to what the representative of the USSR said this morning-and he did not say it then for the first tîme; we have heard it We have now the decision of the special session of the General Assembly of 14 May 1948: which has opened the door for a reconsideration of the Palestine question. We have the Security Council's decisions, among them t.lt.at of 16-17 April [S/723] and that of 29 May [S/SOI]. We have the decision of the General Assembly opening the door for reconsideration and mediation, and confirming what the Security Council had done in the way of reconsidering the question of Palestine and the future of Palestine. How, then, can we speak of the matter as if it is done with, as if nothing more is to be discussed about it? Therefore, I cannot but take exception to such a method of reasoning. 1 shall now come to the reasons why I anl in agreement with the proposal of our colleague from Syria. Gentlemen, you are here as the umpires of peace. There can be no peace without justice. The very soul of peace is justice. Will you then refuse to contemplate the face of justice? Will you shut off· from it that light from The Hague, which New York has so far been unable to give? Sorne people claim that the Arabs are wrong, and these people act accordingly. The Arabs believe that they are right, and they act accordingly. It is not enough to say that the matter is explosive; it has exploded. The field is full of mines. Much greater strife, much longer strife is in the offing. Suppression cannot stop it. Oppression will not, nor will intimidation, nor mis-spelt or misapplied Articles of the Charter. Nothing will stop that strife better than fairness in full view of the serene, the confident, the radiant and the very beautiful face of justice. Years ago, Lord Balfour made a declaration conceming a land not bis own, nor his country's. Later on, after a chequered career of entanglements and pitfalls, of stumbles and recoveries, through the League of Nations and its Covenant and through the Mand::_ thè United Kingdom came forth in 1939 with the declaration which 1 shall quote: Still later, a tired United Kingdom requested the United Nations te make recommendations concerning the future government of Palestine. Since tlj.at time, since 2 April 1947, one has almost received the impression that the United Nations has hardly done anything else but make recommendations concerning Palestine. As the members of the Security Council weIl know, the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947 recommendcd partition. The Security Council resolution of 16-17 April 1948 recommended peace and arder pending further consideration - further conSideration - of the future government of Palestine by the General .A..ssembly. The General Assembly resoluti° J. of 14 May 1948 sustained the efforts of the Security Council and recommended mediation and a peaceful adjustment of the situation in Palestine. The Security Council resolution of 29 May 1948 instructed the Mediator to carry out his func- . tions as determined by the General Assembly. At the present moment, we have in Palestine a second cease-fire order [Sj902], which is supposed to be, using the language of the Security Council, "without prejudice to the rights, daims and position of either Arabs or Jews". Through all this, the Arabs properly stood on their rights. They denounëed the Balfour Declaration. They have always resented that poison ivy in their soil, and they have nevel' surrendered to é)ny of its outgrowth. When the United Kingdom, in April of last year, referred to the United Nations the question of the future gov-. ernment of Palestine, the Arabs made it perfectly clear that Palestine should be dedared independent, as already foreshadowed in paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which states that: "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 admi"'1istl'ative advice and assistance by a Mandatory." Let me repeat: subject oruy "to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory". There was no question of sovereignty involved. There was no question of. sovereignty involved at all, that being vested always in the people of Palestine. They are not alone in feeling that the Court should be consulted. They are by no means alone. During the regular session of the General Assembly last year more than twenty Members of the United Nations expressed the view that this should be done. Severa! non-Arab members of this Council continue to reiterate the same view. They want light, as we do. Let us have light, not obscurity, not subversiveness, and not double-edged intrigue. Especially, let us not risk giviI1g our blessing and prote<;tion to barely cl.oaked aggression, lest our achievcment be doomed and our shame endless. We are living in a land the President of which quite recentIy expressed eloquentIy his great hope for the United Nations and his belief -1 quote--"in the importance of the rule of law in international relations". .This is in line· with much of the tradition of the United States of America. A short while ago, while perusing the messages of the Presidents, 1 came uponin volume II, page 1020-the following passage from the first annual message of President Jackson to the Congrt'.ss. President Jackson said, among other things: "Would the people of Maine permit the Penobscot tribe to ercct an independent government within their State? Would the people l of New York permit· each remnant of the six nations within her borders to dec1are itself an independent people under the prôtection of the United States? Could the Indians establish a separate republic on each of the reservations in Ohio?" President Jackson spoke of each remnant of the six nations within the borders of the United States. 1 should lose count if 1 tried to enumerate how many remnants of how many nations we have now h, Pa!est-ine.. Then, in Article 4, section 3, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the United States, we have until this day the provision that no new State shaH be formed within the jurisdiction of any other State, or by junction with two or more Agnin, the representative of the United Statf'.8, commenting on Article 80 of the Charter, told members of the Council on 1 April of this year [277tlt meeti7lg] : "1 understnnd that this Article was suggested nt Sa:! Francisc'D by the Zionists in arder ta assure continued recognition of their national home in Palestine. But the text equaIly protects the rights of Arabs ta maintain the continuity of the unity of Palestine ..." He continued: "1 find that the following statement from the summary record of the tenth meeting of Cornmittee II/4, hdd on 24 May 1945 at San Francisco, was attributed to the United States representative, who said that this Article meant Cthat aIl rights, whatever they may be, rcmain exactly the same as they exist-that they are neither increased nor diminished by the adoption of this Charter. Any change is left as a matter for subsequent agreements . . .''' When the representative of the Unitl~d States speke in that manner he was not the orny one ta voice, in this Couneil and elsewhere, an opinion as to the importance of consulting the International Court of Justice in connexion with the 'luestion of Palestine. Many others have expressed the view that the United Nations had no right to effect the partition of Palestine by force. This view has prevailed formally. 1 say, "formally"; 1 might as weIl have said, "theoretically", because in point of fact, the Security . Council, or sorne of its members, have in one way or another actually been doing what a writer descrihed as, "keeping the peace during the partition of Palestine". This was pointed out more than once by the representative of China when he stated that the distinction between effecting partition by force and estahlishing order by force can he oruy artificial. He' stated later, on 14 July of this year [335th meeting], that the draft resolution submitted by the United States [S/890] "offers the Arabs no alternative ta war or substitute for war". He added: "Under the terms of the resolution, one party ta the dispute, by simply sitting tight, gets ail that it wants, and the other party ta the dispute has no means of redress." Indeed, the Zionists, after grabbing what they wanted, are simply sitting tight. If one speaks to them of the control of immigration they say, HBut we have a State and can introduce into it any number of immigrants we wish." They say the same when the United Nations Mediator states in paragraph 26 of his report to the Security Council [8/888], dated 12 July 1948, that: This is the factual part oi' the whole argument) but it has its essential relation to both the political and the legal parts of it. The representative of China, speaking also on 14 July, said to t..'tis Couneil: "We know that our Mediator has advanced informal suggestions by way of a compromise. We also know that the two parties to the dispute have stated their objections to the informal suggestions he made. Only yesterday the Jewish representative stated categorically his stand on the question of sovereignty as well as on the question of immigration. Under the terms of th~ present resolution, the Jews couid maintain their contentions in regard to those two important matters almost to the end of time without any possibility of alteration." That provides, at least to a large extent, an idea of the position with which wc are faced. We look in aU directions for redress, for justice, and steadily we seem to be denied it..1 must pause here-I feel in duty bound to do so-·to add that what the representative of China said before, and what he said this morning when . he stated in the Council that his country was ready to co-operate in enfordng peace in Palestine but not in enforcing a solution on Palestine, was in perfect harmony with the traditions of his great country. So~e of those traditions go far back through the history of China. 1 remember that once, to. a great conqueror of Asia, a noble gentleman from China said, "You have conquered a great empirè in the sadd1e, but you cannot rule it so." This Organization has not only an empire before it; it has the whole world. And it is not in the saddle that it will carry out the supervision and safeguarding of "peace in the world. There are other means, the soul of which is fairness and justice. •: 11111 ".ll!Jll_il!lll~_" Vet the Zionists will again raise the sarne cry every t~e, on every occasion when we speak to them of our faimess, of our rights, of our justice; they will say, "But we have a State." Even when we point out that there are already immigration laws governing all Palestine, that those . laws' are not yet repealed, and that neither the Mediator, nor the Securlty Council, nor the so-caUed Jewish authorities in Palestine, are in ]aw empowered in the present situation to legislate for Palestine or any part of ït, the Zionists will again say, CCBut we have aState." Thisis Nor is Jewish immi81'ation into Palestine the only thomy brar!ch of Zionist aggression. 1 am not now speakîxlg of Super-fortresses and of ail other sorts of arms which are, shall we say, infiltrating or finding their way into Palestineor are they manufactured there? 1 shall stick ta my original point: there is, among other matters, the question of the 300,000 Arubs who were forced to leave their homes and tbeir lands. Here 1 am not going to make <Ull iong deviation from my point by speaking in any detail of the , reversai of the position from what it was a few years ago when the Jews were enduring horrors, especially in Europe, which made them seek refuge-and they were given it, willingly-in the Arab lands. Now the situation is that the Arah have become dispersed;t.;'e· Arabs have become homeless; the Arabs have been scattered and forced to leave their heritage. And by whom? By their guests, by the people who came there and found refuge. Now what is to be done about the 300jOOO Arabs who are now displaced, who are now homeless except for sorne temporary arrangements which are i.eing made for them? The Zionists daim that they can do whatever they like by way of admitting these dispersed and dispossessed Arabs back to their homes or not, and in several other ways. Such a daim, like many· others, reverts to the perennial and most essential question of the present status of Palestine. We, the Arabs, have no doubt at all in this respect, but there are others who seem to be still wondering what this status is. RecentIy" the representativeof. the United Kingdom said, "The question has already been raised of what is the actual juridical sta~cus of Palestine ..." .

Will the representative of Egypt forgive me for interrupting him? 1 have no intention of interfering with his freedom of speech, but 1 merely. wish to remhd,h4n that we arenow discussing the draft resolution submitted by Syria. He has reopened the whole :E'alestine question by raising points which hayealready been discussed at previous meetings. Without·wishing to violate his right to speak, 1 would request the representative of Egypt to keep to the subject as far as possible and to confine bis remarks to the proposaI presented by the representative of Syria. Mahmoud Bey FAWZI (Egypt): 1 thank the President for the rest from speaking for a minute or so, which he has given me. May 1 most respectfully say to him, at the same. time, that while he twice said he had no intention of infringing upon my freedom of speech, he actùally did infringe upon it. If he did it as the l'epresentative of the Ukrainian SSR, 1 have no corn-

1 anl sarry 1 cannot agree to the interpretation which the representative of Egypt has made of my remark. 1 am not speaking as the representative of a State but as the President of the Security Council, whose duty it is to follow the discussions and ensure order in the debates. AIl l' ask of the representative of Egypt is that his remarks be confined to the question on the agenda. Mahmoud Bey FAWZI (Egypt): 1 thank the President for again allowing me to speak. 1 still maintain that 1 have not spo~en beyond the limits of the subject we are discussing. This is a matter of interpretation. If the President of the Security Council can arbitrarily daim for himself the right to stop a speaker by just saying, "You are saying irrelevant things," then we can simply leave our freedom of speech before entering this chamber. In spite of thiit, 1 am quite willing to submit to the desire of the Security Council if it considers that my speech, or parts of it, have been irrelevant. 1shall continue, unless someone wishes to interrupt me. 1 was quoting the representative of the United Kingdom, who sail at the 296th meeting: "The question of what is the actual juridical status of PalestÏJ1.e has already been raised in the Security Council. The Mandate has been terminated, and there are those who maintain that Palestine, as a whole, thereby attains independence. There are others who, 1 believe, on the strength of the General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November last, maintain that Palestine has been divided into two parts. This, again juridically, is extremely doubtful. "1 do not wish to raise again here the very difficult question of the degree of binding force of the Assembly recommendation. 1 take that resolution as it is, and 1 find that it instructed the United Nations Palestine Commission to . take various steps in Palestine culminating in the establishment of Jewish and Arab States with economic union; for example, each State "Most of these steps which 1 have recapitulated have not been taken, and the proclamation of the Jewish State is a unilateral act and not based strictly on acts of the United Nations Palestine Commission-this quite apart from the fact that the proclamation was actually issued while Palestine was still under the Mandate. What then is the status of the geographical entity known as Palestine?" Yes, what then is the status of the gt:ographical entity known as Palestine? This is exactly the question which the representative of Syria proposes that the Security Couneil address ta the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. Such consultation with the C0urt is long overdue. The sooner we do it the better it will be for a clear understanding of the whole problem of Palestine, <j.nd for a better approach, for a real approach, ta a fair and sound solution of this problem. 1 therefore hope that the Syrian draft resolution will win the approval of the Security Council. Mr. EBAN (Israel): The main reasons for not adopting this draft resolution were so cogently stated this morning by the representatives of Canada, the United States and the USSR that 1 feel able and obliged to state the view of the Provisional Government of Israel in very brief terms. We are not concerned here with the general principle favouring the greater use of the International Court of Justice. We are called upon to estimate the effect of this draft resolution on the particular question at the stage which it has now reached. Those who advocate the rejection . of this draft resolution imply no lack of confidence in or regard for the International Court, of which the inàividual and collective prestige must command universal respect. However, regard for the welfare and prestige of the International Court requires that questions be not submitted to it in any casuaI or automatic spirit. During the 338th meeting of the Security Couneil on 15 July 1948, 1 ventured to suggest that the draft resolution now under discussion was not an attempt to seek an advisory, juridical opinion in a spirit of scientific curiosity. For the Syrian and Egyptian representatives opposed the submission of the Anglo-Egyptian conflict to the International Court; Syria opposed the reference In the light of this record, it is surely realistic ta regard this draft resolution not as a token of enthusiasm for juridical investigation but as an attempt to serve political purposes closely affecting the objectives of the Security Couneil in the Palestine question. Therefore, the Security Council and the interested parties will surely wish to ask themselves three questions: 1. What is the relev:mce of this proposed adjudication ta the work of the Security Council? 2. What good can come of the adoption of this resolution? 3. What harm might emanate from it? The theory was advanced the other day that a judgment of the Court might be of service to this Council, inasmuch as it would affect the determination of a threat to the peace or an act of aggression. The representative of China hinted that such a judgment might be necessary in order to determine whether Chapter VII of the Charter is applicable to the Palestine question at this or any future tÏme. But the view that a juridical verdict uiilst be preliminary to action under Chapter VII is completely disposed of by the fact that the Sécurity Council has already takenaction under Chapter VII, has determined the existence of a threat to the peace, and has, therefore, embarked upon a course which it must, if necessary, pursue throughout all the stages which follow that act of determination. It would certainly be remarkable if the Security Council,. one' week after applying Chapter VII of the Charter, were suddenly to find it necessary to have the views of another organ of the United Nations on whether or not Chapter VII can be invoked. It has further been suggested by the proposers of this resolution that an opinion of the Intemational Court may be of service in determining the existence or nonexistence of Jewish statehood in Palestine. And that opinion on this question of statehood may 1. That the existence or non-existence of the Jewish State in Palestine has no relevance whatever to the determination of aggression or ta the application of Chapter VI or Chapter VII of the Charter; 2. That the International Court of Justice cannot properly be asked to determine whether or not a Jewish State exists in Palestine, since the existence of aState is not a legal question but a question of fact, a matter ta be established not by judgment but by observation. With regard ta the fust point, the theory that the Charter forbids acts of aggression only against States is utterly without foundation. Indeed, neither Chapter VI nor Chapter VII, in defining threats to the peace or acts of aggression, shows the slightest interesfJ in the juricEcal status of the victim. The word "State" does not occur in either of those .chapters. There is no provision whatever that the attacked party must be universally recognized as aState before an armed attack upon it can be determined as an act of aggression. Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter forbids the use of force not only if it is directed against the integrity of a State but aIso if it is used "in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Naûons". Whether you admit what all the world knows, that there does exist the State of Israel in the full exercise of all governmental functions, or whether by an enviable flight of the imaginatiàn, you can convince yourself that no such thing exists, the Security Council's functions are entirely unaffected. But even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that this question of statehood was relevant, the question would arise whether the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in its advisory function to determine whether aState exists or not. Again, inquiry revèals that the view of the International Court of Justice on whether or not a certain political unit constitutes a St?t~ has no authority whatever. The act of detr ining whether a certain political unit is a Sta or not is known in internationallaw as an act of recognition; and under the Charter, no Member State has surrendered to the United Nations or ta any organ thereof its unlimited sovereignty to regard a political unit as aState. Both Articlès 96 of the Charter and 65 of the Statùte of the Court make it clear that an advisory opinion can be asked -only on a legal question, but it is certain that the existence of aState is a question of fact and not of law. The cnteriou of statehood iS not legitimacy, but effectiveness: control over a certain area, the authority of a Government over its population, its A recent authoritative report-that of the United Nations Mediator-describes the existence of a Jewish State and Government in terms of fact, and of fact which, in his judgment, "cannQt be undone". It is surely beyond the capacity of a court, especially one sitting remote from the scene, to challenge this statement of fact which is borne out by aIl independent observation. Indeed, at a time when the Government of Israel i.s, in the words of the Mediator, exercising aU the requisites of sovereignty, controlling armed forces, and maintaining gove:mmental services, the very spectacle of an organ of the United Nations discussing whether or not aState exists would surely expose that organ to a serious and undeserved loss of prestige. There is one particular aspect of this question which would make it especially incongruous for the International Court of Justice to take the juridical status of Palestine under review. AlI States known to history have become States by their own unilateral assertion, without any injunction or permission from the organized internatiqnal community. There is, however, one exception to that general rule. There is one State alone which came into existence at the behest and the summons of the international community: the State of Israel. If legitimate origin were relevant-which it is not-in determining statehood, there would be oruy one ,instance in wmch it could be established, for the General Assembly required and demanded the establishment of the State of Israel. In its resolution adopted on 29 November 1947, the General Assembly called upon "the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan [of partition] into effect". In the most crucial paragràph of that resolution, the United Nations turned to the Jews of Palestine "to take such steps as may he necessary on their part" for the creation of the Jewish State. Therefore, we see that only one State on earth had the advance assurance that its origin was ordained by the community· of nations. Israel, in fact, possesses the oruy international birth certificate in a world of unproven . virtue, and by a strange irony, it is precise1y in this instance-the only instance in which the international community has pronounced itself -that the legitimacy of statehood is to be submitted to the International Court of Justice for investigation. On 15 July [338th meeting] the President of the Security Council called attention to the grave consequences of introducing into this question the principle of judicial review. What this dlaft resolution involves is that one organ of the It must he. cIear that a pronouncement by the International Court of Justice on the juridical status of Palestine could not affect the actual politi<.al facts which have been created there. A hypothetical verdict that the State of Israel does not exist would not cause a siLlgle Government department in Israel ta cease exercising its governmental functions. Alternatively, a verdict that the State of Israel does exist would merely cause most people to regret the time and expense devoted to the proof of an axiom already adequately attested. In conclusion, 1 would draw attention to one grave possible repercussion of this draft resolutian. There is an impression-a false and invalid impression, but an impression neverthelessthat if the juridical status of Palestine is in doubt, the nature of an attack upon that territory may be difficult of determination. Severa! representatives on the Security Couneil have from time ta time mentioned the juridical obscurity surrounding Palestine as one reason why it would be difficult to set in motion the machinery of Chapter VII of the Charter. We submit that none of the provisions of Chapter VI or of Chapter VII are affected in the least by the juridical status of any group or unit which may be involved in fighting. But the very fact that the impression exists is a danger. Is there not a chance that by creating an atmosphere of controversy and doubt about the juridical status of Palestine, cèrtain parties would be free ta take up arms again in that territory, in the hope that .a charge of aggression could for the time being not be substantiated? 'observer . même l'espoir pour prendre attaques l'identité pas même tait truire inclus? souhaitent It seems to us that this is a most compelling reason for rejecting this draft resolution. It may weIl be interpreted as an alibi for renewed hostilities, as a pretext for resuming the attack on grounds that the political identity of the attacked party is a matter of doubt, sa that the attack may even seem legitimate. TheA'efore, if the Security Council passed this resolution, rnight it not he undoing everything which it ~chieved by' the action v.rhich it took up to and mcluding 15 July? For those who do not wish the truce to endure, it may be consistent to sup- Tù ..um up: firstly, the juridical status of Palestine arises out of the action of the General Assembly, so that under this draft resolution the International Court of Justice would becom~ a court of appeal against the action of a principal organ of the United Nations; secondly, the juridical status of Palestine has no relevance ta any detennination of a threat to the peace or an act of aggression within the meanillg of Chapter VI or Chapter VII; thirdly, the impressÏC'n that the juridical status of Palestine may be deemed to have re1evance ta the determinatian of an act of aggression, can well become an incentive ta renewing that aggression during the period when juridical investigation takes place, in the hope that aggression will not he determined; fourthly, it is not within the capacity of the International Court of Justice to determine the existence or the non-existence of the S~'ate of Israe1, which is a question of fact and not of law, basedon criteria of effectiveness and not of legitimacy; fifthly, the State of Israel, alone amongst all States of the world, has already had its legitimacy certified by the international community; and last but not least, the slow procedures of the Court would create in 'he e1.:;su1~g critical months an atmosphere of in&tabilitYJ fluidity and uncertainty, at a time when what the United Nations must require is an early, if not an immediate, adjustment and stabilizatioll. And, overshadowing all these potent considerations, is the one central fact that the" Palestine problem is the mûSt uniquely political problem of all questions in international history, sa that this is an attempt ta involve the Ïntemational Court of Justice, under the guise of a legal process, in one of the most intractable prohlems"of political relations. The consequences and effects of this draft resolution would spell delay, controversy, hitterness, confusion, and perhaps a veil of impunity for renewed hostilities. Are these the consequen::es w!ùch the Security Council wishes to achieve? Sure1y everyhody in this room-representatives on the Security Council, and aIl the parties directly interested-must ask themselves candidly ",,-hat it ;,8 that le are now trying to' acbieve. Do we want the endless debate to pro- "ceed with growing recrimination throughout a second and third year of United Nations investigation? Do we wish to keep the situation perpetually arising on every platform sa that the situation" is fluid, undecided and undetermined? Do we want the PqJestine problem to he a prohlem forever, a chronic issue on the international forum? Or, on the contrary, do we wish for a . rapid settlement? If so, we might he satisfied with the great volume of debate and contreversy which has already dragged itself wearily

There are no more speakers on my list. We shall now proceed ta vote on the resolution submitted by the representative of Syria. According ta the rules of procedul'e, we must first vote on the amendment submitted by the representative of Colombia. Does the representative of Syria accept that amendment? Ml'. EL-KHOURI (Syria): 1 accepted the amendment of the representative of Colombia, and therefore it is ta be included in the resolution and voted upon as a whole.

1 shaH now ask Ml'. Hoo, Assistant Secretary- General, te> read the rf'~olution submitted by tlle representative of Syria, as amended by the representative of Colombia. Ml'. EL-KHOURI (Syria): 1 wish ta make an amendment to the text. Instead of "after the termination of the Mandate" the words should ' he "arisjng from the termination of the Mandate".

1 shaH ask Ml'. Hoo to read the resolution as amended by the representative of Syria. Ml'. Hoo (Assistant Secretary-Genel'al in charge of the Department of Trusteeship) : The draft resolution presented by the representative of Syria, together with the amendment of the representative of ColC'~bia, is as follows: "Noting that the Unitèd Kingdom terminated its Mandate on 15 May 1948, without having established any governmental organjzation to as- sume power of administration, "Requests the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 96 of the Charter, to give an advisory legal opinion as to the status of Pales- tine arising from the termination of the Man- date; the Secretariat and the parties concerned to supply the Court with the available docu- ments and information' ùn the subject. A vote was taken b" show Qf hands~ as follows: In favo!,r: Argentina, Bclgh'lm, China, Co~ lombia, Syria, United K~'lgdom. Against: Ukrainian Soviet Soclalist Republic. Abstaining: Canada, France, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Statc.s of America. The remIt of the vote was 6 in fa'{;'our~ 1 against~ with 4 abstentions. The resolution was not adopted~ having failed to obtain the affirma~ tive votes of seven members.

We shall now proœed to the consideration of the question raised by the representative of the United Kingdom. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : As 1 indicated this morning: my Government has instructed me to draw the attention of. the Security Council to the communications from the Truce Commission contained in documents S/898 and S/905 of 15 July and 16 July respectivcly, regarding the abduction on 6 July of five British subjects, members of the staff of the Jerusalem Electric Corporation. In so doing, 1 shall wish simply to review briefly the facts as they are recorded in the Truce Commission's reports, to add certain additional information, and to suggest a course which, in our view, the Security Counc;l should follow in dealing with this matter. The faets are as follows: On 6 July these five men, the acting manager and four other members of the staff of the Jerusalem Electric Corporation, who during the period of hostilities in Jerusalem had worked devotedly and often at the risk of their lives to provide light and power services ta both Jewish and Arab communities, were kidnapped by members of the Irgun Zvai Leumi from their offices in the power stationa building which, being essential to daily life and the maintenance of law and arder in Jerusalem, was protected by the flags of the States members of the Truce Commission. The Chairman of the Truce Commission thereupon lodged a protest withthe local Jewish authorities and gave them a time~limit of twentyfour hours, subsequently extended to fifty-six hours, from 12 July, to arrange for the men to be released. According ta the Truce Commis~ sion, the Irgun Zvai J;.eumi claimed ta be collecting evidence of spying against these British members of the staff of the power station, while the Jewish authorities for their.part were neg~ tiating ta have them handed over ta the authori~ It may be asked what the interest of the Truce Commission and the 8ecurity Council is in regHrd ta this matter. n~ere is no need to emphasize the interest of the United Nations in Palestine and in par- Hcular in the maintenance of the truce in Palestine, including jerusalem. There is at present no authority representing the United Nations. other than the Truce Commission, in Jerusalem. Under hs terms of reference, which are contained in the 8ecurity Council resolution of 23 April [S/727], the Truee Commission was ta assist the Councll in supervising the implementation of the truce and to report to the President of the Council within four days regarding its activities and the development of the situation. and subseouently to kel""1 the Security Council currently informed with respect thereto. My Government considers that the matter which it has instructed me ta draw ta the Securitv Council's attention is of urgent importance to the Council, first and foremost because of that body's continuing interest in the problem of securitv and the maintenance of law and order in Palestine. That interest is particularlv acute with regard ta Jerusalem, oV!ing to the special eharacter of the city and the state of tension which exists there at the present moment. A more particular reason whv the Couneil should examine this case is the faet that it has been referred to the Couneil bv the Trnee Commission in its telegram of 15 July. The Truce Commission has previously informed us that the building from which the five men were abdueted was, owingta its essential public importance, proteeted bv the flag-s of the three Powers represented on the Commission. The abduction was consequently 'an affront ta' the prestig-e of the Truce Commission and, through it, of the Unitecl Nations. and a threat to its future ooerations in Palestine, which we do not believe the Security Council can ignore. Indeed, it is hard ta believe that such an act can have been regarded with approval by the Jewish authoritiCs themselves, whose representaitve here has on many occasions reminded us of the respect in which the authorities whom he represents hold !his Organization and the principles for which It stands. . l'incident rité raison La, Commission que enlevés Etats l'importance nissait hommes Commission de turF ne ment juives leur que Organisation In this conne.''CÎon, 1 think that, in view of the apparent lack of effective control by the Jewish authorities at Tel Aviv over irregular Jewish forces in Palestine, the Council is entitled to ask . the representative of the Jewish authorities in Palestine whether those authorities daim to exer~ cise, and do in fact exercise, any control at all over organizations such as Irgun. If the answer is in the affirmative, the Council is surely en~ titled to ask the Jewish representative whether bis authorities can give any promise that the security of individuals of whatever nationality, and the inviolability of premises protected by the special authority of the United Nations, will be respected in the future. The Council must surely aIso ask the Jewish representative here, in view of the fact that the authorities whom he represents continue to detain these abducted men, whether he can con· firm to us that the Jewish authorities in Palestine did not authorize the abduction, either before or after the event, and do not now condone it in any way. The Council would be entitled to ask these questions, bearing in mind that whatever may be the position as regards control or lack of control of Irgun by the Jewish authorities at Tel Aviv, the latter nevertheless are continuing to hold men who would not be in their custody were it not for the action of irregular bands in violation of the authority of the United Nations. . It is true, as 1 have stated, that there has been a strong reaction on the part of the people of Britain to this act of terrorism concerning, as it does, five British subjects. But it is not for that reason alone that my Government has rnstructed . me to raise the question here. Such acts of terrorism perpetrated in defiance of United Nations authority against citizens of any other nation would be regarded by my Government with equally strong disapproval. In conclusion, 1 would ask that the Security Council adopt the following resolution [8/923], the text of which 1 am handing to the Secretariat. Th~ resolution which 1 propose is as fol1ows: . Mr. EBAN (Israel): 1 shall, of course, convey fully and in detail, ta the appropriate quarters, the expression of views just made by the repre-- sentative of the United Kin!!'dom; but the only assistance 1 can render ta the Couneil at this stage is ta explain the background of principle and of fact as it appears ta the Provisional Gov" ernment of Israel. When thè five employees of the Jerusalem Electric Corporation were taken into custody by certain forces in Jerusale~, the first and most anxious concern of the Provisional Govern" ment of Israel was to bring them under au· thorized control. This was swiftly and successfully accomplished, and on 19 July Mr. Mayhew, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, declared in the House of Commons, CCI am sure that the House will be glad ta learn that the men are now in safer hands." In bis subsequent remarks, Mr. Mayhew did not say anything which would prejudge the question of whether or not those defendants had committed the acts charged against them. He did, however, raise the point of jurisdiction, and advocated not, indeed, their unconditional reM lease, but their transfer ta the jurisdiction of the Truce Commission. He aIso questioned whether any organ of the Provisional Government of Israel or of the Israeli military authorities pas· sessed jurisdictïon over the conduct of these men. It a~p~W3, therefore, that the sole point at issue ir .vhether jurisdiction to investigate this matter . belongs to the Provisional Government of Israel or to the Truce Commission. It is doubtful whether the Security CouDcil at this stage can pronounce on this conflict of jurisdiction. To us, the matter appears to be one of bilateral relations between. the United Kingdom Government and the Provisional Govern" ment of Israel, which, despite difficulties of recognition and status, havè means on the spot of being in direct contact. The Truce Commis" sion has many important functions to perform, bu~ it does not possess the authority to protect resldents against the jurisdiction of the military 'authorities with respect to th~ir own security. The Provisional Government of Israel does not .accept the view that in Jerusalem there is legal anarchy, a vacuum in which it has no ~aut40rity or jurisdiction at all. It is true that the failure ta ratify the statute has left the Holy City The Provisional Government of Israel does not admit that any nther Jewish organization or force in the territory of Israel, or in Jewish occupied areas outside that territory, possesses any right of free action independent of the Provisional Government of Israel~ The Provisional Government of Israel was not associated in the arrest of these men; but once they had come within its custody and jurisdiction, it appeared that the charges against them could not be entirely and immediately ignored, and constituted a prima facie case for further investigation. If it is the plea of the defendants that the courts of Israel have no jurisdiction over them and that the Truce Commission has jurisdiction, that is a plea that will no doubt be made in the course of the public investigation now taking place, and if sustained, it will have its effect. At present, the Provisional Government of Israel deems that tht: Truce Commission is acting here purely as a good offices commission. It has no judicial rights or functions in any part of Palestinian territory; it cannot confer immunity on anybody not in its direct employ, and its competence to exercise the functions of custody or investigation have, to say the least, not yet been establisl','d" In these circumstances, it seems obvious that the most appropriate way of dealing with this question is to allow judicial processes to take their course. They are being carried out in public so that the würld can judge their equity and appropriateness. A prefu"nina,ry stage of this process took place in Tel Aviv this morning when the defendants appeared before a civil court. That court ruled that unIeRS more specific chargescould be adduced within a brief period

1 should like to say a few words on this subject. It would hardly be suitable for the Security Couneil ta deal with this specifie case at the present time. There is a Provisional Governm.::nt of the State of Israel. It has definite rights and obligations, as well as a definite competence. Before the question of the guilt of the five persons concemed has been decided, the United Kingdom delegation suggests we should take a decision virtuaUy amounting to interferencc in the domestic affairs of the State of Israel and to an attempt to deprive the Provisional Government of its right to decide whether a particular group is guilty of committing a specifie act. Mter aU, the State of Israel is not under any colonial, extra-territorial system, and it seems to me that there can be no grounds for making any such demands. My second consideration is the following: the representative of the United Kingdom has given us the official version which is, of course, based on the reports of agents of the British authorities in Palestine. But from our experience of international conflicts over such matters we know that there can be another version which must be heard and studied. Clearly the Security Couneil cannot at the present time transform itself into an examining magistrate or a tribunal ta study bath versions and come ta a decision one way or the other. -eÏl In addition, 1 shaH put forward a number of other considerations. It is a well·known fact that the situation in Palestine isnot yet quite normal. We know too-ancl 1 can quote newspaper reports ta show it-that United Kingdom officers have taken part in the fighting on the Arab side against the State of Israel up ta the last moment. If necessary, 1 could produce a whole ser~ of extracts from American papers on this subject. 1 There are many more such facts ta make us pause and reflect. Befare me is a document which 1 have received and which 1 should like ta bring ta the notice of the United Kingdom ?elegatian. Before defining my attitude regardmg the question, 1 should like to have sorne further information about this shocking docuqui nous j'ai quer déterminer des des The cable then appeals to us to ralSe the question in the Security Council. The delegation of. the Ukrainian SSR is in possession of this documènt complete with signatures, which 1 can place before the United Kingdom Governn~ent. As a member of the Security Council, 1 should naturally like to know whether it is in fact the practice to punish citizens of the State of Israel by deporting them to Kenya where they are to aIl intents and purposes doomed to slow death from starvation., 1 regard this state of affairs as absolutely abnormal, and when we are faced with a question concerning five employees of an electrical company, 1 ask myself: is the fate of 280 citizens of the State of Israel imprisoned in a concentration camp in Kenya not w{)rth at least as much as that of five employees of an electrical company? In view of these considerations, it would be very difficult for me to support the United Kingdom proposal without being acquainted with ~llime the rights cf a tribunal. 1 am not now llccusing the United Kingdom Government, but 1 have this document before me, and for purposes of information 1 should like ta ask for a reply on the subject of thia appeal 1 have received. That reply will show what action should be ti\ken in this shocking case. Ta sum up: 1 do not consider this matter to be within the competence of the Security Council, because the Council cannat at present examine' on the spot the various charges made by bath sides-eharg-es which deserve careful investigation-and also because there is a Government in Palestine, and if 1 am not mistaken, a Mediator, through whom it should be possible to obtain all the necessary information. 'fhat is the point of view 1 wish ta put forwarci on behalf of the delegation of the State 1 have the honour ta represent. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : With regard to the question raised by the President in the course of his remarks, based upon the telegram which he read to the Council, it is true that there were a number of individuaIs from Palestine detained in Kenya. 1 know that because while the United Nations Palestine Commission which was set up under the resolution of 29 November last was preparing to undertake the duties which were foreseen for it, there was considerable discussion with my delegation on many questions, and among other points, 1 know that my delegation discussed with that Commission the return of these individuaIs to Palestine. 1 do not know how the matter stands now; but in view of what the President has said 1 shall, of course, get in touch with my Government and endeavour to obtain full particulars if the Council should so desire. délégaticrr pcs.o:1.bilité apr~s rellement vernement détaillés At the same time, 1 should like to add this: 1 do not thinkthat the two cases are exact parallels. The men to whom"the telegram read by the President referred were terrorists who were arrested by a properlv' constituted and leg-al Government. 1 think many of them were arrested for outrag-es committed even during the war; whereas what we complain of in re,g-ard to the five men whose case 1 raised i5 that they pas hommes le arrêtés "ment d'entre mis hommes plaignons éléments puis des mesure, cru Commission tenir wer~ kidnapped by irreg-ular forces-kidnanned ?y megular forces under the nose,. if 1 mav put It that way, of the United Nations Truce Commissi0D;, thereby to sorne extent flouting the CommISsion. 1 should have thought that the Security Canncil, of which the Truce Commission is an organ, would have felt bound to uphold as best it could"the authority of that 1 do not ask the Security Council to constitute itself a tribunal to try this or that case; what 1 say is that those men were improperly seized. 1 did not raise the question of the jurisdiction of the authorities in Tel Aviv; what 1 did say was that those men should not now be in the hands of the authorities of Tel Aviv because they were irregularly kidnapped in violation of the rights and authority of the Security Council in Jerusalem. ln the course of his remar!œ 1 think the President also said that 1 based my position entirely on reports from British officiais. 1 did not. 1 based myself on thrce communications from the United Nations Truce Commission in Jerusalem; outside of that information 1 have very little, except that 1 did add that we had heard from the British Consulate-General in Jerusalem some days ago that the men had been 'handed over by the Irgun to the Haganah. 1 will, as 1 promised, endeavour to obtain information on the case of the detainees in Kenya, but 1 repeat that 1 think that is a different situation. 1 do not think it is a parallel to this case, and 1 do ask the Security Council to consï'cler in this case that it is in some sort and to some extent involved, in view of the flouting by irregular forces of the Umted Nations Truce Commission. 1 should like to add that, as a matter of fact, 1 have just received information to the effect that aIl of these Kenya detamees.have now been safely repatriated ta Israel. 1 was not quite c1ear as ta the date or the origin of the telegram which the .President read to us. Could 1 please have that information? - The PRESIDENT (translated trom French): 1 am very glad that the representative of the United Kingdom has just heard that the persons in question have been freed. Here is the original telegram. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): 1 thank the President; it is very kind of him to let me see that telegram which, 1 note, is dated 2 July. 1 am told by my staff that these men have aIl been repatrlated now. In any case, 1 .shall immediately telegraph to London tû obtain confirmation of what 1 have just heard. Mr. JESSUP (United States): 1 feel sure that aIl members of the Security Council share the· desire expressed by the representative of the United Kingdom to sustain the authority of the Truce Commission in Palestine and to Sllpport the efforts of aIl of those who are re:T,c'St . :ng . the United Nations ,in Palestine, partin., trI] :·.1 the city of Jerusalem where the nun.t.c· {lf representatives has increased in the iast kw weeks. The representative of the Provisional Govem~ ment of Israel, in his statement a moment ago, indicated that his Govcrnment has takcn steps to control ail clements operating anywhere in Palestine, including the city of Jerllsalcm. In the various statements on the question of the detention of thcse five individuals, a Humber of issues have becn raised which might, indced, involve a very complicated examination, il it appeared neccssary to go into them. Wc have had questions involving jurisdiction over the place, over the persons, and over the offcnce, questions of the right of a militalY force to protect its security, questions of the exact legal s~atus of the city of Jerusalcm, and even questions conceming the jurisdiction and judicial powers of the Truce Commission. AB l see it, the question of the judicial power of the Truce Commission is not involved. 1 had not undcrstood the draft resolution introduced by the United Kingdom delegation as contem~ plating that these five men should be sun-cndered to the Truce Commission for purposes of trial by the Truce Commission. Thereiore, 1 think that the question of any judicial power of the Truce Commission need not really concern us. As ~e look back over the rather meagre record ?n thlS matter, wc do find that the arrest, as it 15 actually called in the first report [S/ 898J, took place on 6 July; and wc find now, from the statement by the representative of Israel, that twenty-one days later the civil court in ~el Aviv is not satisfied that there is yet suffi- Clent evidence on which to hold these men in~ definitely. As 1 understood his statement, it was that the magistrate had indicated to the prose~ cutor that these men would be released if sufficient evidence were not forthcoming in an When 1 examine the text of the draft resolution submitted by the representative of the . United Kingdom, 1 find in its operative paragraph-the second paragraph-that it provides that the Security Council "supports the demand of the Truce Commission,for the relea.'le of the five men". 1 wonder whether that is quite accu.. rate in the circumstances. What we find is that in document S/905 of 16 July the Truce Corn.. mission informed us that they had received no satisfactory reply, and that therefore they handed over the problem to the Security Council to take any action it deemed appropriate. Then in docu.. ment S/915-in the message ot 17 July from the Truce Commission-the Commission reports that the "prisoners [were] turned over to the Commandant of the Jewish forces at Jerusalem yesterday evening ... presumably ta be taken immediately to Tel Aviv where the accused men, it is œported, will be tried by a military court". The Truce Commission, in giving the Security Council that information, does not reiterate any suggestion of the need for action by the Security Council. In l'carling these three telegrams, one has the impression that the Truce Commission was particularly concerned with the fact-or what it assumed to be the fact-that these men had be(;n seized by irtesponsible elements, ând the members of the Commission were womed about their physical safety. They finally lound out that the men had been turned over to the regular forces and taken to Tel Aviv for trial. The question then is: what are the actual factors in the situation Wh1,.h confronts the Security Council at thi!: time? In the first place, there is f.~'.:. \tuest:.m of the safety of the individuals. Th;it S-:lçn1S ta me now to be assured. 1 think we cart take it "hat they are aIso assured of a fair trial in the courts of Israel. 1 understand from l~ress reports that one On the problems which seem ta me more basically ta concern the Security Couneil, 1 believe we may consider that t~o pOÙlts are involved. The first is assurance of respect for the Truce Commission as :m agency of L'le United Nations; and the second is the readÙless and ability of the parties involved-Ùl this case the Government of Israel-ta control any possibly . dissident element. 1 think that we have had Ùl the statement of the representative of Israel here this afternoon assurance on both of these points: first, that iliere is every Ùltention ta support the work of the United Nations and not ta show disrespect for the Truce Commission; and second, that there is willÙlgness and ability ta control aIl e1ements. 1 should assume that those assurances would unquestionably be supported and ratified by hi& GoverI,lment and that the Security Council, with those assurances on the three poÙlts ta which 1 have referred, might feel it unnecessary ta adopt the resolution suggested by the representative of the United Kingdom, either for lle purpose of assuring the safety of these individuals, or for the purpose which 1 consider, from our general point of view, the paramount one, that of maintaÙlÏng the authority and prestige of the Truce Commission. Ml'. EL-KHoURI (Syria): In this case we find . that five men who occupied considerable positions in the public service-they were not Iike marauders roVÙlg the country, whose place of living could not be found-were kidnapped by irregular forces, or rather dissidents, or rather terrorists, in a place where even the Jewish authorities have no jurisdiction. If we suppose, as it is pretended, that they are ta be tried for' certain contraventions they have committed, warrants against them should be issued by a regular court of justice, calling upon them ta be tried. They should not he kidnapped in such a W'.ly and sent ta be tried by tribunals which have no authority over thern. Jerusalem is not under Jewish authority. 1 do not see how the Security Council can admit the kidnapping of people in that way, especially of functionaries occupying posts in the public service, and especially by persons who not only have no right ta kidnap people but have no right ta arrest them and take them ta courts. If a court had issued a warrant against them, they would have been summoned ta the court Ùl a re~ar way.

The representative of Syria has proposed that we should vote on the resolution submitted by the representative of the United Kingdom. Does anyone eIse wish to speak? Ml'. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated trom French): ln view of the lateness of the hour 1 shall say only a few words. In its telegram dated 14 July [S/898], the Truce Commission exp!ained why it had. placed the Jemsalem Electric Corporation under its protection. , Its decisioll in that respect seems fully justified to my delegation. The Security Coun.cil is, of course, at liberty to repudiate the .Truce Commission's decision and to say that it should not have granted protection to the Jerusalem Electric Corporation. If, however, the Security Council does not repudiate the Truce Commission's decision, 1 do not think it should tolerate this infringement of the authority of the organ wmch it has set up in Palestine. In the course of our discussions, it has often been stated that decisions of the United Nations shollH·he treated with respect. It seems to me that this is the moment to show that respect. , Ml'. MALIK (Uniçm of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Rus~ian): The question placed before the Security Council by the United Kingdom delegation has already rcl.ched a stage wher~ it must 'be regarded as a domestic affair of the Provisional Government of Israel. Five British subjects, suspected by the Jews of carrying on espionage in Jerusalem, have been detained and handed over to the official authorities of the Provisional Government of Israel. Consequently, any investigation of the matter by the Security Council, and particularly the adoption of any decision regarding· it, would constitute an interference in domestic affairs and would encroach upon the competence of the Provisional Government of Israel. Moreover, the fundamental question ansmg from the United Kingdom delegation'~ propàsal is that of the safety, of those five British subjects: ,are their lives in danger at the present moment, or are they not? Judging f~om the information wc have received. from the representative of the State of Israel, those nve British subjects are in the hands of theauthoIities of the Provisional Gove:rnment It goes without saying that in those cireum· stances and at its present stage, the question is an internal affair of the Provisional Government of Israel. There is no reason and no need for the Security Council ta intervene. The United Kingdom Government can settle the matter by direct negotiation with the Provisional Government of Israel, in ~pite of the fact that no diplo- 'matie relations exist between them. In view of the events in Palestine which we have been witnessing for the past few months, the Security Council cannat accupy itself with the fate of every individual detained in Palestine on a charge of having committed sorne crim~, especially when that crime is espionage. We know from the Press and from official rsources that there are many British subjects in Palestine and that many of them have taken up arms ta fight against the army of the State of Israel, not only as common soldiers but also as officers directing military operations. In partieular, we aIl know of the notarious Glubb Pasha. Let us imagine for a moment that tomorrow Glubb Pasha is taken prisoner by the Jewish army of the State of Israel. Would that çall for an in. vestigation by the Security Council? If we bear in mind aIl these considerations as weIl as the facts that the information submitted to the Security Council is one-sided, that the lives of the five British subjects are not at present in any, dangrr , that they are in the hands of authorities who have accused them of having committed a crime, that they have been put on trial and that the case is taking its proper course, 1 maintain that the adoption by the' Security Council of the resolution proposed by the United Kingdom representative 'would be bath premature and legally unfounded,. ami would lead ta no results. For these reasons, the U3SR deJ.egation is unable ta support the proposaI submitted by the representative of the United Kingdom. Mr. PARom (France) (translated trom French): 1 do not think 1 am in a po&ition tonight to take a definite stand regarding the draft resolution submitted by the representative of the United Kingdom. 1 wonder whether he would agree ta postpone the vote for a ' .1- .~? 1 should like ta make sorne commer.' "iuch ~re based on a preliminary study of the questIon. . If we were to consider its legal aspect, 1 beheve we would encounter sorne rather sedous There is, however, another aspect of the question which the representative of Belgium has already pointed out and which 1 r.hould like ta stress at once: it concerns the respect which is due ta organs of the United Nations. These arrests are serious because they concem personnel whose task was ta operate a public service which, as 1 understand it, the Truce Commission had placed under its special protection. In so doing, the Truce Commission was acting in the interest of both Arabs and Jews because it wasensuring the maintenance of a plant which, if destroyed, could certainly not have been easily replaced. The Truce Commission had therefore placed a building under its protection, and, if 1 have correctly understood the information furnished us, the arrests took place in this building, notwithstanding the protection of the Truce Commission. Mter all, we have not been studyl.ng the Palestine question for the past year and a haH merely for our entertainment; we have devoted long and often trying meetings ta this question. If we had done it for our entertainmel}t, we should have been very disappointed. We did it in the interest of peace, in the interest of justice and in the interest of the Arabs and the Jews. The United Narions has exerted a tremendous effort ta maintain or re-establish, peace and to arrive at a just settlement. We had already begun, and we are continuing, to place at the disposaI of the Mediator·a costly and complicated machinery of observers. That machinery will include planes; it already includes ships. The fiuancial burden on the United Nations is not the only point involved; there is aIso the consideration that, in the commoninterest, we have risked the lives of citizens of our countries, That consideration is not merely theoretical: a consul of the United States was killed; a French Major, a high-ranking officer who was an observer, was killed, and another wall wl"'unded. We have thereture some·justificatkn lOI" ::i~king that the groups which represent U3 '1)] th.~ ~Fot in Palestine ând which are exposect te -enous dangers in the common interest oi pe<\~. and justice should be treated with greater considera~ tion than seems ta have been given them. 1 should like the representative of Israel ta consider the question from this angle and to present it to bis Government in this light. 1 think Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): ln response ta the appeal just made to me by the representative of France, 1 would sayat once that, sa far as 1 am concerned, 1 do not wish ta press this matter ta a vote this evening. Moreover, the Jewish representative courteously undertook to apply ta Tel Aviv for further information in regard to it. 1 recognize that the resolution which 1 have submitted was circu· lated orny this afternoon, and, therefore, if it is agreeable ta the Council, 1 am quite willing to :adjoum the matter for what 1 hope will be a short time. Before cQncluding, may 1 just make one cor· rection which arises from the remarks of the USSR representative. 1 think he stated that my resolution said--or at any rate he implied that 1 had said-that these men were in danger. That does not occur in the resolution. There is no hint of that. 1 do not remember saying, and l did not mean to say, that 1 was afraid for their lives. 1 should have some misgivings if the situation were such as represented by the USSR representative, when he said that he understood' that the authorities in Tel Aviv had given a fixed period in which these men were ta prove their innocence. But 1 have a higher view than that of justice in Tel Aviv. 1 think the Jewish representative said that un1ess the case was made against them within a certain period, they would be released. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fmm Russian): 1 had thought that it was because the representative of the United Kingdom was prompted by concern and anxiety for the five British subjects in Tel Aviv that the question was placed before the Security Council. It appears from the United Kingdom representative's remarks that hehad other motives for raising the issue, and 1 take note of his statement. . acte de sa Mr. EBAN (Israel): 1 assume that it is the wish of the Security Council that 1 should convey in exact terros the various views and senti~ ments which have been expressed by different delegations on this matter, and 1 shall also ask the Provisional Government of Israel for a direct and authoritative statement of its views and intentions on aIl aspects of the question. AIl that 1 was able to do earlier was ta give a general interpretation of the legal theory on which the Government of Israelis now operating. As saon as 1 receive this direct and authoritative view, 1 shaIl communicate immediately with the President of the Security Council. . présume je provisoire par ment claration tions question. une sur Dès mon ;Jvec

1 In view of the {act that the representative 'of the tant

Since the representative of the United Kingdom does not insist on a vote on his draft resolution and in view of the statement of the representative of Israel, 1 think that the discussion for today is ended. The meeting rose at 7 p.m.