S/PV.524 Security Council

There are no more speakers on my list in connexion with this question. We shall therefore take up item 3. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): 1 beg the pardon of the President for returning to the same question, but 1 should like to draw your attention to the fact that the provisional record of yesterday's [523rd] meeting does not include the text of the statement by the representative of the People's Republic of China which was read at that meeting [5/1902]. 1 should like that text to be included in the official record of the meeting. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): The verbatim record which has been circulated is only provisional. The text will be included in the official record. 4. The Palestine question (continued) At the invitation of the President, MI'. Eban, representative of Israel, and Ahmed Tuqan Bey, representative of the H ashi1nite K ingdom of Jordan, took places at the Couneil table. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): Before calling upon the first speaker on the list for the Palestine question, 1 should like to draw the Council's attention to the fact that we have been discussing this item for almost three weeks. It appears as if the discussion may continue for a fourth week. It seems to me, however, that we might complete our work on this aspect of the Palestine question sooner if we make good use of the remainder of this third week. That is why 1 support the suggestion, which a number of delegations have made, that the Council should dispense with consecutive interpretation at today's meeting, and be satisfied with simultaneous interpretation. That procedure would not of course constitute a precedent, and it will be macle clear that today's record is based on simultaneous interpretation. The Secretariat has just pointecl out to me that my suggestion cannot be adoptecl, as there is not sufficient staff available today for simultaneous interpretation. We shall therefore have to ffillow our usual procedure. Ahmed TUQAN Bey (Hashimite Kingclom of Jordan): 1 wish to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to the President and members of the Security Council on behalf of the Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan for allowing us to bring before the èouncil the Complaint regarding the flagrant aggression per- In his address to the Security Council last Monday [522nd meeting], the representative of Israel saw fit to describe the Jordan complaint as "f1imsy and frivolous". He saw fit to use these two adjectives with respect to an incident in which armed Israel forces entered a territory which has always belonged to and constituted part of the Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan. In the opinion of the representative of Israel, the entry of armed Israel forces into an area not assigned to them, the crossing of an internationally recognized boundary, the plowing by Israeli farmers of a piece of land which is not their own, all these, in the opinion of the representative of Israel, are matters on which my Government should raise no objection and should make no complaint. The Israel authorities chose to forget article III, paragraph 2 of the Rhodes Agreement 1 prohibiting military forces of one party from committing any warlike or hostile acts against the other party. They conveniently lost sight of article VI, paragraph 3 of the Agreement which sets the period of fifteen weeks as the last date on which the boundaries between the two parties should be demarcated. Furthermore, they neglected to take the obvious step of referring this new case to the Mixed Armistice Commission, so that the alleged new boundary should be demarcated in the presence and by the help of the Mixed Armistice Commission. That procedure has been adopted ever since the Rhodes Agreement was put into effect. Instead of taking these clear and legal steps, the Israel authorities saw fit to issue orders to Israel forces, ~fteen months after the last point of the demarcation hne was set, to advance in war formation, cross an international boundary and occuPY a piece of land in the Jordan territory. In staging this hostile act, the fourth hour after midnight was chosen. Hostile acts of aggression cannot bring the day for a just and fair settlement of the outstanding differences Quatrième mistice The impression may have been created, through the address delivered last Monday by the representative of Israel, that the Jordan representative had submitted aIl the evidence in support of our claim. This is not the case. The Jordan delegation has not yet submitted the documents in its possession which prove beyond any doubt the justice of its case and which disprove the contention of the representative of Israel. Aside from the legal strength of Jordan's case, and putting aside for the moment aIl documentary evidence in our possession, there remains the fact that Jordan's case stands on strong grounds of equity and justice which cannot be challenged. lt is on these grounds of justice and equity, if on no other grounds, that the Jordan complaint should be judged.

The speeches of representatives invited to the meeting will not be interpreted. Mr. LACOSTE (France) (translated from French): In normal circumstances we would have hac! simultaneous interpretation today if it had been possible to use that system. Kow, there wil! be no interpretation into French at aIl. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): Is the representative of France asking for an interpretation? Mr. LACOSTE (France) (translated from French): l am so requesting. The speech of the representative of the Hashinûte Kingd01n of Jordan was intcrpreted inta French. Mr. LACOSTE (France) (translated from French): The French delegation considers that the questions relating to the implementation of the various armistice agreements between Israel and the neighbouring States are essentially within the competence of the Mixed Armistice Commissions and ~pecial Committees set up under the Armistice Agreements. The Council must be careful not to impede the wurk of those bodies and not to act in their place. It can, however, legitimately endorse their action and support their authority. The successful settlement of the Bir Qatar affair, as a result of an Israel decision which my delegation has been glad to note, seems to me an example of how such support can usefully be given. _ At our [S22nd] meeting on 13 November the United Kingdom representative raised the related question of the restrictions the Egyptian Government has put on free p~ssage throu&,h the Suez Canal. .The Israel representatIve has submltted a draft resolutlOn on the subject [5/1900]. The French Government is a signatory to the Constantinople Convention, which contains perfectly clear provisions on the question. It attaches the greatest importance to the matter and is trying to have it settled through normal diplomatic channels. During the last few months it has repeatedly made its views clear to the Egyptian Government and only recently made a strong protest in Cairo. The United Kingdom representative has pointed out that the Special Committee is now examining a specific aspect of the question, and must soon give its opinion on it. That aspect is the complaint by the Israel [5/1794] Government against blockade practices inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Egyptian- Israel General Armistice Agreement 2 signed at Rhodes on 24 February 1949. My delegation feels that it would be well for the Council to suspend any consideration of the question until it has seen the report of the Chairman of the Special Committee on the action the Special Committee feels should be taken on the Israel Government's complaint. 1 should like to add that it would be desirable for the report to be submitted to the Council at the earliest possible moment. These remarks refer to the procedure, not to the substance. As to the substance, my Government recommends, for the legal, economic and political reasons given by the United Kingdom representative at our last meeting, that there should be no delay. On the .contrary, it feels that the situation which has arisen as a result of the Egyptian Government's interference with the traffic of the Suez Canal must be ended as soon as 11;' possible, and the French delegation hopes that, in view of the representations made by the different parties concerned, the Egyptian Government will see its way ta lifting at once all the restrictions which have given rise to this debate. Mr. EBAN (Israel): Were it not for the address we h~ve heard from the representative of the Hashimite Kmgdom of Jordan, 1 had not intended to return ta the issue of Naharayim. For my delegation that matter was conclusively decided when it emerged from the interrogation of ML Bunche and General Riley [5F1th, S18th meetings] that the small area in question belongs indubitably and without challenge on the side of the armistice frontier in which the jurisdiction of Israel prevails. The relationship of this area to the previous international frontiers has no effect whatever on the Armistice Agreement. Indeed, the forces of Jor~an are occupying areas bey?nd their previous internatIOnal frontiers thousands of tImes as great as the area in question. If Jordan desires to abandon its enlarged L""" SP"i" S."l~.t No. 3. 5 Since the discussions in this Council have conclusively proved the legitimacy of our claim, and since Jordan has refused to submit its complaint to the Mixed Armistice Commission, despite the letter from the Government of Israel to the Chief of Staff on 7 October of this year [5/2049, section Il], our position is clear. We shall not go an inch beyond the Israel side of the demarcation line; nor shall we be induced by any threats or violent language to be moved from any position to the west of that line. Nothing Cüuld be more frivolous or incongruous than to portray as aggression what is in fact the precise and meticulous observance of the Armistice Agreement and the annexes attached thereto. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): Mindful of the President's remarks at the beginning of this meeting relating to the necessity of expediting the work of the Council, and noting that this is our eighth meeting in connexion with the present aspect of the question of Palestine, l shall confine my remarks today to as few words as possible. l am going to comment particularly upon the joint draft resolution presented by France, the United Kingdom and the United States [5/1899]. In connexion with the first paragraph of that draft resolution, in particular the reference made to "supervision by the parties themselves" and the Council's reliance upon the parties' ensuring the continued application and observance of the Armistice Agreements, and also the reference to recourse to the truce supervision machinery in Palestine, l should like to say once again to the Council that Egypt has always resorted to the truce supervision machinery, and that the complaints brought to the Security Council by Egypt have been so brought only after the exhaustion of all means of recourse to the normal armistice or truce supervision machinery in Palestine. l wouId add to this that there is not one single decision by any truce supervision body in Palestine against Egypt which Egypt has not carried out. If there are any decisions against Egypt, l should like to know where they are and whether Egypt has not actually carried them out. If there are decisions against E,gypt, l should like to know where they are and whe'her Egypt has not carried them out. l am speaking of final decisions. In connexion with the second paragraph of the draft resolution, beginning with the words "TakinrJ into consideration" the sponsors might consider aclding after the word "ex~ressed" the words "and data given", so that the first Itne would read: "Taking into consideration the views expressed and the data given by the representatives ... " In connexion with the third paragraph, beginning with the word "Reminds", l would revert to the remark l made a little while ago, namely, that Egypt has scrupulously respected its obligations under the Armistice Agreements, and l am impelled to say that l do not see any reason, speaking as the representative of Egypt, why the name of Egypt should occur at all in this third paragraph. l therefore suggest to the sponsors of the joint draft resolution that they take this into consideration also, and make whatever modifications in the formulation of the third paragraph they may see fit. çant vation l'Egypte lui en obligé de Aussi, commun rédaction qu'ils détail logiquement quement rapide, l'on des d'importance projet This third paragraph - and this is a point l shall come to later - would, l think, more logically be the fourth paragraph, and the present fourth paragraph would more logically be the third paragraph. This would become evident through even a cursory reading of the two paragraphs, taking into consideration the sequence of time and the logic of events. l view this as a minor modification, and l hope that the sponsors of the joint draft resolution will accept my suggestion relating to it. quatrième d'ajouter There is an important missing link between the fourth and fifth paragraphs. l suggest that the following should be inserted between the fourth and fifth paragraphs: trôlé fait sécurité, indemnités Israël territoire "Calls upon Israel to allow the return to Israe1- controlled territory of the expelled Arabs, subject to the present complaint, to assure their safety, to safeguard their rights and to give them the compensation ta which they are entitled; further calls upon Israel to cease the expulsion of Arabs from Israel-controlled territory." résolution serait de soit In connexion with the sixth paragraph of the joint draft resolution, l should like to state briefly that it is 0111y logical and right to expect that the evacuation of Bir Qattar, alluded to in that paragraph, should be a real and effective evacuation and not a fictitious one. le A paragraphe mixtes effet, les comprennent pas projet Another remark relates to the last paragraph. lt might be better drafting and better logic to stop at the words "Armistice Commissions" near the end of the .. paragraph. It was not at all necessary to include the "lwords "and the Special Committee...", because reference is already made to the various Mixed Armistice Commissions. That includes the Special Committee. l shall not, however, belabour this point, and l do not insist on it; l shaH leave that to the consideration of the sponsors of the joint draft resolution. sur réfléchi différend de m'être précédent, juridiques m'abstiendrai l do not know whether or not we shall come to a vote on this draft resolution today, but if we do come to a vote, l 1).ave decided that, as a result of much thinking as to whether this matter is a dispute or a situation, and recalling what the doctrinaires have written about this question and its precedents or rather its lack of precedents, and in order to allay the legal Il>x",:orries of everybody, l shall abstain from voting by vlrtue of Article 27, paragraph 3 of the Charter. That

The ~ext speaker on my list is the representative of the Umted Kingdom, but the representative of Egypt has asked whether he may first add a few words to his statement. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): l thank the President, and l hope that the representative of the United Kingdom does not mind my de1aying for haH a minute the statement he is going to make. l wanted to offer two additions. First, l am sure that it will be c1early understood that if l abstain from voting today, that will not be binding at all as a legal position for the future with respect to my Government. l am sure that the Security Council does not consider such a thing as tending to create a precedent. We are still in the course of creating the beginning of a precedent on this matter, and l think that it will take a longer period of time than it has thus far. The second addition is in connexion with the various suggestions l took the liberty of making with regard to the paragraphs of the joint draft resolution. As the Council probably knows, l have caused a written text of these suggestions to be circulated. This was merely done for the convenience of all concerned. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom) : l should like to express my appreciation of the brief but extreme1y businesslike intervention of the representative of Egypt and, so far as l am concerned, l have noted with much interest the suggestions which he made for amending the draft resolution which my de1egation put forward in conjunction with the representatives of France and the United States of America. l should have thought that it would be quite possible that the sponsors might even agree to certain of these amendments, and, in regard to others, it may be that they might, on reflection, be able to suggest sorne counter-proposal which might even meet with the approval of the representative of Egypt. But in order to do that, l think they really must have time to consult together, and l should hope that the Security Council would think it appropriate for them to consult together, without delay, in view of the urgency of the matter. Therefore, what l propose - if the Council will permit it - is that we should adjourn for haH an hour while the sponsors get together in order to effect the necessary consultations. • The PRESIDENT (translated from French) : A motion has been made for the suspension of the meeting. According to rule 33 of the rules of procedure, it must be decided upon without further debate. Are there any objections to this motion? We might perhaps dispense with a formaI vote and suspend the meeting for a few minutes. Mr. EBAN (Israel): l had asked for an opportunity to address the Council on the amendments sub111itted by the representative of Egypt. l now understand that what we shall have before us is a revised draft resolution. If so, l should prefer to speak at a later stage when the revisions are before us. demandé présenter proposés maintenant Dans plus revisions Puis-je lution texte

l thank the representative of Israel. May l ask which of the authors of the joint draft resolution wishes to introduce the revised tex.t? glais): résolution, temps, parties Je lution Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom) : l must apologize, on the part of the sponsors, for keeping the Council sa long, but we wanted, if we could, to get agreement for these suggested amendments on the part of the parties principally concerned. As a result l think that wehave a draft which l hope will c0111mand general consent. proposés l shall take the Egyptian representative's proposaIs seriatim. accepté The sponsors agree that their draft resolution should be amended so as to insert the words "and data given" after the words "the views expressed" in the second paragraph. The Egyptian representative suggested that the word "Egypt" which appears in the third paragraph of the original text should be omitted. We were inclined to think that that proposaI would be better carried out if the paragraph in question - that is to say, the one beginning "Reminds Israel, Egypt and the Hashi111ite Kingd0111 of Jordan" - were revised to read as follows: "Calls upon the parties involved in the present cornplaints to consent to the handling of the cornplaints according to the procedures established in the Armistice ~. Agreements for the handling of complaints and the settlement of points at issue." That is virtually the same as the original draft, except that, instead of mentioning specifie names, it rnakes a general statement: it calls upon "the parties involved in the present complaints". To that extent, l think we have met the point raised by the Egyptian representative. We should also be prepared to put the present third paragraph in the fourth place, so that the paragraph beginning "Notes that, with regard to the implementatian of article VIII" would come before the paragraph which l have just read out and which would begin with ~, the words "Calls upon the parties involved in the lP"""'t rompWn"". "CaUs upan Israel to allow the return to Israelcontrolled territory of the expelled Arabs, subject of the present complaint, to assure their safety, to safeguard their rights and to give them the compensation to which they are entitled; further calls upon Israel to cease the expulsion of Arabs from Israel-controlled territory." W e rather felt that that was going too far in a certain sense, and, after much debate, we ventured to put forward the paragraph which l shall now read out and which would take the place of the paragraph proposed by the Egyptian representative for insertion between the fourth and fifth paragraphs. This new paragraph wouId read as follows: "Requests the Israel-Egyptian Mixed Armistice Commission to give urgent attention to the Egyptian complaint on the expulsion of thousands of Palestinian Arabs, and calls upon both parties to give effect to any finding of the Israel-Egyptian Mixed Armistice Commission regarding the repatriation of any such Arabs who, in the Commission's opinion, are entitled to return." Finally, we propose to add at the end of the next paragraph - that is to say, the paragraph beginning, "Autharizes the Chief of Staff" - after the words "mutual agreement" the words "and calls upon the governments concerned to take in the future no action involving the transfer of persons across international frontiers or armistice lines without prior consultation through the Mixed Armistice Commission." That is the extent of our proposed amendments to our joint draft resolution. l think aIl l can do now is to put them on the table and suggest that they might be discussed.

l have no speaker on my list. Does a member of the Council or aState invited to be present wish to speak? Mr. EBAN (Israel): l should like to speak on the text as revised, but it is very difficult to do so without having before me the wording just read out. For example, l already note a conflict between the English text as read out and the French translation, in a very material point. l wonder whether it 'Nould be possible to give me an opportunity of speaking when the text is before me.

The interpretation into French must not be regarded as authentic. The English text will be circulated. Mr. EBAN (Israel) : l am entirely in the hands of the Council, but l would still prefer a more mature consideration of this text if it 'Nere possible for the Council to accord it.

Does any other member wish to speak in the meantime? Mr. EEAN (Israel) : The question that arises in my mind is whether the Council wishes to dispose of this item at this meeting. If there is another meeting devoted to this subject l would prefer ta speak on that occasion. savoir avant autre à Sir Gladwyn JEEE (United Kingdom): l do think that we ought, if we can, to make an effort to end this matter at this meeting. l quite see that the representative of Israel has had this final text rather thrown at his head, and it may be that he will want a period for reflection; but l suggest that perhaps a quarterhour, or something like that, might suffice. 'vVe might then continue \Vith the matter and l should hope that then we should really be in a position to vote. l do not see why there should be much more debate on the subject, apart from what the representatives of Israel and Egypt may wish to say with regard to this particular proposaI. glais): à représentant sur un reprendre nous quoi débat représentants au Royaume-Uni séance. du nouveau N'y

l take it that the United Kingdom representative has suggested suspending the meeting. It is merely a suggestion. Do the members of the Council agree that we should suspend the meeting again, for about a quarter of an hour? Is there no objection? The meeting was suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m. exposer

Does the representative of Israel wish to state his views on the revised text? Conseil néanmoins soulevées intérêts Mr. EEAN (Israel): l must apologize to the Council for having caused any delay in its procedure. The Council, however, will doubtless understand that the matters dealt with in this draft resolution affect the practical interests of my Government at many crucial points. My chief observations relate to a revision which has been introduced into the original draft resolution referring to the Egyptian complaint alleging the illegitimate expulsion of Arabs from Israel territory into territory controlled by Egypt. This complaint, the substance of which my Government denies, has already been submitted to the Mixed Armistice Commission at its meeting on 26 September 1950. The views put forward by the representative of Israel to the effect that the people who formed the subject of that complaint were not legitimate residents of Israel but infi1trators who had illicitly crossed the armistice demarcation line, was upheld both by the representative of Israel in the Mixed Armistice Commission and by the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission who recorded his judgment in favour of our plea. This experience has reinforced our earlier conviction that this complaint is entirely without substance. Nevertheless, we find in the revised draft resolution special solicitude and concern for this particular complaint. I!,' The Mixed Armistice Commission is requested now "to give urgent attention ta the EgYJ?t~an compl~!nt of l' "'pul,;on of thou,.nds of Pal"bman Anb, , and 11 l must express my Government's reservations regarding the propriety of any special treatment of this subject in the text of the joint draft resolution. The lack of equity and equilibrium involved in that special treatment will, l think, be swiftly accepted by anyone who looks at the general balance of the provisional agenda. To take a specifie example, my Government made a complaint concerning the stoppage of legitimate maritime commerce at the Suez Canal [S11794]. The anxieties which l expressed on Israel's behalf have found welcome and gratifying echoes amongst members of the Security Council. It would then presumably have been equitable, if the Council were at all to deal with armistice matters in advance of their final regulation by the Mixed Armistice Commission, for the Council to reCJ.uest the Egyptian-Israel Special Committee to give urgent attention to Israel's complaint concerning the stoppage of commerce at Suez, and calI upon the parties to give effect to any finding of that Special Committee regarding the substance of that complaint. If the Council were to act in such a way, then it would be showing an equal solicitude for the complaints advanced by both parties, but as yet unsettled by the procedures of the Mixed Armistice Commission. There is therefore an element of discrimination in the very act of focusing special attention on an Egyptian complaint, requiring expedited consideration of it, and making an advance appeal for the implementation of that decision. l am not able to understand, failing an explanation by the sponsors of this joint draft resolution, why the equivalent procedure is not applied in the case of Israel's complaints and Egyptian complaints which come before this Council in identical circumstances. So much then for the general principles affecting the very inclusion of this item in the draft resolution. l must, however, make a specific reservation with regard to the substance. The text of the draft resolution, as it now stands, after requesting the Mixed Armistice Commission to give consideration to the complaint, calls upon those parties to give effect to any finding of the Israel-Egyptian Mixed Armistice Commission regarding the repatriation of any such Arabs who, in the Commission's opinion, are entitled to return. In the first place, there is here an element of prejudice to the outcome of the findings of the Mixed Armistice Commission. It is implied and assumed in advance by the Security Council that a logical conclusion for the Mixed Armistice Commission to reach would be that there are Arabs who are rmproperly excluded and therefore that they should be entitled to return. The position, moreover, is not that the parties are called upon to give obedience and effect to any finding of the Israel-Egyptian Mixed Armistice Commission; they are called upon only to give effect to that finding provided that the finding involves the repatriation of any such Arabs who are entitled to return. graphes qui donne l now pass to a consideration of the next two paragraphs. l we1come the paragraph contained in the original draft resolution authorizing the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization "to recommend . .. appropriate steps... to control the movement of . .. nomadic Arabs across international frontiers or armistice lines..." The habits of nomad tribes constitute frontier problems even with reference to countries at peace with each other and enjoying normal political and diplomatic relations. How much more complex and difficult are those complications when they effect a tense armistice frontier between two countries which are not mutuallY represented and, therefore, which lack the normal facilities for dealing with these questions by normal and regular arrangement. My criticism affects the following paragraph in which the Security Council would calI upon "the governments concerned to take in the future no action involving the transfer of persons across international frontiers or armistice lines without prior consultation through the Mixed Armistice Commission." If it were the intention of this paragraph merely ta express a desire that legitimate residents of one country should not be illegitimately expelled into the territory of another, it would be impossible to l'aise any objection. vVe are, however, confronted, as is known ta all those concerned with the operation of the armistice system, with the typical phenomenon of this particular frontier: that of the illicit infiltration of people, sometimes in great numbers, into Israel territory, without ; any legitimate right. The Government of Israel, like any l' other government in the world, possesses a sovereign right to exclude from its territory those who do not enter with any legitimacy or authorization. As this draft resolution reads, there is an undoubted encouragement for infiltrators to enter the territory of 1 Israel, in the sure knowledge that the Government of the territory which they illicitly enter does not l cannot possibly be certain that this preliminary observation exhausts ail that we have to sayon this subject. The Council, howev:er, is the master of its own procedure. l must say - frankly but deferentially - for the record that l should have preferred a longer opportunity to discuss these matters than can possibly be afforded if we have to reach a conclusion this evening. l should like to make one remark on an observation which fell from the lips of the representative of Egypt, who referred to a decision by my Government to evacuate Bir Qattar. In order that there should be no misunderstanding on a matter which has been satisfactorily regulated, l should point out that there is absolutely no question of the evacuation of Bir Qattar. The question related to the removal of a certain military force at Bir Qattar, in accordance with the Mixed Armistice Commission's decision of 20 March 1950. The armistice decision related purely to that military circumstance. That, and that alone, was the subjeat of the request which we received from the Mixed Armistice Commission and the representative of the Chief of Staff. Mr. GROSS (United States of America): Before l begin my brief remarks, may l refer to the text of the revised joint draft resolution as it has been circulated. That is an error in the sixth paragraph. The word "those" should be "both" before the word "parties". With regard to the draft resolution itself, l think that perhaps l speak for its sponsors when l refer to the note of regret which was voiced by the representative of Israel regarding the hasty action taken this evening. l think it may fairly be said that, since the matter has been before the Security Council. for sorne weeks, it has been very thoroughly debated and considered. We believe that the action proposed in the joint draft resolution was clearly foreshadowed by the debates and by the substance of the issues involved, and that, while there is always a desirability of more and more consideration of any issue, it could hardly be said that this action has been unduly hasty. Finally, with regard to the problem referred to by the representative of Israel regarding the paragraph calling upon governments concerned to take no action in the future involving the transfer of persons across international frontiers or armistice lines without prior consultation through the Mixed Armistice Commission, 1 should simply like to say that it seemed to the sponsors of the draft resolution that, in the nature of the problem, some orderly and managed regulation of the matter was dearly appropriate. In the context of the international relationships concerned here, it seems ta us wholly appropriate and desirable to leave to the Mixed Armistice Commission questions regarding the form, the timing and the procedures of consultation. This draft resolution, as l understand it, is not intended ta fix any particular pattern of consultation or to prejudge the precise form or degree of consultation which might be required in a particular instance. Those are matters which we feel the Security Council cannot possibly be expected to deal with in detail and which must be left to the Mixed Armistice Commission. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt) : l speak with an eye on the dock; l shall be very brief. Fortunately, l couId afford to be brief even if the hour were not late. The points raiseçi by the spokesman of Israel are not new. None of them, to my view, has brought anything new to the consideration of this item or to the knowledge of the members of the Council. If any of the points requires any comment or answer on my part, l submit that that has already been done in the eight long meetings that we had on this phase of the Palestine question. . Therefore, l shall limit myself to one brief comment 111 connexion with the return of the Palestinian Arabs who will be found to be entitled ta return to their homes in Palestine. l take it that the sponsors of the joint cirait resolution before the Council meant that the Palestinian Arabs who will be found to be entitled to return to Palestine will have their safety assured, their rights safeguarded, and will be given whatever compensation to which they might be entitled. That is an l wish to say for the moment. r Mr. GROSS (United States of America) : l attempted by my brief remark at the opening of my statement to suggest that it might be desirable for the Council to dispose of the matter this evening.

l take this remark as a proposai to vote on the draft resolution tonight. Does the Council agree with the United States representative's suggestion? If there are no objections, l take it that the Council wishes to vote tonight.

As there has been no request for a vote in parts, l shall put the revised joint draft resolution as a whole to the vote. • Printed in Canada Priee: 20 (or equivalent