S/PV.544 Security Council

In assuming the Presidency of the Security Council under rule 18 of the provisional ru1es of procedure, l am certain 1 shall be expressing the general feeling of the Council in conveying ta my predecessor, Mr. von Balluseck, our esteemed and distinguished colleague from the Netherlands, our thanks and sincere appreciation for having so ably directed the meetings and the work of the Secnrity Coullcil for two consecutive months. Adoption of the agenda Tbe Palestine question (continued) 2, The PRESIDENT: In connexion with the agenda, l wish ta cali the attention of the Council to the latest report of the Acting Chief of Staff of the United Na- tians Tmce Supervision Organization covering the period hetween 25 April and 1 May [S/2111J. This report has bcen reccived since our last meeting and is now before the Council.

It will be recallec1 that the COl1llcil, at its meetings on 17 and 25 April [541st, 5421/d meetingsJ, listened ta the views of the representatives of Syria and Israel, and then heard a statement by General I{iley, Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. The President then sllggested that the meeting should be adjourned i arder to give me1l1bers of the Council an opportunity ta study these statel11ents and ta formulate questions whicb they might eventl1ally wish to put to General Riley with a view ta obtaining further clarification on the issue, Therefore l now invite General Riley ta the Council table sa that he may answer any questions which any member of the Couneil may wish ta put to him. At the invitation 01 the President, Major General Riley, Chief of Staff of the United Nations Tri/ce Supervision Organization, tool~ a place at the Council tab!e.

Before calling upon representatives who may wish to put questions ta General Riley,

l deeply regret that recent grave events on the Israel-Syrian frontier compel me to address the Council with a sense of deep urgency. l have received the following message from the Israel J\tlinister for Foreign Affairs: "At 9 o'clock, Israel time, this morning two sections of the Israel Army encOl1ntered a considerable force of armed Syrian irregulars one kilometre west of the demi1itarized zone on Tel cl Mutilla, (map reference 2070-2577). The Arabs immediately opened fire on them and the two Israel sections withdrew towards Kirbed Abuseid, (map reference 2065-2565), leaving behind three deàd. Two platoons of Syrian troops then crossed the demilitarized zone and established themselves on Tel el Mutilla and Kirbed Abl1seid. These two platoons are supportee! by irregulars and other Syrian forces in the demilitarized zone and from Syrian positions inside Syrian territory. Israel Army units are engagil1g the Syrian forces. "United Nations observers were called out immediately on the rcceipt of news of the attack by the Israel delegation to the Mixed Armistice Commission, and, at our suggestion, approached the combat area from the Israel and Syrian sides. Heavy fire prevented them from getting close to the scene of fighting and they have returned to the custom house. "This unprovoked aggression was caused by armed Arabs crossing the border into the demilitarized zone and then penetrating more than a kilometre to the west of il. At no time throughout the incident have any Israel troops entered the demilitarized zone. Up to date there are four Israel casualties. Syrian casualties are unlmown. The fighting continues." 6. ment en la nistes tant Les montrent, zone tion et 6. From the beginning of this discussion in the Security Council my government has never doubted for a moment that wé witness here a determinec1 attempt on the 'part of Syria to substantiate the expansionist daim to the demilitarized zone which was frankly avowed by the representative of Syria at this table. The events which l have briefly recordee! indicate, first, that there has been a violation of the demilitarized zone; secondly, that there has been a violation of the Israel-Syrian armistice demarcation line; and thirdly, that these activities by Syrian rS;i}il$,\r and irregular forces constitute both a violation of the Armistice Agreement 1 and an act of aggression within the llleaning of the Charter. 7. seil 7. My government earnestly hopes that the Security Counci! will react with promptitude to these grave 8. l repeat that we have no doubt at a11 that this constitutes, in the formaI sense, both a violation of the Armistice Agreement and an ad of aggression within the meaning of Chapter VII of the Charter. 9. As further news reaches 111Y de1egation, l hope have permission ta address the Security Couneil again. la. Faris EL-KHOURI Bey (Syria): Having just heard from the statement of the representative of Israel of the incidents which he pretends are taking place or have taken place on the froutier, l would declare that l have received no information at a11 about this from my govenunent. l helieve that up to now no information on these incidents has been submitted to the Security Couneil by the observers or the Acting Chief of Staff on the scene. Il. l know nothing about these incidents, and l very much dQubt information sent from Tel Aviv and received" here in New York. l do not know what meant. l have serious doubts, because the place in which the incidents are alleged to have taken place in Leban«se territory, not in Syrian territory. 12. l have no information on this subject, and for this reason l can make no reply to the statement we have just hearcl. l hope that the Security Council will wait until it has received some information from the United Nations representatives on the scene. These representatives are certainly entitled to stndy the matter and inform the Security Counc11 about it. 13. With regard to the statement that Syrian troops enterec1 the demilitarized zone, the Syrians have assured me several times in the past that there are no forces - regular or irregular - of the Syrian Army in the demilitarized zone. On the other hand, most of the demilitarized zone is now under Israel occupation; Israel's police and forces are at present occupying different places in the demilitarized zone. l am therefore not certain of the accnracy of the facts given in the statement we have just heard.

Although the representative of Israel has asked to speak a second time, l think the best procedure would be ta continue as we had decided at our previous meeting. Unless the representative of Israel insists on speaking, l sha11 call on those representatives who wish to put qu('stions to General Riley.

l just wish to make geographical explanation. The place to which l referred - T el el Mutilla - is shawn on the armistice map which lies before members of the Security Couneil. The place is nowhere near the Lebanese frontier at 16. Ml'. AUSTIN (United States of America): l cannot find the place referrecl ta 011 the map. Opposite what number 011 the map c10es it lie?

Could the representative of Israel give us the number on the map?

l have ah'ead)' reacl out the map reference. l do not havc my manuscript at this moment, but l shall be able ta give the President the map reference in a few seconds.

Dacs any mCl11her of the Council wish ta put questions ta General Riley? 20. Ml'. AUSTIN (United States of America): V.,rithout attcmpting in the slightest (Iegrce to assess the importance of this information \vhich has just been brought to our attention, l must say that any distnrbance which involves shooting people and which engages two States, bath Members of the United Na- .tians, is of grave im])ort and calls for the 1110st careful and well considered action on onr part. l thercfore do not feel that l should ask General Eiley more than one qucstion abont this particnlar episode. l\Iy Cltlestion is generaJ and cloes not im))ly blame in one direction or the other. 21. I wonlc! like to ask General Hiley what his t111derstanding is of the Armistice Agreement \l'ith respect to any anned forccs insic1e the demilitarizec1 zone. Does the agreement for demilitarization have the objective of keeping armed forces out of that zone? 22. Major General RILEY (Chief of Staff, United Nations Tmec SupervisiDn Organization): The kc)' to the General Armistice Agreement, the basic fonndation, \Vas the separation of the armed forces, and certainly any armecl forces of either sic1e that enterec1 the c1cmilitarized zone wonld be rulec1 hy the Chainnan as being in Hagrant violation of the Armistice Agreement. Tt IS written in as one of the artic1<'S and certainly nntil this incident was reportec1, l hac! no knowledgc of any violation of the General Armistice Agreement wherein the actllal military forces of either side entered that demilitat"Îzed zone.

l \vish to repeat some names that were melltioned hefore. The place Tel el Mutilla is map reference 2070 and 2577. Kirbed Abuseid ü; map reference 2065 ancl 2565. 24. Ml'. AUSTIN (United States of America): May l .ask General J.:\iley ta rder ta a statement by Ml'. Bunche that was read out hy General Rilev on 25 April 1542udll1ccthlO] and caU specifie aUentiôn to that part which reads: "Uncler the provisions of the Armistice Agreement neithel' party could vaIidly daim 25. Major General RILEY: The Armistice Agreement, as l interpret it, limits civilian control to the local villages plus the land that is attached to those villages. But at no time do the Israelis have the authority to assume full control over non-military activities within the zone that extencls beyoncl those villages, unless there is an agreement between the Chairman, the Israelis and the refugee Arabs that live in that demilitarized zone.

Who normally determines in what villages Israe1is predominate and in what villages therefore Israel control exists, and in what villages Arabs predominate and are uncler Arab control? 27. Major General RILEY: Within the clemilitarized zone there is little or no question as ta the location of the Arab villages versus the Israel settlement; that problem therefore cloes not arise. There have been questions on the ownershipof certain land within the clemilitarizecl zone, but the Chairman or his observer is the one that has taken corrective action to straighten the matter out. . 28. ML AUSTIN (United States of America): Outsicle of those villages there is an area in which a disturbance can occur, as we have already seen. Who has jurisdiction over the subject of disturbances outside of the area? \;Vho maintains arder? 29. Major General RILEY: The Chairman of the Mixecl Ar~ll!stice Commission would normally arrange for the poI-c1l1g of that area. At the time this Armistice ~gree~mnt was ~lrc:fted or .clrawn up and signed, we vlsuahzec1 that vVlt111n a penod of two or three months there wouId be an opportunity to have a joint police force to .take care of the area outside the separate villages. 30. Ml'. AUSTIN (United States of America); What incident cio you understand that Mr. Eban referrecl to when he saicl that on 5 September 1949 the ChaÎl-man of the Mixed. Armistice Commission had acceptecl an Israel ~omP.1amt th~t he ha~ actecl beyond his authority regardmg 111structlOns WhlCh he lmd issued on the employment of police in the demilitarized zone? Do you recall that? 31. Major General RILEY: l believe the representativ:e of Israel "vas referring to a paper which the Cha11'111an put out about that time which involved the zone policing, ancl as l recall Israel objected strenuously !o the p.aper and we withdrew it, but it was part of the ImpresslOn that l had that within the demilitarized zone we had ta get some arrangement for joint po- 32. de parlez

\Vhen you speak of joint policillg, ta whom do you refer? 33. fais rentrés aux police Convention 33. Major General RILEY: l am referring only ta the local refugee Arabs who returned ta the demilitarized zone and the police assignecl ta the Israel settlement. l am not referring ta Syrian police, although Syria signcd the Armistice Agreement. 34. Ml'. AUSTIN (United States of America): Do you understancl that your action as Chairman in that instance supports the interpretation of Israel ta the effect that the authority of the Israel police legitill1ately applied throughout the demilitarized zone? 34. de que Président donne police litarisée? 35. ce explicative définit la assurée locaux israélienne. prète qne 35. Major General RILEY: No, sir, l do not. l be1ieve that Ml'. Bunche's explanatory note clated 26 June 1949 c1early defmes the limitations of policing within the clemilitarized zone, namely, for Arab villages, local Arab refugees, and in the Israel settle-. ments, Israel police. In 111Y understanding and interpretation of the Armistice Agreement, it does not mean that the policing of the entire zone rests with the Israelis. 36. de dent Israël, les dans 36, Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): Is it true that you as Chairman have never raisec1 objection ta Israel's description of the places concerned in ail its camplaints as being within the demiHtarized zone of Israel territory? 37. Major General RILEY: l know of no occasion when we raisec1 that question; l do not think lever noticed it, and l know of no record or summary record of the Mixed Armistice Commission in which it was raised at any time. 37. crois tout rendu n'en

Would General Riley care ta comment on Ml'. Eban's statement that the Arabs who were dispossessed occnpied only seven acres of land? 38, de déclaration ont 2 39. certain de d'asséchement tarisée. d'autres 39. Major General RILEY: l am quite certain that Mr. Eban was referring ta the seven acres expropriated or usecl in connexion with the work in the dell1ilitarized zone on the Huleh operation. l do llot believe he ever referrecl to any other Arab lanel. 41. Major General RILEY: There are two parts to that Huleh project, and l l'der only to that within the demilitarized zone, just south of Lake Huleh. For two or three kilometres along that stretch of the Jordan River the Israelis were deepening and widening the river in arder to get a greater flow of water from Lake Huleh, and in that widening l think the seven acres referred to by Ml'. Eban were included along that stretch of the river. 42. Ml'. AUSTIN (United States of America): To what extent, in your opinion, are the Jordan River operations in the demilitarized zone of legitima.te concern, first, to Arabs residing within the area, and secondly to the Government of Syria? 43. Major General RILEY: No matter whether it is one dunum 2 or twenty-eight clunums, it is land "vhich belongs to refugee Arabs who have returned to the demilitarizecI zone, and it is interfering with the normal restoratiol1 of life there, as we agreecl to carry it out in the Armistice Agreement. However, the land itself can be exchanged for other land without interfering to any great extent with the living conditions of the Arabs, if they want to exchange their lanc1. However, l cIo not believe that it affects Syria itself unless there are Syrian citizens who own one or two of those dunums or who are concerned in the ownership of any of them. 44. Ml'. AUSTIN (United States of America): l should like to secure your opinion with regard to the effect of the Armistice Agreement on the operations with respect to the Jordan River in the H uleh District and in the demilitarized zone. Do you feel that they can legally be carried out without the approval of the Commission? . 45. Major General RILEY: l do not believe that the project itself is a matter that should be discussed within the Mixed Armistice Commission. However, if Syria had submitted a complaint to the Commission, not necessarily on the work project but on an interpretation of the right ta expropriate land, then l would secure an interpretatioll from the Mixecl Armistice Commission of article VII, paragraph 8, as to whether or not it \Vas right to expropriate that land.

It \Vould come under the same heading as any dispute according to your construction, is that right? 47. Major General RILEY: Yes, Slr. 48. Ml'. AUSTIN (United States of America): \Vhen. \vhere and under what circul11stances did the 49. Major General RILEY: l believe it \Vas in October or early N ovelllber 1950. The senior 111ember of the Israel delegatiol1 to the !l'1ixecl Armistice Commission asked the senior Syrian representative if it would be aIl right to put a \Vatel' Sl1l"vey team into the c1emilitarizecl zone. An affirmative answer was given. Later on, in the month of Novcmher, l believe that they repaired the dam which is jl1st south of Lake I-Il1leh. Then, on 12 or 13 Febrl1ary 1951, Israel workmen started to \York on the straighklling of the Jordan l~iver about three kilomctrcs sUl1th of Lake Hllleh. 50. :Mr. AUSTIN (Unitcel St,ttes of America): Your reply sllggests an élI1s"'t'l" to I11Y next question: \Vas this donc \Vith the Ii.llO\vlcdge of the Chair111an himself? 51. l\Iajor General RILEY: I du not hdie\"(~ that it \Vas taken up \Vith the Chairman cxcept when the Israel reprcscntativc as\ct'd wlwther a \Vat{'r snrvey tcam cuuld go into the dcmilitarizcrl Zllne. l am lJl1ite certain that the works proj L't~t that was startetl on 12 or 13 .Fcbruary 1951 was WitllOut his knO\v1cdge and that he was informcel of that artel' it IUlel starter\. 52. 1'1'11'. AUSTIN (Unitcel Statt's of Amc:rica): \Vas therc any work donc as a resl1lt of or following approval by the Chairmal1? ~ 5.1. II'Tajor C;cneral HJ L1':V: l kno", of none. 54. :rl'Ir. AUSTIN (United States of America): vVhat has becn the extent nf locn.1 policing in the areas of the zone affected by the Lake Huleh project? 55. Ivrajor General lULEY: There has hecn no problem there in this regard. l helieve tlmt the Arah refngees and the police of the local village in that vicinity took care of thdr own lane\. Thcre has hel'Il no prohlem \\'hich couIci not he adj usted bctween the 1\rabs auel the Israd police. 56. 1\Tr. AUSTIN (United States nf America): Order has !Jel'n maintainec1 utlcll'r the normal arrangt.~­ ments macle in the Armistice Agreement, is that right? 57. Major General IULEY: l wOlllc1 believc so; yeso 58. I\fr. AUSTIN (United States of America): Let me no\\' caB attentiol1 to the [;:1 Bamum District. Have I~rael police patm\s engagl'd in policc activity in the El Haml11a <!rea? 59. lVlajor General R1LEY: Tlwrc have been certain police patrols off and on which have Ileen carried Ct;t by the Ifirael police 1Ip that narrnw part of the de- I11llitarizec1 zone, but nevcr tn the El Hauuna villacre itself. This has heen hrnught to the attcntion of the Israel police on l1U1l1crous occasions ami for a certain periml of time the)' have c1esisterl from sending putrals 61. Major General RILEY: l assume that it is based on the illterpretation that has been placed on the Armistice Agreement by Israel. 62. ML AUSTIN (United States of America): Is that in accord with the Chainnan's interpretation of the Agreement? 63. Major General RILEY: No, because the Chairman uses as his terms of reference the Armistice Agreement itself, plus the explanatory note of 26 June 1949 that was signed by Ml'. Bunche, which interpreted the meaning of policing of the zone. 64. Ml'. AUSTIN (Unite9 States of America): Are there any settlements near El Hamma where the residents are of Jewish religion or are there any fields cultivated by persans of Jewish religion? 65. Major General RILEY: l do not believe that can answer that question. l do not know. 66. ML AUSTIN (United States of America): Supposing that the Israelis had reasonable cause to believe that there were Syrian anned forces in El Hamma, what procedure should they have followed uncler the Armistice Agreement? ." . 67. Maj or General RILEY: l would certainly have greatly clesired to have had it taken up with the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Com111issibn to check on whether or not the statement was true. We have had many other cases in the operations of the various mixed armistice commissions where each sicle has asked for information on a certain report. l feel that that is a matter that the Chairman might have hanc1led.

The next speaker who has indicated his desire to put questions ta General Riley is the representative of the United Kingdom. 69.. Sir Gladwyn JEEB (United Kingdom): Some of the questions which l had listed to put to General Riley have, in a sense or to some extent, been put aIready by my United States colleague, but l think, perha1)s, l will put the questions which l had originally intencled to put because, since l have cast them in a slightll different way, some of them may result in an additlOnal measure of clarification. At any rate, we m11st hope sa. 70. The central point at issue is obviously - as cmerges from the questions which Ml'. Austin has putthat of jurisdiction or control in the demilitarized zone. In General Riley's statement on 25 April [542nd 11ieeting] , it was said: "The tmderlying issue in this dispute concerns the extent ta which either party is or is not free ta C'est mes l t is in regard ta that statement that my questions are chiefly to be put. 71. juin 71. l notice also that Ml'. Bunche's note of 26 June 1949 stated: "'iVhere Israel civilians return ta or remain in an Israeli village or settlement, the civil administration and policing of that village or seulement will be by 1sraelis. Similarly, where Arab civilians return ta or remain in an Arab village, a local Arab administration and police unit will be authorized". Voilà tion nous conception, doit que ses 72. je plus aux ou That is what Ml'. Bunche said, so my nrst question ta General Riley is, therefore, this: Would we be right in thinking that, accorcling ta this conception, administration of the demilitarized zone would be based on villages or settlements and that cach village or settlement would look after and be responsible for its own affairs? 72. Major General RILEY: Yes, sir; l believe it extends a little more to the land that belongs to the inhabitants of the various villages or settlements. 73. l'anglais): nautés"

One might use the ward "communities"? 74. tainement. 74. Major General RILEY; Yes, sir.

In that case Israel coml11unities, as l understanel it, would have no right ta interfere in the affairs of Arab C0111- rnunities, and Arab communities in the zone \Voulel have no right to interiere \Vith the affairs of Israel c01l1ll1unities. Is that sa ? 76. Major General RILEY: That is my understanding, sir.

Well then, my next question will he this; If, as l am afraid 50 often occnrs, disputes arise hetween an Israel and an Arab community, how is it proposed that they should be settled? 1s this in faet provided for by the state111ent in Mr. Bunche's note that the administrati?I; will he, as he has statecl, under the general super- VISIOn of the Chainnan of the Mixed Armistice Commission, and wouId you, sir, as the Chairman of the IVIixed Armistice Commission, in fact adjudicate on such matters? 78. Major General RILEY: Yes, sir, the Chairman would work through the mukhtar of the Arab village to investigate a complaint which might be put to him by an Israel villager, and vice versa.

In fact, t~len, yon have exercisecl such power of adjudication Sl11ce the dcmilitarizeclzone has been constitutecl? l 80. Major General RILEY: Yes, sir. There have been a 11tunber of such incidents that have been handled and others that have not been handled. VI,!e have handled them through the Chairman and through the observers on many occasions.

My next questions is as follows: Ml'. Bunche's note states that the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission will not assume responsihility for direct administration of the zone. Is the word "direct" of any special significance? Does the use of this word "direct" actually exclude all administrative power by the 01airman, or does it means, as l think it means, that the Chainnan would intervene in the affairs of each community only when matters arose which involved more than one community, and particularly in the case of confiict between Israel and Arab communities? 82. Major General RILEY: Certainly the Chairman has no direct administrative power. He certainly would not administer or attempt to direct the administration within a village or settlement, either Arab or Israel. The Arrnistice Agreement and the explanatory note are quite clear. There should be general supervision over the zone. The Israelis in the Israel settlements and the Arahs in their villages would hanc1le their own administration. Now, where more than one village is involved, the Chairman would certainly lend his good offices to assist in c1arifying the situation and avoiding any trouble between the villages and the settlements.

Even if you as Chainnan have no actual administrative power, it seems to be established that in: matters of administration in the zone you in fact often do, and in any event can, generally settle disputes between communities, without reference to the Mixed Armistice Commission itself. l take it, however, that, even if that is so, it is presumably open to either party to the Armistice Agreement to hring any matter before the Commission, if it regards the matter as sufficiently serious. 84. Major General RILEY: l do not be1ieve that that is a true statement. l feel that the Chairman of this special Mixed Armistice Commission performs a dual role. l look on him as the agent acting for Syria within the demilitarized zone and 1001<Îng into complaints of Arabs who have returned to that zone. Syria, however, will always have an opportunity of bringing before the Mixed Armistice Commission a question of interpretation of the meaning of the Armistice Agreement, under article VII, paragraph 8 thereof. 85. So far as the incident itself is concerned, l feel that that is a matter upon which the ChaÎl'man must act outside the Mixecl Armistice Commission. If he

l do not Imow quite how that differs from what l suggested; perhaps the record will show. Of course, however, l personally accept what General Ri1e~ has sai.d. It is evident that he has some pO\vers. It IS not qtllte clear what the powers are. l think that is what emerges. 87. The next question l should like to ask is the following: May we take it that, in General Riley's view, a project like the Lake I-Iuleh drainage worie, in so far as it affects the demilitarized zone, is a matter of more than purely local community interest, and that it should to that extent come under the supervision of the Mixed Armistice Commission's Chairman? 88. Major General RILEY: l feel that the matter of the work itseif should have been handled by the Chail'man, with regard to the question whether Israel had the right to come in and start widening and cleepening the Jordan River. l feel that the Mixed Armistice Commission could have handled the matter of interpreting the olel concession, in accordance with the Armistice Agreement.

In any case, as l understand it, you wouId maintain, General Riley, that your authorization should have been given before such a project as the one l have mentioned was undertaken ? 90. Major General RILEY: l believe that the Government of Israel did acknowledge that and stated that there was a failure on its part to disCllSS the matter \Vith the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission before the work was started.

But you do still maintain, do you, General Riley, that your authorization was necessary before the work was started? 92. Major General RILEY: In accordance with the interpretation which l place on the Armistice Agreement, it applies to normal restoration of land.

If your authorization was necessary, General Riley, l imagine that in this case, if you were satisfied that any particular project in the demilitarized area was in principie beneficial to the area, constituted no violation of the Armistice Agreement and did not result in any expropriation of local inhabitants without just and suitable compensation or exchange of lands, you would authorize it. 94. Major General RILEY: l have no argument at all so far as the work project is concerned. My point relates to the question of expropriating the land belonging to the Arabs on the basis of the old H uleh

You do not think, therefore, that yau couId allthorize it, as such? 96. Major General RILEY: l do not think that the Chairman would be in a position to authorize the straightenin.:; of the river, if it involved Arab land.

l think l might reserve my right to ask a few more questions later on - but not at this point.

So far, the representatives of ECllador, France and the Netherlands have indicated a desire to put questions to General Riley. 99. Ml'. QUEVEDO (Ecuador): l am sorry to have so many questions to put to General Riley after he has alreac1y answered to muny. l did not very well understand one of General Riley's answers ta a question put by the representative of the United States. l shoulc1 like to know whether the work on Lake Huleh and the Jordan River affects only landowners in the de1l1iIitarized zone or if it also affects and may cause damage to landowners, or agricult11l'e and irrigation in general, beyond the Israel-Syrian border, on the Syrian side. 100. Major General RILEY: l believe it is only land within the demilitarized zone. Even the northern edge of Lake HuIeh, on the eastern shore, contains some Arab land, but it is within the demilitarized zone. l know of no other land that is affected at the present tirne. It may be that there are sorne lands to the east of the Palestine-Syrian border that might be affected; however l am not snre of it. 101. Ml'. QUEVEDO (Ecuador): l should like to know whether the landowners directly affected by the present work refuse altogether to sell their parceIs of land, or if they do not agree with the amount of inde1l1nity offered. 102. Major General RILEY; The seven acres in qnestion, l believe, which are two or three kilometres south of Lake H uleh on the Jordan River, are the only land involveeI. l believe that the Israelis offered practically any price ta the owners for compensation and for expropriation; no priee has been acceptable to the Arab landowners. 103. Ml'. QUEVEDO (Ecuador): l should like to know what Power actually administers the Ein Gev and Dm'dara sectors or how the administration takes place in those sectors. 104. Major General RILEY: This is uncler the settlement owners. The Israelis cleal with Darclara and Ein

l heard the represcutative of Israel state - perlmps I am wrong - that il part of Syrian territory is also in the demilitarized zone. l ShOllld like to Imel\v llO\\' the administration is handled in this sectnr. lOG. Major General H.ILEY: That point has never hren raist'll. It is tou small. 1 clouht if vou conld get anv Syrians iuto it, bnt it is still part of Syrian territory.. \ '•• 107. MI'. QUEVEDO (Ecuador): How were the ' ~ United Nations ollservers able to f1nd ont how S0111e • Arab villages 1fl the dell1ilitarizec1 zone Were destroyed and who destroyed them? 0 1 S. Major C;enend H.ILEY: ~'fuch of the inforlI1atioll come:; from reports. l believe that SOll1e of the reports received are from one or two of the observers . 1 111 t le case of certain villages that were destroyecl. \Ve have to rely on the n'pmts that wc rl'ceive and then J investigate thel11 in an attel1lpt to iind whether or not they are tme. In the question of the villages the :, inhabitants tlw1l1selves may makI.' the report. In man}' 1 cases we get the report or cOlllplaint of alleged violation from the Syrian sicle. 100. MI'. QUl~VEDO (Ecuador): 1 shoulcl like to ' know if you are able 1:0 state demI}' whetber the '. . IIIhahltants of those villages lett those areas of their own free will or if the" were cOlllllelled ta leave their J land. 11 O. Major General RILEY: That is one of the 11105t difficult problems that 'VI.' have eyer been faced \Vith, not only in this matter hut in other matters, In the present situation the l:irael authorities stated that a great number of the Arahs living in the zone requestecl, ~()r n:asolls. ~)f ::i~lfety, tn he move.d. from certain vilInges !Il the. den1Jhtanzecl zone to areas III Israel. T also know that other reports have been receive<1 which state that they \vere forœd tn evaellate against their will. Fro\v· ['\'~r, l have no way of proving nr disproving 1:he pOInt. AlI l ean go 11)' is the paper that is prescnted and signed hy the imlivicll1als.

l have only a very few qllestions to a~k this afternooll and, as the United Kingdom representative also saicl just no\\', I should like to he sure that I shall have un opportllnity of asking' f11rther questions at a later meeting. . 112. The que.~tion which l shoulcl like ta ask now lias i~ faet already bcen broached by the representative of b:uarlor, and T do not really expect that General Riley ~\'ilI lH:cessarily be able to give a reply taday. I thiuk ,t may he of a<1vantage for me ta ask him the question 1Ll. Major General RILEY: l sha11 have ta check that; l am not sure. 114. ïvlr. LACOSTE (France) (translated from French): It seems that l was right ta give you "notice" of the question. 1lS. May I also ask you whether yon could, at the same time, td1 us how many of these villages there were and vdmt was their population? If the population of some of these villages has greatly elil11inlsheel or some of them have disappeared, it would be useful YOIl were ta tell us that also. 116. l should like to asle Y011 a similar question \Vith regard ta the existence of Israel villages in the same c1emilitarizec1 zone of Huleh at the time of the conclusion of the Israel-Syrian Agreement. I shoulc1 like ta ask you whether these villages have elisappeared, whether their population has decreased, or whether, on the contrary, it has increased. Il? Those are all my questions for this afternoon.

should like to ask a few qnestions pertaining ta the hasis of the di~tribution of authority in the territory clll1cerned. General Riley has quoted -from an explanatory note Gy Mr. Bunche dated 26 lune 1949. Bath General Riley and Mr. Bunche have 'stated that that note is the only document having any official standing as a hasis for interpreting article V of the Annistice Agreement, which deals \Vith the graduai restoration of normal civilian life in the demilitarized zone. I sho111dlike ta ask General Riley whether the quotation he gave at our previOlls [542ndJ meeting represented the complete text of the explanatory note or just part of it. 119. l'I'lajar General RILEY: The note as quoted was complete in itself; it was not an extract, but the note as sent ta us by J'vIl'. Bunche. 120. :Mr. VON BALLUSECK (Netherlands): In his writtcn statement dated 16 April the representative of Israel has statcd that Mr. Bllnche's explanatory note \Vas, hy agreement between the parties, to form an authoritative cOl1ll11cntary on article V [S12089]. That statement seems to imply that Israel has acceJited the Ilote as snch. 'Voulc1 General Riley say that the explanatory note, althongh not forming part of the Armistice Agreement itself, is to he considered as legally lJinding on bath parties? 121. l\Jajor General H.ILEY: In the meeting on .lui)' 1Y49 iu the course of the lsrael-Syria negotiatîons, the note \Vas introduced and was macle a part of the record, and both parties agreed ta use the note in 122. ML VON BALLUSECK (Netherlands): Is there any reason why the note was never sub1l1itted to the Security Cot111eil? 123. Major General RILEY: Dnring the negotiations the parties themselves deeided that the summary records of the negotiations would be used in the interpretation of the meaning of the Armistice Agreement. It was also c1eeided by the parties themselves that copies of the sunmlary records should not of necessity be sent to the Security Couneil. 124. ML VON BALLUSECK (Netherlands): May l ask General Riley if, in his opinion, ail laws, regulatians and orc1inances which were in force prior to the Armistice Agreement are held in abeyance now, or merely those which are contrary to the terms of the Armistice Agreement? 125. :Major General RILEY: No, sir; l refer only to that portion of the Agreement which deals with matters within the demilitarized zone: l have 110thing ta do with any other agreements which were enterec1 into and, because of limitations decided upon by the parties themselves, Ideal only with matters within the' c1emilitarized zone which are covered by the Armistice Agreement.

"YVould you say that the original concession of the Palestine Land Development Company would or would not automatically have to be recognized in the present circumstances ? 127. Major General RILEY: l believe you are taking me into the political field and l shollid prefer not to answer that question. l may have misunderstooc1 the question, but l would rather not get outsic1e the Armistice Agreement itself. Perhaps the representative of the Netheriands will repeat the question in case l clid misunclerstand it.

"Vould you consider the question of the rights involved in the concession of the Palestine Land Deveiopment C:0mpllilY to be one which might fall within the jurisc1Jction of the Mixed Armistice Commission? 129. Major General RILEY: Only where it involves laud within the clemilitarized zone which is the property o~ Arab refugees. That is the only part of that conces- SlQn with which we have anything to do. It is not the concession itself, ):ll1t the expropriating of land essential to carrying out the project of the Huleh concession. It is regrettable that within the clemilitarized zone there shollid be seven or eight acres of land so located as to interfere with the project itself. However l am not involving myself at any time in the I-Iuleh concession as a concession. l am only interestec1 in protecting the 130. l feel tint the United Nations should never impede progressive work. Howcver l am involved here with the Armistice Agreement in which the United Nations is charged with the normal restoration of civilian life. l have never found fault with the concession and l never will. However, without deepening and widening the Jordan River within the demilitarized zone, l understand that the project cannot be carried out. l have asked and l have been infonned that Israel has also investigated in order ta find some other way or draining Lake Huleh and the marshes without going into the demilitarized zone. Therefore l have no quarrel with the project itself. l feel that that is not a matter which affects either Syria or the United Nations. l am only involved in the normal restoration of life within the demilitarized zone which affects the thirty, forty or fifty Arabs that OWl1 the approximatively seven or eight acres of land within the demilitarized zone. 131. Ml'. VON BALLUSECK (Netherlands): The Israel representative, in his memorandum dated 16 April, stated that the worIe has been in progress in the Huleh area with the full knowledge of the Syrian and United Nations authorities since October 1950. Is that correct? 132. Major General RILEY: In October or early November, the Israel representative did ask the senior Syrian representative for permission to send a water survey team into the demilitarized zone, but l doubt if he stated at that timc what the purpose was. The work 0\1 the dam just south of Lake Huleh within the demilitarized zone was carried out somctime in November, but no complaints were brought up and the question of any future work on the Buleh concession was not c1iscussed at that time. l do not believe that the real work was brought to the attention of the Chairman tl11til after it ""as started in February of 1951. 133. Ml'. EBAN (Israel): l should like ta ask General Riley the following questions: 134. You have mac1e the very important statement that you and the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission, and inc1eec1 the Mixed Armistice C0111mission itself, are not concerned with the Huleh concession itself, but that you are concerned with its effects on the interests of the owners of the lands from which Arabs wotùd have to be expropriated. If the owners of these seven acres· were satisfactorily settIed on other land while the drainage of this area proceec1ed would that situation confiict in any degree with tl~e Armistice Agreement? 136. Ml'. EBAN (Israel): In view of the fact that yon have stated that the only interest of the Mixed Armistice Commission in this matter arises from the position of the owners of these seven acres of land, would it he appropriate for the Chairmal1. of the Mixed Armistice Commission to investigate the question of the proper scule and nature of compensation which should be paid to these lanclowners? Is that a proper funetion which he couic! be asked to perform? 137. Major General RILEY: l believe that the Chairman at one time did offer his good offices. However, t1nless agreement is secnred, it is an impossible task. l feel that the Chairman will certainly he available at ail times ta carry out any projcet and to attempt to solve any difficnlty that may arise.

Coulet YOl1 quote a section of the Armistice Agreement by llumber and paragraph wbich woulc1 render the project of clraining the Huleh swamps a violation of the Armistice Agreement? If 50, ,,,bat is the number of that article and paragraph?

l am not sure that the question is fair, ML Eball. vVoulcl yon want to put it in another way? 140. Ml'. EBAN (Israel): Hasccl on the Armistice Agreement, is there any provision of that Agreement ,vhich renders the I-Iuleh project a violation thereof? 141. Major General RILEY: l do not hclieve that you will tind anything in the Armistke Agreement in thi5 respect. l have never Cjuestioned the right of the rluleh concession as a whole. l have always maintainec1 that if it can he done without eXj11Tlpriating Aral> land within the c1emilitarized zone, it is not a problem for the l\'Iixecl Armistice Commission mfor the Chairman. 142. :Mr. EBAN (Israel); Suppose the project by its technical nature does involve the expropriation of a limited 1ll1l11ber of lanc1owners, woulc! the compensation of these landowners or their settlcment elsewherc, together with the pursuit of the drainage proj ect works, constitute a satisfactory ai1l1 to achieve? 143. 1Œajor General RILEY: Certainly, if they woulet accept Y011r compensation. 144. Ml'. EBAN (Israel): l should like to refer to the question of civilian life in the c1cmilitarized zone. Have new settlements been founded by Israel in the demilitarizec! zone since the signature of the Armistice Agreement? If so, has the eshtblishl11cnt of such new settlcments been ruled as a violation of the Armistice Agreement?

l shoulel like to ask one or two questions concerning with the powers of the Chainnall of the lVIixed Armistice Commission in the dcmi1itarized zone. It is stated in Mr. Bunche's letter that he is 110t called upon directly to aclminister the area, this being left ta local devices. vVhat is the actual practice in that respect? Does the Chairman of the Mixecl Armistice Commission enact legislation or regulations or issue administrative orders which are binding upon the population? 147. Major General RILEY: No, he works through the Israel delegation and through the local police who come under his general supervision or should come under his general supervision.

Does the Chainnan of the Mixed Armistice Commission have any police under his direct command? 149. Major General RILEY: Both local and Israel police come under his general supcrvison. It is the Chainnan who designates how many police the Arab villages may have and how many police the Israelis may have within the demilitarizeel zone. 150. lVIt-. EBAN (Israel): But once having authorized the nature and scale of a police force, is it correct ta say that he does not concern himself with the daily command of that police force? 151. Major General RILEY: Only when it is necessary. 152. Ml'. EBAN (Israel): Does he collect taxes or afford social services amongst any of the inhabitants of the demilitarized zone? 153. Major General RILEY; l believe Mr. Bunche's explanatory note clears that question, Mr. Eban. "\Ve

'YVould this be an accurate statemcnt of the police position in the demilitarized zone: that there is an agreed number of policemen in the zone who are subject to the éLuthority of the Governmcnt of Israel, but that there are no police forces . in the zone which are subject to the allthority of Syria, since the Arab l)olice forces are described as "local Arab" and not as "Syrian"? That has been our interpretation, and 1 wonder if it is an accurate statell1ent of the position. 155. Major General RILEY: 1 think that we have discussed the question of Israel police on numerous occasions. l have always requestec!, as has the Chairman also, that there might be Israel police paid by Israel but that, when crossing into the demilitarized zone, they should be considered as local }Jolice. l have raised a question on numerous occasions when Israel put these police under the Chief of Police of Roshabinar, which is completely outsicle the demilitarized zone, and asked that he not enter the zone but al10w the Chainnan to \York throllgh his local representative, who is within the zone, and for a number of months that dic! \Vork very satisfactorily. 156. Ml'. EBAN (Israel): At the last meeting of the Secnrity Council r542nd 1neeting] , on this question of the powers of the police l qlloted the fol1owing agreement in writing between the Israel representative on the Mixec1 Armistice Commission and the Acting Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission: "The Chairman will be advisecl before any action i5 undertaken by Israel police against any Arabs of the demilitarized zone in their villages or lands, llnless the urgency of the case does not permit it". Are you aware of that agreement and is it a proper one to exist in that area? 157. Maj or General RILEY: Yes, 1 thinlc the Acting Chairman of the Mixecl Armistice Commission. was .looldng at it from a11 angles, and that in case of an emergency many things can happen, but certainly that letter does not justify taking over control of the Arab .villages. 158. Ml'. EBAN (Israel): l ul1derstanc1 the answer. l did 110t mean to sllggest that there was any such power of the Israel police to take over the policing and control of the Arab villages. Referring this situation to the specific case of El Ha111111a, are you awate that Israel lands and properties are located within the confines of El-Haml11a? 159. Major General RILEY: Yes, l realized that there was some ownership, btlt l have no knowledge of how much il is or what it is. 162. Ml'. EBAN (Israel): May l know what happens from the viewpoint of police and administrative powers in an area which is neither an Arab village nor. an Israel settlement? Is it the position that there are no police who have any responsibility for maintaining law and order in any place which is not either an Arab village or an existing Israel settlement? 163. Major General RILEY: l believe we have always carried it to the point that land owned by the Israel settlement was land that should be policed by Israel, and that land owned by Arabs outside the village propel' was land that the Arabs could police. 164. ML EBAN (Israel): And that would affect the precincts of El Hamma in the same way as any other area in the demilitarized zone? 165. Major General RILEY: That has never been raised until just recent1y. 166. Ml'. EBAN (Israel): l do not want to ask any questions which go beyond the Chief of Staff's direct responsibilities, but the Chief of Staff has been in our area for over two years and l wonder whether, at his discretion, he could express an opinion on the drainage project? What does he think of it from the viewpoînt of the life of the area? More specifically, does it in any sense interfere with the balance 'Of military advantage in the area, and would its successful împlementation concluce to the benefit or to the detriment of the inhabitants of the area? 167. Major General RILEY: Although l have already cove:ed that question of the military advantages pro and con 111 my memorandum to the Mixed Armistice Commission in reply to a specific question that had been put to me by the parties themselves [S/2049, sect. IV, para. 3], l would prefer staying away from the question of milit~ry advantages ei~h~r for Syria or for Israel, for the sImple reason that It IS contrary to the Armistice ~g.r~el11ent.. l base myself on a civilian project, and a clvlhan proJect only, on land that is in Israel-controJ1ed territory and on land not in the demilitarized zone. Whether Israel drains or does not drain that land and lake is a decision that can be made only by Israel without asking permission of Syria. ' 168. Ml'. EBAN (Israel): l do not know if it is fair to interpr~t that as meaning, General Riley, that you cio not wlsh ta go beyond the statement which you made in your report, but that you do stand by your statement in the memorandum on the question of the general utility of the project. 170. ML EBAN (Israel): Assuming that the Palestine Land Development Company possesses valid rights to ail the land covered by the Huleh concessionwhether within or without the demilitarizec1 zone - l presume that the Armistice Agreement would not " affect those rights in any way. il V; 1: 171. Major General RILEY: l believe it woulc1 affect ~. their rights within the c1emilitarized zone. They would ! oe, as l state, held in abeyance, penc1ing the settlement '~ of the present problem. However, l am not involved in : any way, shape or form outside the c1emilitarized zone. 172. Ml'. EBAN (Israel): My question was this: If someone possessed land in the demilitarized zone before the signing of the Armistice Agreement, could he be deemed to cease to possess that land becanse of the signature of the Agreement? To put it more simply: Is it not a fact that the Armistice Agreement cloes not Il.. abrogate unybody's property rights? ., . . i 173. Major General RILEY: Certainly not. ; ! 174. Ml'. EBAN (Israel): Or any other legal rights within the area? ,175. Major General RILEY: No, the Armistice Agreement very c1early states that future settlement shaH not he impaired in any way, shape or -[orm. Certainly, if someone had owned land within the demilitarized zone, the Armistice Agreement itself Cüuld not take it away from him. 176. Ml'. EBAN (Israel): Is there any difference, in your interpretation, General Riley, between the possession of land and the possession of duly acquired private rights in the area? 'l'hat is to ' say, supposing the Huleh concession gave guidance ! as to how it should compensate these owners " if the work should affect their land, is there anything •..•. ~n th~ Agree!l1ent which. would mal~e. those provisio!ls "111vahd, and, If 50, where IS that provlslOll of the Anms- "tice Agreement? 177. Major General RILEY: It may not be written, ~! but. the Arab refugees who hav: returned t~ the dem!li- ,tanzecl zone have a perfect nght to contlllue to hve ;~ thelCe until such time as the seulement of the p:oblem is .l aclll~ved. l cannot see how any I-!uleh cOl:cesslOn c.ould ~:posslbly change that status. 1he Ul11ted Nations, ~. through. the Chairman, is there ta aid in the normal ïrestoratlOn of land. *\ " Colonel J ed'id (Syria): Do we understand that the work will continue tomorrow? "The Chail'111an,' No, it is ta he stopped until approximately 24 March." Could it not therefore be said that the resumption of the work on 24 March was not a unilateral action, but arase out of the transacted business of the Mixed Armistice Commission and its members? 179. Major General RILEY: That might be perfectly true, l believe that Colonel Bossavy found it impossible ta accomplish what he agreed to accomplish with the owners of the land in question.

l shall perhaps wish opportunity to ask more questions at a later stage, there is to be a further period of questions and answers. 181. Faris EL·IG-IOURI Bey (Syria): l have one or two questions to put to General Riley in connexion with the matter we are now discussing. 182, General Riley, in your report ta the Security Council, you said the following [S/2049, sect. IV, sub-pams.3 (E) and 3 (C)]: "Until such time as a mutual agreement is reached between the Governments of Syria and Israel with respect to the work now being conducted in the demilitarized zone in connexion with the draining the Lake !-Iuleh marshes, the Palestine Land Development Company or any Sl1ccessor are, in the opinion of the Chief of Staff, not justified in contilltting such work. "In the opinion of the Chief of Staff, the Palestine Land Development Company, Limited, should instructec1 forthwith to cease all operations within the demilitarized zone until such time as a 111utl1al agreement is arranged through the Chairman tween Syria and Israel for continl1ing this project." 183. In this statement, Yot! mention that the accord of Syria is necessary for the continuation of the work. Are you still of this opinion? 184, Maj or General RILEY: The representative Syria is quoting from COll1ments which were requested of me as Chief of Staff from the Mixed Armistice , 185. Faris EL-KHOURI Bey (Syria): In the same mell1orandutn, General Riley, you make the following statement [S/2049, secf. IV, sub-pœra 3 (A)]: " . "In draining Lake Huleh, the Israelis will not enjoy any military advantage not equally applicable to the Syrians." 186. That is your opinion on the question of militaIY advantage. S){ria has maintained that military advantage would result from the draining of Lake Huleh. That is contrary to articles II and V of the General Armistice Agreement. Paragraph 2 of article V of the Agreement states: "In pursuance of the spirit of the Security Council resolution of 16 Novembet~ 1948, the armistice demarcation line and the demilitarized zone have been defined with' a view toward separating the armed forces of the two parties in sucll manner as to minimize the possibi1ity of friction and incident, while providing for the gradual restoration of normal civilian life in the area of the demilitarized zone, without prejudice ta the ultimate settlement." " " Sub-paragraph S(c) of article V states: "The Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission... sha11 be responsible for ensllring the full implementation of this article." 187. We llnderstand from this that the separation of the armed forces of hoth parties in the demilitarized zone is under General Riley's controlthat is, if this separation should be diminished or if the obstacle should be removed, certainly it wOllld be General Riley's duty ta concern himself with it and ta take a c1ecision on it. \;y'ho said that there was any military advantage? General Riley said that bath parties I11ight profit by it. l sha11 ask General Riley a question: If one of the parties does not wish to participate in or profit by this military advantage, can he be obligec1 ta accept it or, when the military advantage is created, may both parties profit from it? Is this not a military advantage which is prohibitec1 by article II of the Armistice Agreement? The Armistice Agreement prohibited a military advantage of any nature, irrespective of the parties which llsed it. l ask the General this qnestion: Do you not consider that the military advantage, whether one side or the other profits by, it, is prohibited by the Armistice Agreement and comes under your authority and control under article V, paragraph 2? . 1~8. .The PRESIDENT: l wish to say that General Rtley tS perfectly free ta answer or to refuse to answer, 189. Major General RILEY: l might answer in this way. l have maintained throughout the period of time during which l have been Chairman or Chief of Staff of the various mixed armistice commissions that neither side could dictate to the other side what it did in territory under its control. The question of military advantage can be taken out of the picture. It was answered because it was a question that was put to me by both parties. Believing that bath parties were acting in good faith, l gave an opinion. 190. The key ta this problem is whether or not Syria can dictate what the Israelis do in Israe1-controlled territory. The swamps and Lake Huleh come within Israel-controlled territory. If they are drained, then there is still the limitation of the number of defensive forces that can be in that area, because we have a defensive zone in that area that stretches back five or six kilometres from the demarcation Hne. 50 if the Israelis desire ta proceed with the drainage of Lake Huleh and the swamps, and can do it without violating the Armistice Agreement or interfering with the normal restoration of life within that zone, then l do not consider that it is a matter in which Syria can dictate ta Israel.

As no one seems ta have any questions and to be willing to speak in the general debate, l suggest that we adjourn today and meet on Friday, 4 May, or on Tuesday, 8 May.

l do not wish to spealc on any procedural subject but merely ta enquire whether the ~ubject which l raised at the beginning of this meetIng will be a subject fOl' discussion at a future meeting of the Security Council.

That probably falls within the limits and framework· of the generai debate, and l cannot put any restrictions on it. 194. Which date for the next meeting is more acceptable ta the Counci1?

l should like ta express a slight preference for 8 Mayas opposed to 4 May.

As there are no objections we shall meet again on Tuesday, 8 May, at 3 p.m. '