S/PV.626 Security Council

Members will find the provisional agenda before them in document SIAgenda/626. The documents referred to in that agenda are the letters from the representatives of France, the United Kingdom and the United States [5/3109) 5/3110 and 5/3111]. If there are no objectibns to the adoption of the agenda, l shall consider it as adopted. 2. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): l cannot vote on something without knowing'what it is. What are we adopting? We do not adopt a letter that we have received; we adopt a particular'topie that we are going to discuss. That topic certainly 1S included somewhere in the lel':ters mentioned by the President. l should.1ike to lmow what that topic is. Will the President, therefore, please tell us what we are adopting. 3. The PRESriDENT : According to document S/Agenda/(526, we have to ad'Opt or reject the Palestine question, together with the proposaIs made in the letters accompanying it, as the item on our agenda. 4. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): It is weIl known that we have adopted this orphan for the last nve or six years and, therefore, ~we do not need to readopt the question. Obviously we are being asked to adopt something which is different from the Palestine question. What is it? l shall have ta vote against the adoption of the agendaunless l know for what it is l am voting.

l do not quite understand the objections raised by the Lebanese representative. It is tru,,: "'hat, as he has pointed out, the Palestine question h 1 been on the Security Council'sagenda for five C ;;lX years; but what we now want to know is whether thi.s item

l, too, do not quite lmderstand what it is that so exereises mind of our colleague from Lebanon. It is suggested that we should adopt the agenda, and that wottld mean that we would proceed to discuss the Palestine question. vVhen we do that, we shall also take iuto consideration the .conll11tmications which my French and United States coIJeagues, together with myself, have addressed to the President of the Security Couneil. In that communication, there 1s a concrete suggestion, namely, that the Security Council, in the :6.rst instance, be assisted by a report in person from the Chief of Staff of Truce Supervision Organization. Th"1t is a concrete matter to discuss, and it is import,lllt to obtain views of the representative of Lebanon, or· of anyone else, on that particn]ar point. l cannot see, therefore, how there can be any confusion or dismay ahout adopting this particular agenda, wbich seems to absolute1y clear. 8. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): l will endeavour to satisfy the curiosity of the representatives of France and the United Kingdom. lt will be recalled recentIy [325th meeting], when MI'. Visbinsky came to the Couneil with bis proposaI [5/3105] about Trieste, he did not just refer to the Trieste question. He went ahead and discussed what he had in mind about the Trieste question and what he wanted Security Couneil to discuss. T~e Trieste question. \ery much like the Palestine question. Both have been on the agenda of the Security Council for quite some time and, therefore, wher they are lifted out of limbo in which they have been left and brought up active consideration, there must be an occasion for and a cause. Th~t cause ought to be explained before we can adopt the agenda. The other day, MI'. Vyshinsky explained bis reasons for lifting the problem of Trieste f:-om its inactive state into the Iight of day. l should hke to hear from the representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States and France what about the·Palestine question that has now moved them to bring it to the attention of the Security Couneil. . 9. l cannot vote. for an item to be discussed by Security Cm111dl without first knowing fully what item is and, Î': it is an item that hasheen on. the agenda of the SeCU1"il;Y ·Couneil; why it has been necessary the three western Powers to bring it again to attention of the.Security Couneil. That seems to to be a perfectly obvious point.·l should have thought that the representative of the United Kingdom would \\~thout knowing precisely ""hat they want us ta discuss? 10. Je n'ai aucune objection à ce que l'on invite le gé- objection to that at aU when the moment cames, if we disctlsS that. But certainly, if one adopts something, one would like to know what it is that one is 100king forward to. One would like to know further under what tit1e the debate is going ta take place. For instance, if we meet again this afternoon.or tomorrow or on Thursday, as sorne people have been mtimating - l want to ask the representative of the United Kingdom this questionare we going to come here and find before us an agenda with an item entitled "The Palestine question" without any further ado? Is that what he has in mind or does he have in mind that, when we meet here again, we will have before us a sheet of paper having on it the phrase, llThe Palestine question", with something else added to it, and what is it that will be added ta this phrase? How may we adopt anything now without knowing exact1y how it is going to be handled in the future? That is my point. 11. l should like to add one other thing. AlI of us Irnow that this is an intricate. problem, and l submit to the consideration of the Council that it would be well to begin its consideration, for once in the history of the United Nations, in the right way, in an indubitably objective way. Now, l do not regard this way as the right way of beginning the discussion of this problem. 1am 'asking elucidation from the representatives who have put this item on the agenda as to what they have in mind with regard ta the debate to ensue and as ta what is the immediate occasion for the raising of this issue hefore the Council. Unless they make that plain, l tell them very frankly, and you, Mr. President, that olice again the United Nations wi11not be beginlling the discussion of this intricate problem of Palestine in a ju§tand right way. l assure you that aU such beginnings will always end in futility. 11. tous conviendrait et sation ment nous d'aborder cette discussion. qui jour se amenés clairement, toute n'aborderontpas de la manière qui convient la discussion de que que 12. de corriger représentant d'inscrire Trieste, Territoire il 13. représentants Etats-Unis, demandent au de tion et actes respectées général". titre général de du nous nouveau

Before recognizing the next speaker, may l just correct a misunderstanding. The other day, the representative of the Soviet Union did not ask to have put on the agenda of the Co.uncil the question of Trieste but the question of appointing a governor for the Free Territory of Trieste. Then, in an annex to the letter, he inâicated the proposaIs he wanted to make. 13.. Mr. KYROU (Greece): The representatives of France, the United Kingdom and the United States, by their identical letters, calI on the Security Council -I am quoting from their letters - "to consider, unqer 'The Palestine question', the matter of the tension bem:een Israel and the neighbouring Arab States, with partIcular reference to recent acts of violence and to compliance with and enforcement of the General Armistice Agreements". Am l wrong in implying from that tha~, under the general item of the Palestine question, winch has been on the agenda of this Council for many years, we are asked to examine the reasonsand l am a~ quoting from the Jetters - for "recent acts of VIolence and to compliance with and enforcement of 15. l am trying to draw out the representatives France, the United Kingdom and the United States to have them tell us what is this new occasion which has caused them to request the Council to consider problem. l t'1ink 4t is fair to ask them to do so. 16. The representative of Greece has suggested at the Security Council's next meeting - or at other meeting held after the provisional agenda been adopted - the agenda will contain the phrase "The Palestine question: the matter of the tension between Israel and the neighbouring Arab States, with particular reference to recent acts of violence and to compliance with and enforcement of the General Armistice Agreements": 17. I think that the representative of Greece has made a very honest attempt to tell us what we are doing. It seems to me that he understands what 1 have in mind in seeking sorne c1arity on this point. He is telling in other words, that, if we adopt the agenda, we beadopting the very phrase that he read out as topic under which we shall discuss the question. If is the case, 1 have sorne remarks to make. 1 should therefore like toknow whether it is also the'opinïon therepresentatives of France, the United States the United Kingdom that the topic oi àisCt1ssion will the above-mentioned phrase. 18. 1 am grateful to the representative of Greece . having made his constr.uctive suggestiû:il. If the agenda which we are asked.to adopt does 1ndeed contain phrase in question, 1 should like to say a few· words on the subject, because that phrase is not acceptable to us. 19. Mr. HOPPENOT (France) (translated French) : If l am not' mistaken, we·are here to discuss the adoption of the agenda of this meeting, and not of subsequent meetings. It seems to me that the purpose of Mx. MaIik's remarks is to ascertain in advance form the agendas of our coming meetings will l think that that would be an entirely novel procedure for the Security Council. We have today o~ our agenda "The Palestine question: (a) Letters dated 17 October 1953 from the representatives of France, United Kingdomai:ld United States addressed to the President the Security Council (S/3109, 5/3110 and S/3111)." •• ~enIlike's report", or perhaps simply: "The Palestine "~xamen uestion." But we cannat know this today. s:mplement: q nen; 21. In regard to the additiOI;al ex~lanations which 21. Ml'. Malik asks for from the slgnatones of the letters M. sent ta the President, they seem to me to relate much adressée more ta the substance of the pmble.."U tb;tn to the form, fond .andJsha1l not considergiving him these exp1anatioris je 1 untilthe agenda has been adopted. That will be the l'adoption moment to do so, and not before.. elles •. 22. Ml'. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist 22. Republics) (translated from Russian): l have asked listes to speak chiefly because repeated references have been la made ta the statement of the USSR representative at on the 625th meeting, at which the question of Trieste l'URSS \Vas discussed. du 23. Actually, l do not know why we have to continue 23. ta debate - and indeed debate at allthe question of présente what exactly ~'Ve should discuss under the. item "The aborder, Palestine question". l consider that the Leballese repredevons sentative's demand is· a perfectly natural demand, or fine". request, or proposa1- eithèr of the two .latter words tant \Vou1d be preferable - because the Palestine question faitement really is a very important question. It has a number of ployer aspects and we do not know whether the authors of the proposition), three letters commuüicated to the Security'Council today tante. consider it necessary to transfer compietely to the ignorons Security Council the question before us which the d'être adressées General Assemb1y, by-passing the Security Counci1, has question·- repeaterlly discussed, and to make it ll:he subject of compétence discussion by the Counci1, or whether they wish tû take diverses reprises - one aspect of the question separately and to discuss it ment From a single viewpoint in the Council in accordance débat, \Vith thelatter's ·chief responsibilities under the Charter. aspect l'aborder que 24. cupe intéressée aux en temps au formulent devient tout fin 24. However t'hat may be, if a delegation which considers that it is interested in a particular question, and actuaHy or unquestionably is interested in ?t, seeks clarification and asks the authors of the1etters to explain· -Whàttheitem in question covers, why should we waste tirneon a deba:te whith, in the final analysis, signifies an unwillingüess to clarify this mysterious question which is a<:quiring such enigmatic significance in its 'reneral presentation? Why do we not put an end to this fruitless procedura1· discussion and state frankly t\"t we propose to discuss such and such a question? simple~ent 25. cherchant la tant Cependant, générale sera 26. pensant que j'ignore, je prendre 5 25. Meanwhile, w(~ have already wasted three.,quarters of an hour in wholly sterile debate as to what we. are to take the question before us to mean. True, a little progress was madeby the Greek representative but he, too, preferred a general for~ ofwords. which does not ~~early.state what· actually is to ···be ,the· subject of OlSCUSSlOn. ' . . . . 26. Formy'ownpaft; J feel s~me embarrassmentwhen Iforesee that l will have to take part in further Council meetings on this question, since l do not know. what preli~inary documents l should study and with what facts l should acquaint myseIf more particularly, ··,so as not to sit here for several hours to no effect without· '~\V1tfia .Î1.û1-kllowledgeûf-thefaçts,\\'.ith theattenrion: it deserves and witn a due sense of responsibility. 29. Mr.· HoPpenot propounded what to my rrifnd a strange theory. l would not dwell on it were it for the fact that it might serve as a precedent for future. He told us in effect "1 have no way of konwing todaYWll~t we shall do tomorrow". 30. If this refers to the question under discussion, certainly should know what we shaH do with regard this question tomorrow. If, however, we inc1ude a question such as that at issue today without knowing what we are going to do tomorrow, we shaH place Security Council in a very difficult situation. 31. Mr. Hoppenot says that we must know substance of the question and that it will be possible to determine it after the adoption of the agenda. consider, however, that jn order to determine the agenda we·must know its substance, the substance of the question. l' cannot determine my attitude on an agenda without knowin'S what it is about. It is, of course, quite a different matter to determine the documents and variaus individualquestions to wnich thisitem give rise.There may he many of tllem. It wûuld seem ta me, however, that we should notpersist in refusing ta meet the Lebanese delegation's legitimate desire know more precisely what kind of a Palestine question this is ta be, whetner it will deal with Jerusalem, with Œsputes, with the hydro-electric power station, or with something else again. We know that all these .questions cause friction and to say that the item wH! relate "tension" will, ta my kind, be inaccurate. 32. Moreover, there is no need for us t~Î~tdown any kind of curtain in this Councileven perhaps silken curtain - and conceal from everyoneelse what the question is to be. . 33. Lastly, l must drawattention to the fad that lettetsfrom the United States, the United Kingdom and France also refer to a report by the Chief of Staff the Truce Supervision Organization. It must, however, he agreed that if it is desired tohear a report bythe Chief of Staff, the matter deserves to beinc1uded às comp,letely separate section of that comprehensive item, "The Palestine question". 34; There is.somet..lIing that l am now at a loss .understand: .are we .to examine the report by the Chief tll~discussiol1 on this question and refusing to clarify the agenda, as the Lebanese representative suggests. 37Mr. TSIANG (China): When l entered the g;curity Council Chamber thismorning; l must confess that l did not see anything unusual or improper in the pl'Qvisional agenda submitted by the President. . . 38. This is the 626th meeting of the Security Council, which·means that we have adopted 625 proyisional agendas. If the members of the Seêurity Couricil would compare the provisional agenda now before us with tteth~revious625 provisional agendas, l fee1 certain that tllev would come to the same conClusion towhich l have come, namely, that this pro"Vlsional agenda is in the usual and ordinary form. 39.. Of the 625 provisiona1 agendas which have· pre- ~ouslybeen adopted, l believe that l participated in the adoption of about 500 ofthem. Even.now, after aIl the statements that have been made, l am still at a 10ss toknow why this. particular provisional agenda has caused snch a long controversy. We now have the Palestine question before us, and then, under that heading, there are three letters addressed to the Presiaent of the Security Council by three members of the CouneiI: In these letters there is indicated to us the subjectof our debate, namely, the tension betweenlsrael andtheneighbouringArab States, with. particular reference to recent acts of violence and also to compüarice with andenforcement of the General Armistice Agreements. . 6~5 avoir j'éprouve l'ordre si de d'ordre trois du de Israël récents laquell~ d'armistice '40. ment informés nous de' manière appliquées Mais l'ordre constante, l'ordre du rité xond en débat. sera 40... l think that is concrete .enough..That .gives us enough information· to allow us to proceed. Of course what the recent acts of violence were and in what way the·General. Armistice AgreelIlents were complied.with ornot complied with are things that we have a right to.Imow. But we will find that out after the agenda l has been adopted.There is a tradition in the Secur'ty C{luneil with regard. to the provisional agenda, nameiy, that the provisional agenda should not contairi language prejudicing the substance of questions. It is for that reason that the language used in the agenda is always non-conunittal. It orny indicates the four corners bf a debate. If does not put into the language of the item ail the details of what will come within the four corners oI1ne·cîebâte~îthinkwe h~ve had tao long adebate nn the provisional agenda. As far as my delegati9n is con"" cernèd, .l am ready to vote for it as it stands. attq.r.d~s_ délégation est l'ordre rédigé. 41.M. glais): de Palestine nante oublient les pr(cédents agissons tiques. celui 1 surpris 7 41.. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): This debate fascmates me because it raises issues which are interesting in themselves, entirely apart from Palestine or the Security Council. It is remarkable to me how s~me of us forget precedents and how we behavè differently under somewhat identical conditions. Both thpepresentative of France, Mr. Hoppenot, and the representative of China, Mr, Tsiang, have toM us that itis surprising that we do not go ahead and adopt the provisional agendacontained in docuntent . 43. Therefore, it is perfectly natural to .debate question of the adoption of the agenda,. While it not be natural·to keep it going, as the French· representative did a few weeks aga, for ten days,-,- and . nQt proposing t(Lk~_eQitgoi1!gJ()rJen<1gys~i.~IL seems to me that it is· quite natural to enquire whether a certain agenda ought or ought· not adopted. Ta have the objection come at this tune the representatives of France and China, on this ticu1ar question, seems to me to be, to say the very strange. 44. Whenthe representative of France, Mt. Hoppenot, said that we could not legislate for.future meetings, .he was certainly right. We cannot legislate for future meetings in this sense: every timewe have an agenda before us we adopt it or donot adopt it. But today have not yet adopted the agenda and l am asldng, .what i8 it that you âre adopting?Therefore, after President pronouncês thatwe have adopted something, obviously that which he will have pronounced figure in the followingmeetingsof the CounciI. we are tying. our hands from now on as to what future meetings of the Couneil are going to do. It is perfectly true that every time we take a fresh decision concerning the document containing the provisional agenda, every such document has a history, every one has precedents. 45. Ithappens fhat this is the firsttime weareacting on this matter and, therefore, whatever we do today is going to figure in future documents concerning agenda· of the Secttrity Council.· Thus this isa crucial meeting, a very crucial meeting about the future. debate ofthis item. Consequently, what Iam asking, l assure the representatives of.France and the United States . and the Unit,~d Kingdom,· is not something which intended to ohstJ"act the work of the Councilnotat _ aIt As .. Mx•. '\(vshinskY..5.aid. J~ ~0.111Jl haye tQl.d_ .. their intentioIlsfromihé·véry .heginning· and possibly l would have·raised my hand either.for or against adoption of the agenda and that would have be.en end of it. By way. of comment on what the representa,tive of China said - that the matt~r is so palpably clear to .him and that he i15. ready to .vote for it riowl shpuId like tosay that l do not. deny ability of the Council to. vote on anyagenda, however it pleases, atany time. However, l should like to remind the representative of China - and he knows it -'- l think l am right in saying that l am more conèerned· 49.So far, l hwi'e not said a single word thrt takes me oub'ide the i~ : V procedural point of the adoption of the agenda, not one word,but it seems to me that my insi~teIl,ee .is .important. l 1)eg the representatives .of rànce, 01the United States and of the UnifêdKingdom ta came out of their silence and tell us what their intentions are. l shall not be in a position to vote on this matter until Ivnderstand them.It is remarkable thatfor practically every item that the United Nations has <1iscussed so far - l say, practically every item, bec?usethere may be exceptions - I:herehas been a tendelley, from the very beginning, to sf..artwith a certain degree of preliminary c1arity. When it cornes toPalestirie, at oncemystery begins ta shrotid the whb!e thing. Hin the present instance, of ;a11 instances, this is going to be ~he case, 1 shill he. exceedingly sorry, and 1 am sure the Council itself, after thè debate,will also be vèry sorry. 50.. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom}: Every- 50. lo_dy_.~~~·_t.~t.t~n~ion~.e~~~~n_Israela!ldth~.!1eig-~- .., l'anglaïs): uourll:~g Arab::5tafes has receht1y increasetlvety greatly~~ . eritre~lsiaeret1es as aresult of incidents on the bm'der between Israel and aggravé d'Une manière thos~ States. Even Mr.. Vyshinsky,if -1 lleard him de chorrectly, says he canguess that thisis so. Of course, Vychinsky .ehas only to read the newspapers tosee that bis guess qu'il 15 ~bsolutely accurate: journaux 51. \Vesuggest that it would nevertheless be unwise St for Us ta disçu,ss any incident before we have full knowltamer edge of the facts. That is the simplereason why we sance hal v.e_ not alluded. to any particular incident in our joint allusion etters to the President. Furth~r! we beli~ve =0 and nous 52. If our agenda is adopted, therefore, we shall cermnly hope that there will be no long discussion now the details of this or that incident but only early and, as we shall hope, prompt agreement ori a formal resolution, the text of which 1 shall have the honour to submit to you as saon as we adopt the agenda, as a result which we shall simply formally invite the Chief Staff General Bennike, to appear hefore us. In addition to th~ excellent reasons given by our Chînese colleague, that is the reason why 1 would urge the President most respectfu11y, having heard the views of members now to put to the vote the adoption of the agenda and allow us ta continue with,our work. 57. The joint letters of three membersof theSecurity 53. Ml'. HOPPENOT (France) (translated front French) : 1 just want to reply briefly to an ,allegation made bythe .Lebanese 'representative dUl'ing his speech 'and to remind him that according to Hn Fren~h proverb - not a Russian one this time - uèom,- pamison, n'est pas raison", especially when the comparison is !aIse. 54. 1 see no relation between the attitude adopted our delegation in the present debate atld in that on the inclusion of the question.of:JYIOi'bCCO in thé Secudty Council's agenda. France opposed the inclusion of Moroccan ,question' because it held that that question was outside thejurisdiction of theSecurity Council, that it was even formally excluded from its jurisdiction, moreover thatthere was nothing in the situation pl'evaîling in Morocco that compromised or threatened international peace and security. What France raised, therefore, was a question of competenc~,and my de.legation did not, on that occasion ask for long explanations '" the agenda submitted by Ml'. Malik'andsome his colleagues, but quite simply opposedthe., ~doption of n'lat agenda. , . 55. If the Lebanese representative todayadopts same ,attitude (and iL that case his comparison would bevalid), if he deni('$ theCouncil's competencè in 'Palestine qttestiOl1, we shaH have to. vote on this point. 1 must say thatthis would lead toa debate which tbis time, mightfind fascimting, if 1 mayadopthis expression.. '::. ' , 56. Ml'. ZAFRULLA KHAN (Pakistari): By intervention,I desire only, if possibk, to try to c1ear this, matter in a negatïve fashion. If, for some reasC' there is hesitation to define moreprecisely what'is ta discussed under the ag~ndathat hasbeen suggested, .ij:mightbe ,helpful if'w.e made quite c1eaï what ""e not intend to discuss. ~Coùncil ha.ve ,asked, for a meeting of theCouncil . cQnsider, under 'The Palestine question', the matter ofth:tens!on'behv~enIsrael and then~ighbouringArab States, wlth particuJar reference toreçent acts 58 Now, if the general matter to be disctissed were indeed the matter of the tension between ~srael ~lld the neighbouring Arab States, that would O?VlOUSJy mc1~de man" specific concrete matters ta WhlCh tbis tensIon miglÎt be referred but which again l apprehend quite obviously are not liJ{ely to be or at least a.-e not intended ta he the subject of discussion. l m1gh! cite some of these problems which are caus1ng tension between the 5tate of Israel and the neighbouring Arab States which are not to be discussed: for instance, th;:; question of Arab refugees is, to a very large e':tent, responsible for the tension between Israel and th\"' neigbouring Arab States; or the question' of the fro~ltiers of the State of Israel; or the question of tr.è intemationalization or sorne other régime {;Jr Jerusalem; or the attempted transfer of the capital of the State of Israel to Jerusalem ; or the more recent border incident between the State of Israel and Egypt; or the attempted diversion of the waters of the River Jordan by the State of Israel. And then, there are matters which l -::pprehend is what is interlded to be discussed: the recent acts' of violence by the armed forces of the State of Israel involving murder and massacre of individuals and the destruction of property. 1t would be of assistance at least to be tald which of these subjects the Council does not intend to discuss so that one could see which are likely to be discussed. 59. ·Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): It is obvions that l never said, or intended to say, that the comparison between the present situation and the one concerning Morocco which developed a few weeks ago applied in every respect. It is quite true that comparison of itself does not constitute Y'eason, l would, however, ask the representative of France _. who, l am sure, is a student of Descartes - whether there can be reason without comparison. Obviously, as l have said, comparison alone does not constitute reason, but there can never be reason without the sense of the analogy between things, Lie compai"Ïson between things. The representative of France certainJy cannot deny that. 60. The sense. in which l meant representatives to take the comparison between the present situation and :h~ one which developed concerning Morocco was this: ttIs quite possible for the Security Council to debate the qu.estion whether or n~t it Wishes to adopt a given proVlslOnal agenda. That IS true no matter what the causes are, 'Yhether t1;l~y. are the .allegations by some members thatit is none of the Council's business to discuss a question, 'or.anything else. It ispossible that the Council will notadopt its agenda for several days ~\'hich it will spend in deliberating on whether or nof Ilshould. do so. In that sense, the comparison between the present situation' and that of Morocco is, itseems ta me, perfect - even ln the eyes of a Cartesian. 61-. .I should like te .sayat once,' in order to c1arify a:polI!-t o.n which some may have doubts, that l have no ob]ectlon whatsoever to a discussion of· the Palestine . . qU~stio~, provided' Iknow the aspect of the question c~!lkhJs. tohediscussed. I~mnotpreparedtoaccept . a blanket enqorseI1.1ent py the Council, sa that .every 63. Sir Gladwyn said that, as a result of certain incidents which had recently occurred, tension had increased and that, therefore, it would be well for the Security Council ta consider the situation. The letters of the three Powers, however, speak first of the general matter of the tension and then, incidentally, of the recent acts of violence - without specifying what those acts are. It seems to me t'hat the letters therefore contain an illicit inversion ""ith regard to the actual state of a1tairs in the part of the world involved. If the United Kingdom representative adheres to what he has just told us, it is clear it is not the general matter of the tension between Israel and the neighbouring Arab States that we are going to discuss, but the particular matter of the recently increased tension resulting from recently committed aets. That must, be specified. 64. The United Kingdom representative has said that all one needs to do to find out what this is aU about to read the newspapers. He has said it would he "t!nw~se for ,us to ûiscuss any incident before we have full knowledge of the facts". As.regards that general statement, 1 quite.agree with him: it would be ttnwise to discuss any incident without a full knowlédge of the facts. But we do not ask to discuss anv Ratticular incident. We simply ask that in the tit1eto~be-given to the item on the agenda it should be specified why it that, now of aIl times, we are going to take up the ~a!estine guestion ag~in. And in that tespect l al'l1, mdeed, enlightened by thenewspapers. The 'newspapers tell us that the United States has just issued a statetnent in which it says that it knows what this is aU about. Why, therefore, do, the representative of the United Kingdom and his colleagues in this matter not tell t1S the real reason for ,our· discussion? The text of the statement just issued by the United States -.: which, as l have said,.is to be found in the newspapers - reads, in part, and' r quote The New York Times of '19 October: , "TheU. S:Government has the deepest sympathy for the families of those who lost t):leir lives hi' and near Kibya during the recent attackby Isr:aeli forces." , l shall not read any more of thé sfatement. What l have read makes itquite'obvious that the fact referred to has occasioned the i'equest for discussion here. 65.. The' representative of the United Kingdom says he.is not sure ofthat, but,apparently, the United States is.Andwe read in another newspaper that, whena certain spokesman for thé United States was askeci why the United States had delayed issuing its statement until noVl, that spokesman had replied that there had been such a delay because the United States wanted 71. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon); l am going to. keepjt precisely to that question. We read first: "The Palestine question", and then: "the matter Cif the tension between Israel and the neighbouring Arab States". My first remark on that phrase is that the Palestine question ls itself the matter of tension between Israel and the Arab States. Therefore, the second part of that statement is a redundancy with respect to the first part. There is no addition whatsoever to the phrase: - - «The Palestine question". \Vhen you say: "f_~ matter of the tension between Israel and the Arab States" that is an absolute redundancy. ' 72. That is the first remark l want to make. The second re1l1ark l want to 1l1ake is this; the letters of the three ?ow~rs speak o~ the "neighbouring Arab St... -êS". We ~lscla1m any tensIOn between Israel and the lleigh- . bourmg Arab States a10ne. If there is any tension in -the Near East with respect to Israel, it is between Israel and th~ Arab .States sil11ply, without any reference ta the nelghbour1l1g Arab States. Therefore, we object strongly to the words: "neighbouring Arab States", and I am. sure every non-neighbouring Arab State in the NearEast wants me to say this. 73;" ~Furthermore, when we re:,!-d. in thè lètt~rs : "with partIcular reference to 'recent acts ofviolence" again by rea.ding the newspapers which Six: Gladwyn has admol11shed us· ~o read,'wc unders~andthat it is· not any recent ac.ts of VIolence J/e a.re talk1l1g about, but specific actsof VIOlence. Why don't they come out .and indicate ~pepl? l w.~uld suggest they indicate them bY,saying wlth partlcular reference to recent acts. of violehce C01111~itted"by the !sraeli army against Jordanu • They certaiulyought to nave the moral courage to say that ,.and· they certainly l<:now that. thàListh..efac.t,becaus~ tlie.Unitèd ·Sî:iR't:s itseîf -has· announeed thaf it. koows that te be the fact: When you state thàt that is the tact, you ~r~ not entering inta any detailed discussion·of ,75. The PRESIDENT: l must ask the representative of Lebanon ta keep to the' question of the adoption of the agenda. He cannat propose here an alteration of letl:er, which is a document before us but not within the question of the adoption of the agenda. 76. Mr. Charles :J.I4ALIK (Lebanon): Youhave every rigilt ta interrupt me any time you like, but again l rt'.mind you that we spent ten days discussing the ,question of the adoption of the agenda with respect ta Morocco. At that time we did not have the benefit of your Presidency,Sir, but there wer~ other.J>residents and they never interrupted the speakers who examined the question in muca more detail thm l am doing. l assure you l am keeping as much within the bounds of propriety as possible under the circumstances, and l aSsure you l will never abuse the privileges which are mine:. Therefore l do not think it is necessary every now and then ta interrttpt file;cl say this with all respect, sa if you will permit me to continue what l was going ta say, l would say this: l am not prepared ta vote for, and l should vote ag-d.inst, the adoption of the agcl1da, if L'le situation remains asit is, that is to say, the consideration of the Palestine question within the aspect indica.ted in these letters. 77: -rffhe three governments and their representatives are prepared ta comply with my request, then l shall gladly .vote for. the adoption of·the agenda, but as it stands l will vote against its adoption because l think -it-jsnoLrigh~itisnot fair and it is starting the whole thing off on·tne-wrofigtrack" 4-assm-e-c-YQU ifyou do 50, you .will notarrive anywhere. Consequently, my pro- ,posaI is that what we are adopting is: "The Palestine •question: the recent acts 'Of violence by the Israeli armyagainst Jordan". If the authol"s of the letters want ta add the last. part of the phrase and the'·question of compliance with an enforceinent of the General Armistice Agreements, l have no objection ta that, but my propùsal s.eems ta me ta place the matter within the context which 1s a.bsolutely natural and proper ta it a.t the present moment, and it c~rtainlymakes it possible fprme tû vote fo" i-;- But to put it in general terms and ta raise the whole Palestine question in this mysterious -âl1d vague way seems absolutely unacceptable and l should have·· regretfully ta vote against the adoption- . of the agenda. ini~ossible for us to adopt.'any form of words hçte.todilY WhlChwill prevent certain subjects from being discussed two weeks from now. We can give no such assurance no matter how much we.may want ta. 85. Speaking for the United States, l should like ta explain that what we want ta do today is to take--thenecessary action so that General Bennike will come here as quiëkly as possible.in arder ta give us the facts on these acts of violence. 86.Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): l did not say that the Presidentdid not have the right: tù interrupt any speaker. What l said in my previtotts intervention was thatthe President did have the, right to •interrupt 87. The ~rst reason whichI gave involved a comparison - and the representative of France does not like comparisons - with a previousinstance, that Qf Morocco, when representatives, i.ncluding myself, discussed aIl sorts of things. 88. The PRESIDENT: Not 1. 89. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): You are right, Mr. President, you explained your vote afterwards in about seventeen words, l remember. The point l am making is that the President, and the other two Presidents,' did not act as you have acted today. That is the first point. 90. The seconci reason which supports my objection to the President's interruption of my statement is that only a few days ago we discussed the question of Trieste, and we talked a greaf; deal before we adopted the agenda. I do not remember that the President· tried even once to interrupt either Mr. Vyshinslqr or Mr. Lodge when they were talking about matters which, with aIl respect to both these representatives, any" sophomore student could prove went beyond thê iinmediate point at issue, namely, the adoption of the agenda. That is my second reaso1"'. 91. As my third reason, l c1aimed that everything l have said tClday can be objectively proven to be strictly within the adoption of the agenda. At least until sorne people talked about certain substantive matters, l did not open my mouth about.them. 92. Therefore, for aIl these reasons, without in any way claiming that the President's right to interrupt me should be in any \Vay impaired, l think l am quite within the bounds of my own privileges to tell you that you interrupted me unjustly. But we will leave that aside. 93. Obviously the representative of France is right in that neither his Government nor he has any need of my opinion or that of my Government wl1ert they draft certain texts, and especially when they draft them in agreement with theîr two Western allies. Obviotlsly, they meet together 'and do not consult us about it. l am not presumptuous enough to daim that the French representative, of a11 people, would have need of my poor literary gifts so far às the. drafting of texts is concerned. But, and this is the.point, at sorne stage we have to be consulted, anct this is the stage we have now reaèhed, whcn the aûthors of a draft bring before. the Council a text to he dedd~d upon bythe Counci1. My country happens ta beamember of the Council. :and l iej:m::sent mycountry. At this point, the representative of France is consulting me, and l am telling him in advance that l am going ta voteagainst his text.· Cer.., tainly he didnot consult me in London, or wherever the representative of France met with the represen.., tatives Qf the twQ Qth~fPQWer~ tQ talkabout this. But 9-1-. But did l suggest tbat the sacrosanct letter that came from the three Western Powers should be altered? If l did, l do not rememberit. That was not my suggestion. My suggestion was that if we are going to adopt a point on the agenda, we should be told what it is. They keep on referring ta the Palestine question and they refer ta these letters. Let them explain what they mean about the Palestine question. 1 did not open my mouth about this unti1 after the representatives of Greer.e, and Pakistan had mentioned these substantive matters. Tt was then thai: 1 said that, if that was their explanation of the phrase "Palestine question", then l would e..xpress my objections. But l did not suggest that t..h.e three Powers shoulct change their letters and, , therefore, it seems to me that the righteous indignation of Mr. Hoppenot 1S entirely outside the point. That was not my idea, at all. 95. The representative of the United States, if 1 took clown his words correctly, said that what they wanted ta discuss in fact was not something contained in the first paragraph of the letters, but something referred to at the end of the letters, namely, an invitation ta General Bennike. He should, therefore, phrase the item "Palestine question: request by the Council ta General Bennike to come here to give us the facts on these acts of violence." Those are th-e words of Mr. Lodge: that General Bennike should be învited here sa as to give us the Îacts on these acts of violence. 96. Now, if that is what they want us to do, it would seem to be quite c1ear to request General Bennike to come here in arder to give us his own account of these acts of violence. 1 could quite intelligently vote for or ,.)!:gF\inst sucha proposaI. But 1 still have a question ta ask: which acts of violence? The representative of tp.e United Statesought ta specifywhich acts ofviolence because his Government has aIready done so. His Government has made a statement ta the effect that it is asking the Security Council to put the matter, on its agenda. If the representative of the United States is going ta do the same thing-- and it seems ta me that it would be a fair thing forhim to do - then Ishall propose that he specify what acts of violence should be discussed. If that, motion fails of adoption, then 1 shaH propose my own item to be discussed. That, of course, will satisfy Mr. Hoppenot. He will have the,'libe.rty ta vote for or against the item. But, until ail these things a.re clarified - and 1 think thatthey are being c1arified graduaily - we cannot vote for this item,in its present over-all form. 97. Finally, ifthe three western Powers in8ist on the obseurity.and mystery with\v'hich, it seems ta me, they have unnecessarily stirrounded this problem - since, ,on the one hand, 'they speak in vague language and, on the

On a point of order, Mr. President, 1 should like to draw your attention most respectfully to the fact that we ventured to ask today, as you wî11 see from our letter, for an urgent meeting of the Security Council; that is to say, a meeting which is urgent because of events which we believe shoul.d be urgently considered. And the reason why we ventured to do that was. as you know, rightly or wrongly, that we fe1t that the tension between the two States concemed had reached a dangerous point and that the Security Council ought at least to take cognizance of the fact as a matter of urgency. 1 greatly fear that our morning's discussion on what, after all, are purely procedural points, may give the impression throughout the world that representatives on the Security Council are, so to speak, fiddling while Rome bums and, therefore, with the greatest respect, 1 would urge the President,· if he ofeels that it is possible, ta prQceed to. a VQte.

I am in perfect agreement with the representative of the United Kingdom as to the urgency of the matter, and that is why 1 am ready to continue the meeting \vithout an adjoumment for lunch until the members have finally decided upon the agenda. . . 100. Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I should like to say a few words on the subject of ~he President's last observation. Perhaps it might, on the contrary, be ea&ier ta reach agreement on the agenda after lunch. I do not think that Rome is already buming sa much that we need even sacrifice lunch. Such self-sacrifice is scarcely needed at the present moment. < 101. l therefore propose that the meeting should now be adjoumed and that we meet after lunch. in the normal way. Perhaps Rome will not have burned !;- completely by then.· - ~102. _. The PRESIDENT: I understand that the representative of the Soviet Union does.not mind whether Romeburns ornot. But l should like to ask him if he made a for111alp!oposal for adjournment. 103..•Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union .of Soviet Socialist Repuplics) (translated from Russian) : So far as l am concerned, the most important thing is of course to find out whether. the said fire really is takingplace. V/ith regard ta lunch, since the majority wish to continue the meeting without interruption, I shaH raise no objections. Let us proceedwith.the debate, .by aU means. 104. The PRESIDENT : l take it that there is then .no formalproposal foradjoumment and thatwe may hear the representative of France whoasked for the fl90r~ as wellasthe representatives of Greeceand Cbina.

With the President's permission 1 should ~ses< the words "The Palestine question", and which m~ludes sub-paragraph (a). We should then add a subparagraph (b) which wOllld read as follows: "Complaint made by Lebanon of act of violence by Israel against Jordan". . 109. Ml'. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated tram Russian): l should like toask Ml'. Lodge a question about his statement. He proposed that General Bennike should come here to report to the Security Council. Does that mean that the o~ly item 0D: th~ agenda oftoday's meeting of the Secunty CouncIl IS the presentation of General Bennike's report? Or perhaps l misunderstood. l should like some explanation, 110. Ml'. LODGE (United States of America): 1 ~tated. that one of the things, and probably the first t111~g,. that l hoped ~e could accomplish would be to mvlt~ General Benmke here. l might say that, if we accoroplish that todày, it would be considerably more than. we have acc~mplished so far. l did not speak of mak~pg an agenda Item out of it. l expressed a hope that tangIble results might be achieved tàday in view of the very bad news which is constantly c.:oming to us from that part of the world and which frankly l do not think is a laughing ma.tter. ' ,

If there are no further· speakers, we shall proceed to the vote. We havèbefore us, first, the provisional agenda, and then wehave an atnendment to that pro-dsional agenda which has been pre~e!.1ted by the representative of China and which --JVOUid add the following: "(b) Complaint made by 112. l propose that we vote in the following way: The anlendment submitted by·the representative of China, which is an amendment to thè provisional agenda, will bevoted upon first. After that has been voted upon, we shall theii vote on the provisionaI agenda. If the provisional agenda is rejected, we shall then vote on the proposaI of the repr.esentative of. Lebanon, which is new proposaI. 113. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): l am grateful ta the. representative of China for his attempt to helpful, but, to my knowledge, we have not asked China to file any complaint on our hehalf,. We have submitted our.amendment, which isan amendment to the provisional agenda and which is very plain. The text is the .bands of the President, and it reads as follows: "Lebanon: amendment to the. provisional agenda for the 626thmeeting of the Becurity Council." 114. And then the amendment itself reads: "Iriparagraph2,addaffer the words <the Palestine question' the' following words : <Recent aets violencecommitted by Israel armed forces against Jordan'}' 115. That is an amendment, which is a fonnal amendment and wlûch is in the hands of the President, and it was presented befon: anything else. If the representativeof China wants ta present a complaint on behalf of his Govemment, he is fre'e to do so. But this is what tâiTI pres!=nting on behalf of my Government. 116: ,Mr. TSIANG (China): In viewof what has just been said by the representative of Lebanon, l withdraw my amendment. 117. Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socia.list Republics) (translated Jrom Russian): Binee we are discussing. amendments..or. various drafthrgs' of those amendments, l should like to ask, if such a 'course not coritrary tocustom and the rules, of.procedure and, l do not think it is, that these amendments should'cae presented in writing. This is such a serious matte". that one cannot re1y on hearing alone. l should like to ask that the amendment and the new drafting for this item of the agenda should he submitted in writing. 118. "Furtherrnore, T am. not. sure, bût Ithink that it has never beenour custom thàt a letter should constitute an item of the agenda. l shouldtherefore like to ask thatwe should determine what agenda item we are a,etually discussing. 119. It says here: "The Palestine' question". If the ,item "The Palestine question" 1Ileans consideration tl1eqnestion of' "the tension between Israel and the i:,eighbouring Arab States, with particular reference the recent aets of violence and ta cômpliance with and eniorcement oy the General Armistice Agreements", that is one thing. . ' 120.What.Sir Gladwyn Jel;h said here andwhat l understood to he a proposal,t'elating to. the agenda another, thing, "because itis not usually customa,ry invite aperson, listen ta him and then 4i~perse 121. But there is nothing of this te:x:t, and therefore, though the speed with which it is desired to consider this question is understandable and to be welcomed, speed cannot be achieved at the expense of clarity if ,. Ive wish to avoid those difficulties in voting which are bonnd ta arise unless we know more or less precisely - l do not even venture to request complete accuracy - what we are to vote for. 122. And this refers just as much to the amendments. Mr. Malik submitted an amendment - I heard it, but whether l correctly uliderstood it l do not know, and 1wish to have it before my eyes before I vote on SUdl an amendment. 123. It is therefore myhumble request that, while action on this important question should be taken with ,aU possible dispatch, it shou1d be taken alsq with aU . the necessary clarity and accuracy offormulation. Other~ wise, it seems to me that it will be difficult to adopt any kind of decision. .

. l suggest that we should vote at once or as soon as possible. When we der.ide to adjourn l may have sorne suggestions ta make as to the date of the next meeting.

l should like to propose that in any case we. a.djourn the meeting until tomorrow, because the questian submitted to us by the Lebanese representative. is a question of substance on which I, personally, should like ta refiect and consult my Government. 126. It would obviously be preferable to limit the scope of the question we are going to e:x:amine; let us not forget, if we confine ourselves to saying that we are going to consider the Palestine question, that many States have sought to prove in the General Assembly that the Palestine problem wasthe consequence of a more serious question, that ofJerusalem. Are we going to start another debate on the Jerusalem question? It would be' better to restrict the discussion, or then ta declare that 1:he Council proposes to engage in a very freedebate in which speakers will be entitled to put f?rwa!d their viewpoints on the l'eal causes of this SItUation. 127.. Howevel' it may be, the question is one o~ substance, and' it is my belief that we should be able 1 ID 1X>Uder over-it at 1east until tomorrow, if that date 129. This matter should still be considered as arurgent one. In a way, it is perhaps more urgent than the question of Trieste, and l am sorry that we cannot obtain ayote on it now. If that is so, it would interrupt our schedule less if we simply put this matter in the place of the' question of Trieste for consideration at the meeting tomorrow afternoon. l t 'lk that would be wisest in the circumstances and ,.ould give us less trouble in the long run.

l ml;st ask the representative of Colombia to make it quite c1ear whether he is presenting a formaI proposaI Ior adjournment. If so, does he J?ropose that the -"ext meeting should be held tomorrow morning or tomorrow afternoon? l make that request because, if there is a formaI motion ior adjournment, l must, according to our rules 'of procedure, put itto the vote. 131. _Mr. URRUTIA (Colombia) (translated fram - Fr -ch):. l have fo.mally novedthe adjournment, but 1-i.i:ld not reached a conclusion on-whether it' would be prderable for us to resumeconsideration of the question tomorrow morning or tomorrow afternoon. However, after what Sir Gladwyn Jebb has justsaid, l agree with him that we could riefer the matter to our meeting of tomorro'\vafternüon, wbich'ls to take place at 3 p.rn.

1. caU upon the representative of the Union of. Soviet Socialist, Republics. 133.. Sir Gla;dwyn JEBB (United Kingdorn): l wish to ralse a pomt of arder. In conformity withrule 33 AJ:É~G-urru1e$9f procedure, the motion for adjournment should be put to tne'vote with01ott-discus8Ïon.

The last sentence of rule 33 reads: ~'Any motion for the ~uspension'or for _the simple adJour;.unent of the meetmg shaH be decided witbOllt dehatè~S' , lIiniyopil1ion, a n1Otion to adjourn tl) acertah;. dayor 110ut dOes 11qtçome witbin 'Clie- ;,\bove-mentioned êategories. ' .' 136. That question tao is of particular importance and most urgent. That is why we urged that it should be discussed today - not later than Monday. It was, however decided to defer the question until Tuesday. Now, on the pretext that a new urgent matter has arisen, it is proposed that discussion of the Trieste question should he postponed to some other day. 137. If Sir Gladwyn Jebb considerst1:ris question really urgent, and other representatives share that view, whv does he not propose that this question should be diséussed at a meeting tornorrow morning, before discussion of the Trieste question, especially as he thinks it necessary and possible to take a vote today? We shall have time to take a vote on it at a meeting of the Council from to.30 a.m.tol.30 p.m. tomorrow, and that should not prevent us from discussing at the afternoon meeting the question which was supposed ta be discussed at that time. 138. That is why l propose that tomorrow mcrning's meeting shou1q. be devoted ro the Palestine ques.tion. You were willing to sit without interruptiGx"lt-oday but anumber of obstacles have now arisen, as the Colombian representative has pointed out. l regard his arguments as wen founded. vVe still have tomorrow morning, howev~r. Surely the Colombian and other representatives will have sufficient rime to clarify their views on the question of the agenda. l think that there will be sufficient time for this and that is precisely why he said that the matter could be discussed either in the morning or at a night meeting. If the other representatives do not abject to a night meeting, he will probably agree to one too. If, however, there are objections to discU8singthe question tonight and it is proposed to support bis original idea of a morning meeting, l hope that he tao will not object and, if that IS so, my proposaI continues to .be perfeetly justified. 139. l I-ropose that tornorrow, morning's meeting should bedevoted to the question which was discussed today, if it really is admitted to he urgent and if the attempts to invoke its urgent chanlcter and ta defer it ta an attemoon meeting are not merely ..a device to postpone discussion of the question of Trieste which is, perhaps, an awkward question for œ,tainrepresentatives in the Council. l therefore ask thaf a meeting he fixed for tomorrow morning to discuss. the Palestine question, so as to enable the Security Council to rneet at 3 p.rn. to discuss the question of TJ,"ieste, regardless of~ny o~her Committee meetings, since t4e ,question of Trteste IS also an important and urgent one which brooks nodelay. . ~esq~~:~~~ effet, et 1:JO. Mr: LODGE (United States of America): l 14-.1. sunply wish to say that the decision to adjourn until de

l entirely, shan~ the opinion expressed by Mr. Lodge, wmchcoincides with Mr. Vyshinsky's request that we should meet again tomorrow morning to continue the present debate. '143".' Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): On the question of whether weare meeting tomorrow afternoon to discuss Trie~te or not, mat must be left until tomorrowafternoon when we meet, because that has beei1·scheduledbefdre. We shall h;'en decide tomorrow afternoon whether we shall adjourn or not,80 l do not think that tha.t is the point before us now. The point, before us nowis whether we should meet' again tomorrow morning on thismatter, and in that respect l agree with the representative of the, United States and the representative of the Soviet Union that it would ,~bewell to meet tomorrow morning to dilJcuss the "quèstion-of inviting General Bennike to come here straight away ta repOlt ta us. If that is aIl that intended by fuis meeting, the representative of t.lte United States should have told us sa at the ,very beginning and we could have taken a vote in five seconûs. lam whole--heartedly in support of the request for General Bennike to come here. If it is the general consensU$ that the President be empowered to ask him to come here as, an expression of the consensus opinion df this Couneil, l ceriainly would lend my support to that, without, of course .:.- since, we are mèeting again on this issue tomorrow morning - prejudici,ng in any way the preeise point that would adopted on the agenda with respect to Palestine; If that is the intention' of the representativeof the United States, l would be wholeheartedlyin favour of, asking General Bennicke to come here. ' 144. MF. VYSHlNSKY (Union of Sovi.et Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian)': l should nevertheless like to ask the President ta see ta if that the agenda of tomorrow's meetirîg on the Palestine question, if we d~cideto hold it, is correctly fonnulated and inc1udes not only, the three letters - inasmuch as we cannot vote on tn,ese letters - but the relevant questions themselves. l,do not insist tha,t we should formally raise the question. of inviting General Bennike at our meeting toniorrow or the next day,even though ibis tao ~hould he formally stated and should not he decided merely on the basis 'of what certain representatiyes will have to say~ In any case, 1 foresee that tbmorrow w.e, , shaH have todecide the question of the agènda, to decide what agenda item is ta he induded andhow,it is ta wQrded. 'j "':;=--~""-~tO=_-:-_'.",------'.."O-C- ~H:S.This item ,is pr()po~~clPY therepresentatives ,','t1:rree,Powersthe Unitea.gtateslcth~II.gite4c:[...Ï?gdom andE1;'anee.-The first part is worded eitheracstheitem "TheP:alèiH#nequestion", or as tht: item "'Ihe Palestine 146. l would ask delegations to do this today, if possible, and if not, at least to be ready to do so lomorrow morning, so· that we should not waste any more time. l am obliged once again to ask the Council, with its permission, to bear in mind that it has already decided to discuss the Trieste question at 3 p.m., on Tuesday. l consider that this decision should continue uncha."lged and unshaken. 147. The PRESIDENT: Mayl take ii: that the members of the Council are agreed. that"an invitation should be sent to General Bennike; United Natians Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Orgànization for Palestine, to appear befbre the' Cotmcil as soon as possible, and that the, Secretary-General 'shottld he requested so to infonn hini?' , It was so decideC-o 148. The PRESIDENT: vVe now have the question of our next meeting. In accordance with the roles of procedure, the Presidentis to draw up the agenda. If the te.xt should not be acceptable, that can be discussed at our next meeting. 147. comprendre pour l'Organisme Palestine,'àse pourra faire Il '148. devons prochaine il incombe le texte nous rédaction 149. que 30. La 149. The representative of the Soviet Union has proposed that our next meeting shouldbe held tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. l shall now put this propo~al to the vote. The proposaI was adoptedunanimously. . The meeting rose at 2 p:m: ARGENT'NA - ARGENTINE Editorial Sudomerieono S,;".. Al5;no 500. Buenos Aires~ FIANCE Editions A. Paris V. GIEECE- GIECE "Eleftheroudokis." tion. Athènes. ADSTULIA - AUSTlAlIE H. A. Goddard. 2550 George St.• Sydney. end 90 Queen St., Melbourne. Melbourne University Press. Carlton N.3. Vietoria. IELGIUli-IELGIQUE Agenee et Messogeries de 10 Presse S....... 14-22 rue du Persil. Bruxelles. W. H, Smith & Son. 7i-75. boulevard Adolphe.Mox, Bruxelle.. . GUATEliALA Gouboud 28. Guotemol HAITI Libreirie' "A III.B. Port·ou-Prinee. HONDUlAS librerro Ponomerieono. ilOllVIA -IOLlVIE Librerro Seleeeiones. Cosillo 972. Lo Paz. IIAIIL-IIESIL livrorio Agir. R;o de Joneiro, Soo Poulo ond Belo Hori.onte. Tegucig~lpa. RDNG-rONG The Swindon Kowloon. ICELAND ~ ISLANDE Bokov.",lun CAIlADA Rye",on Press.. 299 Queen St. West. Toronto. _. Per;odieo, Ine.. 4234 de 10 Roeh.. Mon· treol. 34. CmON - CmAN Tha Assoclatad· Nôw$p~pers of Ceylon Ltd.. Loke House, Colombo. tHILE-CHILI librerro Ivens. Monedo 822. Sontiogo. Editoriol dei Podfico. Ahuinodo 57, Sontiogo. Aust~rstraeti INDIA-INDE Oxford Book House. New Coleutte. P. Vorodoehory St.• Madros INDONESIA -INDONESIE Jojoson Pembongunon. Djokorto. llAN Ketob.Khoneh nue. Tehran. IIAQ -,-IRAi Modenlis's ISIAEl Blumstein's Rood. Tel·Aviv. (MINA - tHlNE The World Book Co. Ltd.• 99 Chung King Rood. 1st S.ction. Toipeh. Toiwon. Commereiol Press. 211 Honon Rd.. Shong. hei. COLOllllA _ COlOllllE libre,r.. Lotino. Correro 60.. 13·05, Bogot6. librerro ,4,mériColl. M'edemn. Lib,erro Nodonol Ltdo.. Borranquillo. ITALY -1T~lIE Colibri S....... LEBANON ~ LIBAN Libroiri.. Universelle, lIIE1IA J. Momolu lUXEMIOUIG Libroirie J. lIEKICO -llEllIQUE Editorial Hermes 41. Méxieo, 'll..QA IICA -.COSTA·IICA Treios Hermonos. Aportodo 1313,Son José. CUI~ Le Cese Belgo, O'Reilly {55; Lo Hobono. CZEtHOSLOVAKIA - TCHECOSLOVAQUIE Ceskosloven,ky Spisovotel, N6rodnr Trid. 9. P,oho 1. DENlIAU- DANEMARK Einer Munksgoord. Ltd.. Nerrogodu 6. K"benhovn, K. NETHEILANBS N.V. Marlinus ·s·Gr~venhrl'ge. DOlllNICAN 1EF00LIC-lE'UJUQUEOilllINICAINE librerro Dominic..no. Mercedes 49•. Ciù. ded Tru~lIo.'· ECUADOI- EQUATEUI Librerfo Cientffiee. Guoyequil ond Quito. NEW .ZEALAND U'lited Netions land. C.P.O. NOIWAY - NOYEhE Johon Grundt gustsgt. 7A. PAKISTAN Thom.s & Ro.d, Koroehi, Publishers Lehore. The Pakiston Chittogong PANAlIA José Menéndez. .ARAGUAY Moreno He~manosl EGYfT - EGYPrE Libreir;e "Lo Renoisso~c" d·Egypt.... 9 Sh. Adly Pasho. Coiro•. _ EL SAL~ADOt - SALVADOR ·Menuel Novos y Cfa.• 10. Avenido sur 37. S.n S.lv.dor. ETHIOPIA - E".HIOPIE Agenee Ethiopienne de Publieité. Box 128 Aêldis.Abeb•• JINLANO - FINLANDE Akoteeminen Kirjokoupp•• 2, K.,s'.usk.tu. Helsinki. Orders and Inquiri" from countries whete sGles havenot yet been appointed may be sent to:Sales Circulation Sedion, United Nations, New Yorle, U.S.A.; or Sales Sedion, United Nations OHlee, Paltiis ~o'J0iJ.S'· Geneva,·Switzll'Iancf. Printed in Canada Priee: $U.S, (or equivalent