Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2

Editorial Note

Mr. Shertok, on April 1, addressed the Security Council on the two United States draft resolutions. The truce resolution, he said, was a wrong starting point in the quest for peace in Palestine, for it omitted “all reference to the central and salient feature of the country’s disturbed condition, namely the presence of Arab aggression from outside, sponsored and organized by Arab States, members of the United Nations, in an effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged by the General Assembly’s resolution of 29 November 1947.… It is the presence of these foreign Arab forces on the soil of Palestine and the preparation for further incursions which constitute the main threat to law and order in Palestine today. But for these invasions from neighboring States, the situation in Palestine would hardly have raised a problem which could not be quickly resolved.” He expressed astonishment, therefore, that the United States saw “the problem of violence in Palestine in terms of a conflict betwen the ‘Arab and Jewish communities of Palestine.’”

He then raised various questions: “Is it legitimate for Member States to use force against a settlement adopted by the General Assembly?”; “Is it proper for the Security Council, having received conclusive evidence of aggression actually committed, to take no steps at all to suppress, nay, not even to condemn—nor even to record—that aggression?”; and “Is it a just interpretation of the Security Council’s function in this question that it should obey the demand of the aggressor at pistol-point, and advocate a revision of a General Assembly resolution for no other reason than that resolution is assailed by armed force?”

Mr. Shertok concluded this phase of his statement by indicating that a truce would be most welcome, but must be accompanied by the evacuation of foreign forces and the prevention of further incursions of armed bands into Palestine. He assumed further that “any arrangement for a truce will be carried out within the framework of the implementation of the resolution of the General Assembly and in strict conformity with time-table provided in that resolution.”

Turning then to the second United States draft resolution, Mr. Shertok stated that although silent on the point, the resolution proposed a special session, which would establish a temporary trusteeship. He denounced the forcing of “trusteeship upon a country ripe for independence, without any assurance that a trustee is available, that means of enforcement can be supplied, that any section of the population will cooperate, that the General Assembly will approve an agreement, or that a working regime can be established by 15 May. The charted course of the implementation of partition is to be replaced by a leap into the perilous unknown.” The Jews, he asserted, would refuse to accept postponement of independence (SC, 3rd yr., No. 52 pages 5–23).

The Egyptian Representative at the United Nations, Mahmoud Fawzi, in reply, emphatically denied participation by the Arab States in the conflict in Palestine. Then, commenting on the first United States draft resolution, he stated that “If, contrary to our belief, the truce were to be interpreted and applied to mean the use of armed force to keep the peace during the partition of Palestine, then each and every Arab is opposed to it. On the other hand, if it is order that is meant, then indeed the Arabs are all for it.” (ibid., pages 23–26)

The Security Council voted on the two draft resolutions on April 1. After United States agreement to delete the words “with grave concern”, the Council unanimously adopted the first draft resolution. It then adopted the second draft resolution by 9 votes in favor, with the Soviet and Ukrainian representatives abstaining¹ (ibid., pages 34, 35).

With regard to carrying out the latter resolution, Ambassador Austin stated that the United States had not yet formulated its views in finished form and he therefore invited his colleagues in the Security Council to meet with him informally on April 5 (ibid., pages 37, 41).

1. The provisions of the resolutions, which are numbered 43 (1048) and 44 (1948), respectively, are summarized in the circular telegram of April 6, p. 800. Their texts are printed in United Nations, Official Records of the Security Council, Third Year, Resolutions and Decisions of the Security Council, 1948 (hereinafter cited as SC, 3rd yr., Resolutions, 1948), pp. 14, 15.

   With regard to proposals for a temporary trusteeship over Palestine, Ambassador Austin stated that the United States had not yet formulated its views in finished form and he invited his colleagues on the Security Council to meet with him informally on April 5 for discussion of such proposals (SC, 3rd yr., No. 52, pp. 37, 41).