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

501.BB Palestine/4–1348

Memorandum by Mr. Fraser Wilkins of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs¹

April 13, 1948

secret

Action on the General Assembly’s Resolution of November 29, 1947 on the Palestinian Question

problem

To determine the position which the United States Delegation to the Special Session of the General Assembly should adopt with respect to action by that body on the General Assembly’s resolution of November 29, 1947 on the Palestinian Question.

recommendations

A. If the General Assembly’s resolution of November 29 is amended at the Special Session, the United States should support changes which would have the effect of bringing about its peaceful implementation and of making it acceptable to the peoples of Palestine.

B. If a new resolution providing for a temporary trusteeship agreement is approved by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly the United States should initiate or support the suspension of the General Assembly’s resolution of November 29, preferably by statement to this effect in the new resolution.

C. If a new resolution providing for a political settlement is approved by two-thirds vote of the General Assembly, the United States should initiate or support the withdrawal of the General Assembly’s resolution of November 29, preferably by a statement to this effect in the new resolution.

Discussion:

I—On November 29, 1947 the General Assembly adopted a resolution on the Palestinian question. This resolution provided for a plan of partition with economic union for Palestine. It included provisions for a future constitution and government of Palestine, boundaries, a special regime for the City of Jerusalem and an invitation with regard to capitulations in Palestine.

The General Assembly’s resolution recommended to the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the plan of partition with Economic union as provided for in that resolution.

The General Assembly’s resolution also requested that:

• “(a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the Plan for its implementation;
• “(b) The Security Council consider if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council should supplement the authorization of the General Assembly by taking measures, under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, to empower the United Nations Commission, as provided in this resolution, to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution;
• “(c) The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;
• “(d) The Trusteeship Council be informed of the responsibilities envisaged for it in this Plan;”.

The General Assembly’s resolution in addition called upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect; and appealed to all governments and all peoples to refrain from taking any action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations.

The General Assembly’s resolution also contained authorization to the Secretary General with regard to expenses of the Commission provided for in the plan and for withdrawals from the working capital fund.

On December 1, 1947 the Trusteeship Council received Part 3 of the General Assembly’s resolution of November 29 and commenced work on a draft Statute for the City of Jerusalem.

On December 9, 1947 the Security Council recorded that it had received the General Assembly’s resolution of November 29 and, having been seized of this matter, had agreed to postpone further consideration.

On February 1, 1948 the Palestine Commission provided for in the plan, which had commenced its activities on January 9, 1948, submitted its first monthly progress report to the Security Council.

On February 16, 1948 the Palestine Commission presented its first special report on the problem of security in Palestine to the Security Council.

On February 24, 1948 the Security Council resumed its consideration of the Palestine question.

On February 25, 1948 the United States representative on the Security Council introduced a resolution providing for the acceptance, subject to the authority of the Security Council under the Charter, of the request addressed by the General Assembly to it in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the General Assembly’s resolution of November 29, 1947.

On March 1, 1948 the Palestine Commission submitted its second monthly progress report to the Security Council.

On March 5, 1948 the Security Council by a vote of five in favor with none against and six abstentions, declined to accept the requests of the General Assembly.

On March 12, 1948 the Trusteeship Council, having continued its work on a draft Statute for the City of Jerusalem, decided that it was in a satisfactory form and agreed that the question of its formal approval together with the appointment of a Governor of the City should be taken up at a subsequent meeting to be held not later than one week before April 29, 1948.

On April 1, 1948 the Security Council adopted by nine affirmative votes with two abstentions the United States resolution requesting the Secretary General of the United Nations to convoke a special session of the General Assembly to consider further the question of the future government of Palestine.

The action of the Security Council on March 5 in declining to accept the requests of the General Assembly under its resolution of November 29 in conjunction with the action on April 1 in requesting the convocation of a Special Session clearly indicates that the Security Council was not prepared to accept or implement the General Assembly’s resolution of November 29.

II—The United Nations might adopt one of the following courses of action with regard to the General Assembly’s resolution of November 29, 1947:

A. The General Assembly might amend its resolution of November 29.

B. The General Assembly might suspend its resolution of November 29.

C. The General Assembly might withdraw its resolution of November 29.

In the case of (A), amendments to the General Assembly’s resolution of November 29 which would have the effect of bringing about its peaceful implementation and of making it acceptable to the peoples of Palestine would have the support of the United States Government in the United Nations.

In the case of (B), it may develop that the General Assembly will approve by a two-thirds vote a new resolution providing for a temporary trusteeship agreement for Palestine without prejudice to the rights, claims or position of the parties and without prejudice to the eventual political settlement relating to the government of Palestine. In this event, the question arises as to whether the General Assembly’s resolution of November 29 should be suspended or withdrawn. If the trusteeship is for a temporary period; if it is without prejudice to the rights, claims or positions of the parties; and if it is without prejudice to the eventual political settlement relating to the government of that country, it follows that suspension rather than withdrawal of the resolution of November 29 would be equitable. Withdrawal of the General Assembly’s resolution under such conditions would undoubtedly be considered as prejudicial to the rights, claims and position of one of the parties and would also undoubtedly be considered as prejudicial to the eventual political settlement. It would, accordingly, appear to be preferable to suspend the General Assembly’s resolution of November 29 by a statement to this effect in the new resolution providing for a temporary trusteeship agreement.

In the case of (C), it may develop that a new resolution providing for a political settlement will be approved by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly. In this event, it might be presumed that the new resolution would automatically supersede the resolution of November 29. It would be preferable, however, for the General Assembly to withdraw its previous resolution. Such action might be accomplished (a) by the introduction of a separate resolution before the passage of the new resolution; (b) by the introduction of a separate resolution after the passage of the new resolution; or (c) by a statement in the new resolution itself. From a parliamentary point of view no objection would appear to any of these three courses. From a political point of view, however, it would appear that the preferable course would be by a statement in the new resolution. Such action would definitely link the new resolution with the previous resolution and might avoid the necessity for a separate vote on the withdrawal of the General Assembly’s resolution of November 29.

1. Drafted on April 13 and transmitted the same day to Mr. Lovett with a joint memorandum by Messrs. Henderson and Rusk, which noted that the position paper had been cleared by NEA, UNA and L. A marginal notation by Mr. Lovett reads: “Approved by President & returned to me by Clifford on May 3, 1948—5:45 p[m].”

   A copy of the memorandum by Mr. Wilkins is in the Truman Papers, President’s Secretary’s File.