Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The Near and Middle East, Volume IX, Part 1

IO files, lot 71 D 440

No. 503
Department of State Position Paper¹

confidential
SD/A/C.1/398/Rev. 1

[Washington,] October 17, 1952.

The Palestine Question^*

The Problem

To determine the position of the United States on the items under “The Palestine Question” which will be considered at the 7th General Assembly i.e., the report of the Palestine Conciliation Commission,² and the Arab and Israeli sponsored items alleging non-compliance of the opposing party with Charter obligations and United Nations resolution.³

Recommendations

A. With respect to all the Palestine items:

1. The United States should urge that the items be considered together in the Political Committee when debate on the Palestine question is brought up.

2. The United States should coordinate its activities and views with the delegations of the United Kingdom, France, and Turkey, and other states as appropriate.

B. With respect to the Arab and Israeli sponsored items on noncompliance:

1. The United States should seek privately to discourage any prolonged debate on the allegations of the two parties on the grounds that prolonged acrimonious and futile debate has accomplished nothing in the past and will not now accomplish anything toward inducing a settlement of the outstanding differences in the Palestine question.

2. At an appropriate time the United States should publicly indicate in careful detail, as is suggested in the “Comment”, its views on the matter of compliance by the parties with their Charter obligations and with United Nations resolutions.

3. In so far as Israel’s allegations may relate to the matter of enforcement of the general armistice agreements, we should indicate that such complaints can presently be handled through the armistice machinery or the Security Council, which is still seized with the enforcement of the armistice agreements, and which has not requested recommendations from the General Assembly under Article 12.

4. Debate should be directed to the passage of a resolution calling upon the parties to settle their outstanding differences using the services of the Palestine Conciliation Commission if they so desire. (Part “A” of attached draft resolution.)

C. With regard to the report of the Palestine Conciliation Commission:

1. The United States in conjunction with other co-sponsors should be prepared to table, at the commencement of debate on the Palestine Conciliation Commission’s report, a resolution looking to the continuation of the present limited activities of the Palestine Conciliation Commission on the Arab blocked accounts and on compensation of Arab refugees. (Part “B” of attached draft resolution.) Depending on the circumstances arising from the debate, this resolution might be separated from or combined with the General Assembly action suggested in recommendation B4 above.

2. In so far as it is deemed wise the Arab delegations and the Israeli delegation should be kept advised of our ideas on a resolution, or resolutions.

3. The United States Delegation, in discussing resolutions with other delegations should discourage and oppose any proposed resolutions, or paragraphs of resolutions which appear inconsistent with our stated position by calling for reaffirmation of or strict compliance with earlier General Assembly resolutions e.g. partition plan of 1947.

4. The United States should give sympathetic consideration to well-considered proposals for changing the terms of reference or composition of the Palestine Conciliation Commission. (See part 2 of “Comment”.)

Comment

1. Arab and Israeli Allegations of Non-Implementation of United Nations Obligations.

These allegations will be the main topic and focal point of debate. Accordingly we should urge that they be considered together. The Arab delegations have submitted the following item for inclusion in the provisional agenda “The Conciliation Commission for Palestine and its work in the light of the resolutions of the United Nations.” Their accompanying explanatory memorandum indicated that emphasis would be laid by the Arabs on non-implementation of previous United Nations resolutions. The Israeli delegation has submitted the following item: “Violation by Arab States of their obligation under the Charter, United Nations resolutions, and specific provisions of the general armistice agreements concluded with Israel requiring them to desist from policies and practices of hostility and to seek agreement by negotiation for the establishment of peaceful relations with Israel.”

The United States should seek privately to discourage any prolonged debate on the allegations of the two parties on the grounds that prolonged acrimonious and futile debate has accomplished nothing in the past and will not now accomplish anything toward inducing a settlement of the outstanding differences in the Palestine question.

We must bear in mind that the Arab League States in presenting their proposed agenda items, undoubtedly have as an objective forcing the United States and the other large powers into an open declaration that United Nations resolutions must be strictly complied with by the members directly involved. Alternatively, they desire to see us hold that United Nations resolutions can not be universally enforced. If we take the former position, we would be placing ourselves in the position of apparently endorsing the United Nations partition plan and the internationalization of Jerusalem envisaged in the November 29, 1947 resolution. We would also appear to be endorsing the repatriation provisions in the December 11, 1948 resolution. If, on the other hand, we hold that United Nations resolutions can not be universally enforced and complied with we will have placed ourselves in the position of discrediting the power and position of United Nations bodies (including the Palestine Conciliation Commission, the Mixed Armistice machinery, and the UNRWA) and will have provided the Arab States with a legitimate basis for holding that they need not comply with the resolutions calling upon them to negotiate a final settlement of their problems with Israel. In order to avoid being forced into one of these two positions it is proposed that the United States in consultations with other major delegations, particularly the United Kingdom, France, and Turkey (who normally have sponsored General Assembly and Security Council resolutions on the Palestine question) reach agreement that the following should be our common position.

1. The overriding obligation of every member in the United Nations is the settlement of disputes by peaceful means. This obligation exists under Article 2 of the Charter and exists whether or not resolutions of any body of the United Nations exist or come into existence for the purpose of achieving a peaceful settlement of a dispute. Resolutions of United Nations bodies are means to this end and are not ends in themselves.

2. Every member of the United Nations is obligated under the Charter to give the most earnest and respectful consideration to recommendations of the General Assembly. Compliance, in fact, is dependent upon the good faith and determination of the members directly involved to carry out the resolutions of the United Nations as a means of performing their obligations under the Charter. Where the parties affected by a resolution will not carry out, the United Nations must of necessity attempt to work out ways and means of achieving the final peaceful settlement of a dispute.

3. In the Palestine case, where the parties to the dispute have not fulfilled their overriding obligation to reach a peaceful settlement of their differences and United Nations resolutions have been passed and have not been complied with, the responsible bodies of the United Nations have had to try again through subsequent resolutions, to bring the parties in the dispute closer to a final settlement of their outstanding differences.

A brief history of the case in the General Assembly and the Security Council (and in the instance of Jerusalem, the Trusteeship Council) is to be prepared and should be used in discussions with other delegations to refresh their recollections as to the actual extent of compliance by both Israel and the Arab States. This history will show in brief: that the record of compliance by both Israel and the Arab States with the resolutions referred to has been poor; that to date, the only efforts at negotiation of a lasting peace in Palestine have been those undertaken by United Nations agencies; and that, while these efforts of the United Nations must continue, because the United Nations organs have indicated responsibilities in this matter, until the parties themselves are willing to face their primary obligation of peaceful settlement, the record of non-compliance with resolutions will continue to grow. It is believed that this exposition in talks with other delegations may be enlightening to these delegations and, in turn, have a sobering effect on the debate. In any event, it will tend to demonstrate our true impartiality toward the parties.

Unless the debate is unduly acrimonious, the sponsoring powers should indicate their belief that the presentation of the opposing views of Arab and Israeli delegations has cleared the air as to their impressions of the obligations of the other side. Debate should be directed to the passage of a constructive resolution calling upon the parties to settle their outstanding differences—utilizing the Palestine Conciliation Commission for assistance, if they so desire in the settlement of the Palestine dispute.

In so far as Israel’s allegations may relate to the matter of enforcement of the general armistice agreements, we should indicate that such complaints can presently be handled through the armistice machinery or the Security Council, which is still seized with the enforcement of the armistice agreements, and has not requested recommendations from the General Assembly under Article 12.

It is probable that the Arabs in discussing their item will allude to the United Nations’ failure to internationalize Jerusalem. While the point cannot be stressed too hard in reply that Jerusalem as such is not an item on the agenda, our answer to the Arab charges on Jerusalem should be that, while the United States continues to adhere to its position that there should be a special international regime to protect the holy places, until a satisfactory plan governing Jerusalem can be worked out in such a way as to obtain majority support in the United Nations and meet with the approval of the two occupying powers, the passage of any resolutions on the internationalization of Jerusalem will be futile.

2. The Palestine Conciliation Commission Report:

This report deals with the progress which, although slow, has been real during the past year in effecting the release the Arab blocked accounts and in taking further steps for the assessment and payment of compensation to the Arab refugees. (The Palestine Conciliation Commission has been attempting since 1949 to effect the “unfreezing” of the Arab blocked accounts which total about 25,000 in number and total approximately 14,500,000 dollars. As a result of the Commission’s efforts during the past year Israel has agreed unconditionally to the release of these accounts and is prepared to make an initial payment of 2,800,000 dollars.) It indicates that the scope of the Commission’s activities has been admittedly limited. In debate in the Political Committee the United States should commend the progress made and support by resolution the continued activities of the Palestine Conciliation Commission along the lines it is presently pursuing. While admitting this is a modest activity on the part of the Commission, a fact which warrants consideration, in connection with stepping up of the Commission’s activities or expanding its terms of reference, is that the Commission, in the four years of its life, has had a most unhappy record of failure in attempting to make any progress toward a general political settlement on the Palestine problem. We should indicate that the likeliest progress toward settlement of the Palestine problem will be made in the smaller areas of endeavor, first, and the activities of the Palestine Conciliation Commission during the past year justify this belief.

Since it is suggested that [in] the Political Committee’s debate the Arab and Israeli sponsored items and the Palestine Conciliation Commission’s report should be considered simultaneously, we should be prepared with the suggested co-sponsors and other likeminded delegations to table a resolution at the commencement of debate which would continue the activities of the Palestine Conciliation Commission on its present modest basis. Consultation prior to the commencement of the debate may indicate that it would be undesirable to table a resolution immediately on the commencement of debate but the interested delegations should be prepared against a repetition of the situation which occurred in the Ad Hoc Political Committee in 1950 when the Egyptian delegation tabled a resolution concerning a new United Nations agency which would have had responsibilities with regard to the Arab refugees which it could not have carried out. This same resolution also sought to have the General Assembly declare that the refusal by any government to comply with the provisions of the resolution would prove the existence of the breach of the peace within Article 39 of the Charter. Therefore it would be wisest for the United States and the co-sponsors to have a restrained and sensible resolution ready for tabling so that it might be the first order of business. To the extent that such preparation should be made the United States Delegation should be ready to exercise initiative.

In so far as it is deemed wise the Arab delegations and the Israeli delegations should be kept advised of our ideas on a resolution, or resolutions.

The United States Delegation, in discussing resolutions with other delegations should discourage and oppose any proposed resolutions, or paragraphs of resolutions which appear inconsistent with our stated position, e.g. in calling for reaffirmation of or strict compliance with earlier General Assembly resolutions such as the partition plan of 1947.

The United States should be prepared to indicate that it would give sympathetic consideration to such well-considered proposals as may be forthcoming from various delegations for enlarging or speeding up the activities of the Palestine Conciliation Commission or for instituting some other United Nations method for reaching an early political settlement of the Palestine question. This indication of this Government’s sympathy should come, however, only after it has become apparent that there is a genuine demand in the Political Committee for more extensive United Nations action in settling the Palestine question, or if it is apparent that our proposed resolution can not obtain sufficient support for adoption. While it seems unlikely that there will be much desire on the part of delegations to increase the functions of the Palestine Conciliation Commission, if such desire becomes manifest, the United States should urge that it be directed toward constructive and realistic means and methods of political negotiation between the parties. It is quite likely that there will be some move made by a number of delegations to increase the membership of the Commission. Our acceptance of such a suggestion should be contingent on two points: (1) That the addition of new members represents a large-scale manifestation of a genuine desire by the Political Committee to take measures which will in fact speed up an over-all settlement of the Palestine question; (2) That the Members to be added can establish their impartiality toward the parties in the Palestine question.

Alternative to considering an increase in the membership of the Commission the United States Delegation might raise with the French and the Turkish delegations the possibility that the three present members of the Commission withdraw and let an entirely new membership be named. Any such consideration as this would have to keep in mind the importance which we and the other members of the Commission might place in retaining the controlling position in the Palestine question.

[Attachment]

Draft Resolution

The General Assembly

Recalling its resolutions on the Palestine problem:

A

1. Notes that the basic differences existing between the Arab States and Israel still stand in the way of settling the Palestine problem;

2. Considers, in accordance with the requirements of the United Nations Charter, that the Arab States and Israel have the obligation to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and that they have the obligation to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other or in any other manner consistent with the purposes of the United Nations;

3. Urges the governments concerned to seek agreement with a view to an early settlement of their outstanding differences in conformity with the resolutions of the General Assembly on Palestine, and for this purpose to make full use of United Nations facilities.

B

Having examined the progress report of the Conciliation Commission for Palestine (A/2216):

1. Expresses its appreciation to the Conciliation Commission for Palestine for the progress which it has made in assisting the parties to reach agreement on their outstanding differences;

2. Notes with satisfaction that the Commission is continuing these efforts pursuant to the General Assembly’s direction;

3. Considers that the Conciliation Commission for Palestine should be available to the parties to assist them in reaching agreement on outstanding questions;

4. Requests the Conciliation Commission for Palestine to continue to render progress reports periodically to the Secretary General for transmission to the Members of the United Nations;

5. Requests the Secretary General to provide the necessary staff and facilities for carrying out the terms of the present resolution.

1. For the instruction of the U.S. Delegation to the Seventh Regular Session of the U.N. General Assembly. An earlier version of this paper, SD/A/C.1/398, was dated Oct. 7. (IO files, lot 71 D 440)
2. (A separate position paper on the Arab Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation item has been prepared.) [Footnote in the source text; this paper, dated Oct. 4, is Document 499.]
2. Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 512 (VI) of Jan. 26, the Palestine Conciliation Commission submitted its 11th and 12th progress reports (U.N. docs. A/2121 and A/2216) covering the period from Nov. 19, 1951 to Oct. 7, 1952. A supplement to the 12th progress report was issued on Nov. 24 to cover the period from Oct. 8 to Nov. 24. (U.N. doc. A/2216/Add.1)
3. See the letter of Sept. 12 from the Permanent Representatives of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen (U.N. doc. A/2184), subsequently referred to the Ad Hoc Political Committee, which considered it at its 25th-39th meetings from Nov. 25–Dec. 11; and the Israeli complaint against the Arab States in letters to the Secretary-General of Sept. 14 and Oct. 9. (U.N. docs. A/2185 and A/2185/Add.1)