|| UNISPAL Home ||
UNITED
NATIONS
1949.I.13
31 December 1948
YEARBOOK
OF THE
UNITED NATIONS

1947-48






DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK

9. The Question of Palestine

a. ORGANIZATION OF THE ad hoc COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION

(1) Establishment and Terms of Reference of the ad hoc Committee

During its second session, the General Assembly, at its 90th meeting on 23 September 1947, established an ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, composed of all Members, and referred to it the following agenda items for consideration and report:

"Question of Palestine": item proposed by the United Kingdom (A/286).

Report of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine ("UNSCOP") (A/364).

"Termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the Recognition of its Independence as One State": item proposed by Saudi Arabia (A/317) and Iraq (A/328).

(2) Organization of the ad hoc Committee

At its first meeting on September 25, 1947, the Committee elected H. V. Evatt (Australia) Chairman, Prince Subha Svasti Svastivat (Siam) Vice Chairman and Thor Thors (Iceland) Rapporteur. It also decided to invite the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency for Palestine to be represented at its deliberations in order to supply such information or render such assistance as the Committee might require. The invitation was accepted, and representatives of both organizations attended all meetings of the ad hoc Committee.

b. SUMMARY OF AGENDA OF THE ad hoc COMMITTEE

(1) Question of Palestine

The representative of the United Kingdom, in a letter to the Secretary-General dated April 2, 1947, had requested, on behalf of his Government, that the "Question of Palestine" be placed on the agenda of the General Assembly at its next regular annual session. In the same communication, the representative of the United Kingdom had requested the convening of a special session of the Assembly "for the purpose of constituting and instructing a special committee" to prepare for the consideration of the question of Palestine at the subsequent (second) regular session.211/

(2) Report of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP)212/

The report of the Special Committee (A/364) related the events leading up to the establishment of UNSCOP and gave a summary of its activities. It surveyed the elements of the conflict with relation to geographic and demographic factors, relevant economic factors, Palestine under the Mandate and the conflicting claims, and dealt with the question of the religious interests and Holy Places in Palestine. The report also reviewed the main proposals previously propounded for the solution of the Palestine question.

The Committee made twelve recommendations, eleven of which were adopted unanimously and the twelfth by a substantial majority.

The report contained a majority proposal for a Plan of Partition with Economic Union and a minority proposal for a Plan for a Federal State of Palestine.213/ Reservations and observations of certain members of the Committee were included in the report.

(a) SUMMARY OF UNSCOP'S ACTIVITIES

Pursuant to the request of the United Kingdom, the General Assembly had convened at Flushing Meadow, New York, on April 28, 1947, and, on May 15, 1947, had established and instructed a Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP).

UNSCOP was composed of representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia, and was given the "widest powers to ascertain and record facts, and to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine"; it was under instructions to report its recommendations to the Secretary-General not later than September 1, 1947.214/ It actually completed its work on August 31.

The Special Committee held its first meeting at Lake Success on May 26. From that date until August 31, 1947, when the report was signed, the Committee held 16 public and 36 private meetings.

After an exploratory discussion, UNSCOP agreed to create a Preparatory Working Group which would produce some suggestions on various organizational matters for the Committee's consideration.

Justice Emil Sandstrom (Sweden) was elected Chairman of the Special Committee and Alberto Ulloa (Peru) Vice-Chairman.

UNSCOP members arrived in Palestine on June 14 and 15, meeting in Jerusalem for the first time on June 16, 1947 (its fifth meeting in all). The Special Committee subsequently visited various parts of Palestine to gain a first-hand impression of conditions.

In response to a request from the Special Committee, the Government of Palestine and the Jewish Agency for Palestine appointed liaison officers. The Palestine Government's liaison officer was D. C. MacGillivray, while Aubrey S. Eban and David Horowitz served as liaison officers of the Jewish Agency.

At the same meeting, the Special Committee was informed by the Secretary-General of the decision of the Arab Higher Committee to abstain from collaboration with UNSCOP.215/ While the Special Committee expressed its hope of securing the co-operation of all parties, it decided not to take any formal action, considering that the Chairman had made an appeal by radio for full co-operation shortly after arriving in Palestine.216/

The question of addressing a further request for co-operation to the Arab Higher Committee was discussed again at the 22nd and 23rd meetings of UNSCOP on July 8, 1947. It was decided to address a letter to the Arab Higher Committee and to state therein that UNSCOP had noted with regret the decision of the Arab Higher Committee not to co-operate, and to repeat the Special Committee's invitation for full co-operation as expressed by the Chairman in his broadcast appeal of June 16.

On July 10, 1947, a letter was received from Jamal el-Husseini, Vice-Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee. The communication stated that the Arab Higher Committee found no reason to reverse its previous decision to abstain from collaboration.217/

In addition to hearing representatives of the Palestine Government and of the Jewish Agency, the Special Committee also heard representatives of a number of other Jewish organizations and religious bodies, as well as Chaim Weizmann, to whom the Special Committee granted a hearing in his personal capacity.

Upon the suggestion of some members of UNSCOP, the Committee resolved to invite the Arab States to express their views on the question of Palestine. It was decided that a letter to this effect should be addressed by the personal representative of the Secretary-General to the consular representatives in Jerusalem of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Transjordan, and to the Government of Yemen through the Consul General of Lebanon. To the Arab States in conference among themselves was left the choice of a time and place mutually convenient to them and to the Special Committee.

Letters of acceptance were received from Egypt (A/AC.13/49 and 56), Iraq (A/AC.13/50), Lebanon (A/AC.13/51), Saudi Arabia (A/AC.13/62) and Syria (A/AC.13/58) with the information that Beirut, Lebanon, had been designated as the place of meeting.

The Consul-General of Transjordan replied for his Government (A/AC.13/52) that, since Transjordan was not a Member of the United Nations, it was not prepared to send a representative outside the country to give evidence, but that it would welcome the Special Committee or any of its members who might wish to pay a visit for that purpose to Transjordan.

On July 20, UNSCOP proceeded to Lebanon, and on the following day paid an informal visit to Damascus, the capital of Syria. On July 22, the Special Committee met in Beirut to hear the views of the Arab States expressed by the Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hamid Frangie.

On July 25, several members of the Special Committee ■ the Chairman and the representatives of Canada, Czechoslovakia, Iran, Netherlands, Peru and Yugoslavia ■ paid a visit to Amman, capital of Transjordan, where they had an exchange of views with King Abdullah and members of his staff.

In addition to oral testimony, UNSCOP received many written statements from various persons and organizations.218/

A number of petitions addressed to the Special Committee asked its intervention in securing the release of prisoners and detainees. The Committee decided that these and similar appeals to investigate the methods of the British police in Palestine, the conditions of Jews in Yemen and the plight of refugees in Aden fell outside UNSCOP's terms of reference. The Committee also rejected petitions that it visit camps for Jewish detainees on Cyprus or permit these detainees to appear before it in Jerusalem to give evidence.

UNSCOP also recorded its concern over acts of violence which had occurred in Palestine since its arrival, declaring that such acts constituted a flagrant violation of the General Assembly's resolution of May 14, 1947.219/

On July 28, 1947, the Special Committee began work on the drafting of irs report in Geneva, Switzerland. Between August 8 and 14, the Committee had decided, by vote of 6 to 4, with 1 abstention, to set up a sub-committee to visit displaced persons' camps. During its tour, the Sub-Committee visited camps at or near Munich, Salzburg, Vienna, Berlin, Hamburg and Hanover, and met the Austrian Chancellor, the Military Governor of the United States zones of Germany and Austria and several United States and United Kingdom officials in charge of displaced persons' affairs, as well as officials of the Preparatory Commission of the International Refugee Organization. The Sub-Committee was under the Chairmanship of J. D. L. Hood (Australia) .

The Special Committee also established a sub-committee to study the question of religious interests and Holy Places in Palestine. The status of Jerusalem was also referred to that Sub-Committee, which was under the chairmanship of A. I. Spits (Netherlands). Its suggestions, with various amendments, were incorporated into both the majority and the minority plans eventually submitted by UNSCOP. The recommendations regarding the City of Jerusalem, which were embodied in the Majority Plan of Partition with Economic Union, were inspired by proposals made in the same Sub-Committee by the representatives of Canada, Netherlands, Peru and Sweden. The representatives of India, Iran and Yugoslavia disagreed with these latter recommendations, while reservations made in the Sub-Committee by the representatives of Czechoslovakia, Guatemala and Uruguay were later withdrawn.

The drafting of the report occupied UNSCOP members during eleven meetings and a number of informal gatherings and was completed at the 52nd meeting on August 31, 1947.

b) GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

The eleven unanimously adopted resolutions of the Committee were:

That the Mandate should be terminated and Palestine granted independence at the earliest practicable date (recommendations I and II);

That there should be a short transitional period preceding the granting of independence to Palestine during which the authority responsible for administering Palestine should be responsible to the United Nations (recommendations III and IV);

That the sacred character of the Holy Places and the rights of religious communities in Palestine should be preserved and stipulations concerning them inserted in the constitution of any state or states to be created and that a system should be found for settling impartially any disputes involving religious rights (recommendation V);

That the General Assembly should take steps to see that the problem of distressed European Jews should be dealt with as a matter of urgency so as to alleviate their plight and the Palestine problem (recommendation VI);

That the constitution of the new state or states should be fundamentally democratic and should contain guarantees for the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms and for the protection of minorities (recommendation VII);

That the undertakings contained in the Charter whereby states are to settle their disputes by peaceful means and to refrain from the threat or use of force in international relations in any way inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations should be incorporated in the constitutional provisions applying to Palestine (recommendation VIII);

That the economic unity of Palestine should be preserved (recommendation IX);

That states whose nationals had enjoyed in Palestine privileges and immunities of foreigners, including those formerly enjoyed by capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, should be invited to renounce any rights pertaining to them (recommendation X);

That the General Assembly should appeal to the peoples of Palestine to co-operate with the United Nations in its efforts to settle the situation there and exert every effort to put an end to acts of violence (recommendation XI).

In addition to these eleven unanimously approved recommendations, the Special Committee, with two members (Uruguay and Guatemala) dissenting, and one member recording no opinion, also approved the following twelfth recommendation:

"RECOMMENDATION XII. THE JEWISH PROBLEM IN GENERAL

"It is recommended that

"In the appraisal of the Palestine question, it be accepted as incontrovertible that any solution for Palestine cannot be considered as a solution of the Jewish problem in general."

(c) MAJORITY PROPOSAL: PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION

According to the plan of the majority220/ (the representatives of Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay), Palestine was to be constituted into an Arab State, a Jewish State and the City of Jerusalem. The Arab and the Jewish States would become independent after a transitional period of two years beginning on September 1, 1947. Before their independence could be recognized, however, they must adopt a constitution in line with the pertinent recommendations of the Committee and make to the United Nations a declaration containing certain guarantees, and sign a treaty by which a system of economic collaboration would be established and the economic union of Palestine created.

The plan provided, inter alia, that during the transitional period, the United Kingdom would carry on the administration of Palestine under the auspices of the United Nations and on such conditions and under such supervision as the United Kingdom and the United Nations might agree upon. During this period a stated number of Jewish immigrants was to be admitted. Constituent Assemblies were to be elected by the populations of the areas which were to comprise the Arab and Jewish States, respectively, and were to draw up the constitutions of the States.

These constitutions were to provide for the establishment in each State of a legislative body elected by universal suffrage and by secret ballot on the basis of proportional representation and an executive body responsible to the legislature. They would also contain various guarantees, e.g., for the protection of the Holy Places and religious buildings and sites, and of religious and minority rights.

The Constituent Assembly in each State would appoint a provisional government empowered to make the declaration and sign the Treaty of Economic Union, after which the independence of the State would be recognized. The Declaration would contain provisions for the protection of the Holy Places and religious buildings and sites and for religious and minority rights. It would also contain provisions regarding citizenship.

A treaty would be entered into between the two States, which would contain provisions to establish the economic union of Palestine and to provide for other matters of common interest. A Joint Economic Board would be established consisting of representatives of the two States and members appointed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations to organize and administer the objectives of the Economic Union.

The City of Jerusalem would be placed, after the transitional period, under the International Trusteeship System by means of a Trusteeship Agreement, which would designate the United Nations as the Administering Authority. The plan contained recommended boundaries for the city and provisions concerning the governor and the police force.

The plan also proposed boundaries for both the Arab and Jewish States.

(d) MINORITY PROPOSAL: PLAN OF A FEDERAL STATE

Three UNSCOP members (the representatives of India, Iran and Yugoslavia) proposed an independent federal state. This plan221/ provided, inter alia, that an independent federal state of Palestine would be created following a transitional period not exceeding three years, during which responsibility for administering Palestine and preparing it for independence would be entrusted to an authority to be decided by the General Assembly.

The independent federal state would comprise an Arab State and a Jewish State. Jerusalem would be its capital.

During the transitional period a Constituent Assembly would be elected by popular vote and convened by the administering authority on the basis of electoral provisions which would ensure the fullest representation of the population.
The Constituent Assembly would draw up the constitution of the federal state, which was to contain, inter alia, the following provisions:

The federal state would comprise a federal government and governments of the Arab and Jewish States, respectively.

Full authority would be vested in the federal government with regard to national defence, foreign relations, immigration, currency, taxation for federal purposes, foreign and inter-state waterways, transport and communications, copyrights and patents.

The Arab and Jewish States would enjoy full powers of local self-government and would have authority over education, taxation for local purposes, the right of residence, commercial licenses, land permits, grazing rights, inter-state migration, settlement, police, punishment of crime, social institutions and services, public housing, public health, local roads, agriculture and local industries.

The organs of governments would include a head of state, an executive body, a representative federal legislative body composed of two chambers, and a federal court. The executive would be responsible to the legislative body.

Election to one chamber of the federal legislative body would be on the basis of proportional representation of the population as a whole, and to the other on the basis of equal representation of the Arab and Jewish citizens of Palestine. Legislation would be enacted when approved by majority votes in both chambers; in the event of disagreement between the two chambers, the issue would be submitted to an arbitral body of five members including not less than two Arabs and two Jews.

The federal court would be the final court of appeal regarding constitutional matters. Its members, who would include not less than four Arabs and three Jews, would be elected by both chambers of the federal legislative body.

The constitution was to guarantee equal rights for all minorities and fundamental human rights and freedoms. It would guarantee, inter alia, free access to the Holy Places and protect religious interests.

The constitution would provide for an undertaking to settle international disputes by peaceful means.

There would be a single Palestinian nationality and citizenship.

The constitution would provide for equitable participation of representatives of both communities in delegations to international conferences.

A permanent international body was to be set up for the supervision and protection of the Holy Places, to be composed of three representatives designated by the United Nations and one representative of each of the recognized faiths having an interest in the matter, as might be determined by the United Nations.

For a period of three years from the beginning of the transitional period Jewish immigration would be permitted into the Jewish State in such numbers as not to exceed its absorptive capacity, and having due regard for the rights of the existing population within that State and their anticipated natural rate of increase. An international commission, composed of three Arab, three Jewish and three United Nations representatives, would be appointed to estimate the absorptive capacity of the Jewish State. The commission would cease to exist at the end of the three-year period mentioned above.

The minority plan also laid down the boundaries of the proposed Arab and Jewish areas of the federal state.

(3) Termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the Recognition of Its Independence as One State

The representative of Saudi Arabia, in a letter (A/317) dated July 7, 1947, and addressed to the Secretary-General, requested, on behalf of his Government, that the following item be placed on the agenda of the next (second) regular annual session of the General Assembly:

"The termination of the mandate over Palestine and the recognition of its independence as one State."

The same request was addressed to the Secretary-General by the representative of Iraq in a letter (A/328) dated July 14, 1947.

C. INITIAL STATEMENTS OF PARTIES IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED

During its second meeting on September 26, 1947, the ad hoc Committee agreed to hear the views of the representatives of the three parties immediately concerned in the Palestine question - i.e., the United Kingdom (as Mandatory Power), the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency for Palestine - before embarking upon a general debate. The report of the Special Committee on Palestine was introduced by its Chairman, Justice Sandstrom, during the second meeting of the ad hoc Committee.

(1) United Kingdom Viewpoint

The representative of the United Kingdom placed the views of his Government before the ad hoc Committee at the second meeting on September 26, 1947. Congratulating UNSCOP on the way in which it had carried out its task, he declared that the United Kingdom Government was in substantial agreement with the twelve general recommendations.222/ In particular, the United Kingdom Government endorsed and wished to emphasize three of these recommendations: Recommendations I (Termination of the Mandate) and II (Independence), both of which were an exact expression of the guiding principle of British policy, and Recommendation VI (Jewish Displaced Persons). Concerning the latter, the United Kingdom Government believed that the entire problem of displaced persons in Europe, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, was an international responsibility demanding urgent attention. His Government would make proposals in this connection subsequently.

The United Kingdom Government endorsed without reservation the view that the Mandate for Palestine should now be terminated.

He recalled that the representative of the United Kingdom had informed the General Assembly during its first special session that His Majesty's Government would be in the highest degree reluctant to oppose the Assembly's wishes in regard to the future of Palestine. At the same time, he further recalled, the United Kingdom representative had drawn a distinction between accepting a recommendation, in the sense of not impeding its implementation by others, and accepting responsibility for carrying it out by means of a British administration and British forces in Palestine.

The attitude of the United Kingdom Government remained as then stated, the representative of the United Kingdom said. His Government was ready to co-operate with the Assembly to the fullest extent possible. He could not easily imagine circumstances in which the United Kingdom would wish to prevent the application of a settlement recommended by the Assembly. The crucial question for His Majesty's Government was, however, the matter of enforcement of such a settlement.

His Government was ready to assume responsibility for implementing any plan on which agreement was reached by the Arabs and the Jews. If, on the other hand, the Assembly were to recommend a policy which was not acceptable to both parties, the United Kingdom Government would not feel able to implement it, and the Assembly should therefore provide, in such a case, for some alternative authority to implement it. Specifically, the United Kingdom Government was not prepared by itself to undertake the task of imposing a policy in Palestine by force of arms; as to the possibility of his Government's participation with other Governments in the enforcement of a settlement, his Government would have to take into account both the inherent justice of the settlement and the extent to which force would be required for its implementation.

In the absence of a settlement, the United Kingdom Government must plan for an early withdrawal of British forces and of the British Administration from Palestine.

In conclusion, the representative of the United Kingdom declared that if no basis of consent for a settlement could be found, it seemed to him of the highest importance that any recommendations made by the General Assembly should be accompanied by a clear definition of the means by which they were to be carried out.

(2) Viewpoint of the Arab Higher Committee

Addressing the ad hoc Committee at the third meeting on September 30, 1947, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee stated that it was obviously the sacred duty of the Arabs of Palestine to defend their country against all aggression, including the aggressive campaign being waged by the Zionists with the object of securing by force a country ■ Palestine ■ which was not theirs by right. The raison d'être of the United Nations was, he said, to assist self-defence against aggression.

The rights and patrimony of the Arabs in Palestine had been the subject of no fewer than eighteen investigations within 25 years, and all to no purpose. Commissions of inquiry had either reduced the national and legal rights of the Palestine Arabs or had glossed them over. The few recommendations favourable to the Arabs had been ignored by the Mandatory Power. For these and for other reasons already communicated to the United Nations, it was not surprising that the Arab Higher Committee should have abstained from the nineteenth investigation (i.e., UNSCOP's) and refused to appear before the Special Committee.

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee concluded from a survey of Palestine history that Zionist claims to that country had no legal or moral basis. In particular, he denied the legal or moral justification of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine, both of which, he declared, had been laid down by the Zionist Executive and the United Kingdom Government. As a result of Anglo-Zionist co-operation, Palestine's Jewish minority was placed in a privileged position vis-à-vis the Arab majority, while Arabs were being made the victims of discrimination.

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee emphasized the importance of the problem of immigration into Palestine. He accused the Mandatory Power of having overstepped the provisions of Article 6 of the Mandate by permitting Jewish immigration into Palestine to the detriment of the political, social and economic rights of the Palestine Arabs. If any room existed in Palestine for an increase in population, that room should be left for its natural increase. He emphasized the increasing determination of the Arabs to oppose all immigration.

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee stated that, yielding to Zionist pressure, the United Kingdom Government had failed to implement its own decision, made in 1939, that Jewish immigration into Palestine must cease and that Palestine must become an independent unitary state within a fixed time.

No people would be more pleased than the Arabs to see the distressed Jews of Europe given permanent relief. But Palestine already had absorbed far more than its just share, and the Jews could not impose their will on other nations by choosing the place and manner of their relief, particularly if that choice was inconsistent with the principles of international law and justice and prejudicial to the interests of the nation directly concerned. He recalled the relevant resolutions concerning refugees and displaced persons passed by the General Assembly on February 12 (8(I))223/ and December 15 (62(I)),224/ 1946, in that connection and mentioned the offer of the United Kingdom, made more than 40 years ago, to place Uganda at the disposal of the Jews as a national home, and, more recently, the efforts of the U.S.S.R. to create a Jewish national home in Biro-Bidjan.

Both places had more to offer the Jews than the tiny country of Palestine, but the Zionists had turned them down. The Zionists did not want Palestine for the permanent solution of the Jewish problem nor for the relief of the distressed Jews they wanted power; they had political ambitions and designs on strategically important Palestine and the Near East.

Then, too, it would be illogical for the United Nations to associate itself with the introduction of an alien body into the established homogeneity of the Arab world, a process which could only produce a "new Balkans".

The solution of the Palestine problem was simple. It lay in the Charter of the United Nations in accordance with which the Arabs of Palestine, constituting the majority of the population, were entitled to a free and independent state. He welcomed the statement by the representative of the United Kingdom that the Mandate should be terminated and its termination followed by independence, and expressed the hope that the United Kingdom Government would not, as in the past, reverse its decision under Zionist pressure.

Declaring that, once Palestine was found to be entitled to independence, the United Nations was not legally competent to decide or impose Palestine's constitutional organization, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee outlined the following principles as the basis for the future constitutional organization of the Holy Land:

1. That an Arab State in the whole of Palestine be established on democratic lines.

2. That the Arab State of Palestine would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law.

3. That the Arab State of Palestine would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities.

4. That freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places would be guaranteed to all.

He added that the following steps would have to be taken to give effect to the above mentioned four principles:

(a) A Constituent Assembly should be elected at the earliest possible time. All genuine and law abiding nationals of Palestine would be entitled to participate in the elections of the Constituent Assembly.

(b) The Constituent Assembly should, within a fixed time, formulate and enact a Constitution for the Arab State of Palestine, which should be of a democratic nature and should embody the above-mentioned four principles.

(c) A government should be formed within a fixed time, in accordance with the terms of the Constitution, to take over the administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power.

Such a program was the only one which the Arabs of Palestine were prepared to adopt, and the only item on the Committee's agenda with which the Arab Higher Committee would associate itself was Item 3.225/ i.e., the item proposed by Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee said he had not commented upon the UNSCOP Report because the Arab Higher Committee considered that it could not be used as a basis for discussion. Both the majority and the minority plans contained in the Report were inconsistent with the United Nations Charter and the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Arabs of Palestine were solidly determined to oppose with all the means at their disposal any scheme which provided for the dissection, segregation or partition of their country or which gave to a minority special and preferential rights and status.

(3) Viewpoint of the Jewish Agency for Palestine

The representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, addressing the ad hoc Committee at the fourth meeting on October 2, 1947, praised the Special Committee for its conscientious labours and good faith. The Jewish Agency had regarded it as an inescapable obligation to co-operate fully with the United Nations and had placed all the required information and data at the disposal of UNSCOP, while the Arab Higher Committee had refused to heed repeated UNSCOP invitations for co-operation. It was strange that, after having flouted its authority, the Arab Higher Committee asked the United Nations to support the Arab stand.

The representative of the Jewish Agency said that it would appear from the statement made by the representative of the United Kingdom that the latter did not intend to accept the General Assembly's impending recommendation on Palestine. If this be so, he wondered why the United Kingdom had asked the Assembly to place the Palestine problem on its agenda. Given the present realities of the Palestine situation, the undertaking of the United Kingdom Government to implement any settlement agreeable to both Jews and Arabs meant very little and did not advance the solution of the Palestine problem at all.

He welcomed the announcement that British troops were to be withdrawn at an early date, adding that this made a decision even more urgent than it had been at the time of the (first) special session.

On behalf of the Jewish Agency, he supported ten of the eleven recommendations unanimously adopted by UNSCOP. The exception was Recommendation VI (Jewish Displaced Persons). The Jewish Agency, he said, did not disapprove of this recommendation but did wish to call attention to the "intense urge" of the overwhelming majority of Jewish displaced persons to proceed to Palestine, a fact noted both by the Anglo-American Committee and by UNSCOP. While hoping that nations would welcome displaced persons wishing to emigrate to countries other than Palestine, the Jewish Agency considered that it would be unjust to deny the right to go to Palestine to those who wished to do so.

The representative of the Jewish Agency regarded the twelfth recommendation (The Jewish Problem in General) as unintelligible. He called it a mere postulate which, moreover, had not been accepted unanimously by the Special Committee. The "Jewish Problem in General" was, he said, none other than the age-old question of Jewish homelessness, for which there was but one solution, that given by the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate: the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.

The solution proposed by the minority of the Special Committee was unacceptable to the Jewish Agency; although it referred to "States", it actually made provision only for semi-autonomous cantons or provinces. Palestine would become an Arab state with two Jewish enclaves. The Jews would be frozen in the position of a permanent minority in the proposed federal state, and would not even have control over their own fiscal policies or immigration. It entailed all the disadvantages of partition without the compensating advantages of a real partition: statehood, independence and free immigration.

The majority proposal was not really satisfactory to the Jewish people, either. According to David Lloyd George, then British Prime Minister, the Balfour Declaration implied that the whole of Palestine, including Transjordan, should ultimately become a Jewish state. Transjordan had, nevertheless, been severed from Palestine in 1922 and had subsequently been set up as an Arab kingdom. Now a second Arab state was to be carved out of the remainder of Palestine, with the result that the Jewish National Home would represent less than one eighth of the territory originally set aside for it. Such a sacrifice should not be asked of the Jewish people.

Referring to the Arab States established as independent countries since the First World War, he said that 17,000,000 Arabs now occupied an area of 1,290,000 square miles, including all the principal Arab and Moslem centres, while Palestine, after the loss of Transjordan, was only 10,000 square miles; yet the majority plan proposed to reduce it by one half. UNSCOP proposed to eliminate Western Galilee from the Jewish State; that was an injustice and a grievous handicap to the development of the Jewish State.

The representative of the Jewish Agency also criticized the UNSCOP majority proposal concerning Jerusalem, saying that the Jewish section of modern Jerusalem (outside the Walled City) should be included in the Jewish State. He reserved the right to deal at a later stage with other territorial modifications.

If this heavy sacrifice was the inexorable condition of a final solution, if it would make possible the immediate re-establishment of the Jewish State with sovereign control of its own immigration, then the Jewish Agency was prepared to recommend the acceptance of the partition solution, subject to further discussion of constitutional and territorial provisions. This sacrifice would be the Jewish contribution to the solution of a painful problem and would bear witness to the Jewish people's international spirit and its desire for peace.

In spite of the heavy sacrifices which the Jewish State would have to make in this matter also, the Jewish Agency accepted the proposal for an economic union, terming it a promising and statesmanlike conception. The limit to the sacrifices to which the Jewish Agency could consent was clear: a Jewish State must have in its own hands those instruments of financing and economic control necessary to carry out large-scale Jewish immigration and the related economic development, and it must have independent access to those world sources of capital and raw materials indispensable for the accomplishment of these purposes.

The Jews of Palestine wanted to be good neighbours of all the Arab States. If their offer of peace and friendship were rejected, they would defend their rights. In Palestine there had been built a nation which demanded its independence, and would not allow itself to be dislodged or deprived of its national status. It could not, and would not, go beyond the enormous sacrifice which had been asked of it. It would not be cowed by idle threats.

The representative of the Jewish Agency urged that the transitional period leading to the establishment of the Arab and Jewish States in Palestine be made as short as possible; at any rate, shorter than the two-year limit proposed by UNSCOP. He favoured an international authority to be entrusted, under United Nations auspices, with the task of administering Palestine during the transitional period.

d. GENERAL DEBATE

In the general debate, which began during the ad hoc Committee's fifth meeting on October 4, 1947, and ended during the sixteenth meeting on October 16, 1947, opinion was sharply divided. Proponents of the UNSCOP majority plan in general held that the claims of Jews and Arabs both had merit and that no perfect solution of the Palestine problem could be devised. Under the circumstances, a compromise solution was indicated. The partition plan would demand sacrifices from both sides; but, in its emphasis on economic union, it laid the foundation for the eventual development of friendly relations among the two contending parties. Without committing themselves to all the details of the UNSCOP majority plan for partition with economic union, they would support the plan in principle, as the best and most equitable that could be achieved at present. Participants in the general debate who expressed themselves in these or similar terms were the representatives of Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Haiti, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, South Africa, Sweden, United States, Uruguay and U.S.S.R. The representatives of Colombia and El Salvador dealt with particular aspects of the Palestine problem displaced persons, appeals for an end to violence without taking a stand on UNSCOP's majority and minority plans as such. The representative of China, declaring that he could not support the UNSCOP majority or minority plan, urged that new efforts be made to secure Arab-Jewish agreement on a solution of the Palestine problem. Other Committee members held that the Assembly had no right under the Charter to decide to partition Palestine or to enforce such a decision. Representatives of several Arab States formally proposed that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice be obtained on this legal aspect of the question before the Assembly proceeded to act on the UNSCOP majority recommendation. Holding that partition violated both the Charter and a people's democratic right to self determination, the representatives of the Arab States Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen declared themselves in favour of an independent unitary state embracing all of Palestine, in which the rights of the minority would be scrupulously safeguarded. These Arab States were supported in their opposition to the partition plan by the representatives of Afghanistan, Argentina, Cuba, India, Iran, Pakistan and Yugoslavia, although not all of the latter explicitly expressed themselves in favour of the Arab States' objective of a unitary Palestine. Yugoslavia, in particular, strongly supported UNSCOP's minority recommendation for a federated state, and India indicated a preference for a large measure of autonomy for areas of the future state of Palestine having Jewish majorities.

Following the conclusion of the initial general debate, the ad hoc Committee, during its seventeenth and eighteenth meetings on October 17 and 18, 1947, once again heard representatives of the Jewish Agency and of the Arab Higher Committee reaffirm their positions.

e. PROPOSALS SUBMITTED DURING THE GENERAL DEBATE

In the course of the general debate, seventeen proposals were submitted to the ad hoc Committee.

El Salvador proposed (A/AC.14/3) that the General Assembly call on the Jewish Agenda and the Arab Higher Committee to appoint three representatives each to confer, under United Nations auspices, with a view to reaching agreement on a settlement of the Palestine question.

Uruguay suggested (A/AC.14/10) that 30,000 Jewish children be admitted to Palestine at once on humanitarian grounds.

Colombia submitted two proposals, the first (A/AC.14/11) being in the nature of an appeal to all interested parties to abstain from violence, the second (A/AC.14/12) calling for the creation of a special committee to study the observations and suggestions contained in the report of UNSCOP in so far as these deal with the problem of Jewish displaced persons, i.e., General Recommendations VI and XII and Sections VI and VII of the minority proposal.226/

Guatemala proposed (A/AC.14/13) acceptance, with certain modifications, of the UNSCOP majority plan, to be implemented by an international military police force composed of contingents contributed, on a proportional basis, by States Members other than permanent members of the Security Council, the cost of maintaining such a force to be borne by the five permanent members of the Security Council.

The United Kingdom proposed (A/AC.14/14) that each Member of the United Nations "adopt urgent measures for settling a fair share of displaced persons and refugees in its country" and co-operate with other nations through the International Refugee Organization, or its Preparatory Commission, in the development of overall plans to accomplish this end.

Sweden and the United States jointly proposed (A/AC.14/16) that the Committee accept the basic principles of the unanimous UNSCOP recommendations, as well as the UNSCOP majority plan, as the basis for its own recommendations to the General Assembly concerning the future government of Palestine.

The United Stares proposed (A/AC.14/17) the formation of a sub-committee to draw up a detailed plan for the future government of Palestine in accordance with the majority plan and the unanimous recommendations of UNSCOP, and to incorporate this plan in the form of recommendations to be transmitted to the ad hoc Committee not later than October 27, 1947.

Canada submitted an amendment (A/AC.14/23) to this proposal of the United States. Under the Canadian amendment, the sub-committee was to be given the following additional terms of reference:

"To consider the exercise of administrative responsibility in Palestine during the transitional period, including the possibility of the application of Chapter XII of the Charter; [and]

"To consider methods by which recommendations of the ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question . . . [based on the UNSCOP majority plan] would be put into effect."

The Netherlands (A/AC.14/18) called on the Committee to draft "(a) proposals for a fair and practicable solution of the Palestine question, as far as possible acceptable to both parties involved; (b) recommendations for the adequate and effective implementation of this solution, and (c) recommendations for an early solution of the problem of Jewish refugees and displaced persons".

Yugoslavia recommended (A/AC.14/19) the immediate admission to Palestine of all Jewish refugees detained in Cyprus.

Uruguay proposed (A/AC.14/20 and Corr. 1) acceptance of the UNSCOP majority plan as a basis for discussion in the ad hoc Committee with these modifications: that the territory of Galilee remain under the jurisdiction of the Jewish State, that the Arab city of Jaffa be transferred to the Arab State, that the Arab town of Beersheba be transferred to the Arab State, that the Jewish district of the new City of Jerusalem be included in the territory of the Jewish State, and that the Arab district of the new City of Jerusalem be included in the Arab State. Uruguay further proposed the establishment of a special ad hoc committee to study the plan for an economic union of Palestine, if the UNSCOP majority plan were adopted. Uruguay further proposed that the United Nations should take over the government and administration of Palestine during the transitional period (i.e., until September 1, 1949, at the latest) referred to in Section B of the UNSCOP majority report, these functions to be exercised by a Provisional Council composed of five members appointed by the General Assembly, three to be chosen from citizens of Member States, and two to be appointed on the proposal, respectively, of the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee. Decisions of this Provisional Council should be by a simple majority, except that all proposals voted for by both the Arab and Jewish representative on the Council, or introduced by them jointly, should be considered as adopted. Uruguay further proposed the following substantive proposal "in view of the letter and the spirit of Recommendation No. XII adopted by a majority vote of the Special Committee on Palestine...":227/

"The creation of a Jewish State will be the territorial solution for the European Jewish problem and will permit to reparate in part the terrible damage suffered under the Nazi persecution by the Jewish people, which is still exposed to new wrongs and racial discrimination."

Finally Uruguay reiterated its earlier proposal to admit at once into Palestine some 30,000 Jewish children from displaced persons camps in Europe and other places of detention or assembly.

Iraq proposed (A/AC.14/21) that the General Assembly submit the following "legal point" to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion under Article 96 of the Charter:

"Did not the pledges given by Great Britain to the Shereef Hussein of Mecca and her subsequent declarations, promises and assurances to the Arabs that in the event of Allied victory the Arab countries would obtain their independence include Palestine and its inhabitants?"

Syria submitted two proposals. The first of these (A/AC.14/22) proposed that the General Assembly recommend

"that the United Kingdom prepare as soon as possible an agreement under Article 79 of the Charter and submit it for approval to the General Assembly authorizing Great Britain, as administering authority, to complete her task in Palestine during the transitionary period in accordance with the said agreement, which shall contain the following provisions:

"1. That a Sovereign State for the whole of Palestine be established on a democratic basis,

"2. That a Constituent Assembly shall be elected at the earliest possible date, all genuine and law-abiding nationals of Palestine being entitled to vote,

"3. This Constituent Assembly shall within a fixed period formulate and enact a Constitution for the State of Palestine which shall be of a democratic character and contain provisions

"(a) guaranteeing human rights, fundamental freedoms and the equality of all persons before the Law,

"(b) guaranteeing the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities,

"(c) safeguarding the Holy Places and guaranteeing freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places to all.

"4. That a government shall be formed within a fixed period in accordance with the terms of the Constitution to take over the administration of Palestine from the administering authority."

The second Syrian proposal (A/AC.14/25) called for the addressing of a request for an advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice concerning the following questions:

"1. Are the terms of the Act of Mandate [i.e., United Kingdom Mandate for Palestine] . . . consistent or not consistent with the Covenant of the League of Nations . . . and with the fundamental rights of peoples and their right to self-determination and International Law?

"2. Is a forcible plan of partition . . . consistent with the objectives of the mandate and with the principles of the Charter and with the ultimate fate of mandated territories referred to in Chapter XII of the Charter?

"3. Does the plan of partition in its adoption and forcible execution fall within the jurisdiction of the General Assembly?"

Egypt also proposed (A/AC.14/24) that a request for an advisory opinion be addressed to the International Court of Justice. The Egyptian proposal would have submitted the following two questions to the Court: Does it lie "within the competence of the General Assembly to recommend any of the two solutions proposed by the majority or by the minority of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine"? and, Does it lie "within the rights of any Member State or group of Member States to implement any of the proposed solutions without the consent of the people of Palestine"?

Lebanon suggested (A/AC.14/26) that the General Assembly,

"Recognizing the danger that assistance in transport arms and money, to immigrants destined for Palestine is calculated to accentuate the existing tension in that country and to endanger peace in the Middle East

"Recommends that the Governments of Members of the United Nations refrain, and prohibit their nationals, from giving assistance in any form whatsoever to the said immigrants."

Finally, Syria verbally suggested, at the nineteenth meeting of the ad hoc Committee on October 21, 1947, the establishment of a sub-committee to study the agenda items jointly proposed by Iraq and Saudi Arabia for the creation of a unitary, independent state embracing all of Palestine. At the same meeting, Syria further proposed the establishment of a sub-committee composed of jurists to consider the Assembly's competence to take and enforce a decision (as distinct from making a recommendation) and to deal with the legal aspects of the Palestine Mandate. The question of referring the whole issue to the International Court of Justice could be discussed after the ad hoc Committee had received the report of the committee of jurists, the representative of Syria declared.

f. ESTABLISHMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES

Following the conclusion of the general debate and the hearing of statements by the representatives of the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency, the ad hoc Committee, at its nineteenth meeting on October 21, 1947, discussed its future procedure. The Chairman proposed that no vote should be taken at that stage on matters of principle, but that the Committee should establish:

1. a Conciliation Group, which would try to bring the parties together, as suggested by El Salvador and the Netherlands;

2. a sub-committee (Sub-Committee 1), entrusted with drawing up a detailed plan based on the majority proposals of the Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), as provided by the draft resolution of the United States, amended by Canada;

3. a sub-committee (Sub-Committee 2), to draw up a detailed plan in accordance with the proposal of Saudi Arabia and Iraq for the recognition of Palestine as an independent unitary stare, and the proposal to the same effect submitted by the delegation of Syria.

The Chairman's plan received wide support. Several delegations, however, urged that the Committee should itself make decisions on matters of principle and then entrust to a sub-committee the working out of details. A proposal to this effect was moved by the representative of the U.S.S.R., but was rejected by a vote of 26 to 14. The Committee then approved the procedure suggested by the Chairman.

The question of the composition of the three subsidiary bodies proposed by the Chairman was considered by the ad hoc Committee at its twentieth meeting, on October 22, 1947.

As regards the Conciliation Group, the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Rapporteur were authorized, if they succeeded in initiating the conciliation process, to co-opt other Members to assist them in their task.

The representative of the U.S.S.R. proposed that Sub-Committee 1 be composed of fifteen members, including all the members of the Security Council. This proposal was rejected by a vote of 32 to 6. The ad hoc Committee then decided to authorize its Chairman to name the members of both Sub-Committees 1 and 2. Both Sub-Committees were asked to submit their reports not later than October 29, 1947, subject to an extension of that time limit if necessary.

With regard to the various draft resolutions228/ which the Committee had not yet considered, it was decided at the twentieth meeting that (1) the discussion of the draft resolution by Sweden and the United States approving the principles of UNSCOP's majority plan (A/AC.14/16) should be deferred until the report of Sub-Committee 1 had been received; (2) the various resolutions proposing to amend the UNSCOP majority plan should be referred to Sub-Committee 1; (3) the Colombian draft resolution on acts of violence (A/AC.14/11) should be considered when the ad hoc Committee discussed its recommendations to the General Assembly; (4) either Sub-Committee was empowered to take up and consider any or all written proposals before the ad hoc Committee which it deemed relevant to the performance of its functions, such as the draft resolutions relating to the problem of Jewish refugees and displaced persons. (A proposal by the representative of Colombia to set up a special sub-committee to study this latter problem was rejected by a vote of 19 to 4.)

(1) Composition of Sub-Committees

By virtue of the authority vested in him by the ad hoc Committee, the Chairman on October 22 appointed the following Members to serve on the two Sub-Committees:

Sub-committee 1: Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Poland, South Africa, United States, Uruguay, U.S.S.R., Venezuela.

Sub-Committee 2: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen.

(2) Reports of Sub-Committees

(a) REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 1 (A/AC.14/34)

At its first meeting on October 23, 1947, Sub-Committee 1 elected
K. Pruszynski (Poland) as Chairman and E. Rodriguez Fabregat (Uruguay) as Rapporteur.

Representatives of the United Kingdom and of the Jewish Agency accepted invitations to attend all meetings of the Sub-Committee to furnish information and assistance. A similar invitation extended to the Arab Higher Committee was declined on the grounds that the Arab Higher Committee was prepared to assist and give information only regarding the question of the termination of the Mandate and the creation of a unitary state of Palestine.

Sub-Committee 1 held 32 meetings. To expedite its work it organized seven working groups as follows:

Working Group on the Holy Places, under the charge of K. Lisicky (Czechoslovakia).

Working Group on Citizenship, under the charge of the Rapporteur.

Working Group on International Conventions and Financial Obligations, under the charge of J. Garcia Granados (Guatemala).

Working Group on Economic Union, under the charge of Mr. Granados.

Working Group on Boundaries, under the charge of the Chairman and Rapporteur.

Working Group on implementation, composed of representatives of Canada, Guatemala, U.S.S.R. and United States.

Working Group on the City of Jerusalem, under the charge of
Mr. Lisicky.

In its report (A/AC.14/34) Sub-Committee 1 recommended the adoption of a draft resolution embodying a Plan of Partition with Economic Union, along the general lines of the UNSCOP majority plan (two independent states, an international regime for the City of Jerusalem and economic union of these three units).

As regards the Holy Places and the question of citizenship, the recommendations of Sub-Committee 1 virtually coincided with those of the UNSCOP majority plan.

As regards international convention, Sub-Committee 1 unlike UNSCOP recommended that disputes about their applicability and continued validity be referred to the International Court of Justice.

The Sub-Committee's recommendations on financial obligations unlike UNSCOP's proposal provided for the creation in Palestine of a Court of Claims to settle any disputes between the United Kingdom and either state respecting claims not recognized by the latter.

The Sub-Committee, while accepting the recommendations of UNSCOP regarding economic union, adopted certain technical modifications designed to strengthen the powers of the proposed Joint Economic Board while ensuring the widest measure of autonomy to the future states.

As for boundaries, the Sub-Committee, accepting the recommendations of UNSCOP in principle, proposed certain changes with a view to reducing, as far as reasonably possible, the size of the Arab minority in the Jewish State, and to taking into account considerations of security, communications, irrigation and possibilities of future development.

Among the most important suggested changes was that the Arab sections of Jaffa placed in the Jewish State in the UNSCOP majority plan should be excluded from the Jewish State and created as an Arab enclave, thus reducing the Arab minority in the Jewish State by between 78,000 and 81,000, depending on whether the Karton quarter of Jaffa, which is inhabited by both Jews and Arabs, was included in the proposed Arab enclave. The final decision on this question, as well as on details on boundary questions, would be left, according to the Sub-Committee's recommendations, to a demarcation commission which would fix the exact boundary lines on the spot.229/

In its report to the ad hoc Committee, Sub-committee 1 reported that the most difficult problem which it had faced was that of the implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union.

The Working Group on Implementation, taking into account the statement made by the representative of the United Kingdom prior to the general debate in the ad hoc Committee (that the United Kingdom Government planned an early withdrawal of its troops and administration from Palestine) agreed on November 10, 1947, to the outlines of a plan for implementation. This plan provided for the termination of the Mandate and the withdrawal of the armed forces of the Mandatory Power by May 1, 1948, and the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States by July 1, 1948. The implementation of the proposed General Assembly resolution was to be entrusted to a commission of from three to five members appointed by the Assembly, but acting under the guidance of the Security Council.

This plan was reconsidered by the Working Group in the light of an additional statement, and replies to questions of Sub-Committee members, made by the representative of the United Kingdom on November 13, 1947, before the Sub-Committee. From the replies and the statement, the Sub-Committee learned that the United Kingdom Government planned to withdraw its troops from Palestine by August 1, 1948. Neither British troops nor the Mandatory Civil Administration in Palestine would be prepared to enforce a settlement against either Arabs or Jews. The United Kingdom Government reserved the right to lay down the Mandate at any time after it became evident that the Assembly's decision was not acceptable to both Arabs and Jews. On the other hand, the United Kingdom Government would not take any action contrary to any resolution adopted by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly. Subject to the general reservation that the Mandatory Power must retain sufficient control in areas still under military occupation to ensure the safety of British troops and their orderly withdrawal, the Mandatory Power would not obstruct the task of the Commission appointed to implement partition, nor, subject to that same reservation, would it obstruct the establishment of Provisional Councils of Government for the Jewish and Arab States, the work of the Boundary Demarcation Commission, and the recommendations in regard to immigration and land regulations for the territory of the future Jewish State.

In the light of these additional observations of the representative of the United Kingdom, the Working Group unanimously proposed, and the Sub-Committee, with minor modifications, approved, a new plan of implementation, which may be summarized as follows:

The Mandate was to be terminated and British troops were to be withdrawn at a date to be agreed on by the Commission, consisting of five members (Guatemala, Iceland, Norway, Poland and Uruguay), and the Mandatory Power, with the approval of the Security Council, but in any case not later than August 1, 1948.

The proposed Jewish and Arab States, and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, would come into existence two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the Mandatory Power, but in any case not later than October 1, 1948. During the transitional period, the Commission would administer Palestine under the guidance of the Security Council, and would take the necessary measures to implement the Plan of Partition with Economic Union. Until the termination of the Mandate, the Mandatory Power was to maintain order and direct the main public services to the extent that these had not yet been placed under the direction of the Commission, Provisional Councils of Government and the Joint Economic Board, respectively. The Commission and the Mandatory Power were to co-operate, and there was to be a progressive transfer from the Mandatory Power to the Provisional Councils of Government and the Joint Economic Board, respectively, of responsibility for all the functions of government. During the transitional period, the Provisional Councils of Government, acting under the Commission, would have full authority in the areas under their control, including authority over matters of immigration and land regulation. Following the termination of the Mandate, the whole administration would be in charge of the Provisional Councils of Government and the Joint Economic Board, acting under the Commission. The Provisional Council of Government of each State was to recruit an armed militia from the residents of that State to maintain internal order. If by April 1, 1948, a Provisional Council of Government could not be selected, or could not carry out its functions in either of the States, the Security Council would take such action with respect to that State as it deemed proper.

Concerning the City of Jerusalem, the Sub-Committee adopted, with minor extensions, the boundaries proposed by UNSCOP.230/ The Sub-committee decided to recommend that the City of Jerusalem be placed under a Special International Regime in relation with the Trusteeship Council, rather than under an International Trusteeship, as recommended by UNSCOP.

The Sub-Committee also adopted a number of other amendments to various portions of the text of the recommendations of UNSCOP with a view to giving greater clarity and precision to details.

The Plan of Partition with Economic Union, as adopted by the Sub-Committee, was incorporated into a draft resolution and submitted to the ad hoc Committee for approval. All the recommendations and the draft resolution were adopted unanimously by the Sub-Committee, with the exception of a single paragraph relating to the composition of the special police force for the City of Jerusalem, the text of which was adopted by a vote of 6 to 1, with 2 abstentions.

(b) REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 2 (A/AC.14/32)

At its first meeting on October 23, 1947, Sub-committee 2 elected A. Gonzalez Fernandez (Colombia) as Chairman and Sir Mohammed Zafrulla Khan (Pakistan) as Rapporteur. On a preliminary review of the task assigned to it the drafting of a detailed plan for the termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the establishment of Palestine as an independent unitary state the Sub-Committee felt that it was somewhat unfortunate that both Sub-Committee 1 and Sub-Committee 2 were so constituted as to include in each of them representatives of only one school of thought, respectively, and that there was insufficient representation of neutral countries. Accordingly, it was proposed that the Chairman of the ad hoc Committee should be requested to reconstitute Sub-Committee 2 (irrespective of what might be done with regard to Sub-Committee 1) by replacing two of the Arab States in the Sub-Committee (which were prepared to withdraw) by neutrals or countries which had not definitely committed themselves to any particular solution of the Palestine question. The Chairman of the ad hoc Committee, being approached in this connection, explained to the Sub-Committee that he could not see his way to accepting this recommendation. In the circumstances, the representative of Colombia resigned from the Sub-Committee on October 28, and Sir Mohammed Zafrulla Khan (Pakistan) was elected as Chairman in his stead, at the same time retaining his position as Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee.

From the outset, the Sub-Committee decided to concentrate on three broad issues:

(1) The legal questions connected with or arising from the Palestine problem, in particular the three proposals bearing on the subject submitted to the ad hoc Committee by the delegations of Iraq, Egypt and Syria (A/AC.14/21, A/AC.14/24, A/AC.14/25).231/

(2) The problem of Jewish refugees and displaced persons and its connection with the Palestinian question.

(3) The termination of the Mandate over Palestine and constitutional proposals for the establishment of a unitary and independent state on the basis of the proposals submitted by Iraq and Saudi Arabia to the General Assembly.

Working groups were established to clear with each of these main issues and were constituted as follows:

Legal Problems: Pakistan, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Refugee Problem: Afghanistan, Colombia and Lebanon.

Constitutional Proposals: Egypt, Iraq and Yemen.

The reports of the three working groups were considered, amended and approved by the Sub-committee and constitute Chapters I, II and III, respectively, of its report to the ad hoc Committee. The conclusions of the Sub-Committee were embodied in three resolutions (Chapter IV) which were recommended to the ad hoc Committee for its recommendation, in turn, to the General Assembly.

A representative of the United Kingdom attended meetings of the Sub-Committee to provide assistance as required.

The three resolutions submitted by Sub-committee 2 to the ad hoc Committee for recommendation to the General Assembly read as follows:

Resolution No. I
DRAFT RESOLUTION REFERRING CERTAIN LEGAL QUESTIONS
TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

"Considering that the Palestine Question raises certain legal issues connected, inter alia, with the inherent right of the indigenous population of Palestine to their country and to determine its future, the pledges and assurances given to the Arabs in the first World War regarding the independence of Arab countries, including Palestine, the validity and scope of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, the effect on the Mandate of the dissolution of the League of Nations and of the declaration by the Mandatory Power of its intentions to withdraw from Palestine;

"Considering that the Palestine question also raises other legal issues connected with the competence of the United Nations to recommend any solution contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or the Charter of the United Nations, or to the wishes of the majority of the people of Palestine;

"Considering that doubts have been expressed by several Member States concerning the legality under the Charter of any action by the United Nations, or by any Member State or group of Member States, to enforce any proposal which is contrary to the wishes, or is made without the consent, of the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine;

"Considering that these questions involve legal issues which so far have not been pronounced upon by any impartial or competent tribunal, and it is essential that such questions be authoritatively determined before the United Nations can recommend a solution of the Palestine question in conformity with the principles of justice and international law,

"The General Assembly of the United Nations Resolves to request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion under Article 96 of the Charter and Chapter IV of the Statute of the Court on the following questions:

"(i) Whether the indigenous population of Palestine has not an inherent right to Palestine and to determine its future constitution and government;

"(ii) Whether the pledges and assurances given by Great Britain to the Arabs during the first World War (including the Anglo-French Declaration of 1918) concerning the independence and future of Arab countries at the end of the war did not include Palestine;

"(iii)Whether the Balfour Declaration, which was made without the knowledge or consent of the indigenous population of Palestine, was valid and binding on the people of Palestine, or consistent with the earlier and subsequent pledges and assurances given to the Arabs;

"(iv) Whether the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine regarding the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine are in conformity or consistent with the objectives and provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations (in particular Article 22), or are compatible with the provisions of the Mandate relating to the development of self-government and the preservation of the rights and position of the Arabs of Palestine;

"(v) Whether the legal basis for the Mandate for Palestine has not disappeared with the dissolution of the League of Nations, and whether it is not the duty of the Mandatory Power to hand over power and administration to a Government of Palestine representing the rightful people of Palestine;

"(vi) Whether a plan to partition Palestine without the consent of the majority of its people is consistent with the objectives of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and with the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine;

"(vii)Whether the United Nations is competent to recommend either of the two plans and recommendations of the majority or minority of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, or any other solution involving partition of the territory of Palestine, or a permanent trusteeship over any city or part of Palestine, without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine

"(viii)Whether the United Nations, or any of its Member States, is competent to enforce or recommend the enforcement of any proposal concerning the constitution and future Government of Palestine, in particular, any plan of partition which is contrary to the wishes, or adopted without the consent of, the inhabitants of Palestine.

"The General Assembly instructs the Secretary-General to transmit this resolution to the International Court of Justice, accompanied by all documents likely to throw light upon the questions under reference."

Resolution No. II
DRAFT RESOLUTION ON JEWISH REFUGEES AND DISPLACED PERSONS

"The General Assembly, having regard to the unanimous recommendations of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, that the General Assembly undertake immediately the initiation and execution of an international arrangement whereby the problem of the distressed European Jews will be dealt with as a matter "of extreme urgency for the alleviation of their plight and of the Palestine problem;

"Bearing in mind that genuine refugees and displaced persons constitute a problem which is international in scope and character,

"Considering that the question of refugees and displaced persons is indivisible in character as regards its possible solution;

"Considering that it is the duty of the Governments concerned to make provision for the return of refugees and displaced persons to the countries of which they are nationals;

"Being further of the opinion that where repatriation proves impossible, solution should be sought by way of resettlement in the territories of the Members of the United Nations which are willing and in a position to absorb these refugees and displaced persons;

"Considering that Palestine, despite its very small area and limited resources, has absorbed a disproportionately large number of Jewish immigrants and cannot take any more without serious injury to the economy of the country and the rights and position of the indigenous population;

"Considering that many other countries with much greater area and larger resources have not taken their due share of Jewish refugees and displaced persons;

"Having adopted a resolution (No. 62 (1)) on 15 December 1946 calling for the creation of an international refugee organization with a view to the solution of the refugee problem through the combined efforts of the United Nations; and

"Taking note of the assumption on 1 July 1947 by the Preparatory Commission of the International Refugee Organization of operational responsibility for displaced persons and refugees;

"Recommends:

"(i) That countries of origin should be requested to take back the Jewish refugees and displaced persons belonging to them, and to render them all possible assistance to resettle in life;

"(ii) That those Jewish refugees and displaced persons who cannot be repatriated should be absorbed in the territories of Members of the United Nations in proportion to their area, economic resources, per capita income, population and other relevant factors;

"(iii) That a Special Committee of the General Assembly should be set up to recommend for acceptance of the Members of the United Nations a scheme of quotas of Jewish refugees and displaced persons to be resettled in their respective territories, and that the Special Committee should, as far as possible, work in consultation with the International Refugee Organization or its Preparatory Commission."

Resolution No. III
DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE CONSTITUTION AND FUTURE GOVERNMENT OF PALESTINE

"The General Assembly, taking note of the declaration by the Mandatory Power of its intention to withdraw from Palestine;

"Considering that Palestine is a mandated territory whose independence was provisionally recognized by virtue of paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations;

"Recognizing that the only solution in consonance with the objectives of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations is one that is acceptable to the majority of the people of Palestine;

"Being satisfied that the partition of Palestine is unjust, illegal and impracticable and that the only just and workable solution is the immediate establishment of a unitary, democratic, and independent state, with adequate safeguards for minorities;

"Believing that peaceful and orderly transfer of power from the Mandatory to the Government of the people of Palestine is necessary in the interest of all concerned;

"Recommends:

"1. That a Provisional Government, representative of all important sections of the citizenry in proportion to their numerical strength, should be set up as early as possible in Palestine;

"2. That the powers and functions of the present Administration of Palestine should be vested in the Provisional Government as soon as the latter is constituted;

"3. That the Mandatory Power should begin the withdrawal of its forces and services from Palestine as soon as the Provisional Government is installed, and should complete the withdrawal within one year;

"4. That the Provisional Government should, as soon as practicable, enact an electoral law for the setting up of a Constituent Assembly, prepare an electoral register, and hold elections for the Constituent Assembly;

"5. That the Constituent Assembly should also function as a Legislature and that the Provisional Government should be responsible to it until elections for a Legislature are held under the new constitution;

"6. That while the task of framing a constitution for Palestine must be left to the Constituent Assembly the following basic principles shall be strictly adhered to:
(c) REPORT OF CONCILIATION GROUP

At the twenty-third meeting of the ad hoc Committee on November 19, 1947, the Chairman, speaking on behalf of the conciliation group, reported that the efforts of the group had not been fruitful. Both parties seemed too confident as to the success of their case before the General Assembly and there appeared to be little hope of conciliation, at least at the present time.

g. Ad hoc COMMITTEE CONSIDERS SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS

The reports of the two Sub-Committees (A/AC.14/34 and A/AC.14/32) and of the Conciliation Group were placed before the ad hoc Committee at the 23rd meeting on November 19, 1947, and their consideration began at the next meeting on November 20. On the latter date, in the course of the 25th meeting, the representative of the United Kingdom recalled the general principles contained in the statement made to the Committee on behalf of his Government at the second meeting.232/ He applied those principles to the specific proposals of Sub-Committees 1 and 2 with respect to the role assigned to the United Kingdom in the implementation of those proposals. In both cases the United Kingdom would have to perform certain functions which were not compatible with the declared intentions of its Government. In both cases, also since the Mandatory Power intended to withdraw from Palestine without assuming any responsibility for the establishment of a new regime which would not command general consent in Palestine there would be no regularly constituted authority in the evacuated areas unless the United Nations recommended a way in which the gap could be effectively filled.

The Committee adjourned to allow both Sub-committees to meet immediately to reconsider their respective recommendations in the light of this statement of the representative of the United Kingdom. Representatives of the United Kingdom attended the new meetings of the two Sub-Committees to answer questions and furnish information.

Sub-Committee 2 decided not to alter its proposals, while Sub-Committee 1 revised certain parts of the implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union (A/AC.14/34/Add.2).

The revised draft of Sub-Committee 1 was submitted to the ad hoc Committee at its 27th meeting on November 22,1947.

The discussion of both reports (i.e., of Sub-committees 1 and 2) was pursued during four meetings (27th to 31st).

During the 28th meeting, the representative of the Jewish Agency renewed the offer he had made in Sub-Committee 1, to transfer to the future Arab State a part of the Beersheba area and a portion of the Negeb along the Egyptian frontier, if such an offer could satisfy certain delegations which were in favour of partition but had suggested an extension of territory for the Arab State in the South of Palestine. Following this statement, the representative of the United States proposed a revision of the boundaries of the two future States in conformity with the suggestion of the Jewish Agency (A/AC.14/38).

In the course of the discussion, no amendments were proposed to the recommendations of Sub-committee 2, while the representatives of Australia (A/AC.14/39), Canada (A/AC.14/45), Denmark (A/AC.14/43 and Rev.1), France (A/AC.14/37), the Netherlands (A/AC.14/36), Pakistan (A/AC.14/40),Sweden (A/AC.14/35) and the United States (A/AC.14/42 and A/AC.14/38) submitted amendments to the recommendations of Sub-Committee 1; a joint amendment to the latter was also submitted by the delegations of Norway and Pakistan (A/AC.14/46).

Most of these amendments were of a technical nature, designed to elaborate or clarify provisions of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union, and most of them were adopted without opposition. A few amendments were not pressed by their sponsors. Only three amendments were rejected as a result of votes. One of these was proposed by Pakistan (A/AC.14/40) and would have laid down the principle that not more than ten per cent of the land, exclusive of state or waste lands, in the Arab and Jewish States could be owned by Jews or Arabs respectively. It was rejected by a vote of 22 to 8. The second amendment to be rejected was among those submitted by Sweden (A/AC.14/35). It would have deleted in the relevant paragraph of the draft resolution embodying the Plan of Partition with Economic Union, in connection with the administrative staff of the Governor of the City of Jerusalem, the phrase "and chosen whenever possible from the residents of the City on a non-discriminatory basis". The vote leading to the rejection of this amendment was 15 to 10. The third and final amendment to the recommendations of Sub-Committee 1 to be rejected by the ad hoc Committee (by a vote of 15 to 13) was among those submitted by France (A/AC.14/37). It would have inserted in the paragraph dealing with the official languages of the City of Jerusalem a passage explicitly naming English and French as being among languages which, in addition to Arabic and Hebrew, might be adopted as the official languages of the city.

Among the more important amendments adopted by the ad hoc Committee (in addition to the United States proposal to transfer to the proposed Arab State a part of the Beersheba area and a portion of the Negeb (see above)) was one, proposed by Denmark, calling upon the Security Council to consider whether the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace (if circumstances warranted this) and, if the answer was in the affirmative, to supplement the authorization of the Assembly by taking measures to empower the Commission to exercise its functions under the Partition Plan, and to determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged in the Partition Plan. Then, too, the Committee endorsed the joint proposal by Norway and Pakistan to leave the composition of the five-member Commission to the General Assembly rather than recommend specifically that it be composed of Guatemala, Iceland, Norway, Poland and Uruguay, as suggested by Sub-Committee 1.

During the general debate on the recommendations of Sub-Committees 1 and 2, opinion in the ad hoc Committee once again was sharply divided.

The representatives of Pakistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Saudi Arabia were of the opinion that the recommendations of Sub-committee 1 went beyond the Charter and were thus illegal. They favoured adoption of the proposals of Sub-Committee 2. Several of them addressed a series of questions both to the Chairman of Sub-Committee 1 and to the representative of the Mandatory Power, concerning the legality of the proposed Plan of Partition with Economic Union. The Plan was also opposed categorically by the representative of the Arab Higher Committee.

The representatives of the United Kingdom, El Salvador, Yugoslavia, Colombia, Belgium and Mexico announced that they would not vote for either the Partition Plan or the proposal to establish Palestine as an independent unitary state. The representative of Yugoslavia once again advocated the adoption of the UNSCOP minority plan for a federal state. The representative of Colombia stated that he would vote for the first of the three draft resolutions proposed by Sub-Committee 2, i.e., the one which would invite the International Court of Justice to provide an advisory opinion on several legal aspects of the Palestine question. The representative of France announced that he would vote for the referral of one of the eight questions listed in draft Resolution I to the International Court of Justice (i.e., whether the United Nations, or any of its Member States, is competent to enforce or recommend the enforcement of any proposal concerning the constitution and future government of Palestine, in particular, any plan of partition which is contrary to the wishes, or adopted without the consent, of the inhabitants of Palestine).

The representatives of Canada, Poland, Uruguay, Sweden, New Zealand, United States, Denmark, China, Chile, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, U.S.S.R. and Guatemala announced their support for the Plan of Partition with Economic Union, without necessarily subscribing to every detail thereof. Several representatives, notably those of New Zealand, Canada and Denmark, expressed doubts concerning the provisions for implementing the Partition Plan, emphasizing the crucial importance of implementation provisions. In general, however, these representatives held that the Partition Plan, although not a perfect solution of the Palestine question, represented the most equitable solution attainable under the circumstances. Support of the Partition Plan was also expressed by the representative of the Jewish Agency, who declared, however, that the Plan entailed heavy sacrifices for the Jewish people.

h. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ad hoc COMMITTEE

Voting on the recommendations occupied the ad hoc Committee during its 32nd meeting on November 24, its 33rd on November 25 and its 34th and final meeting on November 25, 1947.

First to be put to the vote were the three draft resolutions submitted by Sub-Committee 2.

Draft Resolution I, providing for the reference to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion concerning eight legal questions connected with or arising out of the Palestine problem, was voted on in two parts. The first, comprising questions 1 to 7 inclusive, was rejected by a vote of 25 to 18, with 11 abstentions. The second, comprising the last question,233/ was rejected by a vote of 21 to 20, with 13 abstentions.

Draft Resolution II dealing with Jewish refugees and displaced persons was put to the vote paragraph by paragraph. Paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 9 of the preamble, as well as the first two paragraphs of the operative part were adopted, the others rejected. The modified draft resolution as a whole received 16 votes in favour, 16 against, with 26 abstentions, and the Committee decided, in view of this result, to include the text of the modified draft resolution verbatim in its report to the General Assembly.

Draft Resolution III of Sub-Committee 2 (dealing with the establishment of an independent, unitary State of Palestine) was rejected by a vote of 29 to 12, with 14 abstentions.

The Committee then turned to the recommendations of Sub-Committee 1. After voting on the amendments, the Committee, during its 34th meeting, on November 25, 1947, voted on the amended draft resolution embodying the Plan of Partition with Economic Union. The draft resolution was adopted by a vote of 25 to 13, with 17 abstentions.234/

Before this vote, the representative of New Zealand announced that he would abstain, without prejudice to the vote he might cast in the General Assembly, because he regarded the implementation provisions as inadequate. He urged, as a duty which the United Nations owed to itself as well as to Arabs and Jews, that all Members, particularly the big Powers, pledge at the current Assembly that, if bloodshed and upheaval broke out in Palestine, a united effort to suppress it would be made by means of an international force to which all would contribute in proportionate strength.

The delegations of Syria, Iraq and Egypt protested against the partition resolution as being unjust, impractical, against the Charter and a threat to peace. The representative of Egypt reserved the right of his Government to consider the resolution null and void.

The report of the ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question (A/516) was then forwarded to the General Assembly for its consideration.

i. GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS RECOMMENDATIONS OF ad hoc COMMITTEE

The recommendations of the ad hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question (A/516) were considered by the General Assembly at the 124th to 128th plenary meetings, from November 26 to 29, 1947.

The Plan of Partition with Economic Union, in the form recommended by the ad hoc Committee, was supported, often with certain misgivings concerning particular aspects (e.g., the provisions for the Plan's implementation), by the representatives of Sweden, Canada, Brazil, United States, Poland, Uruguay, Netherlands, New Zealand, U.S.S.R., Belgium and Guatemala. The Plan was opposed, on the grounds that it violated the Charter and the principle of the right of self-determination of the Palestine population, by the representatives of the Philippines, Yemen, Greece, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Haiti, Pakistan, Cuba and Iraq.

Representatives of several other Members declared themselves equally dissatisfied with the Partition Plan and with the rival plan for a unitary Palestine. Those who under these circumstances announced that they would abstain from voting were the representatives of China and Ethiopia.

During the 127th meeting on November 28, the representative of Colombia submitted a draft resolution (A/518) which provided that a decision on the Palestine question be deferred and that the matter be referred back to the ad hoc Committee for further efforts at producing a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews. At the same meeting, the representative of France proposed a 24-hour adjournment to permit a last-minute effort at conciliating Arabs and Jews and at arriving at an agreed solution of the Palestine problem. The French motion was supported by the representatives of Denmark and Luxembourg, and opposed by those of Colombia and Poland. It was approved by the Assembly by a vote of 25 to 15, with 10 abstentions, and, consequently, the Assembly thereupon adjourned for 24 hours.

Following this 24-hour adjournment, the representative of Lebanon, at the 128th plenary meeting on November 29, 1947, deploring that since the beginning of the discussions "no démarche was attempted with the Arab delegations and no attempt was made to find any conciliation formula . . ." until the representatives of France and Colombia had intervened during the preceding plenary meeting, assured the Assembly that the Arab States had been and were always ready to listen to and study "any conciliatory formula susceptible of providing a reasonable and just solution of the Palestine question". They would have been happy to present a detailed plan embodying such a formula, but time had been lacking to do so between the present and the preceding plenary meeting. Nevertheless, the Arab States were in position to submit the "general principles which ought to serve as a basis for a compromise formula", namely:

"Principle number one: A federal independent state shall be set up in Palestine not later than 1 August 1948.

"Principle number two: The government of the independent state of Palestine shall be constituted on a federal basis and shall comprise a federal government and cantonal governments of Jewish and Arab cantons.

"Principle number three: The delimitation of the cantons shall be effected with a view to leaving as few Arab or Jewish minorities as possible in each Canton.

"Principle number four: The population of Palestine shall elect by direct universal suffrage a Constituent Assembly which shall draft the future constitution of the federal state of Palestine. The Constituent Assembly shall comprise all the elements of the population in proportion to the number of their respective citizens.

"Principle number five: The Constituent Assembly, in defining the powers of the federal stare of Palestine, as well as the powers of the judicial and legislative organs, in defining the functions of the cantonal governments, and in defining the relationships between the cantonal governments and the federal state, will be guided by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as the constitutions of the individual states of the United States of America.

"Principle number six: Among other necessary and essential provisions, the constitution shall provide for the protection of the Holy Places, freedom of access, visit and worship, in accordance with the status quo, as well as the safeguarding of the rights of religious establishments of all nationalities which are now found in Palestine."

In formulating these suggestions, the Arab States, the representative of Lebanon said, did not wish to exclude any suggestion or proposal which might be submitted by other delegations and which might be calculated to conciliate the points of view of Jews and Arabs.

The statement that no attempt at conciliation had been made was challenged by the representative of Iceland, who had been the Rapporteur of the ad hoc Committee. He recalled the efforts by the ad hoc Committee's Conciliation Group, adding that, as previously reported, these efforts had been doomed to failure in view of the vast gap between the contending parties.

The representative of the United States declared that the suggestions outlined by the representative of Lebanon coincided very largely with the plan recommended in the UNSCOP minority report, a plan which the ad hoc Committee had rejected. He moved that the recommendations of the ad hoc Committee be put to the vote immediately.

The representative of Iran submitted a draft resolution calling for a delay until January 15, 1948, in the deliberations of the Assembly on the Palestine question to enable the ad hoc Committee to reconvene and to study the matter further. The representative of Syria declared that the Chairman of the ad hoc Committee, in his capacity as Chairman of the Conciliation Group, had requested the chief of the Saudi Arabian delegation to make arrangements for consultations with the chief of the United States delegation to see if conciliation were possible. The representative of Syria further declared that the chief of the Saudi Arabian delegation had immediately notified the Chairman of the Conciliation Group of its readiness to accept this suggestion, but had never received an answer. Nor had another approach been made for such consultations to any of the delegations most directly concerned. Therefore, he maintained, the ad hoc Committee had not fulfilled its duties.

The representative of the U.S.S.R. opposed the proposal of the representative of Lebanon, and suggested that a vote be taken promptly on the recommendations of the ad hoc Committee.

The President ruled that the recommendations of the ad hoc Committee must be voted on before the Iranian proposal could be put to the vote.

The representative of Lebanon said he wished to call the Assembly's attention to the fact that the twelve general recommendations of UNSCOP235/ had not been voted on in the ad hoc Committee. He therefore suggested that this be done now, before a vote was taken on the Plan of Partition with Economic Union. The President ruled that these twelve recommendations had been a matter for the ad hoc Committee, and not for the General Assembly. He then submitted the report of the ad hoc Committee (A/516) to a roll-call vote.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.S.R., United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Abstained: Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

The report, including the Plan of Partition with Economic Union, was therefore adopted by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions (see below).

Following the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom pointed out that a number of details connected with the application of the resolution just adopted would closely affect his Government. He expressed the hope that the United Nations Commission (envisaged in the resolution) would communicate with his Government in order that arrangements might be agreed upon for the arrival of the Commission in Palestine and for the co-ordination of its plans with those of the Mandatory Power for the withdrawal of British administration and British military forces. Earlier, the representative of the United Kingdom had reaffirmed the policy of his Government as outlined before the beginning of the general debate in the ad hoc Committee, and had reaffirmed that, subject to the limitations of that policy, the Government of the United Kingdom would not obstruct the implementation of the Partition Plan.

Also, following the adoption of the resolution on Partition, the representatives of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen denounced the Partition Plan as being anti-Charter, illegal and immoral, and declared that their respective Governments, regarding the resolution embodying the plan as a recommendation (rather than a binding decision), would not feel bound by it.

The President then proposed, and the Assembly endorsed, the following Members for membership on the United Nations Palestine Commission: Bolivia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Panama and the Philippines.

On the proposal of the representative of Sweden, acting for the Rapporteur of the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee, the Assembly completed work on the Palestine aspect of the agenda of the second session by adopting the following resolution (181 (II) B):

"The General Assembly

<