COMMUNIST BLOC OPPOSITION TO ARAB ASPIRATIONS IN PALESTINE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 114
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 8, 1998
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: June 23, 1953
• Content Type: REPORT

25X1C10b
25X1A8a
Sanitized Approved For Release:: CIA-RDP62-0086,5R000200180002-1
DOCUMENT NO.
N0 CHANGE tN CLASS. [3
^ DECLASSIFIED
CLASS. CHANGED TOt TS S ? iqq o
NEXT REVIEW DATES ~1N
AUTHa HR 70.2
AATfa o E a EYIEWEBr_ 056562
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
CF('TTT)TTV TTTtf 1 'kIAmTQ&j
COMMUNIST BLOC OPPOSITION
TO
ARAB ASPIRATIONS IN PALESTINE
25X1A8a
25X1A8a
25X1A2g
Date completed: 23 June 1953
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
25X1C10b
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
At the request of the delegate from the United Kingdom, `the
Palestine question was brought before the United Nations for official
consideration during the First Special Session of the General Assembly,
which convened 28 April 1947.
From that date until 11 December 1948, the General Assembly,
after lengthy deliberation, passed several far-reaching resolutions
affecting Palestine, its people, and its future. Chief among these
resolutions was the Plan of Partition, passed by the Assembly
29 November 1947.
Deliberations in the plenary meetings of the General Assembly and
in the various committees revolved around three basic alternative pro-
posals:
1. To create an independent unitary state in Palestine.
2. To partition Palestine into two separate states, one Jewish
and one Arab.
3. To create a temporary trusteeship for Palestine, pending a
final settlement mutually determined by and acceptable to
both Arab and Jewish populations in Palestine.
During the deliberations, the initiative was taken and held by Com-
munist delegates from the USSR and Poland who assumed the task of
influencing the Assembly to adopt resolutions the Communist bloc
sponsored.
On major issues the Communist position was directly opposite
to that of the Arab States. Whereas the Arab States wanted the Assembly
to pass a resolution for creation of an independent unitary state in
Palestine, the Communists championed passage of the Partition Plan;
and whereas the Arab States favored studying the trusteeship proposal
submitted by the United States during the Second Special Session, the
Communists raised vehement objections, allegedly because the proposal
would nullify the Partition Plan.
The records of the United Nations reveal beyond any doubt that
the Communist delegates were responsible for (1) passage of the
Partition Plan, (2) defeat of the various Arab Statest proposals on the
Palestine question, (3) defeat of the US proposal to create a temporary
trusteeship, (4) survival of the Partition Plan during the Second Special
Session, and (5) present conditions in Palestine and consequent insta-
bility throughout the Arab East.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
COMMUNIST BLOC OPPOSITION
TO
ARAB ASPIRATIONS IN PALESTINE
CONTENTS
PART ONE: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SECTION ONE: PALESTINE AND ITS FUTURE GOVERNMENT
SECTION TWO: THE PLAN OF PARTITION
SECTION THREE: REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS
PART TWO: EXAMPLES OF COMMUNIST BLOC STATEMENTS
SECTION ONE: PALESTINE AND ITS FUTURE GOVERNMENT
SECTION TWO: THE PLAN OF PARTITION
PART THREE: COMPARATIVE RECORD OF ROLL CALL VOTES ON
THE PALESTINE QUESTION
SECTION ONE: FIRST SPECIAL SESSION, 28 April - 15 May 1947
SECTION TWO: SECOND (REGULAR) SESSION, 16 September -
29 November 1947
SECTION THREE: SECOND SPECIAL SESSION, 16 April
-
14 May 1948
SECTION FOUR: THIRD (REGULAR) SESSION (PART I),
21 September - 12 December 1948
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
COMMUNIST BLOC OPPOSITION
TO
ARAB ASPIRATIONS IN PALESTINE
PART ONE: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SECTION ONE: PALESTINE AND ITS FUTURE GOVERNMENT
SECTION TWO: THE PLAN OF PARTITION
SECTION THREE: REVIEW AND CONCLUSION
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
SECTION ONE: PALESTINE AND ITS FUTURE GOVERNMENT
BACKGROUND
On 2 April 1947 Sir Alexander Cadogan, head of the United Kingdom
delegation to the United Nations, sent a letter (document A/286) to
Dr. Victor Chi Tsai Roo, Assistant Secretary-General of the United
Nations, in which he requested, on behalf of His Majesty's Government,
that the question of Palestine be placed on the agenda of the next regular
session of the General Assembly. The letter also asked that the Secretary-
General summon, as soon as possible, a special session of the General
Assembly for the purpose of constituting and instructing a special com-
mittee to prepare for the consideration of the question of the future
government of Palestine.
On 22 and 23 April 1947, the governments of Egypt, Iraq, Syria,
Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia sent almost identical letters to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations* each requesting inclusion of an additional
item in the agenda of the First Special Session of the General Assembly
namely, "The termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the declara-
tion of its independence."
Following the approval of the majority of United Nations members
to hold a special session for discussion of the proposal by the United
Kingdom, the first special session in the history of the United Nations
met in New York .28 April to 15 May 1947. The Palestine question was thus
officially brought before the United Nations for deliberation on 28 April
1947.
* Documents A/287, A/288, A/289, A/290, and A/291 respectively.
I. THE FIRST SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
28 April - 15 May 1947
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
On 1 May 1947, the General Assembly approved the United Kingdom's
request to place the question of Palestine on the agenda of the next regular
session of the General Assembly and to call a special session to .constitute
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
.
and instruct a special committee to prepare for the consideration, at
the regular session, of the question of the future government of Palestine.
On the same day, however, the Assembly rejected a proposal by the
Arab States to include the following item in the agenda of the First
Special Session: "The termination of the Mandate over Palestine and
the declaration of its independence. "
On 5 May 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution sub-
mitted jointly by Byelorussian SSR, Chile, Argentina, Yugoslavia, and
Uruguay. This resolution directed the First Committee to permit the
Jewish Agency for Palestine to state its views on the Palestine question.
A chronology of important events in the First Special Session of
the General Assembly leading to the adoption of the joint resolution follows:
A. COMMUNIST RECORD IN THE GENERAL COMMITTEE
1. The Termination of the Mandate over Palestine and
Declaration of its Independence
On Tuesday, 29 April 1947, during the 28th meeting,
Mahmoud Hassan Pasha, head of the Egyptian delegation and the only
Arab member of the Committee, proposed that the Committee begin con-
sidering the Arab States' request to include the following additional item
in the agenda of the First Special Session of the General Assembly: "The
termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the declaration of its
independence."
On Wednesday, 30 April 1947, during the 31st meeting,
the General Committee, after considerable deliberation, rejected the
Arab States' request by vote of 8-1, with 5 abstentions.
a. The Arab Position
Although the Egyptian delegate was the only Arab mem-
ber on the Committee, the other Arab States in the UN were allowed to
participate in the deliberation. All of them, without exception, fought
hard for inclusion of their sponsored item. (pp. 13-16; 19-25; 27-28;
29-37; 54; 68; 70; 80)
Official Records of the First Special Session of the General Assembly,
Volume II, General Committee, Verbatim Records of Meetings,
29 April - 7 May 1947
2
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
b. The Communist Position
The Communist bloc, represented on the Committee
by the USSR, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, did not launch a direct
attack on inclusion of the Arab proposal for termination of the Mandate
and declaration of Palestine independence. Instead, they shrewdly
attacked from the flank, by professing that no decision on the subject
should be taken prior to hearing the Jewish point of view.
In expressing the Polish delegation's opinion on the
proposed inclusion of the item Mr. Winiewicz (pronounced Viniyayvitch)
stated:
"However, the Polish delegation experiences great
difficulty in reaching a decision on the inclusion of the
suggested item, as formulated in our agenda, at the
present state of this Assembly's deliberations. The
difficulty arises out of the fact that the Egyptian pro-
posal, and others, suggest in a most decisive form
the termination of the Palestine mandate, even before
we have heard the opinion of the most interested party,
the Jewish people, for which the mandate in Palestine
provided special rights.
"We cannot, therefore, vote for the inclusion
of this additional item at this special session of the
General Assembly of the United Nations. We shall
abstain from voting, urging at the same time that
this committee should take up as soon as possible
the admission of a Jewish representative body for
consultation with this Assembly." (pp. 16-17;
29 April 1947)
`Mr. Gromyko (USSR) on the other hand, attempted to
embarrass the Arab States' representatives without showing his hand
when he asserted:
"The representatives of the Arab States have said
that they do not insist on a vote on their proposal at
this meeting. Thus, it seems to me that we have no
reason at present to vote on this proposal for it is as
if this proposal did not, as it were, exist at the present
meeting.
"I think this is the only explanation which corre-
sponds to the situation which has arisen. If this is
so, I would ask the representatives of the Arab dele-
gations and the representative of Egypt in particular,
to give a definite reply. I consider that the proposal
cannot be put to a vote at the present moment and that
it does not, as it were, exist at this stage.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
"Of course, I reserve the right to define my posi-
tion in regard to the vote when this proposal is dis-
cussed again, if it is discussed again and in the place
where it is discussed." (pp. 79-80; 30 April 1947)
c. The Communist Voting Record
The item was voted on by show of hands, and therefore
no record is available to indicate how each Communist member voted.
However, statements by each Communist member lead to the con-
clusion that the Communist bloc did not vote for the item but that,
on the contrary, the only vote cast in its favor was by the representative
from Egypt.
d. The Outcome
The rejection of the Arab-sponsored item was followed
on 30 April 1947 by adoption of the following compromise proposal, sub-
mitted by Mr. Aranha (Brazil), which received eleven votes in favor,
with three abstentions:
"The General Committee,
"Having considered the item of the supplementary
list entitled 'The termination of the Mandate over
Palestine and the declaration of its independence' sub-
mitted by the governments of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon,
Saudi Arabia, and Syria,
"Reports that it decided not to recommend that
item be placed upon the agenda of the General Assembly
as a separate item, but
"Recognizes that the terms of reference for the
special committee on Palestine will not exclude the
possibility of this or any other solution which may be
found appropriate." (p. 71)
2. Invitation to the Representative of the Jewish Agency for
Palestine to Appear before the General Assembly
On Friday, 2 May 1947, during the 32nd meeting, Mr.
Winiewicz, head of the Polish delegation, proposed that the General
Committee recommend adoption of the following draft resolution (docu-
ment A/BUR/79/Rev. 1):
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1.
"The General Assembly
"Resolved to give careful consideration to the
point of view of the Jewish people on the Palestine
question,
"Decides to invite the representative of the
Jewish Agency for Palestine to appear before the
General Assembly for consultation."
Later, during the same meeting, Mr. Winiewicz accepted
a Czechoslovakian amendment (document A/BUR/80) rewording the
second paragraph of the Polish resolution as follows:
"Decides to invite the representatives of the
Jewish Agency for Palestine to appear before the
plenary meeting of the General Assembly for the pur-
pose of expressing their views on this question."
a. The Arab Position
The Arab States, represented on the Committee by
Mahmdud Hassan Pasha, (Egypt) objected to having Jewish organizations
appear before the plenary meetings of the United Nations or before any
of its main committees, on the premise that, according to the United
Nations Charter, only representatives of States are allowed to appear
before the United Nations General Assembly. However, they did not
object to such organizations appearing before sub-committees. (pp. 114-116)
b. The Communist Position
The Communist bloc, represented by Poland, Czechoslo-
vakia, and the USSR, argued that the Jewish Agency for Palestine was
an internationally recognized body, that its opinion should be heard before
the General Assembly since the Jewish population of Palestine should be
given consideration.
The following excerpts from a statement made by Com-
munist delegates expose their views on the subject:
Mr. Winiewicz (Poland)
"May I here mention that the Jewish population of
Palestine has been connected with the Palestine problem
since the mandate was established. As early as 1908
the Zionist Organization in Palestine embraced upon
the work of practical colonization of that country and of
its development. The Palestine Office was founded in
Jaffa at that time and was the forerunner of the present
Jewish Agency in Palestine. For this reason we think
the Jewish population of Palestine also should be heard."
(p. 89; 2 May 1947)
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
"We have to hear not only the representatives
of the Arab countries who present the Arab point
of view, but we must also hear the Jewish point of
view." (pp. 89-90; 2 May 1947)
"May I repeat, we of the Polish delegation
cannot imagine how this General Assembly could
pass sound judgement on this problem without hear-
ing the views of the representative Jewish body when
preparing the terms of reference for the committee
proposed by the United Kingdom and now being dis-
cussed by the General Assembly." (p. 90; 2 May
1947)
Mr. Gromyko (USSR):
"When I speak of inviting the representatives
of the Jewish organizations, I have in mind primarily
an invitation to these representatives to attend the
General Assembly, that is, the plenary meetings.
The Soviet delegation does not accept the point of
view that the representatives of the Jewish organiza-
tions can be permitted to be present, let us say, at
the First Committee but at the same time cannot be
permitted to attend the General Assembly's plenary
meetings where- they would be given an opportunity
of expressing their views on this question. Such
half-hearted decision would be especially unjust from
the point of view of the Jewish population in Palestine,
which is vitally concerned in this matter. " (p. 110;
2 May 1947)
c. The Communist Voting Record
On Friday, 2 May 1947, during the 33rd meeting, and
after considerable debate, the Polish resolution as amended by Czecho-
slovakia (document A/BUR/80) was voted on and rejected by vote of
eight to three, with three abstentions. Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the
USSR, the only Communist members on the Committee, cast the three
votes favoring adoption of the resolution.
d. The Outcome
Rejection of the Polish resolution as amended (docu-
ment A/BUR/80) was followed by adoption of the US resolution (docu-
ment A/BUR /81) as amended by the United Kingdom.
3. Referring Jewish Requests to First Committee
On Friday, 2 May 1947, during the 33rd meeting, while deliber-
ating the Polish draft resolution calling for the invitation of the representative
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
of the Jewish Agency to appear before the General Assembly for consulta-
tion, Mr. Warren Austin, head of the US delegation, proposed, through
a draft resolution (document A/BUR/81), that the Polish draft resolution
as amended (document A/BUR /80) be reworded as follows:
"The General Committee,
"Having considered the communications referred
to it by the President of the General Assembly from
the Jewish Agency and other organizations requesting
that they be permitted to express their views on the
Palestine question,
"Recommends to the General Assembly that it
refer these communications to the First Committee
for its decision. "
During the same meeting the United Kingdom representa-
tive, Sir Alexander Cadogan proposed, and Mr. Austin agreed, that
the second paragraph of the US draft resolution be reworded as follows:
"Recommends to the General Assembly that
it refer these communications, as well as any communi-
cations of similar character which may be submitted
to the special session, to the First Committee for its
decision. " (p. 105)
a. The Arab Position
The Arab states approved and supported the US pro-
posed resolution because they believed that the US recommendation was
in conformity with the charter. (p. 116)
b. The Communist Position
Throughout the deliberations, the Communist delegates
maintained that it was necessary to invite the Jewish Agency for Palestine
to testify before the General Assembly, that not to do so would be unjust.
Their stand is best revealed by the following excerpts from two state-
ments made by Mr. Gromyko (USSR) and Dr. Fiderkiewicz /pronounced:
Feederkayvitch/ of Poland:
Mr. Gromyko:
"We heard the statement of the representative of
the United States of America, Senator Austin. He sub-
mitted a resolution to us which not only makes no pro-
vision for inviting the Jewish organizations to the
General Assembly's plenary meetings but does not
provide for inviting representatives of the Jewish
7
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
organizations at all. The resolution merely states
that statements and documents received from
Jewish and other organizations should be transmitted
to the appropriate Committee of the General Assembly.
The transmission of documents to the appropriate
Committee is practically a technical operation. Apart
from this, delegations have received at least the
main statements of organizations which have made
requests. Therefore, the solution offered by the
resolution does not get us much further; it does not
constitute the slightest progress in any way."
(pp. 110 -111; 2 May 1947)
"I understand the difficulties which the repre-
sentative of the United States is experiencing with
regard to our resolution. Nevertheless, the Polish
delegation does.not see much possibility of solving
the problem before us and arriving at a decision on
the resolution, after due consideration by the Com-
mittee, without a Jewish voice being heard before
the Assembly.
"Sending the matter to the First Committee
for consideration would serve only to prolong the
situation for the present, and no one knows for how
long. That is why the Polish delegation regrets
that it cannot accept the proposal of the United
States representative. " (p. 118; 2 May 1947)
c. The Communist Voting Record
On Friday, 2 May 1947, during the 33rd meeting,
the General Committee, by show of hands, voted to adopt the US
proposal as amended 11-0, with three abstentions. Although the
vote was not recorded, the negative Communist attitude toward
the US proposal would indicate that they did not support it.
d. The Outcome
Following the adoption of the US resolution as amended,
the General Committee submitted a report to the General Assembly,
(document A/299) containing the following resolution:
"The General Committee,
"Having considered the communications referred
to it by the President of the General Assembly from
the Jewish Agency and other organizations requesting
that they be permitted to express their views on the
Palestine problem,
"Recommends to the General Assembly that it
refer these communications, as well as any communi-
cations of a similar character which may be submitted
to this special session, to the First Committee for its
decisions " (p. 126; 2 May 1947)
8
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
B. COMMUNIST RECORD IN THE PLENARY MEETINGS #
1. The Termination of the Mandate over Palestine and the
Declaration of its Independence.
On, Thursday, 1 May 1947, during the 71st Plenary meet-
ing., the Arab States' item, "The termination of the Mandate over
Palestine and the declaration of its independence", which they had
wanted included in the agenda of the First Special Session of the General
Assembly, was reintroduced by the President of the Assembly, Mr.
Aranha (Brazil) for further discussion and final decision.
a. The Arab Position
The position of the Arab States' representatives on
the inclusion of their proposed item was similar to that adopted by
them in the General Committee.
b. The Communist Position
Throughout the deliberations, the Communist bloc
did not show its hand, and not one of its representatives voiced an
opinion on this item. The Communist bloc remained silent on this
issue despite previous assertions by Messrs. Winiewicz and Gromyko
in the General Committee meetings. The former had stated that his
delegation could not vote for inclusion of this item in the agenda of this
special session; the latter had warned that he reserved the right to
define his position in regard "to the vote when this proposal is discussed
again, if it is discussed again and in the place where it is discussed."
c. The Communist Voting Record
On Thursday, 1 May 1947, during the 71st meeting,
the item sponsored by the Arab States was rejected 24--15 with 10
abstentions. Byelorussian SSR, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, and Yugoslavia
voted for the item, Czechoslovakia and Poland abstained.
Official Records of the First Special Session of the General Assembly,
Volume I, Plenary Meetings of the General Assembly, Verbatim Record,
28 April - 15 May 1947
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
d. The Outcome
As result of the negative vote, the Assembly adopted
the following agenda and referred it to the First Committee for further
deliberation:
"Item 1. Constituting and instructing a special
committee to prepare for consideration of the question
of Palestine at the second regular session." (p. 60;
1 May 1947)
2. Invitation to the Representative of the Jewish Agency for
Palestine to Appear before the General Assembly
On Saturday, 3 May 1947, during the 73rd Plenary meet-
ing, Dr. Fiderkiewicz (Poland) delivered a lengthy statement in which
he defended the Polish delegation's negative attitude on the report of
the General Committee (document A/299). He also resubmitted the
Polish resolution, as amended by Czechoslovakia, (document A/BUR/80)
inviting representatives of the Jewish Agency to appear before the General
Assembly after declaring:
"The Polish delegation regrets that it must oppose
the report of the General Committee; it asks this Assembly
to reverse the decision of the General Committee by voting
in favor of the Polish resolution." (p. 71)
On Monday, 5 May 1947, during the 75th meeting,
Mr. Gonzalez Fernandez (Colombia) presented the following joint resolu-
tion for adoption, (document A/305) submitted by Chile, Uruguay, Byelo-
russian SSR, Yugoslavia, and Argentina:
"The General Assembly resolves,
?
"1. That the First Committee grant a hearing to
the Jewish Agency for Palestine on the question before
the Committee;
"2. To send to that same Committee for its decision
those other communications of a similar character from
the Palestinian population which have been received by
this special session of the General Assembly or may
later be submitted to it." (p. 100)
a. The Arab Position
The Arab attitude toward this question remained unchanged.
The only Arab delegate who expressed his delegation's opinion on the
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
issue was Mr. Zeineddine, (Syria) who reiterated the views expressed
previously in the General Committee, to the effect that, according to
the Charter, the Jewish Agency for Palestine, since it did not represent
a State, was not entitled to testify before the General Assembly.
b. The Communist Position
Undismayed by defeat in the General Committee, the
Communist delegates, Messrs. Fiderkiewicz (Poland), Gromyko (USSR)
and Kosanovic (Yugoslavia) consumed much of the Assembly's time in
arguing that the Jewish Agency for Palestine should be invited to testify
before the General Assembly on the Palestine question. Highlights of
their statements on this issue follow.
the arguments in favor of barring the Jewish
Agency from the plenary meeting which promise eventual
support for its being heard by one of the committees,
are not convincing to our delegation. I cannot understand
what type of procedure can be adopted by the committee'
to which the Agency's request is referred. As I stated
yesterday, we do not find anywhere in the rules of pro-
cedures, nor especially in the Charter, any rule to
prohibit the hearing of the Jewish Agency or any other
representatives before any organs of the General
Assembly. The lack of such a prohibition would be
quite sufficient to justify the adoption of the resolution
proposed by the Polish delegation, as amended by the
Czechoslovak delegation." (p. 70; 3 May 1947)
Mr. Gromyko:
"Concerning the resolution which is under dis-
cussion at the present meeting of the General Assembly,
and which was adopted yesterday by the General Com-
mittee, I must state that in the view of the Soviet
delegation this resolution is unsatisfactory. It is
unsatisfactory, in the first place, because it does
not provide for an opportunity for representatives of
Jewish organizations to express their views at the
plenary meeting of the General Assembly.
"In the second place, it is entirely unsatisfactory
for the further reason that, in speaking of the First
Committee as a possible place where representatives
of Jewish organizations can or might express their
views on the Palestine problem, the resolution com-
pletely omits to say that the representatives of
these organizations should be invited. The resolu-
tion merely says that communications and documents
received from Jewish organizations should be referred
to the First Committee, which would take the neces-
sary decisions. In other words, the resolution con-
tains the General Assembly's recommendation to
refer documents from Jewish organizations to the
First Committee." (p. 82; 3 May 1947)
11
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
And again,
"The Soviet delegation, as in the General Com-
mittee, will support the proposal, which we dis-
cussed yesterday at the meeting of the General Com-
mittee, to admit representatives of Jewish organiza-
tions to the General Assembly, to the Plenary meeting,
in order that they may be given an opportunity to set
forth their views on this question, which has become,
and is continuing to become, more and more acute."
(p. 82; 3 May 1947)
Mr. Kosanovic (Yugoslavia):
"The Yugoslav delegation believes that the
General Committee missed an opportunity in dealing
with a problem which was not necessarily complicated,
and which had no political implication.
"That was the question of hearing before the
General Assembly those who, in every sense of the
word, are directly concerned with the solution of
the Palestinian problem, and without whose parti-
cipation the terms of reference for an investigating
commission could not be made explicit.
"Listening very carefully to all the speeches in
the General Committee, I was under the impression
that there was no difference in the expression of under-
standing among us for those who were the first victims
of nazi crime; but the rejection of the proposal of the
Polish delegation, amended by the Czechoslovak dele-
gation, to give an opportunity to the representatives of
the Jewish Agency for Palestine to expose their views
before the General Assembly, was a great disappoint-
ment. Not only was the proposal rejected, but we have
before us a resolution proposed by the majority of the
General Committee which tries to solve a problem of
principle with meaningless technical expedience.
"The Yugoslav delegation feels that the safety
of this world parliament would not be threatened if
we decided to hear a representative of the Jewish
organization in the General Assembly. Such a hear-
ing would have a symbolic meaning in the sense
that we, the free., peace-loving peoples of the
world, after the victory over nazi ideologies, would
be identifying ourselves in understanding, in sup-
port, and in appreciation, with those who were the
first victims of the brutal nazi-fascist ideology of
race supremacy and discrimination, with the first
victims of gas chambers and concentration camps. "
(pp. 87-8; 5 May 1947)
c. The Communist Voting Record
On Monday, 5 May, during the 75th Plenary meeting,.
the Polish resolution, as amended by Czechoslovakia, (document A/BUR /80)
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
was rejected 39-8, with 7 abstentions. Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia,
Poland, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, and Yugoslavia voted for the resolution.
Following this rejection the Assembly voted on and
adopted the Joint resolution (document A/305) 44-7, with 3 abstentions.
d. The Outcome
The adoption of the Joint resolution was an obvious
victory for the Jewish organizations which had applied for permission
to be heard by the Assembly. It was a victory also for the Communist
delegates, who strove unremittingly to have the Assembly grant a hearing
to these Jewish organizations.
SECTION TWO: THE PLAN OF PARTITION
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
On 29 November 1947 the General Assembly of the United Nations
adopted the Ad Hoc Committee report (document A/516) embodying a
draft resolution F181 (II)/ recommending partition of Palestine into
two separate States - one Arab, one Jewish.
On 11 December 1948, the General Assembly adopted the Committee
1 draft resolution (document A/776 as amended). This resolution called
for establishment of a Conciliation Commission, and resolved that (1)
the Jerusalem area be placed under United Nations' control, (2) refugees
wishing to return to their homes be permitted to do so, and (3) compen-
sation for lost or damaged property be made by the authorities concerned.
A chronology of important events leading to the 11 December resolu-
tion follows, together with examples showing the part played by the
Soviet Union and its satellites in the creation of the State of Israel.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
I. THE SECOND SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 16 September -
29 November 1.947
A. COMMUNIST RECORD IN THE AD HOC COMMITTEE
1. The Palestine Question and the International Court of Justice
On Monday, 24 November 1947, the first draft resolution
contained in "Report of Sub-Committee 2 to the Ad Hoc Committee on
the Palestine Question" (document A/AC -14/ 32 and Add. 1) was voted
on and rejected by the Ad Hoc Committee. This resolution recommended
that the International Court of Justice be requested to give an advisory
opinion on vital legal questions involving the rights and fate of the
indigenous population of Palestine, and also on certain treaties and
covenants affecting these people.
a. The Arab Position
Believing that the International Court of Justice is
the only legal body qualified to give an opinion on vital legal questions
involving the fate of the whole population of a country, the Arab States'
delegates fought for adoption of the "First Draft Resolution". (pp. 173-175;
185-186; 194-195)
b. The Communist Position
The Soviet bloc delegates, knowing that adoption of
the resolution would end their well-planned scheme for partitioning
Palestine, insisted that the UN Assembly was qualified to render its
opinion on the Palestine controversy, and opposed the Arab States' desire
to have the legal aspects of the matter referred to world's highest tribunal-
the International Court of Justice (p. 184). The Communists refused to
support the resolution even after it had been stripped of its most pertinent
part, as will be noted below.
Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly, Ad Hoc
Committee on the Palestinian Question, Summary Records of Meetings,
25 September - 25 November 1947
14
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
c. The Communist Voting Record
(1) Paragraph 1 of this resolution's operative part,
up to and inclusive of sub-paragraph (g) was rejected by a majority of
eight votes, five of which were cast by Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia,
Poland, Ukrainian SSR, and the USSR.
(2) Paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (h) of the resolution,
which is the last section of the operative part, was rejected by only one
vote, with Byelorussian SSR, Poland, Ukrainian SSR, and the USSR
voting against it, and Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia abstaining.
d. The Outcome
Rejection of the operative part of the resolution auto-
matically killed the resolution and the hope of the Arabs for a favorable
decision by the International Court of Justice and for avoidance of further
unfavorable decisions in the future.
2. The Palestine Question, Jewish Refugees and Displaced Persons
On Monday, 24 November 1947, the second draft resolution
contained in "Report of Sub-Committee 2 to the Ad Hoc Committee on the
Palestinian Question" (document A/AC 14/32 and Add. 1) received a tie
vote and therefore was not adopted by the Ad Hoc Committee. This
resolution contained important recommendations affecting Jewish refugees
and displaced persons in Europe, and their rehabilitation, and also affecting
the fate of Palestine and its people. It contained three 'paragraphs recom-
mending that (1) countries of origin be requested to take back Jewish
refugees and displaced persons belonging to them, (2) Jewish refugees
and displaced persons who could not be repatriated should be absorbed into
the territories of Members of the United Nations in proportion to their
area, economic resources, per capita income and population, and (3) a
special Committee of the General Assembly should be set up to recommend
a plan for resettlement of Jewish refugees and displaced persons in their
respective territories.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
This second draft resolution was not adopted because
the Soviet Union and its satellites voted against each recommendation and
against the whole resolution, as modified by subsequent amendments.
a. The Arab Position
The Arab delegates fought desperately to have this
resolution adopted, since by it resettlement of Jewish displaced persons
and refugees in countries other than Palestine would be facilitated and
the danger of their threatening influx on Palestine would thus be stemmed.
(pp.75; 87-9; 92-4; 100-101; 195)
b. The Communist Position
The Soviet bloc, on the other hand, did not think that
increased Jewish emigration to Palestine would be harmful and that
Palestine could absorb large numbers of Jewish refugees and displaced
persons. (pp. 42-3; 70)
c. The Communist Voting Record
(1) The first recommendation of this resolution was
adopted by roll call vote of 17-14,with 23 abstentions. The Ukrainian SSR
and the USSR voted against, and Byelorussian SSR; Czechoslovakia, and
Yugoslavia abstained.
(2) The second recommendation was adopted by a roll
call vote of 18-16, with 21 abstentions. Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia,
Poland, Ukrainian SSR, and the USSR voted against; Yugoslavia abstained.
(3) The third recommendation was not adopted, having
been voted down 18-15, with 22 abstentions. Byelorussian SSR, Poland,
Ukrainian SSR, and the USSR voted against; Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia
abstained.
(4) The first paragraph of the preamble to the second
draft resolution was adopted by show-of-hands vote, 20-10. (No record
on show-of-hands voting is available to ascertain how the Soviet bloc voted.)
(5) The second paragraph of the preamble was adopted
by show-of-hands vote of 17-15.
16
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 'Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
(6) The third paragraph of the preamble was rejected
by show-of-hands vote, 18 -15.
(7)
The fourth paragraph was rejected by show-of-hands
vote, 17-15.
(8)
The fifth paragraph was adopted by show-of-hands
vote, 18 -15.
(9)
The sixth paragraph was rejected by roll call vote,
26-11, with 18 abstentions. Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland,
Ukrainian SSR, and the USSR voted against, and Yugoslavia abstained.
c. The Outcome
The second draft resolution, as amended by rejections,
received a tie vote, 16-16, with 23 abstentions, and was therefore not
adopted. Byelorussian SSR, Ukrainian SSR, and the USSR voted against,
and Czechsolovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia (having been assured of the
rejection of the resolution) abstained.
3. Establishment of a Unitary State
On Monday, 24 November 1947, the third draft resolution,
contained in "Report of Sub-Committee 2 to the Ad Hoc Committee on the
Palestine Question" (document A/AC 14/32 and Add. 1) was rejected by
the Ad Hoc Committee. The chief recommendation of this resolution
was formation of a provisional representative government in Palestine
and establishment therein of a unitary, sovereign state which would have
a democratic constitution, with an elected legislature and an executive
responsible to it.
The Arab States delegates pinned their hopes on this
resolution. If adopted, it would fulfill their dreams and crown with success
their efforts to save Palestine undivided. They gave it their whole support.
(pp. 10-11; 25; 31; 48; 90; 95) '
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
b. The Communist Position
From the outset, the Soviet bloc insisted on the Jewst
right to Palestine. Delegates expressed the opinion that, under prevailing
conditions, it would be impossible to get Arabs and Jews to live peaceably
together in a single unitary state. (pp. 41; 69; 184)
c. The Communist Voting Record
The third draft resolution was voted down 29-12, with
14 abstentions. Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian
SSR, and the USSR voted against, and Yugoslavia abstained.
d. The Outcome
With 12 votes for, and 29 against, and with the Communist
bloc having voted against the first two draft resolutions, they clinched the
matter by voting against the third draft resolution. It was on this resolu-
tion that the Arab States counted in order to stem the tide of Zionism
already beating against the shores of Palestine. The rejection left the
door wide open for voting on the only remaining alternative- -the plan of
partition.
4. The Partition Plan
On Tuesday, 25 November 1947, the Ad Hoc Committee
climaxed and ended its deliberations on the Palestine question by adopting
the draft resolution and partition plan contained in "Report of Sub-Committee
1 to the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question" (document A/AC
14/34 and Corr. 1 and Add. 1 as amended). This resolution recommended
the adoption and implementation of the "Plan of Partition with Economic
Union" as defined in the remainder of the report, and as amended.
a. The Arab Position
Throughout the deliberations the Arab States' delegates
had fought! desperately against adoption of this resolution. They warned
that its adoption would create an endless problem in Palestine and the
Arab World; and to all the world they declared that creation of a Jewish
State would create a wave of anti-Semitism which would harm Jewish
populations everywhere. (pp. 75; 81-2; 102; 104; 107; 18; 194-5)
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
b. The Communist Position.
The Communists, on the other hand, argued that the
Jews were entitled to part of Palestine, that Partition was the only
possible solution to Arab-Jewish strife, and that Palestine was large
enough to absorb large numbers of the Jewish refugees. Their stand
on partition was a logical sequence of statements defending the right
of Jews to Palestine and consistent with their voting record in favor
of partition and against any other solution.
c. The Communist Voting Record
The partition resolution was adopted by roll call vote,
25-13, with 17 abstentions. Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland,
Ukrainian SSR, and the USSR voted for, and Yugoslavia abstained.
d. The Outcome
Adoption by the Ad Hoc Committee of the partition
resolution paved the way for its adoption at the plenary meeting of
the General Assembly, 29 November 1947.
B. SOVIET RECORD IN THE PLENARY MEETINGS
1. The Partition Plan
On Saturday, 29 November 1947, at the 128th Plenary
meeting, the. General Assembly adopted the report of the Ad Hoc Com-
mittee (document A/516). In this report the Ad Hoc Committee recom-
mended to the General Assembly adoption of its draft resolution / 18:1(II)/
on the future government of Palestine, which embodied a plan of partition
with economic union.
a. The Arab Position
The Arabs stood pat on their previous assertions, empha-
sizing that. they would not recognize.?the resolution if adopted, and would
not be responsible for any consequent developments.
Official 'Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly, Plenary
Meetings of the General Agsenibly, Verbatim Record, 16 September -
29 November, Volume II, 110th - 128th Meetings, 13 November -
29 November 1947.
Sanitized - Approved For Release9 : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
b. The Communist Position
Unchanged.
c. The Communist Voting Record
The partition resolution was adopted 33-13, with 10
abstentions. Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian SSR,
and the USSR voted for; Yugoslavia abstained.
d. The Outcome
Triumph for the Soviet bloc; shattered hopes for the
Arabs; confusion rampant in Palestine. A second Special Session for
further consideration of the future government of Palestine was therefore
obligatory.
II. THE SECOND SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
16 April - 14 May 1948
BACKGROUND
As a result of the refusal of the Arab States to recognize the
29 November 1947 Partition Plan, and the subsequent deterioration of
the situation in Palestine, the US Government representative on the
Security Council, at the 275th meeting of the Council, on 30 March 1948,
submitted a draft resolution (S/705) requesting the Secretary-General
"to convoke a special session of the General Assembly to consider further
the question of the future government of Palestine. " This resolution was
adopted by nine votes, Ukrainian SSR and the USSR abstaining. Although
the Communist delegates on the Security Coincil abstained, the statement
made by the Soviet representative, Mr. Gromyko, following the submission
of the US draft resolution, showed that the Communists had opposed the
resolution and reconsideration of the Partition Plan of 29 November 1947.
Mr. Gromyko stated that the General Assemblyts decision in favor of
partition of Palestine was equitable, and that the USSR delegation saw
no reason for convening a special session of the General Assembly.
Thus, in accordance with the Security Council decision of 30 March,
the General Assembly opened its second special session, 16 April 1948.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
A. COMMUNIST RECORD IN THE FIRST COMMITTEE
No votes were taken by roll call throughout the 117th-141st meet-
ings; therefore no record is available to show how the Communist bloc
representatives voted. However, in statements made by these representa-
tives concerning the alternative plans of partition and trusteeship, their
hostility toward the Arabs, their utter disregard for the rights and fate
of the indigenous population, and their obvious pro-Jewish sympathies
were all plainly indicated.
1. The Trusteeship Proposal
On Tuesday, 20 April 1948, during the 118th meeting of
the First Committee, Mr. Warren Austin (US), reviewed the course of
events since passage of the partition resolution in the General Assembly
and stressed the necessity of a workable solution for the Palestine question.
He then circulated, for consideration by the First Committee, a working
paper (document A/C 1/277) embodying a draft trusteeship plan for
Palestine. In presenting this working paper, Mr. Austin stated that the
trusteeship proposed by the US delegation was "an emergency measure to
ensure public order and the maintenance of public services, " and that the
"trusteeship would be entirely without prejudice to the rights, claims or
positions of the parties or to the character of the eventual settlement." (p. 97)
The plan, as defined in the United States' working paper,
(document A/C 1/277) proposed establishment of a trusteeship leading
to self-government under UN administration, and guaranteed the territorial
integrity of Palestine until such time as it would reach the self-governing
stage.
Official Records of the Second Special Session of the General Assembly,
Volume II, Main Committees, Summary Records of Meetings, 16 April -
14 May 1948
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
a. The Arab Position
The Arab representatives felt that the US working paper
merited consideration, and that trusteeship was much better than parti-
tion. Their position was well defined by Syria's elder statesman, Faris
El-Khouri, who on Wednesday, 21 April. 1948, at the beginning of the .120th
meeting, endorsed consideration of the trusteeship working paper by stating
that "the new proposal put forward by the United States in the form of a
working paper (document A/C 1/277) required study", and that "they
(the UN delegates) should be grateful to the United States for preparing
a working paper to facilitate this task." (pp. 25-6)
b. The Communist Position
On Tuesday, 20 April 1948., at the beginning of the 119th
meeting, Mr. Gromyko (USSR), as senior Communist representative and
spokesman for his group, launched a severe attack against the US working
paper and any attempts to nullify the partition. He opened his attack by
asserting that he (Gromyko) "shared the anxiety felt by some representatives
by reason of the fact that the partition had not been carried out, that the
Palestinian question was being brought before the General Assembly for
the third time and that one Government (the US) was putting forth proposals
which had the effect of nullifying the General Assembly's decision, and
further, promoted neither the interests of the people of Palestine nor the
maintenance of international peace." Mr. Gromyko ended his long-winded
speech by stating:
"The USSR delegation would therefore vote against
the new United States proposal for the establishment of
trusteeship in Palestine."
"The USSR delegation considered that the decision
on the partition of Palestine was a just decision and that
the United Nations should take effective measures to
ensure its implementation." (pp. 17 and 20)
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
c. The Outcome
On Wednesday, 21 April. 1948, Mr. Jessup, (US) in
stressing the urgency of the problem before the First Committee and the
need for haste in finding a solution, stated that "the draft trusteeship
agreement, (document A/C 1/277) submitted by his delegation, contained
a number of technical questions which ought properly to be considered
by the Fourth Committee. " He added that "the United States delegation
had circulated a draft resolution (document A/C 1/278) proposing that
-the draft trusteeship agreement be referred to the Fourth Committee
for study and report to the General Assembly." (pp. 26-7)
Following Mr. Jessup's statement, Messrs. Katz-Suchy
(Poland), Tarasenko (Ukrainian SSR), Gromyko (USSR), Kaminsky
(Byelorussian SSR), Vilfan (Yugoslavia), Houdek (Czechoslovakia), and
Panyushkin (USSR), respectively, assailed the trusteeship proposal and
Mr. Jessup's suggestion that it be considered by the Fourth Committee.
In their individual and repeated statements throughout the deliberations,
they made it clear to all concerned that they (the Communist representa-
tives) would not accept any proposal at any time which would modify the
Partition Plan of 29 November 1947.
Thus, as result of the adamant position maintained by
the-Communist representatives concerning the US working paper (document
A/C 1/277) the trusteeship question was killed without a vote, by the
introduction of watered-down amendments and by passage on 4 May of
the Cuban Amendment (document A/C 1/290) to the draft resolution of
Guatemala as amended. This amended resolution called for the appoint-
ment of a sub-committee composed of the officers of Committee 1 together
with representatives of Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Cuba, Guatemala,
France, India, the USSR, and the US to formulate and report to the
Committee a proposal for a provisional regime for Palestine, taking into
account: (a) whether it is likely that such proposal will commend itself
to the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine, (b) whether it is possible
to implement this proposal and make it workable, and (c) the approximate .
cost of such proposal.
23
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
B. COMMUNIST RECORD IN THE PLENARY MEETINGS
NOTE: The trusteeship plan was not'deliberated in the plenary meetings,
since the vote on it was blocked in the First Committee.
III. THE THIRD SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, .21 September -
12 December 1948
RECAPITULATION
Three main proposals were deliberated during the third session of
the General Assembly. These were: (1) the USSR draft resolution request-
ing that all troops of Arab States be withdrawn from Palestine, (2) the
Syrian draft resolution recommending that a special committee be set up
to prepare proposals for establishment of a unitary state in Palestine on
a canton or federal basis, and (3) the new Syrian draft resolution requesting
the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on certain
legal points affecting the fate of Palestine and its people. None of these
resolutions, however, were passed by the Committee. As a result of
their rejection, the First Committee submitted its report (document A/776)
on the Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine. This
report of the First Committee contained a resolution calling for establishment
of a Conciliation Commission for Palestine with certain definite functions,
and responsibility for specific decisions concerning the Holy Places and
refugees. This report was debated in the plenary meetings of the General
Assembly and was adopted on 11 December 1948 by a majority df 35-15,
with 8 abstentions.
Although representatives of both the Arab and Communist blocs
voted against the draft resolution, as amended, (document A/776), UN
records, shown below in chronological sequence, reveal that both sides
held diametrically opposite views on this and other resolutions deliberated
in the preceding First Committee and Plenary meetings.
Official Records of the Second Special Session of the General Assembly,
Volume I, Plenary Meetings of the General Assembly, Summary Records
of Meetings, 16 April - 14 May 1948
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
A. COMMUNIST RECORD IN THE FIRST COMMITTEE
1. Palestine and Removal of Arab Troops
On Thursday, 25 November 1948, during the 212th meet-
ing, Mr. Tsarapkin (USSR) submitted a resolution (document A/C 1/401)
recommending "the immediate removal from the territories of the Jewish
and Arab States in Palestine, the creation of which was provided for by
General Assembly resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, of all foreign
troops and foreign military personnel. ""
a. The Communist Position
In support of his resolution Tsarapkin stated that in his
opinion the presence of foreign troops in Palestine was "a hindrance to
peaceful adjustment of the situation and that it was essential that they
should be withdrawn.'" He also contended that "their pressure on the
territories of the Arab and Jewish States created by the Assembly's
resolution 181(11) of 29 November was illegal and unjustified and maintained
a tense situation which might lead to further military action. "" (p. 755;
25 November 1948)
The Communist delegates, in turn, echoed Tsarapkin's
claims and endorsed his resolution. Mr. Kiselev (Byelorussian SSR)
ventured to clarify the "foreign troops" term by stating that they were the
"'regular troops of Transjordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and elsewhere"
(p. 795; 29 November 1948) But neither he, nor Tsarapkin, or any other
member of his Communist group volunteered to state whether or not the
Jewish troops, who were not natives of Palestine, were included in the
term "foreign troops". Obviously, the actual aim of the resolution was
to remove Arab troops from all Palestinian territory and leave what was
left of Arab Palestine undefended - an easy prey for the army of Zion.
Official Records of the Third Session of the General Assembly, Part I,
First Committee, Summary Records of the Meetings, 21 September -
8 December 1948
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
The Arab States' delegates claimed that Arab troops
were in Palestine at the invitation of the Arabs living there, to defend
the land and people from invasion. They further stated that the real
foreign troops were those fighting on the side of the Jews, who were
neither natives nor legal residents of Palestine. They opposed the Com-
munist resolution, believing that the subject could best be resolved in
the Security Council.
c. The Communist Voting Record
On Saturday, 4 December, after hearing the Communist
charges and the Arab rebuttal, the Committee rejected the resolution by
a vote of 33-7, with 8 abstentions. Seven of the eight votes for the resolu-
tion were cast respectively by Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland,
Ukrainian SSR, USSR and Yugoslavia.
d. The Outcome
The rejection of the USSR resolution (document A/C 1/401)
was followed by a vote on the Syrian resolution (document A/C 1/402) calling
for the creation of a unitary State in Palestine.
2. Palestine and the Creation of a Modified Unitary State
On Friday, 26 November 1948, during the 214th meeting,
Mr. Faris El-Khouri (Syria) submitted a draft resolution (document A/C
1/402) embodying the following:
"The General Assembly,
"Decides to constitute a Commission composed of
five member states with functions:
"To study on the spot and to prepare proposals for
the establishment of a single state of the whole of
Palestine on a cantonization or federal basis in which
all sections of population in Palestine will participate
in rights and duties as loyal citizens of a democratic
state with wide autonomous privileges in cantons or
areas to be assigned to each of them."
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
In submitting draft resolution A/C 1/402, Mr. El-Khouri
(Syria) expressed the Arab view:
?'. . . the proposals under discussion were far
from winning the support of the Arabs in Palestine
as in the Middle East. Consequently, those proposals
could not ensure peace and security in the Middle
East. The partition policy of the Assembly had initi-
ated the disasters there and there was no hope of
changing the situation if the same policy were con-
tinued. In the present circumstances the Arabs
could not accept the recommendations before the
Assembly. "
"Even if the Assembly were to adopt a resolu-
tion along the lines proposed, the question of its
implementation arose. Such a decision would have
to be forced upon the Arabs and the Assembly was
not competent to make compulsory recommendations.
'?This proposal would assure that all minority
rights would be confirmed. The division into cantons
enjoying a large measure of autonomy would provide
for local administration by the people in accordance
with their own interests. "
The Syrian proposal would ensure the security
Of the Holy Places by placing them under the adminis-
tration of those who would respect them. Moslem,
Christian and Jew could be sure of access to them
under a cantonal or federal regime. Under this
plan, too, the Arab refugees would have the neces-
sary assurances if they were to return to their
homes. Thus the Palestine problem could be solved
without any difficulties or dangers, either in the
present or in the future. ?" (pp. 781-2; 26 November
1948)
b. The Communist Position
The Syrian draft resolution (document A/C 1/402) was
a great concession by the Arabs in their attempt to solve the Palestine
question. But the Communist delegates knew that its adoption would
quash their plans, upsetting their calculated scheme to create an ever-
smoldering inferno in Palestine which would render the whole Arab East
a prey to Communism. The Communist delegates therefore opposed the
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
resolution, stating that its adoption would nullify the Partition Plan.
Mr. Tsarapkin (USSR) led the attack on the Syrian draft resolution,
declaring:
"As to the Syrian draft resolution (A/C 1/402) it
would put the Assembly right back in the position in
which it had been before the adoption of the November
resolution. It was well known that the Assembly,
during its first special session had considered at
length the proposal for a unitary State and had rejected
it as impracticable. There was no reason to re-examine
the proposal, and the Committee could not possibly
entertain such a suggestion in view of the fact that
the Jewish State had come into being in conformity
with the Partition Plan, and could not be liquidated. "
(p. 820; 30 November 1948)
The other Communist delegates to a man agreed with
Tsarapkin's stated views and one by one asserted that the Syrian draft
resolution was not acceptable.
c. The Communist Voting Record
On Saturday, 4 December 1948, the Syrian draft resolu-
tion (document A/C 1/402) was rejected by vote of.26-14, with 8 absten-
tions. The Communist bloc - Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland,
Ukrainian SSR, USSR, and Yugoslavia - voted solidly against the resolution,
as was expected.
d. The Outcome
Rejection of the Syrian draft resolution (document A/C 1/402)
by the First Committee led to a vote on the same resolution,as amended by
el Salvador, (document A/C 1/405) recommending that the International
Court of Justice review and give an opinion on certain legal questions
pertaining to the status quo in Palestine.
3. The Palestine Question and the International Court of Justice
On Wednesday, 1 December 1948, Mr. Faris El-Khouri
(Syria) submitted a draft resolution (document A/C 1/405) requesting the
International Court of Justice, under Article 96 of the Charter and Chapter
IV of its Statute, to give legal opinion (1) on the power of the Assembly,
under the Charter, to partition Palestine in order to create within its
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
borders a sovereign Jewish State against the wishes of the majority of
the Palestine population, and (2) on the international status of Palestine
upon the termination of the Mandate on 15 May 1948. The resolution
further stipulated that the Secretary-General would supply the Court
with documents pertinent to this matter, and that the parties concerned,
Arabs and Jews, might submit to the Court, through the Secretary-General,
the representations they deemed necessary in order to clarify the question'.
a. The Arab Position
This resolution followed a lengthy statement by
Mr. Eban (Provisional Government of Israel) to the effect that the State
of Israel claimed full rights over the entire territory assigned to it under
the resolution of 29 November, and that the territories seized by Israeli
forces, in addition to those claimed by the Partition Plan, were "a fit
matter for negotiations, in which the various claims of the State of
Israel should receive due consideration." (p. 832; 1 December 1948)
In submitting this resolution, Mr. El-Khouri (Syria)
"The Arabs would never yield to any proposal to
lay down the boundaries of a separate Jewish State.
The General Assembly had no power to delimit the
frontiers of any country whatsoever without the consent
of the inhabitants. Therefore, it could not do so with-
out exceeding its powers.
"The Syrian delegation had submitted a proposal
noting that the General Assembly was not 'competent
under the Charter to divide States'. If any of the
delegations had doubts on the question, the General
Assembly should seek an advisory opinion from the
International Court of Justice as suggested in the
new Syrian draft resolution (A/C 1/405)." (p. 833;
1 December 1948)
The Arab delegates had been hopeful that the First Com-
mittee would pass the Syrian draft resolution (document A/C 1/402) direct-
ing the preparation of proposals for establishment of a unitary State in
Palestine. But that resolution met with solid opposition from the Com-
munist bloc, causing the Arab delegates to submit draft resolution A/C 1/405,
in case their first draft resolution was not adopted. They felt that this
Sanitized - Approved For Releas9: CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
resolution would very likely be adopted, inasmuch as during an earlier
session of the General Assembly, twenty delegations had voted in favor
of consulting the International Court of Justice, and six members of the
Security Council had subsequently voted the same way.
The Communist Position
None of the Communist delegations, apparently, thought
it necessary to repeat their already stated, negative views concerning
the new Syrian draft resolution (document A/C 1/405). Instead, they
concentrated on defending the USSR draft resolution (document A/C 1/401)
calling for removal of all foreign (i. e. Arab) troops from Palestine.
c. The Communist Voting Record
Having disposed of all other outstanding resolutions,
the First Committee, on Saturday, 4 December 1948, by tie vote of 21-21,
with 4 abstentions, rejected the Syrian draft resolution as amended by
El Salvador. The Communist bloc voted solidly against this resolution.
d. The Outcome
Following its rejection "Mr. El-Khouri (Syria) stated
that he reserved the right to re-submit his resolution concerning consulta-
tion of the International Court to the General Assembly and have it voted
upon again." (p. 933; 4 December 1948) With the rejection of the USSR
draft resolution (document A/C 1/401), and the two Syrian draft resolutions
(documents A/C 1/402 and A/C 1/405 as amended) the First Committee
ended its deliberations on the Palestine question and forwarded its report
to the General Assembly (document A/776) for consideration.
B. COMMUNIST RECORD IN THE PLENARY MEETINGS
1. The Conciliation Commission
On Saturday, 11 December 1948, during the 184th meeting,
Mr. Sarper (Turkey) Rapporteur, presented the report of the First Com-
mittee on the Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine,
Official Records of the Third Session of the General Assembly, Part I,
Plenary Meetings of the General Assembly, Summary Records of Meetings,
21 September - 12 December 1948
3
Sanitized - Approved For Release: CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00865R000200180002-1
and the accompanying resolution.
The resolution included in this report (1) called for estab-
lishment of a Conciliation Commission having certain definite functions;
(2) resolved that the Holy Places in the Jerusalem area and elsewhere
in Palestine be accorded adequate protection; (3) resolved that the Jeru-
salem area "should be placed under effective United Nations' control";
(4) resolved that refugees wishing to return to their homes be permitted
to do so, and that compensation should be paid (a) for the property of
those choosing not to return, and (b) for "the loss or damage to property
which under principles of international law or in equity, should be made
good by the Governments or authorities responsible. "
~.9 _ l r Erie a_