Draft letters to Arab & Israeli delegations re. refugee property by Israel and blocked accounts; 13th Progress Report to the SecGen – UNCCP 303rd meeting (New York) – Summary record

UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE

Summary Record of the 303rd Meeting (Closed)

Held at Headquarters, New York, on Wednesday,

29 July 1953, at 11 a.m.

CONTENTS

1. Adoption of the agenda

2. Draft letter to the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations.

3. Draft letter to the Representatives of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen,

4. Report on the question of blocked Arab accounts.

5. Draft progress report of the Commission.

6. Other business.

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

The Agenda was adopted.

2. DRAFT LETTER TO THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF ISRAEL TO THE UNITED NATIONS.

The draft text was approved with minor changes.

3. DRAFT LETTER TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF EGYPT, IRAQ, LEBANON, SAUDI ARABIA, SYRIA AND YEMEN.

Mr. ROSS (United Stated of America) said that his delegation thought it preferable to omit the second part of the draft letter to the Arab delegations in order to avoid becoming too involved in the substance of the matter at that stage. It would be better to wait with a reply was received from Israel before taking up those points with the Arabs.

The CHAIRMAN agreed with Mr. Ross. He also wondered whether it was necessary to reproduce the text of the questions addressed to Israel in the letter to be addressed to the Arabs. The Arabs might well ask why the Commission had not put those questions earlier.

Mr. BARAN (Turkey) pointed out that the questions were referred to as having been put to Israel. There was no indication of the time element involved.

Mr. ROSS (United States of America) saw some advantage in communicating the specific questions asked of Israel; but tended to agree with the Chairman because the full text of the questions might initiate a process of discussion. It would be better simply to say, after the second paragraph, that the Commission was continuing to seek clarification of the attitude of Israel.

The CHAIRMAN agreed.

Mr. BARAN (Turkey) felt that in that case the members of the Commission must at least contact the Arab delegates and explain the situation to them on an informal basis.

It was so agreed.

4. REPORT ON THE QUESTION OF BLOCKED ARAB ACCOUNTS.

Mr. CHAI (Acting Principal Secretary) drew the Commission’s attention to a cable from Mr. Mesinessi informing the Commission that a two-week extension of the deadline for the submission of applications had been proposed by Mr. Kidron, of the Government of Israel. As for the question of sending a representative of the Commission to the Middle East he had informed the Secretary-General of the Commission’s request, and the Secretary-General had agreed in principle, indicating that he would prefer to have Mr. Reedman undertake the duty in view of Mr. Reedman’s previous experience in the matter. Mr. Chai had received a letter from Mr. Reedman, however, to the effect that Mr. Reedman for various reasons would be unable to make a further trip to the Middle East. He would continue to investigate the situation and would endeavour to submit a name at the next meeting of the Commission.

The CHAIRMAN suggested that he might try to talk with Mr. Rafael that day and inform him that the Commission favoured a two week extension as proposed by Mr. Kidron.

It was so agreed.

Mr. CHAI suggested that he might cable Mr. Messinessi, asking him to inform the banks unofficially of the Commission’s support of the extension of the deadline.

It was so agreed.

Mr. ROSS (United States of America) inquired how many accounts had been approved for transfer and said that it would be desirable to have information on the amounts made available.

Mr. CHAI (Acting Principal Secretary) noted that the information available, that contained in the draft Progress Report, extended only up until the end of the month of May.

5. DRAFT THIRTEENTH PROGRESS REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

Mr. ROSS (United States of America) wondered whether it was not desirable to postpone the issuance of the Progress Report. The particulars contained in the report could be brought up to date prior to the time when it would be released. The Commission could then review the timing of the release in the light of circumstances. He also wondered whether the report could not be made a good deal shorter, say one or two pages

The CHAIRMAN agreed that it might be better to postpone release of the report until later on. He had some reservations, however, regarding the second suggestion made by Mr. Ross.

It was agreed that the submission of the Progress Report would be postponed.

The meeting rose at 11.35 .a.m.