Israeli Letters re incidents in Jerusalem; Armistice agreements to lead to peace negotiations – UNCCP 71st meeting (Lausanne) – Summary record

UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SEVENTY-FIRST MEETING

held in Lausanne on Monday,

13 June 1949, at 10:45 a.m.

Letters from the Head of the Israeli delegation (documents IS/21, IS/22 and IS/23).

With regard to the letter concerning a free zone for the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom in the port of Haifa (18/21), the Commission decided to transmit the proposal to the delegation of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom, after first inquiring of Dr. Eytan whether he could furnish further details concerning the plan under consideration.

As regards the second letter, on the subject of the incidents in the neutral zone of Government House in Jerusalem (IS/22), the PRINCIPAL SECRETARY drew attention to telegrams received from General Riley and Mr. Moltu stating that the situation was still under discussion.

It was decided that no action would be taken on the letter for the present, other than to communicate its substance to General Riley and Dr. Bunche. The Commission further decided to acknowledge General Riley’s telegram with thanks and a request to be kept informed of developments.

With reference-to the third letter, concerning the relation between the Armistice Agreements and peace negotiations (IS/23), Mr. HARE agreed with Mr. de Boisanger that it was difficult to take a position on the proposal, particularly since the Arab delegations would probably take the view that the proposal circumvented the Protocol. Mr. Hare suggested that the Commission should study the letter further and discuss it at a later meeting.

The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY pointed out that the principle involved was not a new one; three months previously, in Jerusalem, the Secretariat had, at the request of the Commission, prepared a memorandum setting forth the elements and passages in the armistice agreements which seemed to prepare the way for the permanent peace                  (document W/5).

The CHAIRMAN thought it was clear that the proposal was a tactical move to circumvent the Protocol. The Security Council resolution to which Dr. Eytan referred did not imply that the Armistice agreements should be the actual basis of the peace settlement, but merely that armistice agreements should be concluded as a necessary step toward peace.

Mr. de BOISANGER agreed that it was essential not to depart from the Protocol. He pointed out that when the Commission had made its study of the Armistice Agreements in an effort to find therein a basis for convening the Lausanne meetings, it had unfortunately been unable to find any such basis. The Lausanne meetings had been convened on other grounds, namely, the Commission’s mandate of conciliation. It was important not to give the impression that the Commission had departed from the principle which had motivated it in calling the meetings. He thought it could be stated clearly to Dr. Eytan that the argument he had set forth was invalid and could even be considered dangerous.

Mr. HARE felt that regardless of the merits or faults of the proposal, the Commission should recognise the fact that a proposal had been advanced in a clear effort to further the negotiations, and should make it plain that full consideration was being given to that proposal.

It was agreed that the letter would not be discussed until it had received further study, and that a reply would be deferred for the time being.

Technical Committee on Refugees terms of reference.

The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY recalled that it had been decided that the original terms of reference drafted for the Technical Committee would require modification in the light of recent events. If the Commission agreed, he would draft a new proposal based on the preliminary measures now under discussion with the Israeli delegation. He thought it desirable that the members of the Technical Committee now present in Lausanne should collaborate in the drafting, which should be done at once in order that the Committee could proceed to Palestine without delay.

The CHAIRMAN could not see the value of having the members of the Committee assist in drafting the terms of reference, since they were technical experts and were unfamiliar with the political aspects of the problem.

The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY pointed out that the experts would be present on a consultative basis; the Secretariat would retain responsibility for the draft.

The Commission agreed to the Principal Secretary’s suggestion.

Third Progress Report to the Secretary-General.

The CHAIRMAN suggested, since the Principal Secretary had certain comments to make on the draft, that it should be returned to the Drafting Committee for discussion and revision by the Committee in collaboration with the Principal Secretary.

The Commission agreed to the Chairman’s proposal.