Marx-Engels | Lenin | Stalin | Home Page
Stalin, Soviets and Israeli QuestionSPEECH BY THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE USSR A.A. GROMYKO AT THE PLENARY SESSION OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
November 26, 1947
As is known, the Soviet Union does not have any direct material or other interests in Palestine. It is interested in the Palestinian question as a member of the United Nations Organization and as a great power, which, along with other great powers, bears a special responsibility for maintaining international peace. This determines the position taken by the government of the Soviet Union on the question of Palestine. The position of the Soviet Union was already expressed quite fully at the special session of the General Assembly in early 1947 3, as well as during the discussion at the present session of the Assembly. In view of this, I will not repeat what was already said by the representatives of the USSR during the discussion of the question of the future of Palestine. Therefore, it is quite natural that each delegation considers it its duty not only to take a certain position by voting in favor of this or that proposal, but also to state the reasons by which it is guided.
When discussing the question of the future of Palestine at a special session of the General Assembly, the Soviet government pointed out two most acceptable options for resolving this question. The first option: the creation of a single democratic Arab-Jewish state with equal rights for Arabs and Jews. If this option turns out to be unrealistic if the Arabs and Jews declare that they cannot live together due to the deteriorated relations between them, then the Soviet government, through its delegation to the Assembly, pointed to the second option: the partition of Palestine into two independent independent democratic states - into Arabic and Jewish.
The Special Session of the Assembly, as you know, created a Special Commission, which carefully studied the question of Palestine from the point of view of finding the most acceptable solution to this question. After the completion of the work of this commission, we noted with satisfaction that the proposal of this commission, or rather, of its majority, coincides with one of the two options named by the delegation of the Soviet Union at the special session. I mean the option of partitioning Palestine into two independent democratic states - Arab and Jewish.
Therefore, the delegation of the Soviet Union could not help but support this option recommended by the Special Commission. It is now known that not only the Special Commission, which considered the question of the future of Palestine, adopted the partition option, but that the overwhelming majority of other delegations represented in the General Assembly agreed with this proposal. The overwhelming majority of the member states of the United Nations have come to the same conclusion that the Soviet government came to as a result of a comprehensive consideration of the question of how the question of the future of Palestine should be resolved.
The question arises why the overwhelming majority of delegations represented at the General Assembly opted for this option and not any other. This can only be explained by the fact that any other options for resolving the question of Palestine turned out to be unrealistic and impractical. At the same time, I also mean the option of creating an independent united Arab-Jewish state with equal rights for Arabs and Jews. The experience of studying the question of Palestine, including the experience of the Special Commission, has shown that Jews and Arabs in Palestine do not want or cannot live together. A logical conclusion followed from this: if these two peoples inhabiting Palestine, both having deep historical roots in this country, cannot live together within a single state, then there is nothing left but to form two states instead of one - an Arab and a Jewish. No other practically feasible option, in the opinion of the Soviet delegation, could not have been invented.
Opponents of the partition of Palestine into two independent independent democracies usually point out that this decision was allegedly directed against the Arabs, against the Arab population of Palestine and against Arab states in general. This is especially pointed out by the delegations of the Arab countries for understandable reasons. The Soviet delegation cannot share this point of view. The proposal to divide Palestine into two independent independent states, as well as the decision of the Ad Nos Commission created at this session, which approved this proposal, which is the subject of our discussion, is not directed against the Arabs. This decision is not directed against either of the two main peoples inhabiting Palestine.
On the contrary, in the opinion of the Soviet delegation, this decision corresponds to the fundamental national interests of both peoples, the interests of both the Jewish and the Arab people.
Arab representatives point out that the partition of Palestine is a historical injustice. But one cannot agree with this point of view, if only because the Jewish people have been associated with Palestine for a long historical period of time. In addition, we cannot lose sight of - and the Soviet delegation already pointed out this fact at the special session of the General Assembly - we cannot lose sight of the situation in which the Jewish people found themselves as a result of the last world war. I will not repeat what the Soviet delegation said on this score at the special session of the Assembly. However, it is not out of place to recall now that as a result of the war imposed by Hitler's Germany, the Jews as a people suffered more than any other nation. You know that in Western Europe there was not a single state that could adequately protect the interests of the Jewish people from arbitrariness and violence on the part of the Nazis.
Concerning the proposal to partition Palestine, representatives of some countries mentioned the Soviet Union and tried to cast a shadow on the foreign policy of the Soviet government. In particular, the representative of Lebanon has twice exercised on this score. I have already pointed out that the proposal to divide Palestine into two independent independent states and the position taken by the Soviet Union on this issue are not directed against the Arabs, that, in our deep conviction, such a solution to the issue corresponds to the fundamental national interests of not only Jews, but also the Arabs.
The peoples of the Soviet Union were and are sympathetic to the national aspirations of the peoples of the Arab East. The Soviet Union treats with understanding and sympathy the attempts of these peoples to free themselves from the last shackles of colonial dependence. Therefore, we do not equate the clumsy statements of individual representatives of the Arab states on the foreign policy of the USSR in connection with the consideration of the question of the future of Palestine with the vital national interests of the Arabs. We distinguish between such statements, made apparently under the impression of momentary sentiments, and the fundamental interests of the Arab people. The Soviet delegation is confident that the Arabs and Arab countries will more than once look towards Moscow, expecting help from the Soviet Union in the struggle for their legitimate interests, trying to free themselves from the remnants of foreign dependence.
The Soviet delegation believes that the decision to partition Palestine is also fully consistent with the lofty principles and goals of the United Nations. It corresponds to the principle of national self-determination of peoples. The policy of the USSR in the field of the national question, pursued since the creation of the Soviet state, is a policy of commonwealth and self-determination of peoples. All the nationalities inhabiting the Soviet Union, for this very reason, represent a single and close-knit family that withstood severe trials during the war years in the struggle against the most powerful and dangerous enemy that peace-loving peoples have ever had to face.
The solution of the question of Palestine on the basis of its division into two independent states will be of great historical significance, since such a decision will meet the legitimate demands of the Jewish people, hundreds of thousands of whose representatives, as you know, are still homeless, without their own homes, who have found only a temporary shelter in special camps on the territories of some Western European states. I will not talk about the conditions in which these people live. These conditions are well known.
Enough was said about them by the delegates who share the point of view of the USSR delegation on this issue and support the plan for dividing Palestine into two states.
The Assembly is working hard to find the fairest and most feasible and at the same time the most radical solution to the question of the future of Palestine. It proceeds from certain indisputable facts, by virtue of which the question of Palestine arose in the United Nations. What are these facts? Fact one: the mandate system has not justified itself. I will say more: the mandate system has gone bankrupt. We have heard statements from the representatives of Great Britain that the mandate system of Palestine governing has not justified itself. Such statements were made at the special session as well as at this session of the Assembly. It was precisely because the mandate system had gone bankrupt that the British government turned to the United Nations for help. It has asked the Assembly to take a decision and thus take over the settlement of the question of the future of Palestine.
Second fact. The British government, having contacted the United Nations, declared that it could not take responsibility for carrying out all the actions that would need to be carried out in Palestine in connection with a possible decision of the General Assembly. Thus, the British Government recognized that the General Assembly could, by virtue of the rights and powers granted to it under the Charter, assume responsibility for resolving the question of the future of Palestine.
The Soviet delegation considers it useful, however, to draw the attention of the Assembly to the fact that the Assembly still does not feel the support from Great Britain that we would have the right to expect. On the one hand, the British government has asked the Assembly for help in resolving the question of the future of Palestine. On the other hand, the British government, during the discussion of this issue at the special session, as well as at this session of the Assembly, made so many reservations that the question involuntarily arises whether the UK really wants the question of Palestine to be resolved through the United Nations.
At the special session of the Assembly, the representative of Great Britain, on the one hand, declared the UK's readiness to implement the decisions of the United Nations, provided that the responsibility for possible events to be held would be borne not only by Great Britain.
By making this statement, the British delegation has made it clear to other states that it is ready to work with the United Nations to resolve this issue.
On the other hand, at the same special session, the British representative said that his government is ready to implement the relevant decisions of the General Assembly only if the Arabs and Jews agree on some solution to the issue. Everyone understands that the first and second statements contradict one another. While the first statement testifies to the UK's readiness to cooperate with the United Nations on this issue, the second statement indicates that the British government may not reckon with the Assembly's decision.
Reservations of this kind were also made by the representative of Great Britain at this session. We heard today a statement from Mr. Cadogan on this matter. In a slightly modified form, he reiterated the idea that Great Britain would agree to enforce the Assembly's decision, provided that Jews and Arabs were in agreement. But we all know that the Arabs and Jews did not come to an agreement among themselves. The discussion of this issue in this session shows that they cannot agree. Prospects for a possible agreement between Arabs and Jews are not in sight.
This opinion is shared not only by the Soviet delegation, but also by all delegations that have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to take a definite decision on this issue already at this session of the Assembly.
All these reservations of the British delegation indicate that there is no real desire on the part of the UK to cooperate fully with the United Nations in resolving this issue. At a time when the overwhelming majority of delegations represented at the General Assembly spoke in favor of a definite solution already now on the question of the future of Palestine - for its division into two states, the British government declares that it will reckon only with the decision of the Assembly when Jews and Arabs agree among themselves. I repeat, to put forward such a condition is almost tantamount to burying that decision even before the Assembly has taken a decision. Is this the way Great Britain should act on this issue, especially now, when, after a long discussion of it, it became clear to everyone, including Great Britain, that the overwhelming majority of states stand for the partition of Palestine?
If at the first session, when the question of a possible solution to the problem of the future of Palestine first arose, one could at least understand the reservations emanating from the British delegation, now, when the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the United Nations membership is known, making such reservations is is to declare in advance that Great Britain does not consider itself bound by a possible decision of the General Assembly.
The USSR delegation cannot share this point of view. We have the right to expect cooperation from the UK in this matter. We have the right to expect that if the Assembly adopts the appropriate recommendation, Great Britain will reckon with this recommendation, especially since the current order in Palestine is hated by both Jews and Arabs. You all know how the attitude of the Jews towards these orders is expressed.
I also consider it necessary to note another fact.
From the very beginning of the discussion of this issue, a number of delegations, mainly delegations of the Arab countries, tried to convince us that this issue was not within the competence of the United Nations. Moreover, as one would expect, they could not give any convincing arguments, with the exception of general and unmotivated statements and declarations.
The General Assembly, like the United Nations as a whole, not only has the right to consider this issue, but in the current situation in Palestine, it is obliged to take an appropriate decision. In the opinion of the Soviet delegation, the plan for resolving the question of Palestine prepared by the Ad Nos Commission, according to which the practical implementation of measures to implement it should lie with the Security Council, fully corresponds to the interests of maintaining and strengthening international peace and the interests of strengthening cooperation between states. That is why the Soviet delegation supports the recommendation to partition Palestine.
The Soviet delegation, unlike some other delegations, took a clear and clear line on this issue from the very beginning. She consistently pursues this line. It is not going to maneuver and carry out the corresponding manipulations with voices, which, unfortunately, is taking place at the Assembly and in connection with the discussion of the Palestinian question.
United Nations. Plenary Sessions of the General "Assembly: Verbatim Records September 16 - November 24, 1947. Volume II. New York, 1947. pp. 351-352.
Translated From Russian; Svitlana M