Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

  Stalin, Soviets and Israeli Question

 

SPEECH BY THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UN Ya.A. MALIKA IN THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION

July 27, 1948

The Soviet delegation considers the draft resolution proposed by the representative of Syria unacceptable due to the following circumstances:

The draft resolution, proposed by the representative of Syria, is a belated and poorly disguised attempt to turn the entire Palestinian question backward. We know and understand why Syria is making such a proposal. It is also known that some major powers are also interested in this, which are not satisfied with the decision taken by the General Assembly on November 29, 1947 on the question of Palestine. They are looking for workarounds for non-fulfillment of this decision, for consigning it to oblivion in order to preserve the previous position in Palestine, to prevent a peaceful settlement in Palestine, to continue to maintain a state of instability and uncertainty there, which is harmful for both the Arab and Jewish population.

The first paragraph of the draft notes that the United Kingdom ended its mandate on May 15, 1948, without creating a government body to assume administrative authority. But the United Nations did not assign such a task to the United Kingdom. On the contrary, the General Assembly, in its resolution of November 29, 1947, recommended to the United Kingdom, as a mandate state, and to all other member states of the United Nations, to accept and implement, on the question of future governance in Palestine, a plan for partitioning Palestine into two independent states: Arabic and Jewish. This plan, as you know, was approved by the General Assembly. The partition plan is silent on the need for the United Kingdom to establish any government body in Palestine. Moreover, it follows from the General Assembly resolution that the creation by the United Kingdom of any governmental body in Palestine is excluded. The General Assembly resolution is limited only by specifying the date for the termination of the mandate and the procedure for the withdrawal of troops from Palestine by the mandate country.

Consequently, there is no reason to proceed from the premise that Britain should have created some kind of government body in Palestine.

The draft submitted by the representative of Syria requests that the International Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter, issue an advisory legal opinion on the international statute of Palestine following the termination of the mandate. It is strange that the representative of Syria considers it possible to turn to the International Court of Justice on an issue that has already been considered and decided by the General Assembly. It is no less strange that the representative of Syria proposes that the Security Council should seek legal advice from the International Court of Justice on an issue already decided by the General Assembly.

The General Assembly has carefully and thoroughly dealt with the Palestinian question and decided on the future structure of Palestine. The Assembly's decision is both a political and a legal decision on the Palestinian question. Consequently, there is no need for any special additional advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on this issue.

We are offered to return again to the issue that has been comprehensively studied and resolved. Moreover, such a proposal cannot but be viewed as an attempt not only to revise this decision of the General Assembly, but also to give the International Court of Justice the functions of an arbiter in issues on which there is already a decision of the highest body of the United Nations - the General Assembly.

Article 96 provides that the General Assembly may request advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice on any legal question. But it goes without saying that it makes sense to ask for such opinions before deciding on such issues, and not after they have already been taken. If a decision has been made - and it has already been taken on Palestine - then it makes no sense to ask for an opinion from the International Court of Justice.

In view of the above circumstances, the Soviet delegation cannot agree to the Security Council appealing to the International Court of Justice on the Palestinian question, on which the General Assembly has already decided. Those who are not satisfied with the said decision of the General Assembly on the future of Palestine have tried to frustrate this decision before, but they failed. Subsequent resolutions on the Palestinian question did not change the substance of this decision.

The Soviet delegation believes that the Security Council should take measures to facilitate the implementation of the Assembly's decision on Palestine, and not revise it, delay or complicate the implementation of this decision. The argument that recourse to the International Court of Justice would not interfere with a peaceful settlement does not hold water. This is an absolutely unsubstantiated reasoning and assertion, for an appeal to the International Court of Justice will contribute to the continuation of the state of instability and uncertainty in Palestine and will hamper the cause of a peaceful settlement in Palestine.

Based on the foregoing, the Soviet delegation does not consider it possible to support the draft resolution proposed by the representative of Syria.

WUA RF. F. 434. Op. 3.P. 20.D. 39.L. 51-53.