Marx-Engels | Lenin | Stalin | Home Page
Stalin, Soviets and Israeli QuestionNOTE OF THE HEAD OF THE UN DEPARTMENT OF THE USSR MFA S.A. VINOGRADOVA DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR A.Ya. VYSHINSKY
March 19, 1948
In connection with the decision of the Security Council to hold consultations on the Palestinian question between the five great powers, the first meeting of their representatives was held on 8 March.
Despite the fact that the Security Council dropped the relevant paragraph of the American draft resolution on consultations with the Palestinian Commission, the Mandatory Power and representatives of the main Palestinian communities, the US representative again raised the question of the need for such consultations. This US proposal was supported by the representatives of France and China.
The representative of England, in accordance with his statement in the Council about non-participation in the consultations, did not appear at the meeting, however, informing him about his consent to give information.
Representatives of the Jewish Agency and the Arab High Committee accepted the American invitation to participate in the consultation.
On March 11, the US representative distributed to the meeting participants a list of questions (an average of 9 questions) prepared by the US delegation for Jews, Arabs, the Palestinian Commission and the Mandatory Power, allegedly needed to obtain additional information.
The main questions are as follows:
1. Is the proposed partition plan acceptable to Jews and Arabs?
2. Can the partition plan be carried out by peaceful means, through an agreement between Jews and Arabs?
3. Could modifications to the adopted partition plan make it more possible to reach an agreement between Jews and Arabs?
4. Has the Palestinian Commission had new negotiations with the Mandatory Power regarding the phasing out of the mandate and the date of the commission's arrival in Palestine, and what are the results of the negotiations?
5. What are the possibilities of cooperation between Jews and Arabs with the UN administration in the city of Jerusalem?
6. Are the principles of the proposed economic union essential to the economic life of Palestine as a whole?
The questions prepared by the Americans were received during subsequent meetings, both written and oral replies from the Jewish Agency, the Arab High Committee, the Palestinian Commission and England.
Based on the replies received, it can be concluded about the attitude of the parties and the Mandatory Power to the main provisions of the partition plan.
1. About the plan of partition of Palestine into two states.
For Jews, the partition plan is acceptable, although it has not yet received "official ratification," from the Jewish community of Palestine.
The Arabs strongly oppose the partition decision and believe that “the only solution that is consistent with the ideals of the UN Charter and that can guarantee peace and security in Palestine is the formation of an independent state from all of Palestine,”.
The Mandatory Power refuses to take any measures aimed at the implementation of the partition plan. At the same time, the Mandatory Power “Will not put any obstacles to the implementation of the plan, but cannot take an active part in its implementation.
2. On the possibility of fulfilling the partition plan by peaceful means.
According to the representatives of the Jewish Agency, one cannot hope for the possibility of implementing the plan as a result of an agreement between the parties. The main obstacle to the implementation of the plan, Jews consider opposition to the plan and armed intervention from the Arab countries.
According to the representative of the Mandatory Power, the partition plan will be difficult to implement if the Palestinian Commission does not rely on military force.
The Palestinian Commission does not consider it possible to carry out the plan by peaceful means, either completely or in its most essential part, as long as the stubborn resistance of the Arabs continues.
As for the Arabs, according to the representative of the Jewish Agency, “Arabs demand from the Jews complete surrender and nothing else satisfies them.
3. About the possibility of changing (modifying) the section plan.
For Jews, no major plan changes will be acceptable.
Representatives of the Palestinian Commission responded in the negative to this question, pointing out that, since the Commission was acting in accordance with a General Assembly resolution, it was not in a position to “undertake possible modifications to the partition plan, either substantively or procedurally.”
The representative of the Mandatory Power declined to answer on this matter, saying that he did not know if such modifications could be made that would be acceptable to Arabs and Jews.
4. On the gradual termination of the mandate and the date of the arrival of the Palestinian Commission in Palestine.
According to the Commission, it had new negotiations with the Mandatory Power on these issues. The British replied that they were firmly committed to retaining undivided control over Palestine until the end of the mandate, May 15, 1948. Regarding the Commission's visit to Palestine, the Mandatory Power stated that it remained the same. Cadogan confirmed in meetings that the dates set are not subject to change..
5. On the interim UN administration over Jerusalem after the termination of the mandate.Jews are ready to cooperate with the UN administration in the city of Jerusalem, but insist on equal representation in the Legislative Council of Jerusalem.
The Palestinian Commission on this issue is of the opinion that the establishment of a UN administration in Jerusalem will be possible only if the partition plan receives the approval of both Palestinian communities and is carried out peacefully, since with respect to all supplies and communications with the outside world, the city will be completely depend on the support of the Jewish and Arab states.
6. On the principles of the economic union of the Jewish and Arab states.
According to Jewish Agency officials, the economic union envisaged by the Assembly's plan was not proposed at the initiative of the Jews. They believed that such an alliance curtailed the sovereignty of states, and were inclined to envisage other forms of economic cooperation between Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted this part of the partition plan after some hesitation.
Conclusions:
As we expected, this information requested by the American proposal from the Jews, Arabs, the Palestinian Commission and the Mandatory Power gave almost nothing new to resolve the situation in Palestine.
The last meeting of the permanent members of the Security Council took place on 17 March Representatives of the United States, USSR, France and China developed a preliminary text of a joint statement to the Council, containing a statement of the positions of Jews, Arabs, the Palestinian Commission and the Mandatory Power regarding the plan for the partition of Palestine and the possibility of its implementation, as well as recommendations for taking measures to immediately end violent actions and restoring peace and order in Palestine. However, some points of this draft statement (on the penetration of armed elements by sea and land into Palestine), directed against Jews and Jewish immigration, provoked objections from the representative of the USSR, who reserved his position on them.
In this regard, Comrade Gromyko approached us with a proposal that he should seek to correct the unacceptable paragraphs of the text of the statement. Comrade Molotov on March 19 answered Comrade Gromyko agreed with his proposal.
If the representatives of the United States, France and China do not agree to our amendments to the draft, then the corresponding points of the joint statement will be submitted to the Security Council on behalf of the three powers without the approval of the USSR.
S. VinogradovWUA RF. F. 07. Op. 21. P. 23.D. 346.L. 42-45.