New York (Nov. 7)
The question of racial persecution, with the issue of Palestine in the background, will come before the U.N. General Assembly when it meets tomorrow in plenary session to decide on additional items for the agenda. The issue is being raised by the Arab League with the avowed purpose of persuading the Assembly to do something about the persecution of Jews in Europe and so make further immigration into Palestine unnecessary.
A spokesman for the Egyptian delegation today told a JTA correspondent that the Arabs do not plan to bring up Palestine at this session. But he declared that the Arab delegation will have more to say about the question of racial persecution, although he would not specify whether that would be at the General Assembly tomorrow, or when the question comes up before a committee.
The issue arose last night at a meeting of the U.N. steering committee which was asked to recommend to the General Assembly a proposal made by Egypt that the Assembly declare it “in the higher interests of humanity” to end persecution and discrimination, and to call on governments to conform to the U.N. Charter, taking the “most prompt and energetic steps to that end.”
Mahmoud Bey Fawzi, the Egyptian delegate, refused to say under persistent questioning what countries and races he had in mind. He said he would be delighted if assured that racial persecution does not exist and that discrimination had disappeared from the earth. But Philip Noel-Baker, British delegate, finally declared he thought the Egyptian proposal referred to refugees, “many of them of the Jewish faith,” who were forced to leave their native lands, “causing grave embarrassment to the governments of other countries to which they come.”
Dmitri Manuilsky of the Ukraine wanted to know if Egypt was referring to Poland where Jews were being persecuted by “illegal Poles.” He suggested that the persecution to which the proposal referred must be in Allied zones in Germany or possibly Palestine. This brought a heated retort from Noel-Baker against what he termed the “irresponsible and groundless allegation” by Mr. Manuilsky.