Unscop Minority Fighting Losing Battle to Place Humanity Above British Laws

Rarely coming to the surface but constantly (##)oiling beneath the activities of the United Nations Special Committee (##) Palestine is a persistent battle within the Committee over the general issue of people versus laws–and behind this the more basic issue of Great Britain. British laws in Palestine are becoming a greater and greater stumbling block.

Led by Guatemala, Uruguay and either Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia on one side, with the Anglo-Saxon group and lawyers on the other, and Iran on the sidelines, this

This week it fought for an UNSCOP hearing for a 12-year-old girl whose father (##) in Kenya, and for a physician whose sons have also been deported to Kenya. It (##)st. It was this bloc which fought for UNSCOP intervention in the Irgun Zvai Leumi (##)ath sentences, for hearings for prisoners, and for visiting the Cyprus detention (##)mps. The hot Cyprus debate exemplified this struggle. Guatemala insisted the UNSCOP terms of reference must not be contracted, that the Committee has the right to (##)ok into the laws of the mandatory to see whether they are right or wrong. The Anglo-Saxon bloc and the lawyers insisted this was excluded from the terms of reference.

GUATEMALAN DELEGATE LEADS FIGHT FOR “PEOPLES RIGHTS”

When the situation hinges solely on the terms of reference, Yugoslavia usually {SPAN}(##){/SPAN}es to the aid of the Latin-Americans. But the Anglo-Saxon members feel they have {SPAN}(##){/SPAN} right to question laws, whether “emergency” or not, of Palestine. The Guatemalan, {SPAN}(##){/SPAN}himself a lawyer, asserted that “we are fighting for people’s rights, we are supporting warm facts against cold law.”

In his insistence on visiting the Cyprus camps, he asserted : “I think we are (##)t going to listen to people who are conspiring against a country; we are trying to establish the conditions of living of a group of people who are definitely within our (##)erms of reference.” He did not think that UNSCOP would criticize Cyprus conditions, (##)ough entitled to do so; but he felt that a visit to the camps might change condition for the better. “I hope the Committee will put aside legal reasons,” he said, (##) and will hear what their hearts advise them. This is a question of humanity.”

The Indian delegate declared, “We are not a society for the prevention of (##)ruelty to humans; sympathy or considerations of sympathy have nothing to do with the (##)ask before us.”

The Guatemalan insisted on a sub-committee visiting Cyprus, adding that he would volunteer as a member. “We know through books what is happening,” he said. (##)Nevertheless we went about Palestine to see in detail. After all, we know the suffering of the people in Cyprus.”

Justice I.C. Rand of Canada wanted to know what kind of suffering. The Guate(##)salan said, “Haven’t you read about them in the Jewish papers?” Justice Rand said, “I (##) read the telegram they sent us. They are objecting to be detained.”

The point of view of the fighting bloc is that it is interested in people is part of the world in which they live. It feels that the terms of reference per(##)aits it to question the correctness of laws which affect the people of Palestine. To examine the problem without taking account of the men, women and children who are Palestine itself is, it insists, not only absurd but a direct evasion of its duty and a violation of its conscience.

NEXT STORY