U.N. Circles Pessimistic over Possibilities of American-soviet Agreement on Palestine
Menu JTA Search

U.N. Circles Pessimistic over Possibilities of American-soviet Agreement on Palestine

Download PDF for this date

Expression of the pessimism prevailing in United Nations circles over the possibility of an agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union on a mutually satisfactory plan for implementation of a U.N. decition on Palestine was given here today by Polish delegate Ksawery Pruszynski, chairman of the sub-committee on partition.

Pruszynski announced the reconvening of the sub-committee tomorrow afternoon, out said that he does not believe that the session will discuss implementation since the four-nation group which is trying to reconcile American-Russian plans on implementation has not made any progress and is not likely to come to any decision for the next few days.

“The only way is for the United States to meet the Soviet plan half-way,” the sub-committee chairman said. At the same time, it was indicated in U.N. circles that the U.S. delegation would not go any further toward compromise than its offer of yesterday, since it considers that entrusting the implementation of the partition decision completely to the Security Council may have serious consequences.

The American delegation is of the opinion that the smaller nations, which are not enthusiastic about the Security Council, may abstain from voting for partition at the General Assembly if the Soviet plan is accepted in the Ad Hoc Committee. Members of the American delegation also point out that at least six of the eleven members of the Security Council are not in favor of the partition idea. They are: Britain, France, China, Argentina, Colombia and Syria. It is possible that India–which also opposes partition–may become a member of the Security Council.


The admission of Transjordan to the U.N. was urged at the Political Committee by Australian delegate Dr. Herbert Evatt, chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, and Argentine delegate Jose Arce. Evatt, arguing that the majority of the Security Council in 1946 regarded Transjordan as eligible for immediate admission, said that only the Soviet veto, based on doubts as to Transjordan’s independence, prevented acceptance of the Arab state’s application.

“If a case had been made out that Transjordan was not independent and could not carry out its obligations under the Charter,” said Evatt, “this would have been a valid reason for rejection. But the majority of the Security Council concluded that Transjordan was an independent state and that there was nothing in its treaty obligations which would conflict with its duties as a member of the United Nations.” Evatt said that another Soviet argument regarding absence of diplomatic relations between Transjordan and the Soviet Union “had nothing to do with the question,” this criterion being nowbere laid down in the Charter.


The joint Egyptian-Iraqi-Lebanese resolution calling for international cooperation to prevent immigration likely to disturb friendly relations between nations was objected to, in the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee, by U.S. delegate Mrs. Eleanor Rooseveit. She said that since the Ad Hoc Committee is studying this and other questions relating to Palestine, its work should not be prejudged by the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee.

Iraqi representative Mrs. Badia Afnan, referring to U.S. objections to the Arab resolution, said that she was not singling out Palestine, ## the resolution to affect the entire world. She cited assertions of Lt. Gen. Frederick B. Morgan, ex-UNRRA director in Germany, and of a U.S. Third Army report which maintained that Jewish immigration to Palestine is encouraged and not spontaneous. She also charged that American citizens finance the bulk of “illegal immigration” to Palestine.

Besides the Arab resolution, the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee also has before it a resolution of the United Kingdom, transferred from the Ad Hoc Committee, urging each U.N. member to accept a fair share of displaced persons and refugees, and through the I.R.O. to develop overall plans for this purpose. An Indian draft resolution submitted today reaffirms that the main task concerning DP’s is to encourage and assist in every possible way their early return to their countries of origin.

Founding Funders

The digitization of the JTA Archive would not have been possible without the generous support of the following donors:
  • The Gottesman Fund
  • Righteous Persons Foundation
  • Charles H. Revson Foundation
  • Elisa Spungen Bildner and Robert Bildner, in honor of Norma Spungen
  • George S. Blumenthal
  • Grace and Scott Offen Charitable Fund