Arab pressures on Dr. Joseph E. Johnson, the Palestine Conciliation Commission’s special representative dealing with the Arab refugee problem, resulted in vital changes in Dr. Johnson’s report, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly last Saturday, it became known here today.
The report, it developed today, was the second Johnson draft. He had submitted his first draft for comment, but not for changes, to both Israel and the Arab representatives here on November 14. But, under the pressure of the Arabs, he changed his report so that the final draft omitted or altered important points found unsatisfactory by the Arabs. Among the changes were these:
1. In the November 14 draft, Dr. Johnson stated the historical fact that, in 1947, the Jewish Agency accepted the United Nations plan for the partitioning of Palestine, while the Arab Higher Committee rejected the plan. In the final report, the Arab rejection of the 1947 partition resolution is not mentioned.
2. The November 14 draft had stated clearly that, in 1948, the day after Israel declared its independence, the Arab armies invaded Israel. The final draft stated that “endemic” Arab-Israeli violence was “transformed” after the termination of the British mandate, on May15, 1948 “into organized warfare between the Arab States and the newly proclaimed State of Israel.” There is not a word to indicate how the warfare had begun, or by which side.
Responding to the Arab objections, Dr. Johnson made other changes, altering various formulations throughout in such a way as to equate Israel’s position with Arab recalcitrance.
The Arabs objected to mention of the plan for economic integration of the Middle East, proposed in 1959 by the late Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold, and their rejection of that plan. Dr. Johnson bowed to Arab wishes, mentioning the Middle East economic integration plan but divorcing it largely from a connection with Hammarskjold, whose prestige lent weight to that plan.
He left out the fact that the Arabs rejected the Hammarskjold plan out of fear that its implementation would have led to resettlement of the Arab refugees in Arab countries, and their integration into the general Arab economy in the Middle East, All previous clauses in Dr. Johnson’s draft, showing Arab refusal to accept amelioration of the refugees’ position, were also deleted by Dr. Johnson from his final report.
ISRAELI DELEGATION AT U.N. ABSTAINS FROM COMMENTING ON THE REPORT
The major changes made by Dr. Johnson were in the second of three sections into which he had divided his report; The first section dealt with the mandate, which the Assembly voted last April, instructing the Palestine Conciliation Commission to re-study the Arab refugee issue, especially in connection with the possibility of “repatriating” the refugees or obtaining compensation for them from Israel. It is under the mandate that the Commission appointed Dr. Johnson as its special Middle East emissary last August.
The third section carried Dr. Johnson’s conclusions, including a recommendation that the Commission continue for the next year to try to bring some solution to the tense refugee issue.
The middle section is what Dr. Johnson called “Factual Background Information,” containing a historical survey of the entire problem from 1947 to 1961. In its letter of submission to the Assembly, the full Commission stated: “Without attempting to pass judgment on the historical section of the report, the Commission warmly endorses Dr. Johnson’s conclusions.” Thus, it was pointed out today, the full Commission had virtually disassociated itself from Dr. Johnson’s handling of the “factual background.”
The Israel delegation refused today, as it has consistently since the Johnson report was issued Saturday, to make any comment on it whatsoever, either pro or con. On the whole, it is understood, Israel does not mind Dr. Johnson’s conclusions, calling for continuance of this type of effort for another year and expressing faint hopes that a “step-by-step” solution of the Arab refugee problem might be evolved.
It was felt here that, while Dr. Johnson did yield to Arab pressure, he may have rejected still other Arab demands. But it was pointed out that the Arab alterations which he did accept resulted in a historical picture which eliminates credit to Israel and shows no Arab blame at all.
The refugee debate, in the Assembly’s Special Political Committee, will open late this week, although it may be postponed until December 4. The fact that Dr. Johnson let the Arab wishes influence his report was not being hailed by Arab representatives here today. Arab spokesmen predicted freely that they will attack important sections of the Johnson report, blasting his hopes that, by appeasing them, he would get them to accept the report as a whole.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
