The United States policy in Palestine came under heavy fire from the Arab states today as general debate continued at the United Nations General Assembly.
Syrian delegate Faris el Khouri stressed that his country and the other Arab nations would fight the UNSCOP report, recommending the partitioning of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. “The Arabs are convinced,” Khouri declared, “that the United States, whose money finances Zionist propaganda and terrorist underground activities in Palestine, can, if it so wishes, terminate these evils and thus render justice and honest service to the United Nations principles.
“American arms and money,” he continued, “are being sent to other countries to help the majority against the minority, but with regard to Palestine the United States aids a minority of intruders against the lawful majority. It requires much tolerance and hypocritical courtesy to refrain from denouncing such a policy.”
Saudi Arabian delegate Emil Feisal said that he had expected that Secretary of State Marshall “would not be so hasty in expressing his views on the problem until such time as the political committee had occasion to meet and discuss all its phases. We had expected the distinguished U.S. delegate and his government to take a neutral stand prior to the meeting of the committee,” he added. “Unfortunately, he impetuously expressed his views before the other delegates had time to form an opinion based on extensive research and careful study.”
(A dispatch from Baghdad tonight said that the U.S. and British embassies had been handed notes from the Iraq Government, which warned that it and the other Arab states would furnish unlimited aid to the Palestine Arabs, if the U.N. votes to partition Palestine. The dispatch said that other Arab states sent similar notes to the American and British Governments today. The Iraq note said the Palestine Arabs would be given money, arms and armies.)
BRITISH WILL OUTLINE PALESTINE POSITION AT SPECIAL AD HOC COMMITTEE
Hector McNeil, chief British delegate, made passing reference to Khouri’s statement, but said that the attitude of the British Government on the UNSCOP re-commendations would not be given to the Assembly until some future time. He implied that the British position would be made clear at the Ad-Hoc Committee on Palestine, which is expected to begin meeting some time this week.
In attacking the UNSCOP partition recommendations, Khouri said that the Jews are not a nation, but a religious group. By establishing a Jewish state the U.N. would actually establish a theocratic state which is contrary to American principles, he argued. “Secretary of State Marshall,” he continued, stated in his speech that the “majority recommendations are worthy of being given great weight by the United States Government. I do not think he meant that his delegation must necessarily give full support to these recommendations, but in the face of such a statement I feel it appropriate that the General Assembly be acquainted with the Syrian views.
“We consider these recommendations are in conformity neither with the terms of reference nor with the Covenant of the League of Nations, nor with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, nor with the principles of justice, nor with the facts of history and the principles of public rights,” he asserted. “The proposal recommended the partitioning of Palestine into separate states, granting the lion’s share to the Jews and depriving the rightful owners of the country of their homeland. The majority go so far, in their proposal, as to prepare on a draft basis a constitution, the treaties and legislative bills to be forcibly imposed on the people of Palestine. We cannot give weight to such recommendations which violate the fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter – the principle of self-determination of people.”
Khouri then charged the UNSCOP with ignoring the legal aspect of the Palestine problem “which should have been considered the most important” along with the political, social and economic aspects. The Arab states, he said, contested the legality of the Balfour Declaration and “the exceptional terms” of the Palestine Mandate, but UNSCOP did not consider this legal aspect at all, he declared.
Going into a lengthy analysis of the validity of the Jewish claim to Palestine on the basis of historical rights, the Syrian delegate argued that Jews were not original Palestine inhabitants but were “invaders” centuries ago.
Khouri then referred to Biro-Bidjan as a territory better fit than Palestine to become a Jewish state. He stated that Biro-Bidjan is rich in grain, minerals, forests, industries and can absorb all displaced Jews and more than that number.
“I do not see why the International Refugee Organizations has not thought of taking the displaced Jews to Biro-Bidjan,” he stated, concluding that the Arab peoples hope they shall not be compelled to resort to “self-defense” against implementation of the UNSCOP recommendations.
UKRAINIAN SAYS PALESTINE IS ENTITLED TO INDEPENDENCE; HITS U.S.
In the first Soviet reference to Palestine, Dmitri Manuilski, the Ukrainian delegate, declared that Palestine was entitled to independence. He opposed the maintenance of British armed forces there and said that hostilities were continuing in Palestine, as elsewhere. He further said that the U.S. is trying to secure a foothold in the Mediterranean in order to penetrate Palestine and other strategie areas.
Emil Feisal said that he hopes the UNSCOP recommendations will not influence the General Assembly’s decision on Palestine nor will the Assembly be influenced by Marshall’s statement, since peace in the Near-East will depend on the solution of the Palestine problem.
Terming the Zionist methods as “not different from those of the Nazis,” Foisal said the Arabs wish “to repel the aggression of the Zionist political group.” The Zionists, he stated, do not represent world Jewry; they are a group which is more political than religious.
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.
