Sections
About
Back
Document

Arab Ten-Point Position on UN Agenda on Palestine

Arab Ten-Point Justification of Agenda Item

 On Termination of the Mandate over Palestine

and Declaration of its Independence

At UNGA Special Session (as reported in UN Yearbook)

New York, 29 April 1947

(1) The real question at issue was the recognition of the independence of Palestine, which, it was claimed, had already been expressly recognized in the Covenant of the League of Nations and in statements and declarations by the Allied powers. The Balfour Declaration and the League Mandate for Pales-tine had violated the principles of the Covenant and had resulted in the imposition of one people on another without the latter's consent. Neither the Declaration nor the Mandate had ever been recognized by the Arabs. The other mandated territories which had formed part of the Otto-man Empire had already been granted independence and there was no sound reason to make a distinction between them and Palestine.

(2) The problem was not one of fact-finding but of establishing principles. The situation in Palestine had arisen because of the principles in the Palestine Mandate and the Balfour Declaration, which were based on expediency, power politics, local interests and local pressure. These were inconsistent with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter provided that where other obligations were inconsistent with the Charter, the obligations under the Charter should prevail.

(3) All that was necessary in Palestine was to apply the principles of the Charter and declare an independent Palestine along democratic lines with equal rights for all citizens. This did not need a committee. Such a committee could only retard the settlement of a situation which, due to the activities of political Zionism, was daily getting more tense through-out the Arab world.

(4) The only appropriate way of bringing the question of Palestine before the United Nations was (a) to notify the General Assembly that the territory was qualified for independence; (b) to submit to the General Assembly a draft trusteeship agreement for the territory; or (c) to relinquish the mandate. The item proposed by the Arab States was in accordance with the Charter, since it provided that the discussion on the question should be directed towards the termination of the mandate.

(5) The whole question should be discussed since (a) the matter was urgent, (b) the committee should be adequately instructed, (c) it would in fact be impossible to avoid the question. Moreover, representatives had not come from all over the world just to appoint a committee.

(6) If there was no agreement on principles it would be of no use to appoint a committee, since the committee would have to work in the light of principles. If principles were accepted it might not be necessary to appoint a committee, but in any case the principles should be established first.

(7) Independence was the only just solution. It was, moreover, a question on which the two parties most directly concerned the Jews and the Arabs were formally in agreement.

(8) To discuss the independence of Palestine would not be prejudging the solution of the problem, since it had already been envisaged in the Covenant of the League of Nations. Not to discuss independence would be prejudging the question to a much greater extent.

(9) To discuss independence did not mean that it would have to be granted immediately or by any fixed date.

(10) To discuss the independence of Palestine need not prejudice the interests of the Jews, since their case could be heard. In any case the Jewish question was a completely separate one from the Palestine problem.

 

Source: Yearbook of the United Nations, 1946-1947. New York: Department of Public Information, United Nations, 1947, p.  278-279.