Stalin, Soviets and İsraeli Question - then and now -7 - Gromyko December Speech
Stalin, Soviets and İsraeli Question - then and now .
Download PDF - Chronologically organized
SPEECH OF THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE USSR TO THE UN A.A. GROMYKO AT THE DINNER ARRANGED BY THE AMERICAN THE COMMITTEE OF JEWISH WRITERS, ARTISTS AND SCIENTISTS IN HONOR OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE USSR IN CONNECTION WITH THE DECISION OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON DIVISION OF PALESTINE INTO TWO STATES ON DIVISION OF PALESTINE INTO TWO STATES
December 30, 1947
I fully understand the interest shown by the Jewish people in the decision of the United Nations to divide Palestine into two states: Jewish and Arab. The question of the future of Palestine has become an important and sensitive issue. It is no coincidence, therefore, that he attracted the attention of political figures of the world, and not only political figures, for a considerable period of time.
Of course, this question could not but interest, first of all, the Jewish people, which rightly associates with Palestine and its future structure their national aspirations aimed at creating their own state. That is why it is not difficult to understand the deep interest shown, above all, by the Jewish population in different countries in this decision of the United Nations.
The Soviet government has repeatedly indicated through its representatives in the United Nations that it is interested in resolving the question of the future of Palestine as a Member of this Organization and as a great power, which, along with other great powers, bears a special responsibility for maintaining international security. At the beginning of the discussion of this issue at the special session of the General Assembly, the government of the USSR indicated that the time had come to find a practical solution to it, moreover, such a solution that would meet the interests of both the Palestinian population and the interests of the United Nations as a whole, and, consequently, the interests of maintaining universal the world.
The Soviet delegation pointed out then that the most appropriate options for resolving the question of the future of Palestine are:
1) the creation of a single independent Arab-Jewish state with equal rights for Arabs and Jews, and
2) the partition of Palestine into two independent sovereign states.
Speaking of the first option, we meant the creation of such a state in which the Jewish and Arab populations of Palestine would have equal rights as nationalities. A different understanding of the requirement for equal rights would be reduced in practice to inequality and to infringement of the rights and interests of one of the peoples of Palestine, although there is no legal basis for this.
Of course, such a solution to the question of the future of Palestine would be possible then if Arabs and Jews wanted to live together in a single state, enjoying equal rights within the framework of the new independent Arab-Jewish state. The desire to live and work together is an absolute prerequisite for such a plan. The reluctance of Jews and Arabs to live and work together makes such a solution to the question of Palestine impossible and unviable. Therefore, the USSR delegation pointed out at a special session that if it turned out that Arabs and Jews did not want or could not live together within the framework of a single state, then the only possible and practically feasible solution to the question of the future of Palestine would be to divide it into two independent independent states: Arab and Jewish.
After the end of the special session, we noted with satisfaction that the possible and most appropriate options for resolving the question of the future of Palestine that we have named have attracted the attention of the widest circles of the Palestinian population, and not only of Palestine. The subsequent study of this entire issue by the Committee established at the special session of the General Assembly led to the fact that the Committee presented recommendations for the next session of the General Assembly, which basically coincide with the above two main options for resolving the Palestinian question. Both of these proposals by the Committee underwent careful and comprehensive consideration at the last session of the General Assembly. As a result of this consideration, the Assembly took an important decision on the division of Palestine into two states and outlined a program for carrying out appropriate activities for this purpose.
This is the outcome of the consideration of the question of the future of Palestine that has taken place at the United Nations so far.
It may seem to some that the decision taken by the General Assembly on this issue is too radical and bold. But it is impossible to agree with this point of view. It is impossible to agree because the decision made is, under the given circumstances, the only possible and practically feasible decision. It is no more radical and no more daring than is necessary and than dictated by the interests of maintaining peace. Hardly anyone will dispute the fact that relations between Arabs and Jews in Palestine have deteriorated so much that they do not want to live within a single state, which they have clearly and openly declared.
True, we heard at the General Assembly statements that the Arabs are ready to create a united Arab-Jewish state, but on condition that the Jewish population is in the minority and that, therefore, the decisive force in such a new state would be one nationality - the Arabs. ... However, it is not difficult to understand that such a solution to the issue, which excludes the representation of equal rights for both peoples living in Palestine, could not give a proper solution to the issue of its future, since it would not, above all, lead to a normalization of relations between Arabs and Jews. Moreover, it would be a source of new friction and complications in relations between these peoples, which is not in the interests of either the Arab or Jewish population of Palestine, nor is it in the interests of the United Nations either.
Thus, the question before the United Nations was either to leave the situation in Palestine as it was until now, or to make a decision that radically changes the entire situation in Palestine and creates the basis for peaceful and fruitful cooperation between Arabs and Jews, based on due consideration of interests of both these peoples. This is exactly how the question stood, bearing in mind, of course, that the above plan for the creation of a unified state, as it was definitely revealed at the Assembly, can be considered as abandoned for the reasons I indicated above.
But the United Nations could not put up with the situation that existed until now. Everyone knows that the mandate system, on the basis of which the administration of Palestine has been carried out to date, has gone bankrupt. Now nobody can deny this fact. The British government, which governed Palestine on the basis of a mandate, also had to admit this. You are aware of the statements made on this score by the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Bevin, in the House of Commons on February 18 and February 26, 1947, as well as the subsequent statements by the British representatives at the General Assembly sessions.
You are also aware of the conclusions of numerous commissions, which at various times examined the situation in Palestine and which also came to the conclusion that the mandate system of government did not justify itself, that it does not suit either Arabs or Jews. These are the conclusions reached, in particular, by the Anglo-American Commission on the Palestinian Question, known to you, 1 which gave a rather detailed description of the tense state into which Palestine was ruled on the basis of a mandate.
Continuing to rule Palestine on the basis of a mandate would inevitably lead to a worsening of the already tense situation there and to a further exacerbation of relations between Arabs and Jews, not to mention the fact that the continuation of the order that had previously existed there would be illegal due to the fact that the League of Nations mandate system as a whole lost its significance and ceased to exist in connection with the collapse of the League of Nations and the creation of the United Nations.
Moreover, and this should not be underestimated, the decision to divide Palestine into two independent states is of great historical importance because it meets the legitimate aspirations of the Jewish people to create their own state. This desire has intensified especially in recent years for obvious reasons. This is explained by the fact that the Jewish people suffered relatively more than any other people from the violence of the Nazis. As a result of the arbitrariness and violence of Hitler's troops in the occupied territories of European countries, approximately 6 million Jews perished and only about 1.5 million Jews in Western Europe survived the war. A significant part of the survivors is still without shelter and means of subsistence, continuing to be in special camps in Germany, Austria and some other countries of Western Europe, suffering severe hardships.
The plight of the Jews in Western Europe during the war years, the heavy sacrifices that the Jewish people suffered from the fascist executioners are largely due to the fact that the Jews did not receive proper protection from any of the Western European countries. Not a single country in Western Europe provided the Jews with the proper help and support, and they were completely victims of fascist tyranny. This is understandable, because some of these states, like Spain, themselves provided assistance to Hitlerite Germany and its allies.
All these facts indicate that it would be highly unfair to disregard the legitimate aspirations of the Jewish people to create their own state. The denial of the Jews' right to have such a state could not be justified, especially considering all that the Jews experienced during the Second World War. This conclusion also finds historical justification, for the Jewish population, like the Arab, has deep historical roots in Palestine.
Now that a decision has been made to divide Palestine into two independent sovereign states, the challenge is to ensure the speediest and most effective implementation of this decision. To ensure the implementation of this decision of the General Assembly, as is known, a special Commission was created to carry out certain measures that would make it possible by the time of the final withdrawal of British troops from Palestinian territory to ensure the normal performance of state functions by both new states.
The Commission faces serious challenges. It should provide practical assistance to the Jewish and Arab population of Palestine in creating the administrative apparatus of both states and in carrying out other activities that are important for the implementation of the Assembly's decisions. She must justify the trust placed in her.
The Commission has the powers necessary to carry out the tasks assigned to it. It has the necessary authority in the event that complex issues may arise that require United Nations intervention. This authority is ensured by the fact that the Commission must act on the directives of the Security Council, which already has the Palestinian question on its agenda and which, if the situation so requires, is ready to take up this issue from the point of view of promoting the earliest and most effective implementation of the decision on partition Palestine.
There is no need for me to speak at length about the fact that not only the adoption of the decision on Palestine was facilitated, but the forthcoming implementation of it is facilitated by the fact that on this issue it turned out to be possible to agree on such powers as the USSR and the USA. As you know, an agreement between these two states on important issues of international importance is not so frequent in recent times.
We only have to express regret over the fact that, following the Assembly's decision on Palestine, there has been an increase in the number of incidents as a result of clashes between separate groups of Arabs and Jews. These incidents are the result of the actions of some irresponsible elements seeking to complicate the implementation of the plan for its partition. But such actions should not prevent the final implementation of this decision.
We cannot agree with the assertion that the decision to partition Palestine is directed against Arabs and Arab countries. We are deeply convinced that this decision is in the fundamental national interests of both Jews and Arabs.
Opportunities for good-neighborly and friendly relations between both states are inherent in the decision itself. It is enough in this connection to point out, for example, the decision on economic cooperation between them. This cooperation will allow both states to use their economic resources with maximum mutual benefit. Of course, this can be achieved when it is based on taking into account only the interests of both peoples and is not a means of adapting the economy of these new states to the economic needs of foreign monopolies, which, as you know, are always ready to trample the independence of any small and defenseless state, especially one that itself does not value its sovereignty and its independence enough, if only this would entail an increase in their gains.
The Soviet Union has always been sympathetic to the peoples of the Arab East who are fighting for their liberation from the last shackles of colonial dependence. This struggle of the Arab countries and peoples has always found support from the Soviet state, whose national policy is the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples. In the Soviet Union, which is a multinational state, there is no racial or national discrimination. All peoples inhabiting it have equal rights, which are protected by the Soviet Constitution. All of them represent a single and close-knit family, which with honor withstood the severe trials of the war unleashed by Hitler's Germany, which, as you know, relied on the economic might of almost all of Western Europe.
The Soviet Union supports and cannot but support the aspirations of any state and any people, no matter how small its weight in international affairs, aimed at fighting against foreign dependence and the remnants of colonial oppression. This is in line with the basic principles of the United Nations, which require the protection of the sovereignty and independence of countries and peoples.
The successful implementation of the decision to partition Palestine and to create a Jewish and Arab state as a result of this partition requires Great Britain to cooperate with the United Nations, and above all with the Commission mentioned above, not in words, but in deeds. Formal cooperation is completely insufficient. It would be abnormal if the Commission spent a significant part of the time, for example, in Lake Success, instead of going to the site, to Palestine, and, having familiarized himself with the existing situation there, carry out the tasks assigned to it.
It is said that the British authorities in Palestine intend to obstruct the work of the Commission in that they intend not to admit it into Palestine until significant areas there are cleared of British troops, i.e. not to allow her to enter Palestine either before May 1 or June 1, 1948. I do not know if this information corresponds to reality, but if it turned out that they correspond to reality, then this situation cannot be considered normal. The Commission was created to carry out its work in Palestine, that is, where it is obliged to contribute to the implementation of the Assembly's decisions.
It must be assumed that Great Britain will nevertheless not in words, but in deeds cooperate with the Commission in resolving this issue and, in any case, will not put obstacles in the way of implementing this decision.
I will end by pointing out once again not only the simplicity and practicality of the decision taken on the question of Palestine, but also that this decision is in full compliance with the national interests of both Jews and Arabs, and also meets our common interests in maintaining peace and security. That is why it must be carried out efficiently and smoothly.
Normal conditions must be created in the near future for cooperation between the new Arab and the new Jewish states, as well as their cooperation with other states on the basis of sovereign equality and mutual respect for interests.
WUA RF. F. 434. Op. 2.P.6.D. 45.L. 1-9.
.jpg)
No comments