Stalin, Soviets and İsraeli Question - then and now - 12 - Additional Secret Documents
July 22, 1948
Secret
[...] The Soviet Union is the only great power taking a principled position on the Palestinian issue. Soviet representatives in the Security Council have consistently defended the General Assembly resolution on the partition of Palestine of November 29, 1947.
In response to M. Shertok's telegram comrade Molotov, in his telegram of May 18, said that "The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has made a decision on the official recognition of the State of Israel and its Provisional Government,".
When the war in Palestine became a fact, the Soviet representatives on the Security Council worked hard to bring about an end to hostilities. On May 27, the Soviet delegation presented a draft resolution demanding an immediate cessation of hostilities, taking into account the fact that “the situation in Palestine poses a threat to peace and security in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter,”. Soviet representatives objected and are opposed to giving Bernadotte 5 broad powers, which he uses to revise the UN decision of November 29, 1947.
June 7 Comrade Gromyko raised the question of the method of recruiting military observers for the armistice, since it was not reflected in the armistice resolution of May 29, 1948.
June 15 Comrade Gromyko raised the issue of military observers again and proposed a draft resolution stating that “military observers should be appointed by member states of the Security Council wishing to participate in the appointment of such observers, with the exception of Syria,”.
The Soviet resolution was rejected.
On July 13, the US representative introduced a resolution to end hostilities in Palestine under threat of sanctions. During the discussion, its Soviet representatives supported the proposal for a cessation of hostilities, but objected to the clauses concerning the "demilitarization" of Jerusalem and the broad rights granted to the UN mediator, since these clauses enable Britain and the United States to continue to conduct behind the scenes machinations aimed at disrupting the UN resolution of November 29, 1947, using the "intermediary," the UN. This is evident from the fact that before leaving the United States on July 16 this year. Bernadotte frankly stated that the plan for the partition of Palestine, adopted by the UN on November 29, could be revised in order to resolve the Palestinian problem.
In this regard, on July 15, during the final voting of the resolution, the Soviet representatives as a whole abstained from voting.
Considering that the United States and England, apparently, agreed among themselves on the further fate of Palestine, which was reflected in the proposals of the UN mediator Bernadotte, who recommended leaving in Palestine the "curtailed" state of Israel in its sovereign rights, bound by foreign policy and issues defense with Transjordan, 2 the position of the USSR should be to defend the decision of the General Assembly of November 29, 1947 on the partition of Palestine and the formation of Jewish and Arab states in Palestine. At the same time, it is necessary to decisively reject any proposal to expand Transjordan at the expense of Palestine, which to a certain extent will be supported by some Arab states (for example, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt).
Broad criticism of the British plan to expand the territory of Transjordan at the expense of Palestine will cause a certain split among the Arab states, which will facilitate the defense of the UN decision to partition Palestine.
I. Bakulin
WUA RF. F. 07. Op. 21c. P. 49.D. 39.L. 22-23.
SPEECH BY THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UN Ya.A. MALIKA IN THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION
July 27, 1948
The Soviet delegation considers the draft resolution proposed by the representative of Syria unacceptable due to the following circumstances:
The draft resolution, proposed by the representative of Syria, is a belated and poorly disguised attempt to turn the entire Palestinian question backward. We know and understand why Syria is making such a proposal. It is also known that some major powers are also interested in this, which are not satisfied with the decision taken by the General Assembly on November 29, 1947 on the question of Palestine. They are looking for workarounds for non-fulfillment of this decision, for consigning it to oblivion in order to preserve the previous position in Palestine, to prevent a peaceful settlement in Palestine, to continue to maintain a state of instability and uncertainty there, which is harmful for both the Arab and Jewish population.
The first paragraph of the draft notes that the United Kingdom ended its mandate on May 15, 1948, without creating a government body to assume administrative authority. But the United Nations did not assign such a task to the United Kingdom. On the contrary, the General Assembly, in its resolution of November 29, 1947, recommended to the United Kingdom, as a mandate state, and to all other member states of the United Nations, to accept and implement, on the question of future governance in Palestine, a plan for partitioning Palestine into two independent states: Arabic and Jewish. This plan, as you know, was approved by the General Assembly. The partition plan is silent on the need for the United Kingdom to establish any government body in Palestine. Moreover, it follows from the General Assembly resolution that the creation by the United Kingdom of any governmental body in Palestine is excluded. The General Assembly resolution is limited only by specifying the date for the termination of the mandate and the procedure for the withdrawal of troops from Palestine by the mandate country.
Consequently, there is no reason to proceed from the premise that Britain should have created some kind of government body in Palestine.
The draft submitted by the representative of Syria requests that the International Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter, issue an advisory legal opinion on the international statute of Palestine following the termination of the mandate. It is strange that the representative of Syria considers it possible to turn to the International Court of Justice on an issue that has already been considered and decided by the General Assembly. It is no less strange that the representative of Syria proposes that the Security Council should seek legal advice from the International Court of Justice on an issue already decided by the General Assembly.
The General Assembly has carefully and thoroughly dealt with the Palestinian question and decided on the future structure of Palestine. The Assembly's decision is both a political and a legal decision on the Palestinian question. Consequently, there is no need for any special additional advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on this issue.
We are offered to return again to the issue that has been comprehensively studied and resolved. Moreover, such a proposal cannot but be viewed as an attempt not only to revise this decision of the General Assembly, but also to give the International Court of Justice the functions of an arbiter in issues on which there is already a decision of the highest body of the United Nations - the General Assembly.
Article 96 provides that the General Assembly may request advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice on any legal question. But it goes without saying that it makes sense to ask for such opinions before deciding on such issues, and not after they have already been taken. If a decision has been made - and it has already been taken on Palestine - then it makes no sense to ask for an opinion from the International Court of Justice.
In view of the above circumstances, the Soviet delegation cannot agree to the Security Council appealing to the International Court of Justice on the Palestinian question, on which the General Assembly has already decided. Those who are not satisfied with the said decision of the General Assembly on the future of Palestine have tried to frustrate this decision before, but they failed. Subsequent resolutions on the Palestinian question did not change the substance of this decision.
The Soviet delegation believes that the Security Council should take measures to facilitate the implementation of the Assembly's decision on Palestine, and not revise it, delay or complicate the implementation of this decision. The argument that recourse to the International Court of Justice would not interfere with a peaceful settlement does not hold water. This is an absolutely unsubstantiated reasoning and assertion, for an appeal to the International Court of Justice will contribute to the continuation of the state of instability and uncertainty in Palestine and will hamper the cause of a peaceful settlement in Palestine.
Based on the foregoing, the Soviet delegation does not consider it possible to support the draft resolution proposed by the representative of Syria.
WUA RF. F. 434. Op. 3.P. 20.D. 39.L. 51-53.
RECORDING OF THE CONVERSATION OF THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR V.A. ZORINA WITH EGYPT'S MISSION TO THE USSR BINDARI-PASHA
5 August 1948
Secret
Today at 14.00 he received Bindari Pasha at his request. After exchanging the usual greetings, Bindari said that the Egyptian government had received a message from one source that 6 Sturmovyu bombers and 2 squadrons of fighter-bombers had arrived in Durazzo, Albania. These planes are piloted by Jewish pilots and intended for the Jewish Zionist government in Palestine. The Egyptian government instructed him to find out if this message was true. “Personally,” Bindari added, “I do not believe in such reports, for such facts would contradict the friendship between the USSR and Egypt and would violate the agreement on the armistice in Palestine. However, I must fulfill the instructions of my government and inform him of the answer of the Soviet government,>.
I said that I was very surprised by the messenger's message and did not understand what relation we have to Durazzo, which is located outside the territory of the USSR.
Then Bindari said that, according to information received by the Egyptian government, these aircraft are allegedly Soviet.
I replied that although every message requires verification, in this case it is quite clear that the message that the messenger is talking about is clearly not true. I added that I was even more surprised by the very formulation of this question, for everyone knows that Soviet policy is a policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. Therefore, I resolutely reject such a formulation of the question, as it does not correspond to the policy of the USSR, which is well known to the Egyptian government. I added that the statement of the Egyptian government was obviously inspired from the outside, for I do not think that Egypt, knowing Soviet policy, could make such a judgment on its own. I can only regret that the Egyptian government believes such reports.
Bindari replied that this information was indeed obtained from a foreign source. The Egyptian government was quite surprised by this report and wanted to find out. “Now,” Bindari added, “I can, to my great pleasure, inform my government that this message is wrong and that the policy of the Soviet Union on the Palestinian question remains unchanged.”
I noticed in this connection that the policy of the USSR on the Palestinian question was always clear and quite clearly expressed by the representatives of the USSR in the Security Council and at the sessions of the UN General Assembly. This is well known to the Egyptian government. If the Egyptian government itself carries out the correct policy on the Palestinian issue and does not listen to all false reports, it will benefit peace in the area.
Now there is a lot of fuss about the Palestinian question, and there are some circles that want to rake in the heat with someone else's hands. Obviously, someone is interested in passing off the USSR as a supporter of interference in the internal affairs of the Middle East. The collapse of their own plans in Palestine causes these circles to try to shift the whole matter from a sore head to a healthy one.
Bindari said, as he put it - “privately,” that “this unfortunate Palestinian problem,” spoils the atmosphere of friendship between the USSR and Egypt and prevents the establishment of close relations and fraternal ties between the two countries. If it were not for the Palestinian question, the Soviet Union and Egypt would have lived in close cooperation and alliance. However, there is hope that all the clouds will disperse.
I replied to Bindari that, in my personal opinion, Egypt in its actions should be guided by its own interests and less listen to others.
Bindari said that there are some circumstances that prevent Egypt from following its own path.
Concluding the conversation, Bindari asked me how, in my personal opinion, international affairs were going.
I replied that international affairs, as far as we are concerned, should, in my opinion, improve.
The conversation lasted 35 minutes. The OPSV attaché, comrade Gnedykh, was also present.
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR V. Zorin
AVP RF. F. 087. Op. 11.P. 16.D. 5.L. 30-31.
LETTER OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE BSSR K.V. KISELEVA DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR
V.A. ZORIN
August 20, 1948
Secret
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the BSSR received a telegram from the mediator in Palestine, Bernadotte, in which he appealed to the Government of the Byelorussian SSR with a request to provide material assistance to the population of Arabs and Jews in Palestine, in connection with the difficult conditions that had developed as a result of the events.
Due to the fact that the current tense situation in Palestine is caused and created by the Anglo-American ruling circles and they are fully responsible for what is happening, therefore I consider not to provide any material assistance and not to send an answer.
I ask for your instructions .
APPENDIX: On 2 sheets only to the addressee
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Byelorussian SSR K Kiselev
AVP RF. F. 089. Op. 1.P.2.D.13.Sheet 3.
RECORD OF THE CONVERSATION OF THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR V.A. ZORINA WITH THE ENTRY OF SYRIA IN THE USSR F. ZEYNEDDIN
September 21, 1948
Secret
Today, September 21, at 14:00. 00 minutes received the envoy of Syria Zeyneddin at his request.
Zeyneddin stated that he came to me on behalf of his government to make a statement on the Palestinian issue. Then Zeyneddin set out his lengthy statement on a previously prepared text, the essence of which boiled down to the following.
1. The position of the Syrian government on the Palestinian issue is well known throughout the world. It opposed the decision of the League of Nations to turn Palestine into a mandated state, it spoke in favor of granting independence to Palestine. However, not all governments shared the views of the Syrian government. The Syrian government, like the governments of other countries in the East, viewed the Jewish question as one of the most vexing issues, as a matter of concern.
The Syrian government followed the development of the Zionist movement, the desire of the Jews to achieve independence. The Syrian government viewed this movement as an obstacle to the spread of imperialism in the east. It has always believed that the Jewish movement will take shape and produce the desired results.
However, in reality, everything turned out to be different.
On the territory of the Jewish state, created as a result of the Zionist movement, a serious crime was committed. A group of people dressed in the same military uniform as the troops of the Jewish state killed the UN representative Count Bernadotte and Colonel Sero1. Despite the fact, Zeyneddin remarked, that you or we can think about the activities of Count Bernadotte, he still managed to achieve a lot in Palestine. He has won respect for himself in many countries. This criminal act must be condemned. I am sure, continued Zeineddin, that the Soviet government shares my government's stated opinion. According to Zeyneddin, the interim government of the State of Israel washes its hands. This crime shows that the government of the State of Israel is unable to cope with the unrest prevailing in the territory of the state.
My government, Zeineddin went on to say, wishes to draw the attention of the government of the Soviet Union to the significance of this fact and its consequences.
2. The Soviet government recognized the State of Israel. Now the question of the admission of the State of Israel to the UN membership may arise. In this regard, two sides of this issue should be pointed out: first, a state that accepts a membership in the UN must be able to fulfill the UN Charter and the obligations of the international order imposed on this state by the Charter; secondly, there is currently no harmony among the UN members. The admission of the State of Israel to the UN can hardly contribute to the creation of such harmony.
3. The Palestinian question is now attracting the attention of the whole world and, naturally, the attention of the UN. But the United Nations currently has a mandated majority. This provision does not and cannot satisfy a number of states interested in a fair resolution of this or that issue.
The situation in Palestine, Zeyneddin concluded, is becoming intolerable and requires immediate consideration. The Soviet Union has always stood for peace and security in the world, and I hope that the Soviet government will take into account the stated position of the Syrian government on the Palestinian question when considering the question of Palestine.
After listening to Zeyneddin, I stated that the fact stated in the first part of his statement (about the murder of Bernadotte) had nothing to do with the question of the policy of the Soviet government, which is guided by the interests of its country, the interests of maintaining peace and strengthening cooperation between peoples, and that this fact cannot have influence on the policy of the Soviet government.
I promised Zeyneddin to bring the envoy's statement to the attention of the Minister.
Before leaving, Zeineddin began to say that throughout their struggle for independence, the Syrians have always thought about closer relations with the Soviet Union, that they will always remember that the Soviet Union was the first to recognize the Syrian state, and that the Syrian government wants relations between the Soviet Union and Syria improved. He expressed regret that the Palestinian question to some extent delayed the development of these relations. He expressed the hope that the Soviet government would show its readiness to establish closer relations.
In response to this, I remarked that the Soviet government always wants to have friendly relations with other countries and the establishment of such relations depends not only on the Soviet government.
The conversation, which lasted 45 minutes, ended there.WUA RF. F. 07. Op. 21. P. 4. D. 61. L. 31-33.
Translated From Russian; Svitlana M
Continue
13 - Additional Secret Documents
.jpg)
No comments