DOC-E |
11 |
Date |
14/12/1950 |
Collection |
UN |
Subject |
General Assembly 325th Plenary Meeting |
External Archive Reference |
A/PV.325 |
Text
Sharett's words para 180-186
180. Mr. SHARETT (Israel):
The views of the delegation of Israel on the draft resolution were exhaustively
stated in the Ad Hoc
Political Committee.7 181. The Government of Israel
has consistently declared its readiness to enter into direct negotiations with
its neighbours for the peaceful settlement of all outstanding questions. It is
the firm conviction of my government that peace can be attained only by direct
negotiations, with or without international assistance. This elementary
procedure of direct negotiations has been emphatically rejected by the Arab
governments concerned. We, for our part, have
found it impossible to conceive that a government which refuses to talk to its
neighbour, even to sit with him at one table, should be in a mood to reach a
peace settlement with him. Needless to say, the mere adoption of a procedure of
direct negotiations does not, in itself, guarantee success. Negotiations may prove futile; yet the absence of
negotiations, nay, the expressed refusal to negotiate certainly
predetermines failure. 182. The method of indirect negotiations or of mere conciliation has
been tried out without success for the past two years. The Conciliation
Commission itself came to the conclusion that the continuation of this method
would be of no avail. In its supplementary report to the General Assembly [A/1637/Add.1], the Conciliation
Commission recommended the placing of an obligation upon both parties to enter
into direct discussions, either under the Commission’s auspices or
independently, with a view to the settlement of all questions outstanding
between them. Had that recommendation of the Conciliation Commission been put
to the vote here, we should have been happy to vote for it. 183. To our regret, however, a formulation was adopted by the majority
in the Ad Hoc
Political Committee which has set direct negotiations as only one of the
possible alternative methods of reaching peace, leaving it open to the parties
to seek settlement by negotiating, according to the wording of the resolution
just adopted, with the Conciliation Commission - as if the conflict were
between each of the parties and the Conciliation Commission - and not between
the parties themselves. Such ambiguity, in my submission, invites deadlock.
Each party can choose the method it likes better and claim to be acting in
accordance with the resolution of the General Assembly. 184. In these
circumstances, the delegation of Israel could not possibly accept
responsibility for the resolution, and it therefore abstained from the vote. 185. At the same time, my delegation voted for the Soviet Union
amendment which proposed the rewording of a paragraph in such a way that the
Assembly would urge the parties to enter into direct negotiations. 186. I should like to take
this opportunity of reiterating the continued readiness of my government to
enter into direct negotiations with each of the States with which we have
armistice agreements, either independently - and we prefer the negotiations to
be conducted independently - or, if agreeable, in the presence, with the
assistance and under the auspices of the Conciliation Commission.
(7) For the discussion on this subject
in the Ad Hoc Political Committee, see Official Records of the General Assembly,
Fifth Session, Ad Hoc Political Committee 31st to 36th and 61st to 72nd
meetings inclusive.
|
Source Document 1 |
|
Source Document 2 |
Official Record |
Notes |
duplicates - erase one of them |
language |
eng |
|
|