Summary
The working document signed at Lausanne on 12 May 1949, in two separate instruments on the same day, by the Palestine Conciliation Commission with the delegations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria (11.30 a.m.) and with the delegation of Israel (10.30 a.m.), taking the map of the territory attributed to the Arab and Jewish States by the resolution of 29 November 1947 as the basis for discussions with the Commission, on the understanding that the exchanges would bear upon the territorial adjustments necessary to the objectives of the resolution of 11 December 1948 (Third Progress Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Annexes A–C, PDF p.11-13).
Details
-
The Protocol’s stated objectives are those of the 11 December 1948 resolution regarding refugees, the respect for their rights and the preservation of their property, as well as territorial and other questions (Annexes A–B, PDF p.11-12).
-
In the Commission’s account the signing provided the starting point and framework for territorial discussion, and the annexed map’s 1947 boundaries were taken as the basis of discussion on the understanding that any necessary adjustments would be proposed (paras. 10, 23, PDF p.2-3, p.7).
-
The two sides read the Protocol in opposed ways in the weeks that followed, as the report records: the Arab delegations held that Israel’s Mandate-frontier proposals, including Gaza, involved annexations rather than the adjustments the Protocol envisaged and so violated it, and Israel held that it could not accept the 1947 proportionate distribution of territory as a criterion for a settlement in present circumstances (paras. 32–33, PDF p.8).
-
The United Nations study gives the same opposed readings as the Commission’s report: the Arab delegations held Israel’s Mandate-frontier proposal, including on Gaza, a flagrant violation of the Protocol as annexation rather than the adjustments it envisaged, and Israel held it could not accept the 1947 proportionate distribution of territory as a criterion for a settlement in present circumstances; it also records Israel’s proposal that the central area’s boundary follow the military line, with no ambitions stated for that area and Jerusalem treated as a separate question (Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: Part II (1947-1977), lines 901-915).
Related pages
Third Progress Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Palestine Conciliation Commission, UN General Assembly Resolution 181, UN General Assembly Resolution 194