Meanwhile, again regarding Israel's admission into the
UN, the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine, trying to carry out UNGA
Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948, regarding refugees, wrote the Lausanne
Protocol. It was based on the partition plan of Resolution 181. Israel
and the Arab states signed the protocol on May 12, 1949, a few hours after
Israel had been voted into the UN? By signing, Israel left the impression
(a) that it was willing to give up the areas, including Jerusalem, which it had seized militarily but which were outside the area allotted to it by the partition plan,
and (b) that it would allow the return of the refugees. As noted above, believing that Israel would soon agree to these two protocol points, several nations that had not approved Israel’s membership now voted for it.
They were soon disappointed. Israel later obliquely admitted
that it had cooperated during the talks leading up to the protocol signing
because it wanted to be accepted. Israel's own Government Yearbook 1950
Some members of the United Nations wished at this oppor-tunity to test Israel's intentions with regard to the refugee, boundaries and Jerusalem issues, before approving its appli-cation for admission. In a way, Israel's attitude at the Lausanne talks aided its Delegation at Lake Success in its endeavour to obtain the majority required for admission.(Israel, Governement Yearbook 1950, p.143).
However, within six weeks of signing the Lausanne Protocol regarding refugees and being admitted into the UN, Israel's delegation to the Conciliation Commission for Palestine indicated to it that the delegation "could not accept a certain proportionate distribution of territory agreed upon in 1947 as a criterion for a territorial settlement in present circumstances (UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Third Progress Report, for 9 April through 8 June, 1949, 6.21.1949 (A/927), p.3).
Thus Israel repudiated the allocation provision of the partition plan of Resolution 181. This was the very plan that Israel, in arguing against the Bernadotte plan some seven months previously, had insisted "is a valid instrument of international law.”(Khouri, The Arab-Israeli Dilemma, p.85) Israel again used a UN resolution that it had agreed to, as long as it worked to Israel's advantage, but discarded part of it when it became disadvantageous.
On an article on Jerusalem Post, March 5th 2000, By Janine Zacharia "Refugee issue threatens Israel's UN standing", Zacharia, quoting Francis Boyle, legal adviser to the Palestinians during past Middle East negotiations, says: "If Prime Minister Barak is going to deny the right of the Palestinianrefugees to return to their home, he will abrogate and violate one of the most important conditions for Israel's admission to the United Nations". "Boyle said that as a condition for admission into the UN in 1949, Israel agreed to accept UN Resolution 194 that says Palestinians should be allowedto return to their homes if they wish or receive adequate financial compensation if they choose to remain elsewhere...".
To read the full article, please visit: http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/03/05/News/News.3547.html,