Fazlullah Nooreddin Kia has republished that speech on pages 156 to 159 in his book “Memoirs of Serving in Palestine” (Blue Publication – Winter 1998), which we will review as a historical document as follows:
At the General Assembly in September 1947, when the reports of the Palestinian Commission were presented, the Arabs made strong speeches against the partition of Palestine and separately asked the representatives of Iran to speak against the partition of Palestine, finally due to their insistence Mansoor-ol-Saltaneh Adl, who headed the Iranian delegation for the formation of the UN General Assembly, delivered a concise and brief speech as follows:
Mr. Chairman, Esteemed Delegates. The Iranian delegation has paid full attention to the discussions that have taken place in this Commission on the Palestinian issue. All aspects of this complex issue, and in particular its great importance in terms of maintaining peace in the Near East and the Middle East, have been fully explained by the esteemed delegates who have so far spoken out.
The Iranian representative to the Palestinian Special Commission could not agree with the majority vote of the Commission, a vote that according to him perhaps could not be in full accordance with the principles that should lead the United Nations and guide it, the discussion of the principles of justice and equity according to which all the nations can determine their own destiny freely and without interference of others. The Iranian representative could not find a suitable ground to bring other members of the Commission into accord with his own vote, so in the absence of a solution that, according to the honorable representative of the Swedish government, could be both logical and practical, Iran was forced to propose a moderate solution, in other words, a peaceful solution and agree to the formation of a federal government, but at the same time foresighted and reserved the right of his respective government to take any position that it deems necessary and useful for peace in the Middle East.
We see that neither the solution acceptable to the majority of the Special Commission nor the solution proposed by the minority of that Commission was well received among the members of the Commission, and so I used the right reserved for the Iranian government and asked Mr. Chairman for permission to speak.
Gentlemen, now that I take the floor, I do not intend to explain in a clearer way all the historical, racial, political and economic reasons that are against the majority vote of the Special Commission, these reasons have been mentioned with complete eloquence by the most esteemed representatives of the Arab governments before me and I do not intend to talk about the legal value of the Balfour Declaration, as it was also done by the esteemed representative of Pakistan with masterful domination. My only intention is to express the position and procedure of the Iranian delegation.
The behavior of the Iranian delegation is neither due to the role of affection for the Jewish world, nor is it the result of a great friendship with the Arab nations, but is solely due to the belief in the principles accepted and proclaimed in the San Francisco Charter.
Yes, on the one hand we respect the Jewish world, history has recorded the kindness, hospitality and religious assistance that the sons of Cyrus and Darius did to the children of Israel, and the great French writer Racine recorded it in his famous play Esther. We are following the same national procedure. The comfortable life of tens of thousands of Jews in different parts of Iran is an indisputable reason for this claim.
On the other hand, we declare that many interests relate us to the Arab nations. But these interests, however fraternal, will not deter us from accepting the path that leads to the defense of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
This Charter obliges us to respect the right of every nation to live freely and to determine its own destiny with complete freedom. It is true that a few days ago the esteemed representative of Guatemala claimed that this principle has not always been observed and even stated some cases of its violation, and with this argument, questioned its legal value. I would like to make the point that whenever we allow a continuing violation of a principle or a law because that principle or law has been violated in some cases, in fact we have accepted a complete disarray, not only in international life, but in all aspects of our daily life.
As I said, the Charter of the United Nations obliges us to respect the right of every nation to live freely and to determine its own destiny freely. So why should we abandon this task and impose a government on Palestine that is not to the satisfaction of any party?
By accepting the solution proposed by the majority of the Special Commission, you will create two new governments, neither of which will be viable, and both may be born dead. By doing so, you will not build a national stove for the Jews, but you will create a stove under the ashes of which the fire that always threatens not only the Middle East but also the peace of the entire world will always be lit.
So we must seek the truth and be practical and refrain from cultivating fantasies that may be praiseworthy in terms of desired perfection, but are certainly risky in terms of the solution to the Palestinian question.
Whether they are Muslims or Christians or Jews, as soon as this country gains its freedom, the people there, regardless of their religion, will find a just solution to the dispute that has divided them today, and then this solution, which is self-interested, will be freely chosen, accepted, and welcomed, whether it is the formation of two separate states or formation of a federal government.
With these principles in mind, the Iranian delegation will vote against any proposal that is not enforceable under the provisions of the UN Charter.