On June 25, 1949, the commission scheduled a Lausanne recess while territorial, refugee and Syrian armistice disagreements persisted. Suspending plenary sessions did not suspend the interests of civilians whose residence, property and security remained at issue.12

Which meetings would stop?

The recess study records the 2 p.m. decision for a July 1–18 interval with continued committee work. Earlier proposed dates were not the adopted calendar. Consultation and scheduling did not settle borders or require every delegation to accept a particular refugee arrangement.3

Why were demilitarized arrangements disputed?

Riley’s account described disagreement over civilian authority within the proposed Syrian demilitarized arrangements. The existing draft study now preserves this disagreement. A military separation arrangement did not automatically resolve sovereignty, citizenship or local policing. No final Syrian armistice had yet been signed.4

What did the competing territorial demands establish?

Arab delegations used the partition map as a basis for their demands and connected territorial discussion with refugee return. A separate American account recorded Egyptian opposition to the Gaza incorporation option. These are positions of identified delegates and governments. They do not establish consent by all refugees, an evacuation order or a transfer completed that day.56

How is this dated?

SR/LM.22 dates the Arab meeting June 25 at 10:45 a.m.; SR.76 dates scheduling at 2 p.m., supporting כ״ח בסיון ה׳תש״ט 28th 𝑜𝑓 Sivan, AM 5709. FRUS 792 and 793 are reports with their own clocks. Their interpretations do not date a signed settlement or admissions.789

Guided reflections

  • What remained at issue when plenary meetings were scheduled to pause?
  • Why could military separation leave civilian authority disputed?

Footnotes

  1. United Nations, A/AC.25/SR.76, SR.76 meeting. ↩
  2. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 792, FRUS 792. ↩
  3. United Nations, A/AC.25/SR.76, Decision and committee continuation. ↩
  4. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 792, Demilitarized zone interpretation. ↩
  5. United Nations, A/AC.25/SR/LM.22, SR/LM.22, 10:45 a.m., delegation positions. ↩
  6. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 793, FRUS 793, Egyptian position. ↩
  7. United Nations, A/AC.25/SR.76, Heading. ↩
  8. United Nations, A/AC.25/SR/LM.22, Heading. ↩
  9. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 792, Report. ↩

Works cited

  1. United Nations. A/AC.25/SR.76. Lausanne record, June 1949 or July 1, 1949; exact heading and cited passages inspected in hosted English reproduction. Not a verbatim recording or autograph original. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-211016/. Accessed October 11, 2026.
  2. United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949. Vol. VI. Document 792. Office of the Historian. Hosted text with editorial notes; occurrence, telegram, cited later report and publication remain separate. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d792. Accessed October 11, 2026.
  3. United Nations. A/AC.25/SR/LM.22. Lausanne record, June 1949 or July 1, 1949; exact heading and cited passages inspected in hosted English reproduction. Not a verbatim recording or autograph original. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-210704/. Accessed October 11, 2026.
  4. United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949. Vol. VI. Document 793. Office of the Historian. Hosted text with editorial notes; occurrence, telegram, cited later report and publication remain separate. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d793. Accessed October 11, 2026.