The UN Security Council’s Resolution 61 challenged the October military gains of מדינת ישראל MEDINAT YISRAʾEL and sought negotiated truce lines. Its adoption did not settle the borders or prove withdrawal.
What did the Council decide?
The resolution required withdrawal beyond October 14 positions and authorized the mediator to establish lines if negotiations failed. Nine members voted in favor; the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic opposed and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics abstained. The full Resolution 61 study distinguishes military arrangements from a final territorial settlement. 1
How did the government defend the southern position?
אבא אבן ABBA EBAN’s November 4 letter conveyed משה שרת MOŜE SHARETT’s objection to withdrawal even if Egypt did not resume its earlier positions. It also described promising approaches for negotiations, whose status was disputed in American reporting. The letter states a diplomatic position; it does not independently prove every claimed approach or British motive. 2
How is this dated?
This is Day 341 of the 599-day civil-date series: 1948-11-04. This civil-day slot, corresponding in the register’s daytime Hebcal conversion to ב׳ בחשוון ה׳תש״ט 2nd 𝑜𝑓 Ḥeŝvan, AM 5709. 3 After local sunset the Hebrew date changes to ג׳ בחשוון ה׳תש״ט 3rd 𝑜𝑓 Ḥeŝvan, AM 5709. Occurrence, dispatch and later compilation dates remain separate in the sections above. The daily route does not assign every reported incident to that Hebrew day. Unrecorded occurrence hours remain open for independent calendar review.
Guided reflections
- Why did withdrawal and final borders remain different decisions?
- What did Eban’s letter establish beyond its author’s diplomatic position?
Footnotes
- https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-179139/ November 4 resolution; operative provisions and vote. ↩
- https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1948v05p2/d730 FRUS document 730, paragraphs 1–3 and editorial notes. ↩
- https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-179139/ Dated witness identified in the sections above; source occurrence or reportage role distinguished there. ↩