25 Jumada II 1367 (4 May 1948). It read:
“The Arab Higher Committee observes that discussion of trusteeship has recently taken a new form at the United Nations. It appears that the American trusteeship proposal reveals the truth of American policy concerning trusteeship, although American circles deny that the proposal expresses their official position.
“During discussion of trusteeship, some responsible Arab politicians expressed views and statements indicating acceptance of trusteeship. The Arab Higher Committee fears that this tendency may express the view of the Arab governments or most of them. It has therefore become the Committee’s duty to state its view on this subject, which carries grave danger and far-reaching consequences for the country’s future.
“The Arab Higher Committee wishes to affirm that its rejection of trusteeship does not arise from a negative idea. It comes from a sincere belief based on sound facts and supported by long experience of the aims of colonial policy.
“Trusteeship is merely another form of the Mandate, which we experienced for nearly a quarter of a century. It brought destruction and ruin upon the country and deprived it of participation with the Arab countries in the blessing of freedom and independence.
“We do not exaggerate when we say that trusteeship is worse than the Mandate system, because the present United Nations has gone beyond the old League of Nations in turning away from justice and surrendering to international powers. There is no doubt that trusteeship binds the fate of our country to the will of the United Nations. It is extremely dangerous to mortgage our future to the United Nations, and we will not agree to become a subject of international debate.
“It is also clear that trusteeship, whether short-term or long-term and in whatever form it comes, is a system that would obstruct or postpone a sound political solution to the Palestine question. Under delay and procrastination, the Zionists would gain greatly in the political, military, and economic fields, and this could lead to the establishment of a Jewish state over a wider area than the Zionists currently desire. Formulas and texts do not remove the fears and cannot preserve Arab rights. The Mandate charter contained passages affirming the preservation of Arab rights, yet the result was the fate to which the country has come.
“In our view trusteeship is a danger in itself, without any need to enter into details. It may be easy for the United Nations at this stage to agree on imposing it, but if it did not agree in the future to end it, or to settle any fundamental matter of public affairs, the country would be ruled forever by a trusteeship system, whether the United Nations approved or not, so long as the government imposed by trusteeship was supported by an international power.
“It is no longer hidden that the Jews have broad programs for flooding the country with immigrants and doubling their military forces. The United Nations has no means of stopping this expected invasion, so the Arab countries would again have to prepare military forces to meet these dangerous emergencies, and we do not know how suitable the general climate would then be for undertaking such a movement.
“It has been said that the United Nations has two choices, partition or trusteeship; that trusteeship must be chosen to prevent partition; that the UN Charter provides no option other than trusteeship in such circumstances; and that accepting trusteeship is a wise plan that would lead to abandoning a Jewish state. Such reasoning might be valid in a just case before a just court whose constitution was truth and fairness. But when the matter concerns a public cause like ours before the United Nations, which has dealt with all international problems on the basis of international interest rather than right and justice, as the great states themselves acknowledge, we must expect United Nations trusteeship to finally destroy the Arab character of this country.
“As for the claim that the UN Charter provides no option other than trusteeship, it needs no refutation, because the United Nations itself previously approved the partition plan. Its Charter contains no provision, near or remote, granting the United Nations authority to partition any country, yet despite this it proceeded to approve partition.
“However, if the discussion must revolve around the Charter and its provisions, all of them do not prevent recognition of Palestine’s independence and national sovereignty, if the intention is sincere in solving this question in accordance with right and in the Arabs’ interest.”