867N.01/1764: Telegram

The Minister in Egypt (Kirk) to the Secretary of State

1102. Department’s No. 353, August 5, 10 p.m.26 The statement of the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons on July 30 regarding Palestine27 was carried very inconspicuously in Cairo press and only one local paper appears to have mentioned possible discussion of the matter in Cairo. In that instance Almisri carried an item in its special service under a London date line to the effect that the Prime Minister had answered in the affirmative when asked whether the British Government’s position in respect of Palestine would be maintained in the event that the question came up for discussion in Cairo. As reported in this item there was no indication of any reason for such discussions in Cairo nor was mention made in that connection of Arab Federation. Furthermore when questioned in that regard a British Embassy source stated that the Embassy had no knowledge of discussions held recently or in prospect in Cairo regarding either Palestine or Arab Federation issues nor did it have any confirmation of reports regarding Arab Federation conversations elsewhere (see my 977, July 18, 7 p.m., and 1073, August 4, 2 p.m.28). In this connection the Legation has been informed confidentially by the Embassy on several occasions recently that the initiative in the [Page 620] Arab Federation matter is at present being left entirely to the Arabs since it is held that in accordance with Eden’s May 29 speech (see my despatch [telegram] No. 630, May 31, 6 p.m.; No. 747, June 17, 5 p.m.;29 and 840, June 28, noon) it is up to the Arabs to work out some plan on which they are in general agreement as a basis for discussion of the matter with the British. Embassy sources add that in view of the many complexities of the situation it is not anticipated that the Arab leaders will find it possible to arrive at an agreement in the early future and the British refer particularly to the vague present status of Syria which they state would require clarifying as a preliminary step to Syrian participation in any Arab Federation scheme. Such clarification it is pointed out would be effected by the negotiation of the proposed treaty between the Syrian and the Free French but this matter is being complicated on the one hand by Syrian hesitancy to enter into negotiations and on the other hand by Free French apprehension that Syria may be drawn from French to British influence through Syrian participation in Arab Federation (see my 982, July 20, 9 a.m.30)

As regards the recent visit of Moshe Shertok to Cairo, he informed a member of the Legation staff while he was here that the purpose of his visit was to discuss with the British authorities the more extensive use of Jews in the military service but he added that he had not received any particular encouragement in that respect. He made no reference to meeting Arab representatives here and the Oriental Secretariat of the British Embassy here states that no information has reached it which would indicate that such conferences were held.

It may be noted however that in discussing the possibility of Jewish-Arab cooperation with the aforementioned member of the Legation staff Shertok stated that he was not particularly optimistic in that respect. He said that in his opinion agreement could only be reached on the basis of Jewish “self-determination as a nation” which would permit the Jews and Arabs to “separate and then unite as partners”. He particularly emphasized the prime necessity of acceding to Jewish demands regarding immigration into Palestine and strongly maintained that the Jews are in no way interested in obtaining immigration privileges in any other area of the Near East than in Palestine proper. A memorandum covering Shertok’s remarks has been mailed to the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs in a letter dated August 1.29

Kirk
  1. See footnote 24, p. 616.
  2. See telegram No. 3473, August 7, 6 p.m., from the Ambassador in the United Kingdom, p. 617.
  3. Neither printed.
  4. Neither printed.
  5. Not printed.
  6. Neither printed.