Office of the Historian

867N.01/2–447: Telegram

The Chargé in the United Kingdom (Gallman) to the Secretary of State

secret
urgent
London, February 4, 1947—4 p. m.

752. According Beeley British Delegate and JA Delegation met for two hours yesterday (Emb’s 658, January 29 [30]):

1.
JA Delegation handed Creech Jones a paper which Beeley presumes contained its objections to Morrison plan (Emb’s 658 paragraph 2) but paper was not mentioned.
2.
First hour meeting was largely devoted to long statement by Ben-Gurion of Zionist case in general terms. He made no definite proposals.
3.
Bevin asked JA Delegation flatly what it wanted and where was its map. JA Delegation indicated that it would prefer a Jewish state embracing whole of western Palestine but this was not in form of proposal and “did not advance matters”.
4.
Bevin “thinking aloud”, (and Beeley hoped that JA Delegation understood this) then said that if London talks with both Arabs and Jews could produce no agreed solution he thought British Government would have to lay problem without recommendation before UN.
5.
JA Delegation asked whether Bevin still hoped that an agreed solution could be reached.
6.
In reply Bevin explained “agreed solution” to mean a solution which would involve a sufficient measure of consent by both sides not to be violently resisted. Acquiescence of both sides in a solution was the important thing. Both sides could and probably would protest before world but if they at least acquiesced it would be an important gain.
7.
JA Delegation asked Bevin whether he would let it see his “intermediate” proposals in writing.
8.
Bevin replied that he would prepare for study by JA Delegation an “exploratory paper” which they must not take as views of British Govt since it involved no commitment. Beeley said that this paper would be along lines of bi-national state, mentioned Emb’s 690, Jan 31.
9.
Shertok asked whether JA Delegation would be permitted to submit a partition proposal. Beeley did not recall a specific reply to this question because “all along Bevin has been asking JA Delegate to say what it wanted”. Beeley thought personally that Shertok’s question may have arisen from latters fear that JA Delegation has been manoeuvered into the position of apparently itself dismissing partition.
10.
Shertok said that it must be assumed that there would be long interval between now and putting any solution into effect. He inquired what would happen in interim.
11.
Bevin replied that if long-term policy decided upon is not incompatible with terms of mandate, British could make interim arrangements compatible with long-term policy which of course would have to be ratified by UN.
12.
Meeting ended on this somewhat inconclusive note. British Delegation worked last night and is working this morning on paper promised by Bevin (paragraph 8 above) which will be sent to Arab Delegation as well as JA Delegation. Beeley feels JA Delegation is [Page 1026] probably somewhat confused by events of yesterday but that British Delegation has made some progress in crystallizing its own thinking. It is increasingly being borne upon British Delegation that it cannot hope to get UN approval for a drastic solution concocted by British and that it would be wiser if a “sufficient measure of consent from both sides is lacking”, to refer matter to UN without recommendation. If, however, “sufficient measure of consent” can be found for an intermediate solution British Delegation is prepared to go ahead subject, of course, to British Cabinet approval.
13.
See Emb’s 722, February 3,1 in connection with paragraph 12 above.
14.
Neumann is calling at Embassy this afternoon.
15.
British Delegation will meet with Arab Delegation this afternoon.

Gallman
  1. Not printed.↩