501.BB Palestine/5–948: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
us urgent
617. From Ross. Parodi called meeting of British, Belgian, American, French representatives last night to discuss situation regarding truce and possible action which SC may be called to take following May 15. Hare and I attended.
Parodi said time fast running out and essential to make up minds now regarding certain problems.
He said that as of May 15 we would be faced by declarations two states of Palestine coupled with entrance of Abdullah. Regarding latter two ideas are current. The first is that if Abdullah moved beyond own frontier it might constitute an act of aggression. The second idea was that if he entered on invitation of Arab population of Palestine his act might not constitute aggression. Parodi said he was inclined to second theory and thought conclusion to that effect would avoid endless argument. Question which he wished to raise was whether truce proposal ran contrary to this thesis.
We said in our opinion we should continue pressure to obtain truce.
Beeley, UK, agreed we should try to get truce. As he envisaged situation there were 3 alternatives. First if truce were obtained Abdullah should be persuaded to observe it. Second, if negotiations were still continuing for truce it was not clear what action Abdullah would take. Third, if truce negotiations broke down it would not seem advisable to challenge Abdullah’s entry on basis of crossing frontier but critical point would be when he actually came in contact with Jewish forces.
Parodi said that he had seen Goldmann of JA who had given him impression that Shertok returning Palestine to assert moderating influence. Parodi had also seen Husseini who at one and the same time had been intransigent but doubtful as to what he should do. However Husseini expressed strong continuing opposition immigration.
[Page 947]We inquired if any foundation report that JA planning negotiation with Abdullah. Beeley said there had been contact between JA and Abdullah but that Abdullah had been unable to recognize territorial limitations of November 29 resolution. However, Beeley thought agreement between them quite possible, although Jews might have to make some territorial concessions to Abdullah for maintenance his prestige.
We inquired if agreement JA and Abdullah possible before May 15. Beeley hesitated and then said he doubted it.
We asked if existence truce would stop Abdullah. Parodi doubted it. Beeley said since truce only between Arabs and Jews of Palestine Jews could not complain if Abdullah’s forces stayed in Arab area. We pointed out that terms of SC truce resolution of April 17 called upon all governments particularly those of neighboring states to facilitate truce. We told Parodi we were instructed to emphasize continuance of truce efforts and to suggest that Parodi as president of SC request the Truce Commission in Jerusalem to present to the parties the third provisional draft of articles of truce and simultaneously inform the other members of the SC.
Parodi felt and Nisot agreed that Parodi could not as president of council request the Truce Commission to take proposed action unless he had received prior approval by SC of articles of truce and proposed procedure. As the representative of France he would have no difficulty in associating himself with procedure without consulting his government. Nisot agreed with Parodi’s view but said he would have to clear instruction to Belgian Consul through Brussels. After some further discussion we all agreed following procedure would be followed as given to Rusk by telephone. (1) US would request Wasson to make copies of third provisional draft available for French and Belgian colleagues. (2) Each government would instruct its representative on Truce Commission to join with colleagues in joint presentation to the parties of truce articles as representing view of respective governments that these articles constitute fair and equitable basis for truce. Truce Commission should report to Parodi as President of Council before May 15.
Parodi returned question Abdullah observing Abdullah’s entrance into Palestine would be incompatible with truce if obtained. He recalled Beeley’s statement regarding restraint which would be exerted on Abdullah in such circumstances. Beeley agreed but added that truce in any event would depend on action by Arab League of which Transjordan was member and consequently should Abdullah agree to truce he would undertake obligation not to enter Palestine.
Beeley said reaction of London to second draft of truce terms had been received and it was favorable. However London would wish [Page 948] reconsideration endorsement in light of changes of third provisional draft particularly articles 5 and 6. We suggested that to save time any comments UK Government has should be made available through High Commissioner to Truce Commission in Jerusalem as well as to delegation here.
Beeley added his instructions from London specified British not prepared to use non-acceptance of truce as means of exerting pressure on either party.
Returning Abdullah question Parodi observed question of getting matter before SC. He thought he as President of Council should raise question as development within purview of Palestine case as already on Council’s agenda and thus avoid possibility of some other member particularly Russia taking initiative and raising as threat to peace. Nisot raised technical objection but we supported Parodi’s views. We raised question continuance Truce Commission after May 15 stating we felt truce efforts should continue and Commission kept in existence for purpose. Parodi and Nisot agreed but reserved formal confirmation.
Parodi raised Jerusalem question stating fear that if no truce situation in Jerusalem would get completely out of hand in view of development hostilities in surrounding areas. He felt essential some action be taken either along lines originally suggested by France for international voluntary force or along lines of trusteeship. Ambassador Garrean spoke at length on this problem indicating rather strong feeling in favor trusteeship as providing soundest legal basis.
Beeley stressed that cease-fire for Jerusalem already obtained and prospects very good for truce governing essential factors of freedom of movement of Jews and assurance of food supplies, et cetera. Beeley thought Abdullah would surely respect truce for Jerusalem but doubtful if he would respect either trusteeship or international force.
We expressed view that matter of Jerusalem of obvious importance. We were prepared to explore fully two alternatives mentioned by Parodi, our preference [being?] for legal reasons stressed by Garreau for trusteeship for legal and practical reasons.
In concluding meeting Parodi restated his view of Abdullah problem as he anticipates it will arise in SC and indicated he hoped views of 4 delegations present could be concerted as to policy and said he wanted to have further meeting of 4 delegations before SC meeting.
After meeting I stayed behind and pursuant to phone conversation with Rusk gave Parodi outline of Shertok conversation with Secretary. Parodi very appreciative over keeping him informed. [Ross.]