501.BB Palestine/5–2648: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
us urgent
707. From Ross. [Here follows discussion with Mahmoud Fawzi, Egyptian Representative at the United Nations, regarding a cease-fire in Palestine.]
Following is delayed report on conversation with Dr. Asil1 late Monday afternoon, primarily on question of cease-fire.
Asil took a fairly moderate line to effect that Arabs could agree to a cease-fire but only on condition that Jewish immigration of fighting personnel and importation of arms be stopped and that further entrenchment of Jewish state politically be stopped. He referred to SC truce resolution of April 17.
I told him I saw substantial difference between cease-fire and truce. It seemed to me that the first most urgent, most essential thing was the cease-fire. Once there were a cease-fire other steps could be considered.
He said that it seemed to him an appropriate procedure to start with a cease-fire provided there could be assurances that other steps, which might be called part of truce, could be taken up next. Asil, in course [Page 1056] of our conversation, speculated on possible eventual settlement which he said he had discussed with Mr. Henderson. Asil described it as a “United States of Palestine”. Thus, the Jews could have their own state and their own flag just as he observed in his short stay here, New York State had its own flag.
Asil said he fully understood and sympathized with factors which have conditioned development of American policy. He added that he was one of those who thought that friendship between Arab states and US should surmount all barriers.
Asil went on to say that he thought we were perhaps either not fully aware of or did not take fully enough into account the wider ramifications of problem of Palestine. As he saw it in terms of friendship between US and Arab states, we should not consider Palestine narrowly. We should not even consider Palestine in terms alone of the Middle East. We should rather, however, consider this problem in terms of much wider ramifications of the highest political importance in two directions: first, the effect of our Palestine policy throughout the Moslem world which extended much further than the Middle East; second, we should consider the matter in terms of the position of Russia in the world and the very serious risk that our entire policy of containment of Russia was being endangered. He thought the statement made by the Turkish Foreign Minister a couple of days ago was based on this same fear.
Dr. Asil went on to say that the game of the Soviet Union in present situation was obvious. For some years through their propaganda and in many other ways they had demonstrated strong feeling for Arab states. The Iraqi Government and other Arab Governments had then taken very strong measures to suppress and outlaw communism in their countries. At this point Soviet Union swung to support of world Zionism. Their effort now was, first, to establish a bridgehead in Middle East through their support of Zionist state; second, to cause disruption in Arab states; and third, to drive a wedge between UK and US in the area.2 [Ross.]
- Naji al-Asil, Iraqi Representative at the United Nations.↩
- Dr. Asil, in a statement before the Security Council on May 26, submitted the reply of the Arab League, on behalf of all the Arab States, to the Security Council’s cease-fire request. The reply neither accepted nor rejected, explicitly, the cease-fire but raised these questions: “Is the cease-fire likely to put a stop to the flow of Jewish immigrants into Palestine to fight the Arabs, as well as the importation of arms? Is the cease-fire likely to stop the terrorists undertaking acts of violence and guarantee the safety of the Arab civilian population?” Dr. Asil concluded the reply with: “And yet, anxious to realize the purpose of the efforts of tibie Security Council, namely the arrival at a just solution and a lasting peace, I am authorized to inform you that the Political Committee of the Arab League is ready to study, within a time limit of forty-eight hours, any suggestion which the Security Council may make to them along the line of a solution of the Palestine problem.” For the full text of the Arab reply, see SC, 3rd yr., No. 74, pp. 47–49.↩