501.BB Palestine/6–148: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)
niact
349. There are four principal possibilities confronting SC when it meets tomorrow to receive replies from Arab Govts and the Provisional Govt of Israel responsive to its resolution of May 29:
- 1.
- Acceptance by all Govts of SC call to cease hostilities for 4 weeks and otherwise to comply with requirements of SC resolution.
- 2.
- Rejection by all Govts of SC res. of May 29.
- 3.
- Acceptance of SC res. by Prov. Govt. of Israel and rejection by Arab Govts.
- 4.
- Rejection by Prov. Govt. of Israel and acceptance by Arab Govts.
There is also possibility that there may be conditional acceptances by one or both sides which may require further consideration by SC and Dept.
If, as we profoundly hope, both sides accept the resolution, your remarks should be warmly congratulatory of the statesmanship and restraint exhibited by the Govts concerned. You should on behalf of this govt say that we look now to UN Mediator, Count Bernadotte, and to SC Truce Commission in Palestine, not only to supervise compliance with Resolution of May 29 but to use this breathing space of 4 weeks as an opportunity to work out a lasting modus vivendi between Arabs and Jews.
You should pledge fullest support of this govt, as member of Truce Commission, to the Mediator in his difficult task, and say that we stand ready to assist him to the utmost.
If contingencies (2), (3) and (4) materialize, penultimate paragraph [Page 1084] of res. of May 29 comes into immediate effect. We feel that for purpose of meeting of June 2 it would be unwise for Council immediately to debate resolutions with a view to action under Chapter 7. We feel that there should be adequate discussion among delegations as to exactly what course such action should take. In this case you should keep in mind but not as yet discuss Deptel 327, May 26,1 setting forth US policy as approved by the President.
Since action under Chapter 7, consisting merely of an order to the parties to cease fire and end hostilities, has twice been rejected by the Council, first in the form of our res of May 17 and latterly by rejection of the USSR res of May 29, it is to be doubted whether a reiteration of our Chapter 7 res of May 17 would prove effective.
Please discuss possibilities with your colleagues on the Council. We value in particular the British views and should prefer if possible to work in concert with UK del. Naturally the joint participation of such other delegations as the French, Canadians, and Belgians would be most welcome.
Depending upon your report of the attitude of other delegations, Dept will formulate instructions as to the course of action this Govt will be prepared to support if necessary under Chapter 7 at the next meeting of the Council subsequent to June 2.
Repeated to London as 2025, Paris as 1897, Brussels as 832, Moscow as 619.