Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2

501.BB Palestine/6–3048

Memorandum by Mr. Robert M. McClintock¹

top secret

[Washington,] June 23, 1948.

Peaceful Adjustment of the Future Situation of Palestine

Reports from Cairo indicate that Count Bernadotte, the United Nations Mediator, operating under the resolution of the General Assembly adopted on May 14, 1948, and the resolution of the Security Council of May 29, will shortly convoke a conference on Rhodes between representatives of the Arab League and the Arabs of Palestine on the one hand, and the Jews of Palestine as represented by the Provisional Government of Israel, to discuss, in the language of the resolution of May 14, “a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine”.

It is possible that during the course of these conversations the United States may be called upon for advice either by the United Nations Mediator or by the parties to the Palestine dispute. In any event, it would seem necessary for this government to have a clear idea of what “peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine” would most conduce to the national interests of the United States.

The policy of the American Government in this regard has been conditioned since May 14 by the recognition that day of the Provisional Government of the State of Israel as the de facto authority in that new republic. Because of the act of recognition, United States policy with relation to the Palestine settlement is postulated upon the continuing existence of the State of Israel. The sovereignty of Israel is a fact so far as the United States is concerned and this government could not agree to any diminution of its sovereignty except with the consent of the Government of Israel.^*

The proposed boundaries of the Jewish State as delineated by the resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 29, 1947, were predicated on the assumption that there would also be an Arab State in Palestine linked to the Jewish State by economic union. It is now clear in the light of facts and events which have supervened that there will be no separate Arab State and no economic union as envisaged in the General Assembly resolution. In consequence, the boundaries of the State of Israel, if they are regarded as those traced on the map which formed a part of the resolution of November 29, are aptly described by the understatement of a Jewish group recently formed in New York to promote Jewish-Arab cooperation. According to this definition “the borders of the State of Israel and of Arab Palestine, as laid out by the United Nations, bear an unusually high ratio to the area of the land”. More bluntly, a delegate to the United Nations Trusteeship Council last autumn likened the map of United Nations partition of Palestine to a portrait by Picasso.

It would seem logical, accordingly, given the postulate of a State of Israel, and given the fact that its boundaries in the absence of economic union with an Arab State are fantastic, that there should be a Hew drawing of the frontier which circumscribes the State of Israel. Study might profitably be made to re-drawing the boundary of Israel along the lines suggested by the Peel Report, in which the Jewish State would have occupied the coastal area from Tel Aviv to Haifa, with a considerable portion of Western Galilee. If such new boundaries should be drawn, the present areas in the Negeb now held by Israel should be given to the neighboring Arab countries, principally Transjordan, and there should be an appropriate exchange of populations so that the State of Israel would contain most of the Jews of Palestine and the Arabs would reside in purely Arab areas.

If the State of Israel were thus redefined geographically it would be a more homogeneous unit possessing an improved economic patrimony. The United States could consent to changes in territory, however, only if they were made with the consent of Israel.

As for the Arab areas of Palestine, it is suggested that Transjordan be permitted to expand, taking over almost all the remainder of the country except for possibly a small transfer of territory in the extreme north to Syria, where the finger salient based on Safad seems to possess little justification. Similarly, in the extreme south the port of Aqaba, now in Transjordan, might be transferred to Saudi Arabia, while in the Negeb territorial adjustments could be made in favor of Egypt as well as Transjordan.

If the boundaries of Israel were re-drawn and the adjustments suggested above agreed to by the Arabs and Jews there should then be an international guarantee by the United Nations, and, if possible, by treaty between Israel and the Arab States, of the territorial settlement. This would be of particular advantage to the Arabs as “freezing” the boundaries of Israel and thus affording protection to the Arab States against the wider pretensions of the Jewish revisionists and such fanatics as those of the Irgun who have pretensions to the conquest of Transjordan.

Other proposed arrangements to promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine center largely on federation in one form or another. A representative of the British Foreign Office on June 6 told officers of the Department that the official policy of the British Government would undoubtedly favor a Palestinian federation made up of a Jewish and an Arab canton or state. However, despite this official view of the British Government, the Colonial Secretary, Sir Arthur Creech Jones, has recently indicated his belief, both to American official representatives and to the present Foreign Minister of Israel, that a deal is possible of arrangement between King Abdullah of Transjordan and the State of Israel for a territorial settlement similar to that outlined in the preceding paragraphs.

Another protagonist of federation is Dr. Judah Magnes, the distinguished American President of the Hebrew University. Dr. Magnes favors a “United States of Palestine”, in which Arab and Jewish States would retain sovereign jurisdiction in a Palestine federation except for the control of foreign affairs, security, economic cooperation, a supreme court, and a separate regime for Jerusalem.

As a matter of practical politics it is much to be doubted whether the Jews of the State of Israel will agree to relinquish an iota of their sovereignty and that in consequence the foregoing proposals for federation will have slight chance of acceptance.

Should an arrangement be possible of accomplishment for a consolidation of the State of Israel along the coast from Tel Aviv to the border of Lebanon, including a transfer of Western Galilee in return for the cession of the Negeb to Transjordan and Egypt, it would seem useful that the two States principally falling heir to Palestine—Israel and Transjordan—be bound together in a customs union.

With regard to Jerusalem it would seem on balance preferable that this Holy City be administered by the United Nations as a separate international entity. Jerusalem is as much a, Jewish city as it is an Arab metropolis and it contains shrines sacred to three of the principal world religions. To permit it to be made the capital of King Abdullah would rouse Jewish passions and irredentism while to allow Jerusalem to be a Jewish capital would incite reciprocal emotions in the Arabs. Should, however, Jerusalem be made an international responsibility, it should be incorporated in the Israel-Trans Jordan Zollverein and guarantees should be given by the States concerned for its unrestricted access to free port facilities at Haifa or Jaffa.

In summary, therefore, a sensible territorial solution for the Palestine problem would be to re-draw the frontiers of Israel so as to make a compact and homogeneous state, the remainder of Palestine to go largely to Transjordan with appropriate transfers of populations where necessary; Jerusalem to remain an international entity with free access to the outside world; the boundaries of the two new states to be guaranteed mutually between themselves and the United Nations; and the economic prosperity of the region to be enhanced by a customs union between Israel and Transjordan.

1. Transmitted to Brigadier General Carter on June 30 (see footnote 1, p. 1127). Mr. McClintock bad prepared a first draft on June 18, which he had sent for comment to Messrs. Henderson, Sandifer, and Meeker and to Harding Bancroft, Associate Chief of the Division of International Security Affairs. The first draft was also submitted to Mr. Lovett for information and was read by the Under Secretary (501.BB Palestine/6–1848).
2. It is pertinent to quote excerpts from the official Republican Party Platform for 1948, Section VI: “We welcome Israel into the family of nations and take pride in the fact that the Republican Party was the first to call for the establishment of a free and independent Jewish commonwealth.… Subject to the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter, we pledge to Israel full recognition, with its boundaries as sanctioned by the United Nations and aid in developing its economy”.

   The Democratic Party Platform will undoubtedly include equivalent references to the State of Israel. [Footnote in the source text.]