Editorial Note
Messrs. Henderson and McClintock, on February 26, drafted a telegram on the Palestine question to be sent to Damascus and repeated to other Arab capitals and Jerusalem. In an attached note, dated the following day, Mr. McClintock stated: “Mr. Lovett decided not to send this telegram at present. He said, ‘This is a good time for everyone to sit tight.’” The proposed telegram, as originally drafted, reads as follows:
“In furtherance of your representations to Govt to which you are accredited under instructions in Deptel 34, Feb. 23 (211 to Cairo, 83 to Beirut, 60 to Bagdad, 55 to Jidda and 130 to Jerusalem) the following salient points of Ambassador Austin’s speech sent you in Deptel 35 should be stressed:
“(1) While we are discussing problem of Palestine it is of first importance to future of UN that precedent to be established by [Page 661] action taken in this case be in full accord with terms of Charter. (2) The recommendations of General Assembly have great moral force and every Member should make a serious effort to comply with them. (3) Security Council should attempt to get agreement on basis of GA recommendation with respect to Palestine. (4) UN Charter does not empower SC to enforce a political settlement, whether pursuant to a recommendation of GA or of Council itself. (5) If SC finds that international peace is threatened from any source, it is required by Charter to act. All Members of UN are under an obligation to assist Council in maintaining peace.
“You should point out to responsible officials that in line with Austin’s statement to SC US feels that SC must do what it can within framework of Charter to effect peaceably settlement of Palestine problem along lines of recommendations of GA resolution of Nov 29, 1947. In endeavoring to effect such settlement SC can use its wide powers of recommendation and conciliation. US earnestly hopes that while honest endeavors are being made to effect such settlement situation will not develop in Palestine which will compel SC to find there is threat to international peace and to consider dispatch of armed forces to that country to remove such threat. Much depends upon policies pursued by Arab countries at this juncture. If they persist in sending troops and arms, in making threats to intervene by force in Palestine or engaging in other activities which can be construed only as aggression or threats of aggression re Palestine SC will have no choice other than to decide that situation referred to above exists.
“As indicated in Austin’s statement, US policy on Palestine will not be unilateral but will conform to and be in support of UN decisions. It is because this Govt is a sincere friend of the Arab world and is with equal sincerity determined to maintain international peace and security as a steadfast supporter of UN that this present counsel is given.
“Repeated to Cairo as _____, Beirut as _____, Bagdad as _____, Jidda as _____, Jerusalem as _____ with request that CG informally communicate contents to Govt of Transjordan. Repeated London and USUN.” (501.BB Palestine/2–2648)
Regarding telegram 35, see footnote 1, page 650.