501.BB Palestine/10–448: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Special Representative of the United States in Israel (McDonald)
149. For McDonald from Acting Secretary for your info only. We have given careful consideration ur 161 Get 4 and Secy has discussed it with President. Dept has following comments on opinions Israeli official as transmitted by you.
US naturally desires friendship of Israel and wishes see Israel take definite and sincere stand at side of Western democracies. Regardless passions of moment, disadvantages of not adopting latter position must be abundantly clear to every thoughtful Israeli. US has already given ample evidence its support of Israel. At same time importance to West of friendship of Arabs as majority inhabitants of strategic ME area is obvious.
US Govt deeply concerned by threat to peace, prosperity and security ME which situation in Palestine presents and desirous see [Page 1473] solution worked out without use force which will as nearly as possible under existing circumstances; meet desires both sides.
On Sept 1 after consulting President Secy cabled you1 that US Govt felt Israel should have boundaries which would make it more homogeneous and well integrated than frontiers proposed Nov 29 resolution. He also stated that our thinking was that Israel might expand into rich area of Galilee and that a large portion of Negev might go to Transjordan. We thought then and still think that some small area of Negev, such as that containing principal Jewish settlements, might be retained by Israel. This matter is of course one for final decision by GA when it considers whole problem, and it is possible that GA may not accept Mediator’s conclusions in their every detail.
As regards official’s remark that US support of conclusions re Negev would not endear other Arab states to US, Secy stated in Paris that no plan could be proposed which would be entirely satisfactory in all respects to every interested party. Any additional Arab ill will toward US over Negev would only be part of far deeper resentment which Arab world harbors against US because of our support of Israel.
We can understand Jewish objections to any proposal which would reduce area of Israel, but gain of rich Galilee area and advantage of more homogeneous state are very important counter-balancing considerations. Jews as well as Arabs must, we believe, be prepared make sacrifices in interests security and peace in ME.
We have so far reed no evidence Transjordan is dissatisfied with Bernadotte’s conclusion on Negev. We have also been informed by Brit Govt that they have no projects for air bases in Negev. There is no question, as Israeli official states, of “British forcing gift of Negev to Transjordan in order secure air bases” but rather one of UN implementing conclusion of Mediator reached in sincere desire achieve fairest possible solution Palestine problem.
Re penultimate para urtel, does Israeli official have any convincing evidence to support belief possibility successful direct negotiations between Israel and Transjordan2 in view Abdullah’s relations with Arab League and other Arab states?
To sum up, US support of Bernadotte conclusions was given in belief, as Secy stated in Paris, that conclusions taken together offer generally fair basis for settlement of Palestine problem. These conclusions were reached independently by Mediator, who was well-known [Page 1474] as fair-minded and impartial, after months of discussion with Arabs and Jews. We feel that Count Bernadotte’s conclusions afford a just common denominator upon which to found mutual accommodation.3
- In telegram 72, p. 1366.↩
- Mr. McDonald advised, on October 24, of official information that there were no current peace negotiations between the Provisional Government of Israel and Transjordan, but that Elias Sassoon was waiting in Paris for Abdullah’s envoy (telegram 205 from Tel Aviv, 867N.01/10–2448).↩
- This telegram was sent to Paris as Gadel 202, October 14, 4 p. m., which was repeated by the Department to London as No. 3949.↩