501.BB Palestine/10–1648: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Delegation at Paris
niact
Gadel 246. Dept has given careful consideration to Delga 351 and Delga 367, Oct. 16.1 We have reservations re Para 5 and objections to Para 6. President has not yet approved proposals.
Present phraseology Para 5 leaves vague both powers of Conciliation Commission and subordinate Boundaries Commission. For example, who is Boundaries Comm to assist in delimiting frontiers: Conciliation Comm, or parties involved, or both? Without endeavoring to suggest specific language we do feel it necessary that this article make clear that GA gives Conciliation Comm a definite mandate to demarcate frontiers in Palestine generally along lines Mediator’s recommendations, subject to adjustments now provided for present language Art. 5. We take it this is your intention, since Para. 10 Delga 351 specifically refers to delimitation of frontiers by Boundaries Comm.
Dept believes Para 6 inconsistent with position on possible territorial readjustments Palestine approved by President and sent Tel Aviv Deptel 72, Sep 1 for communication to Israeli authorities. View this Govt’s belief, which was informally communicated Count Bernadotte, that area of Negev such as that containing principal Jewish settlement [Page 1497] might be retained by Israel, Dept believes essential Para 6 be modified along following lines:
“Endorses the recommendation concerning the disposition of the territory of Palestine not included within the boundaries of the Jewish State contained in paragraph 4(c) of the Mediator’s specific conclusions, subject to such adjustments as may promote agreement between the Arabs and the Jews (without altering the general equilibrium of the Mediator’s conclusions), and instructs . . . .”
Art 8 re Jerusalem as read in light Delga 366, Oct. 16, will require further scrutiny and separate instructions will be sent.
- Latter telegram not printed.↩