501.BB Palestine/11–2248: Telegram
The Acting Chairman of the United States Delegation at Paris (Dulles) to the Acting Secretary of State
urgent
Delga 885. At Shertok’s invitation Jessup called on him last evening. Eban only other person present. Shertok stated US statement in first committee1 read “with appreciation.” He singled out for primary emphasis our tribute to the way in which Israel is fulfilling its mission in receiving and providing for immigrants. Secondly, he appreciated references to Israeli membership. He indicated their doubts concerning [Page 1620] our views on boundary matters, suggesting that while they could not give up claim to Negeb, the question was whether their traditional claim to Galilee should not also be recognized. Jessup did not engage in discussion on this point. Shertok wondered why we considered British resolution even basis for discussion though Eban admitted preliminary paragraphs not bad. Jessup stated fundamental difference was that British resolution contemplated Assembly would proceed to some decision on boundaries while US statement indicated this is matter for negotiation.
Shertok touched on relations with US and Soviet Union. He said that permanent good relations with the west and especially with the US were primary considerations in their policy. He then emphasized that they faced necessity of arranging for bringing immigrants from Poland, Roumania, Bulgaria, et cetera, and that these arrangements required friendly relations with Soviet Union, which they must preserve. With something of a plea for support of him and his group in PGI, he stressed necessity of avoiding giving people of Israel picture of the west blocking Israel’s future, particularly UN membership. He emphasized importance of membership in connection with inequality otherwise existing between Jews and Arabs before a conciliation commission.
On refugees, he registered doubt as to ability to readmit them and cited self-contradictory statements of Mufti which added up to an indication that Arab refugees should not return to Israel.
[Here follows Mr. Shertok’s estimate of the attitude of various members of the Security Council toward Israeli membership in the United Nations.]
Jessup stated frankly that it would be very difficult for the US in promoting Israeli membership if military activities should suddenly commence. Shertok quickly said that assurances on this point can be given, not formally and publicly but to US. Eban added that formal application for membership would contain pledge to observe Charter. Jessup agreed desirability working in close contact in regard to timing on this matter. Jessup inquired whether they knew avoiding [how to avoid?] Soviet views [veto?] concerning simultaneous admission Transjordan. Shertok reported conversations with Soviet and Ukraine representatives SC had but, had no definite statement from them. Shertok agreed that it would be helpful to PGI if Transjordan were admitted. He raised question of Soviet desire for general agreement to admit all applicants. Jessup replied this consideration would complicate Palestine problem and much better from Israeli point of view to help to separate the two cases of Israel and Transjordan.
Regarding Jerusalem, Jessup asked whether they would press for actual incorporation into state of Israel. Shertok stated emphatically that Israel would resist incorporation of all of Jerusalem under Arab [Page 1621] trusteeship, hastily adding that he referred only to verbal battles. He amplified at length his plan for Israeli trusteeship for part of the New City, Arab trusteeship for other part of New City, Old City being under direct UN trusteeship with Christian governor. Old City under such plan would be delimited not by the walls but would also take in such Holy places as Garden of Gethsemane. He stressed that their willness to accept such a plan was held very secretly and known to very few in Israeli Government. It was not known to Israeli public and premature leak would be very harmful. He said that under previous, regime New City had borne major part financial burden administering Old City and under his plan such financial support would continue.
Regarding Beersheba, Shertok said they had not talked recently with Bunche but hoped the representative they had appointed could adjust the matter with Bundle’s representatives on the spot. Shertok was cautious in responding to Jessup’s suggestion that if any military forces had to be used from now on, they should be considered as police forces in conjunction with Acting Mediator. Shertok excluded possibility of joint Jewish and Arab police teams, e.g., in Negeb.
On Jaffa and Lydda, Shertok inquired whether US statement meant acceptance of proposals in his speech on these subjects. Jessup replied we have not committed ourselves to any particular plan but had merely indicated we interpreted Shertok’s speech as revealing fact that these were subj ects which might be settled by negotiation.