Office of the Historian

501.BB Palestine/12–948: Telegram

The Acting Chairman of the United States Delegation at Paris (Dulles) to the Acting Secretary of State

secret   urgent
niact
Paris, December 9, 1948—1 a. m.

Delga 1122. Following is situation regarding plenary GA action on Palestine resolution:

1.
A group of members including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, China and possibly others will introduce certain amendments in plenary session to Committee I Palestine resolution to make it possible to obtain broadest possible support for such resolution. These amendments, which will be supported by US and UK, are as follows:
(a)
Delete all of the preamble of the present Committee I resolution and substitute therefor the following: “Having considered further the situation in Palestine”
(b)
Delete sub-paragraph 2(c) which contains a specific reference to the State of Israel.
(c)
Delete paragraph 3 containing an unpopular formula for selection of conciliation commission.
(d)
Delete last clause of paragraph 10 beginning “in this connection”; Arabs insist upon this deletion because of its reference to Bernadotte report despite fact content is in Arab interest.
(e)
Delete first clause paragraph 11 for same reason.
(f)
Arabs are expected to insist that reference to November 29 resolution contained in paragraph 8 be deleted and boundaries be indicated by reference to geographical localities.
2.
Our best available information is that these amendments will make it possible for Arab States to abstain rather than vote against and that Middle East and Far East friends of Arabs will vote affirmalively [Page 1657] for resulting resolution. These changes are also believed to be acceptable to Israel.
3.
Department’s attention is invited to fact that course of discussions on Palestine resolution has clearly indicated that both Arabs and Jews seek straightforward conciliation effort and object to any effort by present assembly to be specific about the details of final settlement. Although Jews and Arabs differ widely in their ultimate objectives, they now appear to agree upon conciliation as method of settling such difficulties.
4.
We do not expect strong Jewish reaction in Paris against deletion of sub-paragraph 2 (c) containing specific reference to State of Israel, but some ill-informed press sources in US may give such deletion wrong interpretation. USGADel has told Committee I that we do not seek an. Assembly resolution which represents in every respect US policy on Palestine but rather a resolution which we believe will contribute most to a peaceful settlement of outstanding differences. In this sense, we have specifically discouraged introduction into resolution of question of recognition of Israel or of approval of Israel membership, while at same time reaffirming US policy these points both in GA and SC.
5.
Deletion of present provision for election of conciliation commission by Big Five is necessary to overcome objections on part of middle and small powers against “undemocratic” procedure. Commission will probably be selected by ordinary election by Assembly (simple majority) following adoption Palestine resolution. Since US is being treated as a candidate, USGADel is not taking active part in selection of commission but we have indicated that commission consisting of Australia, Turkey, and US, or alternatively France, Turkey and US, would be acceptable to us. There appears to be overwhelming sentiment in Assembly, shared both by Jews and Arabs, that US must be member of conciliation commission.

Dulles