Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume VI

501.BB Palestine/10–1849: Telegram

The Consul at Jerusalem (Burdett) to the Secretary of State

secret

Jerusalem, October 18, 1949—4 p. m.

627. Reference last paragraph Contel 617, October 12¹ reporting that Shiloah informed Riley Israel prepared designate representative for direct negotiations with Arabs at any time.

During recent talk with Riley, Glubb inquired whether Israel now ready for reasonable compromise settlement. Glubb expressed view present situation could not last and perhaps two countries could work out agreement. Riley states Glubb did not appear expect any major concessions from Israel and specifically admitted that not practical repatriate appreciable number refugees.

In entirely separate discussion Colonel Seif el Din, chief Egyptian delegate at Rhodes talks, commented to Riley on unsatisfactory nature present situation and desirability reaching some definitive agreement. Colonel Seif el Din stated its retention² by Egypt not essential but some provision for refugees now there necessary.

Riley has at various times voiced concern over present impermanent armistice terms and desirability considering situation which will exist when present armistice agreements lapse after one year. He is reflecting on feasibility using MACs as medium for direct discussions between parties aimed at de facto agreements on wide range of subjects of mutual interest. Although not so labelled, agreements might become basis for permanent settlement. Riley realizes Israel anxious to initiate direct talks separately with each Arab state and believes Transjordan and Egyptian thinking may be veering this direction.

Comments—Consulate General would appreciate guidance from Department on this subject for discussions with Riley. Does Department believe encouragement should be given to direct talks between parties at present and are MACs considered suitable medium. Consulate General cannot conceive that Israel intends to relinquish any part of territory now held (except for minor border rectifications) or to accept any appreciable number of refugees. Talks and any resulting agreements therefore would be based on existing status quo.³

Burdett

1. Not printed, but see footnote 3, p. 1421.
2. Presumably, retention of the Gaza strip was intended.
3. Ambassador McDonald, on November 8, expressed his complete agreement with Mr. Burdett’s conclusions as set forth in the final two sentences of telegram 627 (telegram 810 from Tel Aviv, 501.BB Palestine/11–849).