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

501.BB Palestine/11–349

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Wells Stabler of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs¹

confidential

[Washington,] November 3, 1949.

Participants:	Mr. Boisanger, French Representative, PCC
	Mr. Yalcin, Turkish Representative, PCC
	Dr. Azcarate, Principal Secretary, PCC
	Mr. de la Tour du Pin, French Advisor
	Mr. Benard, First Secretary, French Embassy
	Mr. Esenbel, First Secretary, Turkish Embassy
	NEA—Mr. McGhee
	UNA—Mr. Sandifer
	UNP—Mr. Bancroft
	Mr. Halderman
	ANE—Mr. Berry
	Mr. Mattison
	Mr. Wilkins
	Mr. Rockwell
	Mr. Stabler

Problem: To discuss with the French and Turkish Representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission the present and future situation in connection with the Palestine problem.

Action Required: None

Action Assigned to: ANE

Discussion: Mr. McGhee welcomed the members of the Commission and said that he was glad to have the opportunity to exchange views with them concerning present and future developments with respect to Palestine.

Mr. Boisanger said that the principal matter of concern to the Commission was the Israeli note of October 27 and felt that the Commission should make an unequivocal reply to that note refuting the assertions made by Israel. He mentioned that the Commission had received a telegram today from the United Nations Press Representative in Jerusalem indicating that the Israeli Government had stated that the note did not mean that Israel refused further negotiations with the Commission. However, it was necessary for the Commission to make a definite reply in order that there should be no misunderstanding. Mr. McGhee said he agreed with this point of view.

Mr. McGhee then suggested it was desirable that the Commission should make continued efforts to urge the parties to undertake direct talks. He understood that the American representatives on the Commission had themselves urged these direct talks and assumed the Commission as a whole believed that such talks would be desirable. Mr. Boisanger said that he agreed that direct talks were desirable but pointed out that while the Commission should insist on direct talks, there was nothing in the December 11 Resolution which obliged the parties to undertake such talks. He felt that the Arabs because of their previous firm stand would be unwilling to enter into direct talks. He also pointed out that previous experience indicated that when the Arabs and Israelis did get together for direct talks they were not successful. Mr. Bunche and Mr. Vigier had stated that from their experience it was always necessary for a third party to be present. However, both Mr. Boisanger and Mr. Yalcin agreed that it would be most desirable to urge the parties to meet together with the Commission and the Commission intended to pursue its efforts in this connection.

Mr. McGhee said that we fully understood the difficulties involved but felt that every effort should be made along these lines.

Mr. Boisanger then referred to the statement made by the Arabs that they felt conciliation had failed and therefore wished the Commission to undertake mediation. The Commission proposed to inform the Israelis of this view and to ask whether Israel would agree to mediation. He indicated that Israel feared that the Commission might produce a new plan which might deprive them of territory which they now held. However, he believed that it was desirable to establish at least the principle of mediation and he felt that Israel, if it refused mediation in principle would be placed in a very bad moral position with respect to the United Nations. Mr. Boisanger considered that there were a number of points on which mediation could take place without at the outset going into the more difficult questions. Mr. Yalcin wondered whether the United States Government would have the patience to bear with the mediation since this course of action would undoubtedly take a very long time.

Mr. McGhee said that he agreed that the Commission should inform the Israelis of the Arab desire for mediation and also felt that if Israel refused, it would place itself in a bad light. He suggested that there were a number of smaller matters which could be dealt with through mediation and suggested that the question of Mount Scopus might be one of them.

Mr. Sandifer indicated his belief that the Commission could undertake the mediation functions in that the Commission was empowered to conciliate which was a broader concept than mediation. It was pointed out that under the General Assembly Resolution of December 11, 1948 the Palestine Conciliation Commission had, in any event, inherited Count Bernadotte’s mediation functions under the General Assembly Resolution of May 14, 1948.

Mr. McGhee then explained briefly our views on the proposed organization of United Nations functions with respect to the Palestine case and indicated our belief that it was desirable to have a United Nations coordinating agent who could ensure that the three operating groups, PCC, UNRPR, and NEDA were functioning in unison. Since all the questions involved in the Palestine problem are inter-related, it is desirable that the three groups be coordinated. Mr. McGhee emphasized that these plans are entirely tentative.

Mr. Boisanger said that he was in general agreement with the proposed organization but felt it very important that in the General Assembly no substantive questions be raised. In this connection, he felt that the PCC should remain as it is in order that its terms of reference under the December 11 Resolution would remain the same. With respect to NEDA he said that he was worried by the possibility that Russia could join the organization. Mr. Yalcin expressed the same concern. It was explained that NEDA would be formed by the participating governments and additional membership could be limited by those governments. It could be assumed, therefore, that the Governments concerned would not permit Russia to join. Mr. Yalcin pointed out that if the PCC consisted of representatives of Governments, it would not be possible for the United Nations Coordinating Agent to instruct the PCC on political matters.

Mr. McGhee said that we agreed that it was desirable to limit the debate in the General Assembly to procedural matters if possible and we felt that the proposed resolution on organization could confine the debate.

Mr. McGhee then said that we were considerably worried by the lack of security in the PCC and we had been embarrassed by the fact that every time the United States representative made a statement, it was made available to the press. He felt that the Commission should address itself to this problem and if necessary could obtain a completely new staff. Mr. Yalcin emphasized that in any case this lack of security could not be attributed to Dr. Azcarate, Principal Secretary of the Commission. Mr. McGhee responded that he was not accusing anybody but he felt it was a matter to be dealt with.

The discussion then turned to the question of Jerusalem. Mr. McGhee informed Messrs. Boisanger and Yalcin that the United States gave its general support to the PCC proposals for an international regime in Jerusalem. However, we realized that amendments would be offered and we would be prepared to consider them in the light of their individual merits in contributing to the workability and acceptability of the plan. Mr. Boisanger and Mr. Yalcin expressed agreement with this point of view and said their delegations in New York shared the same view. Mr. Boisanger expressed the hope that it would be possible for the United States, French and Turkish delegations in New York to meet prior to the General Assembly consideration of the various Palestine problems in order to coordinate their action. Mr. McGhee said he thought this would be useful.

Mr. Boisanger hoped that it would be possible to enlist the assistance of the Chairman of Committee I in confining the discussion in Committee I to consideration of such procedural resolutions which may be presented. He expressed the view that the resolutions should not be too detailed. He said that all delegates, of course, would have to be heard but that after they made their speeches he hoped it would be possible for the Chairman of the Committee to channel further debate into consideration of the resolutions.

1. Initialed by Mr. McGhee.