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

501.BB Palestine/2–849: Telegram

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

secret
priority

Jerusalem, February 8, 1949—5 p. m.

123. [From Ethridge.] Palun 32. On January 7, Shertok, Israeli Foreign Minister came to Jerusalem for informal meeting with Commission prior to its proposed departure on tour of near East capitals on February 12. During 4½-hour discussion following developments took place.

1. Boisanger, French delegate, opened by stating Commission wished to see Shertok to inform him of its intentions and manner in which it proposed to carry out task which UNGA had given it. Task essentially consisted of assisting parties to settle, if possible directly between them, conflict which now separates them. On other hand, Commission had received specific instructions from UNGA regarding Jerusalem, holy places, refugees, certain economic matters. Commission had decided, in order enlighten itself regarding intentions both sides, not only regarding general peace problem but also regarding specific points, to visit Near East capitals, thus permitting immediate discussion with all interested governments. Commission desired, however, to have preliminary exchange views with Shertok to ascertain PGI views which would facilitate Commission’s discussions at Arab capitals.

2. Ethridge, US delegate, continued for Commission stating Commission had decided raise question of Jerusalem in advance because of certain recent events. Commission had been informed PGI planned to open its constituent assembly in Jerusalem at which it was rumored a spontaneous resolution would be offered calling for annexation Jerusalem. Commission had also been informed PGI had extended Israeli civil law to Jerusalem and it had been reported in press PGI intends hold municipal elections in Jerusalem in March. Commission was apprehensive regarding these developments and considered them as regrettable in that they appeared to be contrary to the spirit, if not letter of GA resolution December 11. It was pointed out GA had given Commission specific task regarding Jerusalem and that it seemed both Arabs and Jews had duty to abstain from undertaking any initiative which would modify status quo.

3. Shertok replied that although it might seem presumptuous he would refer Commission to his statement of November 15 before first committee of 1948 GA at Paris which contained PGI views regarding various points and specifically Jerusalem. PGI had acquiesced in international status in 1947 but situation had subsequently changed because of failure of international community or any other authority to protect it except Jews themselves. PGI could not now entrust security of Jews in Jerusalem to any outside agency nor could their economic security be safeguarded except by integration in Israel. Shertok added PGI was aware international consciousness regarding Jerusalem and hoped reconciliation views would be achieved. Holding of constituent assembly would not result in fait accompli. On other hand, Israeli Jerusalem to all practical intent and purpose is now part of Israel. PGI does not deny its intent to keep it. PGI still maintained position it had stated on November 15. Commission was entrusted with task of presenting detailed proposals to September, 1949 GA and it was up to international community to decide.

4. Shertok continued constituent assembly signified merely expression Jewish people that Jerusalem was great national center its history. PGI did not intend to transfer its capital to Jerusalem. It was appropriate, however, first assembly should be held Jerusalem. While government could not control assembly it had decided on policy and would take no action to change status quo. Since government holds large majority unorthodox decisions are unlikely. Session will last only few days. Agenda consists of opening speech by Weizmann, introduction draft resolution, elections and swearing in of President. Decided not to adopt rules of procedure as it might involve protracted debate.

5. Shertok explained civil law had been extended last August and was now merely being [apparent garble] affect superseding military law. It was unreasonable expect one section Israel should be governed by different principles than another. It is only effective way deal with situation.

6. Shertok confirmed intention to sponsor municipal elections Jerusalem in March, justifying as necessary in any democratic community and based on normal evolution from military to civil status.

7. Ethridge, Boisanger and Yalcin¹ [apparent garble] found some reassurance but great deal that was disturbing in Shertok’s views. It was pointed out that while each single development might be explained, all of them taken together represented trend which would appear to be contrary to intention of GA in December 11 resolution.

8. Shertok continued, in reply question from Boisanger, refugee problem can only be settled as part of peace settlement. There can be no significant return of refugees before and possibly after that event. Situation has totally changed. If refugees had stayed in Israel, PGI policy would have developed differently. Since they fled voluntarily and at British instigation PGI policy has been based on status quo. Exodus was primarily caused by aggression of Arab states. Return now would undermine security of Israel and would impose impossible economic burden on Israel to integrate refugees in Israeli economy. Arab refugees are essentially unassimilable in Jewish Israel. Efforts can now be made in direction radical sound solution, namely integration in neighboring Arab states, especially Iraq, Syria and Transjordan which Shertok claims are underpopulated and require more people and development to fill dangerous vacuum. Shertok recognized obligation to compensate for land left behind and suggested payment might be arranged direct to individual refugees or paid into general resettlement fund. Arab states could provide land wth assistance international financing. Shertok doubted capacity Israel to pay huge sum and at same time alleged responsibility Arab states for aggressive war and resulting loss would justify offsetting claim by Israel.

9. Shertok stated regarding general peace settlement that Israel desires to negotiate separate peace treaties and did not wish general conference. Shertok reasoned Israeli-Lebanese problems, for example, were of no concern to Egypt. Boisanger believed general problems could be handled at general conference. Specific problems could be handled separately.

10. Shertok explained, regarding territorial settlement, that Israel had accepted 1947 partition on basis Arab Palestine would become independent state. If it now became part of Transjordan situation was radically altered and Israel’s previous acceptance no longer valid and its result would be different. Israel believes there should be rectification of present lines in Palestine but did not press for an increase in total area. Israel claimed, for example, widening of 12-mile wide coastal strip between Haifa and Tel Aviv for security reasons. PGI had decided it would not consent to any foreign bases on its territory in foreseeable future. It would not agree to any foreign bases in Palestine section of an enlarged Transjordan on basis of present British treaty with Transjordan. Shertok gave no indication of any territorial concessions but indicated he would discuss Negev at later date. Shertok voluntarily disavowed intention of seizing non-Israeli Palestine unless provoked.

11. Shertok stated regarding Commission suggestion that discussions between Israeli and Arab Military Commission regarding Jerusalem should be encouraged to continue, that they were limited to demarcation of military areas and that he doubted whether Commission would be of assistance to them. Shertok, nevertheless, agreed to consider whether Commission observers would be helpful. Shertok stated demilitarization of Jerusalem was only possible if there was outside force or no need for protection. As neither condition existed demilitarization was not possible.

12. Tentative arrangements were made for further meeting between Commission and Shertok in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem on February 11. Shertok promised definite reply February 8. Ethridge spoke with Shertok privately after meeting expressing view that Middle East peace was dependent on early settlement of outstanding problems between Israel and Arab states and hoped Israel would approach in conciliatory spirit. Shertok stated PGI was working on alternative solutions to various problems. [Ethridge.]²

Burdett

1. Hüseyin Yalçın, Turkish Representative on the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine.
2. Mr. Ethridge, the same day, expressed his view that “Shertok’s presentation of PGI views regarding Jerusalem appears to me to be unyielding. It is clear that PGI does not accept world opinion regarding internationalization Jerusalem.… It is also clear PGI intends continue to take steps looking toward eventual incorporation of Israeli Jerusalem in Israel.… It may be true PGI does not intend to transfer its capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. On other hand facts that constituent assembly is opening here, that certain central administrative offices are operating here, that Israeli civil law applies here and that municipal elections under Israeli auspices will be held here seem to bear out my analysis.… It seems logical, however, present policies will continue and may only be counteracted by firmness on part of command [sic] governments there represented.”

   Mr. Ethridge also asserted that “Shertok’s statement PGI views regarding refugees offended Commission. It also astonished me in view imperative necessity for friendly relations between Israel and Arab States and importance of early establishment of economic connections with Arab hinterland.… It is my hope PGI may be persuaded to alter these views and to adopt more humanitarian measures which would redound to benefit of Israel and Arab States. It might be wise in long run to resettle greater portion Arab refugees in neighboring Arab States; nevertheless, it appears contrary to Israel’s best interests at outset to take inhuman position.” (Telegram 124, from Jerusalem, 501.BB Palestine/2–849)