Office of the Historian

867N.00/2–1749: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Special Representative of the United States in Israel (McDonald), at Tel Aviv

secret
Washington, February 17, 1949—11 a. m.

us urgent

98. Pls take earliest opportunity approach Israeli Govt re Dec. 12 absentee property ordinance along fol lines:

Dept has demonstrated its interest in protection Jewish minorities Arab lands and has taken appropriate occasions in past to remind Arab Govts their responsibilities this regard. Publication of ordinance, as shown by Syrian PriMins views (Damascus 2 to Tel Aviv Feb. 101), has already produced sharp official Arab reaction which might well lead to retaliatory measures against Jews’ property Arab countries. US Govt in most friendly spirit desires suggest advisability early action by Israeli Govt such as issuance official statement in order calm fears in Arab countries that property interests of absentee owners may not be safeguarded and in order avoid precipitating retaliatory action. US Govt concerned, in light of absentee property ordinance, that no Govt take unilateral action in advance negotiations contemplated [Page 755] by GA resolution Dec. 11 which would prejudice achievement of agreed settlement on such questions as return of refugees to their homes and return of property to refugee owners.

For your info Dept on Feb. 4 (Deptel 70 to Jerusalem) suggested to Ethridge advisability PCC approaching Israeli Govt on last point preceding para, and inquiring Israeli authorities re arrangements Govt Israel contemplates making to return vested property belonging to refugees who later return to their homes.2

Acheson
  1. This was a repeat of Damascus’ telegram 55 to the Department, not printed; Prime Minister Azm was said to have expressed the hope to the Conciliation Commission that it would make the rescue of refugees a primary concern. In this connection he exhibited anxiety about the Israeli property law and intimated he wished to study its text before taking reciprocal measures against Jewish property in Syria. (501.BB Palestine/2–1049)↩
  2. Mr. McDonald replied on March 11 that he had “discussed question several times with FonOff since February 18 and government studying question. Emphasis in law is on custodial function although one regulatory provision does permit sale with proceeds blocked.” (Telegram 198 from Tel Aviv, 867N.00/3–1149)

    Telegram 98 was repeated to Damascus the following day as No. 48.

    ↩