501.BB Palestine/2–2449: Telegram
The Minister in Lebanon (Pinkerton) to the Secretary of State
83. Palun 52. [From Ethridge.] Department please pass appropriate Near East Missions. On February 21 Syria Prime Minister received Commission. Ethridge as chairman explained its general and specific tasks from UNGA and requested Syrian views.
Prime Minister replied Syrian views had been stated last UNGA and questioned whether Syria should now be urged to recognize Jewish state de facto which established contrary to justice. Jews are even now [Page 767] acting contrary to UN resolutions by importing arms, by other truce violations, by holding Constituent Assembly Jerusalem, and by other Jewish governmental action in Jerusalem.1 Syria has presented formal protest to ministers of all countries represented Damascus re Jewish assembly and Jewish capital Jerusalem. Syria protests to commission also Prime Minister continued. Arab states are confronted by establishment of state in Palestine on racial basis, Arab population being replaced by Jews. Refugees are first and most important problem. Why cannot Arabs return if Jews can immigrate? Syria requests implementation paragraph 11 GA resolution December 11 including indemnification. Solution lies between Jews and UN and not between Jews and Arabs.
Although commission pointed out its main task was conciliation and how specific problems were intertwined, Prime Minister maintained position emphasizing Syria was abiding by UN resolutions but Jews were not. Arab states therefore required guarantees re Jewish intentions and UN implementation.
Re meeting Arab states with Commission Prime Minister agreed could take places soon at Arab capital providing other Arab States concurred.2
Sent Department; repeated Jerusalem 13. [Ethridge.]
- Damascus, on February 25, reported Prime Minister Azm’s fear of a Zionist fait accompli at Jerusalem and his request that the United States counter such move. The Prime Minister was said to have contended that “as the Conciliation Commission was specifically charged by the UN resolution with the inter nationalization of Jerusalem, it should limit itself in its discussion of Jerusalem to means of carrying out this specific duty. As ’Azam said nothing to me [Minister Keeley] with respect to Arab claims upon Jerusalem, the inference was that the Arabs would not object to internationalization if the UN Resolution could be used as means of defeating Israeli pretensions.” Publicly, however, the Prime Minister was said to have expressed dissatisfaction with internationalization and to have insisted on the “Arabism of the city and its suburbs.” (Airgram 57, 867N.01/2–2549)↩
- The Conciliation Commission saw the Lebanese Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs on February 23. Their views paralleled those of the Syrian spokesman as set forth in telegram 83. The Foreign Minister stressed the view that the “internationalization Jerusalem and solution refugee problem were test cases to determine whether Jews would abide or buck UN resolution.” (Telegram 84, identified also as Palun 53, February 24, noon, from Beirut, 501.BB Palestine/2–2449)↩