501.BB Palestine/2–2649: Telegram
The Consul at Jerusalem (Burdett) to the Secretary of State
167. Palun 54. Commission arrived Tel Aviv from Beirut February 24 via Turkish plane. Shortly following arrival Commission conferred with Israeli Foreign Minister and aides. Shertok welcomed Commission, proffered utmost assistance and heralded February 24 armistice agreement between Israel and Egypt as long step forward and first Jewish agreement with Arabs since 30-year old Feisal–Weizmann agreement.1
Ethridge as chairman explained Commission had just completed tour Near Eastern capitals at which it had received strong impression that Arab states were primarily concerned re Arab refugees but not necessarily as condition precedent to final peace arrangements. Arab states appeared equally concerned re Israel’s general intentions. In view signature Israeli-Egyptian agreement, Commission hoped details of peace making could quickly be arranged. Under GA resolution [Page 773] December 11 Commission had certain principal tasks: (1) conciliation; (2) preparation of plan re internationalization Jerusalem; (3) refugees, and (4) various economic matters Commission had questioned Arab states re these matters and now requested frank expression Israeli views.
Foreign Minister replied recent success at Rhodes had resulted from direct negotiations between Israeli and Egyptian representatives. Direct negotiations force crystalization of governmental views. When two parties negotiate concessions are made. If Israel now indicates to Commission concessions it might make, other party may not cooperate.
Shertok continued that developments in Palestine since May 15, 1948 have taken different course than that envisaged on November 29, 1947 because of Arab aggression in Palestine and exodus of Arab refugees. Return of large mass of Arab refugees would require extensive integration and expense. Resettlement must therefore logically be considered. Israel would be unable to consider repatriation. Israel believes resettlement would eventually prove of greater benefit to both Israel and Arab states. Foreign Office had undertaken preliminary research on subject, as previously promised Commission and would submit document to Commission as working-paper about March 3.
Ethridge suggested Israel might indicate whether it accepted principles set forth in GA resolution December 11 re Jerusalem and Arab refugees after which complete range of plans for implementation, could be discussed.
Shertok replied Israel could not accept abstract principles as juridical rights but added that Israel did not wish to ride roughshod over Arab rights and was ready to discuss with Arabs.
Ethridge stated Commission had found genuine desire for peace at Arab capitals but that Arabs were sincerely apprehensive re Israeli intentions. If Israel could find some way of indicating its concern and demonstrate magnanimity, Arab fears might be allayed and new spirit might prevail which would permit progress. Commission had tentatively proposed that Arab states meet with Commission to consider refugee question. Plan might or might not result. Opportunity would be provided for discussion not only of refugee problem but other problems as well. Conciliatory statement by Israel re refugees might thereby facilitate peace settlement.
Shertok seemed impressed by argument Arabs genuinely desired peace and appreciated importance of conciliatory state in view Arab psychology. Shertok added possibility of affirmative statement would be discussed with Israeli Government officials. Commission might raise at February 25 meeting with Prime Minister. Shertok would support. Shertok believed resettlement elsewhere was essential but that [Page 774] some Arabs might return depending on conditions of peace settlement.
Shertok also agreed to designate Foreign Office official to consult with committee of Commission re plans for internationalization Jerusalem.
Shertok also indicated re question of exchange of populations with specific reference to Jews in Arab states that Israel would be happy to receive latter.
Commission proceeding to Jerusalem February 26.
Sent Department 167; repeated Beirut 19; Damascus 5; Baghdad 6; Cairo 9; Amman 9; Jidda 3.
- This agreement, dated January 3, 1919, Was
signed at London by the Amir Faisal on behalf of the Arab
Kingdom of Hejaz and Chaim Weizmann, representing the Zionist
Organization. The text is available in David Hunter Miller’s My Diary at the Conference of Paris, with
Documents, vol. iii, p. 188,
and in George Antonius’ The Arab Awakening:
The Story of the Arab National Movement (G. P. Putnam’s
Sons, New York, 1946), p. 437. The Diary
was printed for the author by the Appeal Printing Company, New
York, presumably in 1924.
The Antonius version gives a translation in English of a stipulation to the agreement by the Amir Faisal originally in Arabic. Mr. Antonius has concluded, based on the stipulation, that the agreement was actually signed no earlier than January 4, 1919.
↩