501.BB Palestine/4–949: Telegram
The Consul at Jerusalem (Burdett) to the Secretary of State
274. Palun 115. [From Ethridge.] On April 7, PCC had 2½ hour meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion and his aides. Discussion revolved around (1) general and specific instructions contained in GA resolution December 11; (2) Beirut meeting with Arab states; (3) date and place of further meeting between Arab states, Israel and PCC.
Discussion revealed, in general, that (1) Prime Minister was willing to send Israeli representatives to some neutral place such as Switzerland or Italy where Arab representatives would also be present for talks either separately or jointly and either through PCC or directly beginning April 26. Prime Minister would consult his government and give definite answer before April 12; (2) Prime Minister was unable to make any commitment regarding refugees prior to peace settlement during which question would be discussed and toward solution of which Israel would contribute what it could; (3) Prime Minister was unable to accept principle of internationalization of Jerusalem area as envisaged in paragraph 8 GA resolution December 11 and intended to argue case before GA in September. International supervision of holy places was acceptable.
Yalcin as PCC chairman opened discussion emphasizing PCC task under general instructions regarding conciliation and specific instructions regarding Jerusalem and refugees. Before Beirut meeting Arabs had wished to make talks with Israel contingent on prior solution for refugee question. At Beirut PCC had been able to persuade Arabs to continue talks at early date at neutral place without advance commitment regarding refugees. PCC had already requested Israel for conciliatory statement on refugees without result. Would Israel now be [Page 903] willing to accept principle of repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation as stated in paragraph 11, GA resolution December 11?
Ben-Gurion replied it was not within Israel’s competence to change GA instructions regarding Jerusalem and refugees. Instructions were matter entirely between GA and PCC. When GA considered PCC reports, Israel would be “on equal footing” to argue its case.
Ben-Gurion pointed out that paragraph 11, GA resolution December 11 specifically stated “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors”. Ben-Gurion emphasized Arab states made war on Israel and that Palestine Arabs were invited by Arab states to fight Israel. Peace has not yet been achieved and it was not yet clear Arabs wished to live at peace. Israel was willing to contribute to solution of refugee problem. Such action would be in interest of justice and self-interest of Israel. It would depend, however on whether peaceful relations were established between Israel and Arab states.
Ben-Gurion continued GA decision on November 29 to internationalize Jerusalem was based on reasons no longer valid. UN had failed to protect Jerusalem in May, 1948. Destruction in Jerusalem had been caused by Arab states which defied UN. One hundred thousand Jews had been imperiled. Israel objects to decision of December 11 regarding internationalization and wishes to argue case before GA in September. Although PCC is bound by paragraph 8, GA resolution December 11, Israel does not accept. However, Israel accepts international supervision of holy places. Israel bases its attitude on (1) presence 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem and (2) significance of Jerusalem as capital city since David. Jerusalem is to Jews what Rome and Paris are to Italians and French respectively.
Yalcin replied regarding refugees it was not question between victor and vanquished but one of human rights. If Arab states were wrong they might be punished but not Arab people. Israel has always had World sympathy which has assisted Jews in reaching promised land. If Israel denies Arab rights, world opinion would be alienated. Israel should not, like Hitler, use methods incompatible with standards western civilization.
Ben-Gurion answered that Israel had been faithful to moral principles and reiterated Israel would make its contribution but that it depended on Arab states at time of peace settlement. Ben-Gurion emphatically denied Israel expelled any Arabs from Israeli territory and, with considerable emotion, stated creation of refugee problem was organized plan by Arab states or British or both. Mandatory power should be brought before some world court or morals [sic]. Even now propaganda campaign magnifying refugee problem from 500,000 to [Page 904] 800,000 was being waged by those who had instigated Arab war against Israel. Ben-Gurion contended resettlement of Arabs in Arab states would be more humane than in Israel. Repatriation and resettlement would be discussed at peace settlement at which time Israel would not forget humanitarian side of question.
Ethridge outlined development of Arab thinking during PCC tour of Near Eastern capitals and at Beirut during which PCC had emphasized unrealistic character of Arab position of refugees and necessity of considering question within framework of peace settlement. Arabs had made great concession by agreeing. Intermediate steps were now required. Refugee question was key to solution whole Palestine problem. Israel held key. Israel might now make conciliatory gesture which would be appreciated by Arab states and world. US government and people were concerned regarding refugees. Ethridge suggested Israel might take action regarding such subjects as continued flight of refugees from Israel as reported by representatives of refugee groups, deterioration Arab orange groves, blocking of Arab accounts and similar matters. Such action might mitigate problem. At same time PCC could help by investigating refugees on relief roles and determining whether nomads and others were unjustifiably obtaining relief.
Ben-Gurion replied any Israelis expelling Arabs would be punished. Any cases brought to Israeli attention by PCC would be investigated. On subject world opinion regarding refugees Ben-Gurion stated Israel was small and serious situation would arise if world opinion turned against Israel. Self-preservation, however, was more important. If refugee problem was considered before peace settlement and Arabs were repatriated Israel might be attacked; consequently Israel could not undertake any program before such settlement. Israel feared Arab states and not Arabs but, pending peace with Arab states, Arabs readmitted to Israel might become Arab Army. Ben-Gurion appreciated importance of contradicting PCC which represented great individual states and UN but it was question Israeli self-preservation.1
Sent Department repeated Tel Aviv 29. [Ethridge.]
- Consul Burdett, on April 9, reported that “PCC this morning discussed Jerusalem question in light of Ben Gurion statement yesterday (re Palun 115). French delegate maintained that PCC should regard this as rejection GA resolution of December 11 and unacceptable to PCC. For this reason his delegate would not participate in further discussions this subject with Comay. PCC would proceed to draft detailed proposals in light its interpretation GA resolution. Ethridge argued that PCC should not present proposals to GA without having explored fully with parties concerned possible areas [of] agreement. Israel should not be in position to argue that proposals unacceptable because of lack consultation. Regardless position PCC he wanted Halderman consult with Comay. PCC agreed Halderman should do this and make results available for further work on detailed proposals.” (Telegram 276, also identified as Palun 117, from Jerusalem, 501.BB Palestine/4–949)↩