501.BB Palestine/4–2049: Telegram
The Consul at Jerusalem (Burdett) to the Secretary of State
312. Palun 133. From Ethridge. On April 18 I visited Ben-Gurion at Tiberias at his request. Prior to my departure from Jerusalem, Comay informed me Ben-Gurion would discuss such pending questions as issuance of conciliatory statement re refugees by Israel Government and Israeli views re some form of internationalization of Jerusalem. Ben-Gurion mentioned neither question and apparently had no intention of doing so. Instead Ben-Gurion analyzed at length Britain’s mistaken imperialistic policy in Middle East in past and present and stressed economic and humanitarian role which position of US in world affairs ought to require US to play in this area. Ben-Gurion said that British were still attempting to operate in Middle East under policies in vogue toward end of 19th century; that Britain was attempting to rule through little kings like Abdullah; that US should declare its second independence of British Foreign Office; and that US must develop Middle East economically and raise living standard throughout area.
Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion did not seem to wish to discuss internationalization of Jerusalem as set forth in paragraph 8 General Assembly Resolution December 11 but confined himself to observation that Jerusalem could not be capital of Israel “for several years.” [Page 926] Jerusalem was too near “edge of Israel.” If, however, Israel’s eastern boundary were Jordan, Jerusalem could become capital immediately. Meanwhile, Tel Aviv was not suitable capital, apparently for security reasons but Haifa would be and might be. Israel planned to make Jerusalem center for watchmaking, diamond-cutting and other light industries. Return of tourists and pilgrims would be important to its economic existence. Demilitarization of Jerusalem could not be foreseen under existing circumstances.
Refugees: Ben-Gurion made no reference to possible conciliatory statement by Israeli Government re refugees and it was obvious from trend of his remarks that there has not been slightest change in Israeli views despite statement of American position by McDonald. Ben-Gurion emphasized role which US should play economically in Middle East and stressed that resettlement was only logical answer. Egypt was overpopulated and if Arab states were wise Egyptians would be resettled in Iraq. There was no reason why Palestinian and Israeli Arab refugees should not be resettled in Iraq and in Syria, both of which were seriously underpopulated. Israeli itself cannot and will not accept return of Arab refugees to Israeli territory for security and economic reasons. Israel will, however, contribute to assistance for refugees in three Ways:
- (1)
- Compensation for Arab land to be paid to Arab farmers through Israeli-Arab mixed claims commission. Ben-Gurion mentioned, in this connection, that Israeli could have war claims against Arab states but that these claims should be considered separately and apart.
- (2)
- Israel would permit Arab refugees to return with object of reuniting separated families.
- (3)
- Israel would assist in resettlement of refugees elsewhere, probably by making available its knowledge and information of Near East countries and by sending Israeli experts and technicians at no charge to assist in whatever resettlement program might be developed.
Territorial settlement: Ben-Gurion indicated Israel had no intention of relinquishing any part of Negev. If I thought its southern portion “a wilderness”, which I said I did having flown over it that morning, I should “come back and see it in ten years.” Israel could develop even most unpromising parts of Israel territory because “it not only loved but needed it.” Transjordan would not be granted corridor to Mediterranean nor would there be corridor between Transjordan and Egypt. Israel could not be cut in two. British would not be permitted access across Israel under cover of Transjordan. Transjordan could have “free zone” in Tel Aviv or Haifa or anywhere else it chose on Mediterranean with right of passage. Present Gaza strip might become autonomous like Luxembourg. If Egypt did not want Gaza because of refugees therein Israel would accept and permit those [Page 927] refugees to return to their homes. Transjordan could have [access to the Mediterranean?] without corridor but with right of free passage. Israel believed it should have all of west coast of Dead Sea as Transjordan had all of east coast, particularly if Transjordan absorbed rump of Palestine. British bases in Arab Palestine under Anglo-Transjordan treaty would not be permitted. Arab Palestine might be accorded special status in settlement through federal device in union with Transjordan.
Peace settlements: Ben-Gurion considered that Israel would be able to conclude settlements with Egypt and Lebanon first because of close affinity with each. Israel and Egypt had much in common and agreement would break ice. Immediate prospect re agreement with Lebanon was more dubious as there were rumors of another Lebanese Government crisis, Ben-Gurion hoped for quick armistice and peace settlement with Syria. Iraq would not negotiate. Transjordan would. Israel must always consider whether Arab state representatives really represent their countries. Farouk is probably Egypt but who is Zaim and does Nuri speak for Iraqi people. Ben-Gurion felt Zaim coup might not be internal and considered Nuri British agent and hated by Iraqis. Abdullah was definitely British tool. Israel, nevertheless, could endeavor to conclude settlements with as many Arab states as possible as quickly as possible. Individual problems between states could not be considered outside framework of settlement. [Ethridge.]