867N.01/5–149: Telegram
The Minister in Syria (Keeley) to the Secretary of State
259. Transparent hypocrisy in Sharett’s cable of April 27 to Dr. Mohn (Deptel 184, April 281) is doubtless already evident to all concerned but full comment is nevertheless given in hope of helping to clarify atmosphere and hasten armistice agreement so that broader aspects of problem may be realistically approached.
Israeli contention that natural boundary desired by Syria as armistice demarcation line might become permanent alteration in frontier between two countries seeks to confirm Syria’s conviction that if Syria retires to old political frontier as armistice demarcation line, Israel will subsequently accept no alteration in that frontier particularly as Syria knows of no offer of Israel to withdraw from Western Galilee or other areas outside partition frontiers as earnest of willingness to have final sovereignty all such areas for determination in peace talks. Without holding any brief for Syria’s “right” to frontier rectification, what is sauce for goose should be sauce for gander.
As evidence of their alleged sincerity let both parties retire simultaneously from areas not contemplated by partition resolution leaving such areas under UN supervision pending determination of sovereignty by peace conference. Otherwise let status quo be accepted as provisional for armistice purposes with clear understanding that armistice demarcation lines are tentative only and subject to confirmation [Page 962] or rectification by peace conference. Thus latter may proceed in more hopeful atmosphere.
Re McDonald’s comment in Tel Aviv Embassy telegram 314, April 292 to Department re Israel’s sincerity yet unwillingness to yield even to extent of leaving disputed frontier area for subsequent determination, might it not properly be asked what profit it for Syria to enter into peace negotiations with Israel if only benefits Syria can hope to obtain therefrom, slight rectification of frontier, is relinquished without any quid pro quo or other guarantee before peace talks begin. Considering US policy as outlined by Jessup November 20 (Deptel 57 February 25) we can scarcely in good conscience ask Syria to relinquish small salient within partition frontier while remaining silent over Israel’s retention even provisionally of extensive area outside partition frontier in Western Galilee conquered by Israel during and in violation of truce. Surely if Israel’s professions of desire for peace are genuine, she should be willing to make some concession as earnest thereof as Syria has already done (Mytel 256, April 283), or at least to leave all controversial issues for determination by peace conference.
Sent Department 259; repeated Bagdad 47; Tel Aviv 22; London 70; Paris 55; Bern 1 for Ethridge; New York for USDel 1. Pouched Amman, Beirut, Cairo, Jerusalem, Jidda, Athens, Ankara, Moscow.
- This was a repeat of No. 544 to Bern, p. 956.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed; it reported that
Syrian Prime Minister Zaim had “Intimated willingness as part
general settlement including realistic frontier adjustments
accept quarter million refugees if given substantial development
aid in addition to compensation for refugee losses.”
(890D.01/4–2849)
Telegram 256 also noted that the Prime Minister “reiterated his earnest desire to liquidate Palestine debacle by pursuing henceforth policy of give and take provided he not asked to give all while other side takes all.” It concluded that there was a “real opportunity for rapid settlement of Palestine problem if only US Government will exert itself to bring Israelis to face situation realistically and in spirit of fair compromise.”
↩