501.BB Palestine/5–1149
The Israeli Ambassador (Elath) to the Secretary of State
My Dear Mr. Secretary: I should like to express the deep gratitude of my Government for the invaluable support given by the United States in the discussion of Israel’s membership application in the Ad Hoc Committee of the United Nations. I believe that the draft resolution gained enormously in effectiveness and prestige through the formal association of the United States with it.
I should like you to know that the conversation which Mr. Eban and I were privileged to have with you on April 26th has had a deep effect on the Israeli Government. In formulating our attitudes on the various outstanding problems, we took care to keep certain principles in mind. In the first place we strongly upheld the right of the General Assembly to be regarded as the ultimate moral arbiter in issues of deadlock or difficulty. It was made clear by our representative again and again that in so far as we find difficulties in the December 11, 1948, Resolution we aspired to resolve them by agreement, not by defiance. We shall stretch ourselves to the utmost to bring our policy in conformity with United Nations resolutions, or if necessary, to seek [Page 997] authority for any divergences by appeal to the General Assembly itself.
I believe that our delegation was successful in impressing upon the United Nations that the Jerusalem question required the discussion and exchange of new proposals, which, while in accord with the December 11th Resolution, take proper account of realities and of the welfare and sentiment of the population. We were gratified to understand from you on April 26th that in your view any international regime established in Jerusalem should have as its primary concern the protection and control of Holy Places and religious institutions, rather than actual administration of the City, which now enjoys the blessings of peace and orderly life, both in its Arab and Jewish sections. We have been able, with nothing but the influence of argument and discussion, to satisfy the apprehensions of most of the Catholic countries of Latin America. Seventeen out of twenty of these countries have supported our application under no kind of pressure but that of explanation and debate.
Every approach to a genuine peace discussion brings nearer the hope of a successful settlement of the refugee problem. Throughout the Ad Hoc Committee’s discussions our representative maintained the view, upheld by the Conciliation Commission, that the “final solution of this problem will be found within the framework of the economic and social rehabilitation of all the countries of the Near East.” We have endeavoured in all our recent statements to avoid any negative attitudes, and we look forward to an agreement at Lausanne defining the exact contribution of each Government concerned, as well as of the international community. We have noted the Conciliation Commission’s judgment that “the refugee problem cannot be permanently solved unless other political questions, notably the question of boundaries, are also solved.” Accordingly, our delegation at Lausanne has taken the initiative in asking for an immediate discussion and settlement of outstanding territorial questions. You may have observed that in the debates of the Committee our representative, mindful of our conversation with you, pledged Israel to a settlement of boundaries by agreement through the same methods of negotiation and reciprocal concessions which has had beneficial results in the armistice negotiations. All governments understand that an attitude of give and take may be necessary if an agreed settlement is to be reached at an early date.
It is our hope that the atmosphere of the peace conference at Lausanne will enable our Government to explore the paths of conciliation in more detail and with greater freedom than could possibly be done at a public forum, such as the General Assembly. The United States may have noticed that our delegation at Lake Success austerely [Page 998] refused to seek any immediate tactical advantage by obscuring the real difficulties still outstanding. Despite the sharp and critical scrutiny which our policy of candour invited, we insisted on bringing our difficulties and reservations into the open light of day. It is therefore all the more significant that an impressive majority of disinterested international opinion has expressed its confidence in Israel in full and detailed knowledge of difficulties which we have neither dissembled nor concealed.
I should like to assure you in conclusion, Mr. Secretary, that the settlement of outstanding questions by agreement with the Arab States under the auspices of the United Nations remains the over-riding objective of my Government’s policy.
Accept [etc.]