501.BB Palestine/5–1949: Telegram
The Minister in Syria (Keeley) to the Secretary of State
288. For George McGhee. Mytel 281 May 13. As both parties rejected modified Bunche proposal General Riley informs me negotiations adjourned indefinitely. Meanwhile Vigier and Riley hope work out another proposal that might have more prospect acceptance.
[Page 1031]Considering Israeli intransigent attitude as exemplified by Prime Minister Ben-Gurion’s uncompromising refusal (Tel Aviv Embtel 342 May 9 to Department)1 Bunche’s invitation that he meet with Prime Minister Zaim (who in advance of invitation volunteered his willingness meet [Ben-]Gurion in effort cut Gordian knot), stalemate seems likely to continue indefinitely. While am convinced Zaim willing make generous concessions on other pending matters such as refugees, internationalization Jerusalem and boundaries elsewhere than slight rectification desired in Syrian-Israeli frontier in region of Lakes Hula and Tiberius, Zaim is unlikely yield everything without any quid pro quo as Israel seems to demand. To do so could well cost him his job and remove best hope so far of Syrian acceptance compromise settlement Palestine conflict.
General Riley’s suggestion (mytel 281) that US Government’s support of Mediator’s efforts be communicated to Syrians only when Riley and I consider moment propitious was not intended to by-pass Mediator but rather to face realities realistically (Deptel 217 May 17). Experience has shown that Bunche being far from scene of negotiations is often as much as 48 hours behind developments and consequently his recommendations and any diplomatic support requested by him often inapplicable to situation as it exists by time they reach scene of action.
Bunche’s departure before conclusion of Syrian-Israeli armistice was generally considered prematurely optimistic by those who understood Syrian internal problem and Israeli appetite. Because of ineffectiveness remote control, Legation believes Bunche should either return to scene of negotiations or relinquish initiative to those on spot. Legation favors Bunche’s return believing that only he on spot is likely to be able to force some sort of modus operandi for armistice that will permit talks to open for settlement broader problems including delimitation permanent Syro-Israeli frontier.
Those concerned with refugee problem should understand that Zaim expressed willingness (repeatedly reiterated) to accept quarter million or more refugees for resettlement was contingent on and part of general peace settlement.
Everyone who has discussed matter with Zaim is impressed by his sincerity and broadminded attitude toward Israel (far cry from stubborn intransigence previous Syrian Government) but his ardor is cooling [Page 1032] in face of evident Israeli insatiability. While Zaim is at least trying to measure up to Kemal Ataturk’s stature (mytel 256 April 28)2 and is susceptible to moderating influence, it is unfortunately becoming increasingly evident (Tel Aviv 342) that Ben-Gurion is no-Venizelos. Yet unless Israel can be brought to understand that it cannot have all of its cake (partition boundaries) and gravy as well (areas captured in violation of truce, Jerusalem and resettlement Arab refugees elsewhere) it may find that it has won Palestine war but lost peace.
Should be evident that Israel’s continued insistence upon her pound of flesh and more is driving Arab states slowly (and perhaps surely) to gird their loins (politically and economically if not yet militarily) for long-range struggle that profiting by mistakes of past could make Israel’s task far harder than might be case if far seeing Israeli statesmanship were to grasp opportunities of moment to reach negotiated settlement on reasonable terms. Israel and its UN sponsors more than Arab states would stand to suffer most by indefinite prolongation current stalemate.
Sent Department 288, repeated Tel Aviv 33, USUN New York 6, Bern 8, for PCC; pouched Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Jerusalem, Jidda, London, Paris, Ankara.
- Not printed; it advised that Ambassador McDonald had conversed with the Israeli Prime Minister on May 8 on the subjects reported in Tel Aviv’s telegram 323, May 2, p. 966. He commented that it was “Evident Israel not now prepared to go in public beyond recent statements on refugees and Jerusalem. Re boundaries it will not publicly suggest possibility yielding territory now held. This does not preclude possible concessions in bilateral talks with Transjordan at Lausanne.” (868.48/5–949)↩
- Not printed.↩