501.BB Palestine/5–2649: Telegram
Mr. Mark F. Ethridge to the Secretary of State
niact
Palun 167. Consult Rusk for distribution. Reference Unpal 116.1 I consider underlying policy accurate. Note of this character would strengthen my hand at Lausanne. It may not be as effective now as it might been at earlier date as Israeli views regarding refugees and territory have crystallized such extent, both privately and publicly, that it may be difficult for them to change. I strongly recommend its despatch nevertheless, if we are to attempt to achieve a peace in theme which will not subsequently come apart at seams. I have several suggested changes:
- 1.
- First paragraph, first sentence: Omit “as set forth to Mr. Mark Ethridge by Dr. Eytan on May 19, 1949 at Lausanne upon instruction of His Excellency, the Foreign Minister of Israel” and substitute “as set forth by the representatives of Israel at Lausanne in public and private meetings”. Palun 1602 correctly reports Eytan’s views and views of his colleagues. There is no doubt they are views of Israeli [Page 1059] Government but to avoid technical evasion we suggest substitute phrase.
- 2.
- First paragraph, second sentence: Add at end “although it has under consideration certain urgent measures of limited character”. Israeli Delegation recently informed PCC it had sent Tel Aviv for consideration urgent measures listed in Palun 166.3 Department is doubtless aware general Israeli approach to urgent measures of this character from Palun 145.4
- 3.
-
First paragraph, third sentence: Omit “but an additional acquisition further territory both within and out Palestine” and substitute “but possibly an additional acquisition of further territory within Palestine”. Israeli Delegation May 26 revealed Israeli views regarding frontier with Transjordan which are being reported separately. In essence, Israeli Delegation proposes political boundary shall be boundary between former mandate and Transjordan; i.e. 1) southern end Lake Tiberias to junction armistice line with Transjordan border, east of Jenin and 2) middle of Dead Sea to Gulf of Aqaba. With regard to Central Palestine, present armistice lines from junction of armistice line with Transjordan border east of Jenin to middle of Dead Sea would be allowed to stand until it was determined whether Transjordan, independent government, international authority or some other form of government was in control. Modifications between Israel and that government might subsequently arise for discussion and its attitude would be determined by character of government. Meanwhile, Transjordan was in military occupation with which military changes might be discussed. Israeli Delegation stated it had not included Jerusalem area in its proposal.
Reference to Israeli acquisition outside Palestine would not strengthen note and would cause controversy. Israel desires small parts of Lebanon and Syria and possibly in Transjordan for economic reasons but will undoubtedly have to approach on exchange basis as international frontiers are involved.
- 4.
- Sixth paragraph, first sentence: Omit “both inside and outside” and substitute “within”.
Undoubtedly Department has considered question of reference to Jerusalem problem in note. I agree no reference should be made because PCC plan will be considered by GA in September. I suggest, however, that Department might orally suggest to Israeli Ambassador that final settlement Palestine question would be facilitated if meanwhile, Israeli Government were able to take such conciliatory steps regarding Jerusalem as action indicating Israeli Government was temporary trustee for Arab land and property within Jerusalem area and postponment transfer Israeli Government functions to Jerusalem.