Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume VI

501.BB Palestine/6–349: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Legation in Switzerland ¹

secret

Washington, June 7, 1949—8 p. m.

Unpal 139. For USDel, Lausanne. Dept has fol questions and comments on Palun 179² and 183,³ Jlem 19, Jun 2,⁴ and Amman 15, Jun 4.⁵

Your endorsement in Palun 170 [179] of “limited agreement” mentioned Jlem tel 370, May 20, appears to refer second suggestion that tel. We have two queries as to this. First, we are not clear as to procedure evnvisioned for reaching such agreement. Agreement of this scope appears to come within terms reference existing special comite which seems unable make progress. Second, as stated in Jlem tel, this proposal does not contain principal pt [point?] demanded by Arabs. We accordingly need further clarification as to how this solution cld be brought about.

It was existing impasse that led to Depts suggestion that parties be called upon adopt new procedure involving slightly altered terms reference explicitly including territorial adjustments. Suggestion wld be based upon need peaceful solution, failure efforts negot agreement, and offer impartial procedure which wld result solution based on equity and having backing internatl community. Admitting one or both parties might reject procedure, they wld nevertheless find this difficult in face argument just mentioned and their reaction and arguments might themselves pt way further proceedings.

A possible compromise resulting from such suggestion might be that suggested Amman reftel which basically similar except for omission arbitral function. Wld seem preferable attempt arbitration and if impossible recede this position.

Amman suggestion in Legtel 215, May 24, that special comite be adjourned and that Lausanne conference deal with Jlem as whole wld be acceptable if PCC has necessary technical info and if it desires take on negot added problem on which previous negots unsuccessful.⁶

Dept appreciates considerations Palun 183 but envisions PCC wld make proposal including broadly stated terms reference and suggestion high caliber arbitrator. Parties shld indicate acceptance or rejection rather quickly or time limit cld be set. If acceptance conditioned on modification terms reference or selection arbitrator, these cld be taken up expeditiously and if not successful project cld be dropped. Time limit cld also be set for conclusion proceeding. In view reaction Jlem and Amman we withdraw suggestion Azcarate but think Judge ICJ wld be appropriate since Court in adjournment until fall. In addition De Visscher, Judge Klaestad of Norway wld seem appropriate choice.

Dept continuing maintain open position this question and invites comments.

Webb

1. This telegram was repeated to Jerusalem and Amman.
2. Identified also as telegram 829, May 31, from Bern, not printed, but see footnote 2, p. 1041.
3. Dated June 3, from Lausanne, not printed.
4. This was a repeat of telegram 395, June 2, from Jerusalem, p. 1084.
5. This was a repeat of telegram 233, June 4, 3 p. m., not printed, but see footnotes 3 and 4, p. 1108.
6. In reply on June 13, Mr. Hare set forth the belief of the United States Delegation that it would be “premature for PCC take on Jerusalem problem in absence of agreement on general Palestine question.” (telegram Palun 200 from Lausanne 501.BB Palestine/6–1349)