Office of the Historian

501.BB Palestine/6–849: Telegram

Mr. Mark F. Ethridge to the Secretary of State

restricted
Lausanne, June 8, 1949—11 a. m.

Palun 188. Information contained Deptel 727, June 21 is further evidence Israeli tactics revealed Palun 1842 toward objective breaking up Lausanne Conference and blaming PCC. PCC has made it clear it would welcome direct talks if parties would consent. All delegations on PCC including particularly USDel have encouraged direct talks. Thus far, however, Arabs have refused because Israel’s unyielding position and because first private meetings between Israelis and Arabs were released by Israelis to press. Basic reasons for failure of either direct or indirect talks are those outlined in Palun’s 174 and 175.3

Specific instances Israeli misrepresentations are:

1.
Paragraph 2 reftel is similar attacks in Israeli press designed discredit PCC. Boisanger has been to Paris; Yalcin to London but PCC has continued to meet and delays have usually been attributable to failure either side make or answer reasonable proposals. For example Israeli Government has not yet given complete answers to Arab proposals regarding urgent measures first broached early April and again confirmed recently (Palun 166).4
2.
Each sentence in Paragraph 3 is inaccurate even including statement Arabs and Jews have been slipping off to Paris to talk. Arabs [Page 1097] assure me Sassoon has undertaken to lure them away but they will not play his game as he promises nothing. He has however, been in contact with Abdullah through Paris (reference Palun 184).
3.
First sentence Paragraph 4 is generally untrue. There has been no divergence views between members PCC. As to second sentence Arabs have not yet reached stage of discussing territorial compensation officially. Private conversations with them indicate, however, their eventual acceptance necessity therefor.
4.
Arabs have thus far refused consider Israeli territorial proposals including Gaza strip project pending constructive action by Israelis regarding refugees. Arabs privately consider Israeli Gaza strip project unacceptable as it trades refugees for territory.

It is most unfortunate that an already difficult task should be complicated by inaccurate reports. Although Sassoon with whom have discussed these reports denies sending Shiloah such information, I have impression both Sassoon and Shiloah are deliberately muddying the waters.

Ethridge
  1. Sent to Bern for Mr. Ethridge, not printed; it gave excerpts from telegram 668, June 1, 7:45 p. m., from New York, not printed, describing a conversation by John C. Ross with Messrs. Eban and Shiloah the same day. (Nos. 727 and 668 are both filed under 501.BB Palestine/6–149)↩
  2. Dated June 4, 11 a. m., from Lausanne, not printed.↩
  3. Identified also as telegrams 821 and 822, May 28, from Bern, pp. 1069 and 1071, respectively.↩
  4. Dated May 23, from Lausanne, p. 1044.↩