501.BB Palestine/6–1049: Telegram
The Ambassador in Israel (McDonald) to the Secretary of State
niact
443. ReDeptels 344, 346,1 347, June 8 and further re Embtel 441, June 9 transmitting Israel’s reply to President’s note (Deptel 322, May 28).
[Page 1111]Ford and I June 9 conferred hour with Foreign Minister who invited me visit his office. Herlitz and Leo Kohn2 also present.
1. Sharett noted press reports from Washington quoting Acting Secretary and said: “we here besieged for news”. Nonetheless, Foreign Office has admitted merely “exchange of views”. Sharett “will say no more unless US prefers and takes initiative fuller news”. Israel “would not oppose publication of notes”.
Comment: Publication of notes would, I think, be unfortunate because certain arouse strong public feeling. Morning June 10 Foreign Office had no explanation Israeli statement Lake Success June 9. End comment.
2. Sharett followed up Israel note on two points:
a. Boundaries. (Deptel 346, June 8). In conference with Secretary Acheson in New York3 Foreign Minister had accepted former’s phrase “mutual adjustments” boundaries in sense of “minor adjustments” and not “compensations or exchanges”. “Could not have possibly thought of concessions to Lebanon, Syria or Egypt as rewards for their unsuccessful war of aggression”. Sharett thought Secretary Acheson’s words “mutual adjustments” referred primarily to boundary between Israel and Arab Palestine. Is “sorry if Secretary misunderstood”.
Comment: Noteworthy that Sharett emphasized twice evident satisfaction Department’s conclusion that territorial “compensation” Gaza strip would depend on “desire” other government’s “such compensation”. End comment.
b. Refugees. “Measure of repatriation actually carried out” totalled approximately 24,000 divided nearly equally between Galilee and Negev. Total Arabs now in Israel 150,000. Measures “under urgent consideration” include specific permission to “round out families” and more “general permission return of women and minor children of Arabs resident in Israel”.
Comment: Sharett’s manner of presenting these admittedly limited concessions was possible indication Israel’s softening on refugees. End comment.
3. ReDeptel 344, June 8, Sharett emphatically denied Eytan had ever used any expression indicating Israel had desire further territorial expansion except in connection with Ethridge’s suggestion “Gaza plan”. Foreign Minister emphasized there is no justification charge Israel’s position was “rigid”.
Comment: No doubt Sharett feels Israel wrongly charged with “rigidity”. End comment.
[Page 1112]4. ReDeptels 346, 347, June 8, Sharett said cabinet would discuss Bundle’s proposal “within two hours”. Israel would attend armistice meeting tenth. Major obstacle in acceptance is demilitarization of Ein Gev. I argued this minor compared with larger issues. Foreign Office telephoned June 10, 9:30 a. m. Riley reported Syrians unable attend today.
Comment: Despite Foreign Minister’s protest I believe even chance Israel acceptance Bunche plan. End comment.