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

501.BB Palestine/6–1049: Telegram

The Minister in Switzerland (Vincent) to the Secretary of State

restricted

Bern, June 10, 1949—3 p. m.

912. Palun 192. From Ethridge. On June 8 Eytan returned Lausanne from Tel Aviv after week’s absence during which it was common knowledge Israel was reexamining its position regarding Israeli-Arab talks through PCC. On June 9 Eytan lectured PCC at length on manner in which talks should be conducted and made general restatement of Israeli position regarding outstanding matters including refugees and territory. Eytan’s remarks indicated Israel had not modified its position in any way, shape or form.

Summary of Eytan’s remarks follows:

(1) Conduct of talks: Eytan believed stalemate existed at Lausanne. General dissatisfaction reflected in irresponsible talk, gossip, threats and recrimination. Difficulty must be surmounted and fresh start made. Patience and frankness were necessary.

(2) General approach: PCC members and Arabs say Israel asks unreasonable. Outstanding problems between Israel and Arabs were discussed during Israel admission debate at Lake Success. Eban made full statement. GA admitted Israel. It follows GA was satisfied with Israel’s attitude on outstanding problems.¹ We are acting in conformity with Eban statements at Lausanne. If others think us unreasonable it must be in another context.

(3) Reality in Israel: Conditions in Israel have changed since November 29² and continuing change rapidly. Jaffa, for example, is no longer Arab and in some sections no longer exists. Automatic Arab talk regarding return of refugees is unrealistic. Such talk will not advance Lausanne discussions one inch.

(4) Middle East peace: Israeli objective at Lausanne has been restoration of Middle East peace. But other questions including refugees, territory and compensation are subsidiary. Arabs want peace also. Thus far main obstacle has been sustained refusal of Arabs to negotiate peace. Refusal is main cause for present deadlock.

(5) Refugees: Detailed Israeli position known to PCC. Israel very much concerned regarding refugee problem in Palestine and Middle East. Tendency in world since World War I has been to eliminate minority problems. Minority problems cause national and international unrest and conflict. UNSCOP did not consider exclusion of Arabs and Jews from Jewish and Arab states respectively because it assumed peaceful implementation. War resulted. Exodus occurred. Grave minority problem for Jewish state thus solved itself by events. Israel never contemplated removal of Arabs. In light of world’s tragic experience during past 30 years Israel believes “recreation of minority within Israel—as Arabs insist—would be retro-step for peace of Middle East and of world”. Israel will, however, contribute as much as it can in context of general peace settlement.

Eytan proposed supply PCC with summary of statements by Arab leaders calling for revenge. Eytan cited recent discussion in Egyptian Parliament regarding 72 million pound budget for arms. In such circumstances Israel considered it unreasonable to permit return of refugees. Every government which has elementary regard for its people will adopt attitude similar Israels.

(6) Territory: Israel accepted May 12 protocol as basis for discussion. Israeli principle is GA principle of mutual adjustment of borders to common advantage of each party by free negotiation. Israel cannot accept “purely arbitrary mathematical proportion of formula”. Partition resolutions of November 29 are not sacrosanct. Israel is not bound to adhere. Partition was based on peaceful implementation. War results. Only Jewish state appeared. Arab state did not. Arabs are, however, entitled to state. Israel cannot agree that because Arabs failed to establish state³ other Arab states are entitled to territory. It’s too contrary UN principles to reward states which attempted to upset UN resolution by force. Decision along such lines would undermine UN and world peace. If there were Arab state Israel’s territorial position would now be different. Israel is prepared, however, to discuss its frontiers with each of its present neighbors. Eytan considered direct talks with Arabs essential for any territorial arrangement.

(7) Israeli efforts at Lausanne: Eytan recapitulated various proposals and suggestions of Israeli delegation toward progress of Lausanne talks. Eytan recalled steps reported in Palun’s 145, 146,⁴ 162,⁵ 173.⁶ Eytan stated points outlined in Palun 146 still formed basis Israeli thinking. Failure to receive response regarding preamble was grave disappointment. Arabs had not answered territorial proposals. Israeli delegation may be prepared to put forward further suggestions if useful. To help meeting, Israel is prepared to make free zone at Haifa for import and export without Israeli duty. Israel may make other suggestions to help other Arab states. Israeli efforts are fundamentality different than Arab efforts which consist entirely of demands.

(8) Future steps: (a) Israel continues accept May 12 protocol; (b) present despondency should be overcome; (c) Eytan would be glad state Israeli case directly to Arab delegates.

[

Ethridge

]

Vincent

1. The Department, on June 15, commented on this point as follows: “Dept believes entirely unwarranted construe GA debate and decision re admission Israel as endorsement their policy before PCC.” It then cited Mr. Eban’s statement before the Ad Hoc Committee on May 5 (see footnote 2, p. 979) that only the provisions of Article 4 of the Charter were relevant in considering an application for membership and that it was “unjust withhold consent admission on grounds difference opinion on solution certain internatl problems.” (telegram Unpal 151, 501.BB Palestine/6–1049)
2. The date in 1947 that the General Assembly voted to approve the partition of Palestine.
3. In Palestine.
4. Both dated May 10; identified also as telegrams 410 and 411 from Geneva, pp. 902 and 993, respectively.
5. Not printed, but see footnote 2, p. 1036.
6. Identified also as telegram 820, May 28, from Bern, p. 1068.