501.BB Palestine/6–1349: Telegram
Mr. Raymond A. Hare to the Secretary of State
Palun 198. USDel has following comment on Israeli reply to President’s note (ref Deptel 761):1
General: Israeli reply should be read in conjunction Eytan’s statement before PCC reported Palun 192.2 Eytan put Israeli attitude re refugees and territory even more categorically. Return of refugees would be “retrograde step.” Re territory, Israel cannot accept “purely arbitrary mathematical proportion or formula.” USDel regrets that Israel unwilling approach refugee problem constructively through repatriation and resettlement and that Israel also unwilling consider territorial arrangement in terms fairness and equity. USDel notes with even greater regret Israel reply makes no reference whatsoever to support for UN and desire achieve peace and security on realistic basis as stated President’s note. USDel reluctant conclude Israel does not share these objectives with US. USDel suggests US would be on strong ground in emphasizing these points in such further action which may be taken in matter.
Paragraph 1: Balance note proves Israeli position Lausanne has not been misunderstood as arguments advanced in Israeli reply are same those put forward Lausanne.
Paragraph 2: President’s note made no reference to paragraph 5 GA resolution December 11 re conciliation although US might well have added that Israeli proposals at Lausanne were not of character to promote agreement with view final settlement all questions with Arabs. President’s note confined itself to refugees and territory.
Paragraph 3: Israeli reply is not accurate. Paragraph 5 GA resolution December 11 provides for “Negotiations conducted either with Conciliation Commission or directly.” Arab delegates have not thus far found it possible meet officially with Israeli delegation, (approximately 20 characters garbled)3 meeting between Sassoon of Israel and Abdul Monem of Egypt appeared in press as result Israeli leak convinced Arabs further meetings premature. Official public meetings would be still more difficult for Arabs because of Arab public opinion. Virtual stalemate at Lausanne should be laid at door of both Israelis and Arabs. Following signature of May 12 protocol (Palun 148)4 Israelis advanced extremely [garble] proposals (Paluns 1625 and [Page 1129] 1736) but made no proposal re refugees other than limited measures mentioned Palun 145.7 Arabs advanced refugee proposals (Palun 166)8 but made no proposal re territory other than suggestion advanced Palun 165.9 Israelis have either failed take action or have not answered Arab memos re refugees and territory.
Arabs have not answered Israeli proposals re territory. USDel believes, however, that on balance Arab position more nearly in line protocol May 12 than Israeli and that at present stage negotiations next move up to Israelis and their failure act principal cause stalemate.
Paragraph 4: USDel perceives neither reason nor logic in Israeli deduction that GA considered Eban’s explanations satisfactory because admission followed.
Paragraph 6: What Israelis at loss to understand in this paragraph is apparently quite clear in eighth paragraph in which it is stated “the war has proved indispensability to survival of Israel of certain vital areas not comprised originally in share of Jewish state.” Israeli territory proposals advanced officially to PCC include western Galilee, Jaffa, area between Ramie Lydda Beersheba, areas north Gaza strip and south of Auja along Egyptian frontier, corridor to Jerusalem and other smaller areas throughout Palestine. Re Gaza strip Ethridge did not advance as previously indicated Palun 181.10
Paragraph 7: President’s note did not present US position re territory as UN policy but as US policy. Rejection last fall of certain paragraphs of GA resolution December 11 might be considered in any event to be superseded by admission resolution which recalled GA resolution November 29. It may also be noted that Sharett on again being informed of US policy by Secretary on April 5 (Deptel 208 to Tel Aviv11) replied that “he was familiar with our views on boundary questions, was hopeful an agreed solution could be reached and did not see any insurmountable difficulty.”
Paragraph 8: Please see comment on seventh paragraph. Present paragraph as worded seems tantamount to unilateral revision GA resolution November 29, judicial findings re aggressors and award. It seems also to reject US views that territorial arrangement should be based on elementary principles fairness and security. US delegation fails understand why either Israel or Arabs have anything say about government of territory controlled by other.
Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11: USDel considers one-sided overstatement of developments in Palestine. It should be added for balance that [Page 1130] Israelis attacked in Haifa, Jaffa and Acre before end British mandate and that incidents such as (approximately 10 characters garbled)12 massacre accelerated refugee flight. Former Arab economy with Israelis not entirely in ruins as small Arab farmers could certainly return to their lands. Israel knows full well that neither US nor any other state expects it to tackle unaided reintegration of Arabs who elect return. Israeli measures on humanitarian grounds have thus far proved negligible. Israel has restricted compensation for land abandoned to that previously cultivated (Palun 145). Israel has made reunion contingent on census, close relationship and final settlement (Palun 145). Israeli contribution to resettlement consists only of technical experts (Palun 14013).
Paragraph 12: Israeli measures consist almost entirely of those listed Palun 145. USDel believed Department will agree these measures are hardly likely endanger self-preservation Israel. USDel also believes additional measures listed Palun 166 could be considered falling within this category. Second paragraph of President’s note would seem also to indicate US has not considered repatriation “in absolute terms” but has approached refugee problem on basis both repatriation and resettlement.
Paragraph 13: Please see paragraphs 9 through 12.
Paragraph 14: Arabs might submit almost similar paragraph by substituting “Arab states” for “Israel” and “territory” for “refugee” throughout.
Paragraph 15: No comment.
- Dated June 9, 3 p. m., not printed; it transmitted the text of telegram 441, June 8, from Tel Aviv. Regarding 441, see footnote 1 to Tel Aviv telegram, June 8, p. 1102.↩
- Identified also as telegram 912, June 10, from Bern, p. 1112.↩
- As in the source text.↩
- Dated May 12, from Lausanne, p. 998.↩
- Not printed, but see footnote 2, p. 1036.↩
- Identified also as telegram 820, May 28, from Bern, p. 1068.↩
- Identified also as telegram 410, May 10, from Geneva, p. 992.↩
- Dated May 23, from Lausanne, p. 1044.↩
- Dated May 23, from Lausanne, p. 1043.↩
- Dated June 2, from Lausanne, p. 1085.↩
- See footnote 2, p. 894.↩
- As in the source text.↩
- Identified also as telegram 676, May 4, from Bern, p. 975.↩