501.BB Palestine/6–1449: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Troutman) to the Secretary of State
priority
577. Palun 204. From Hare. On June 13 PCC held private meeting with Eytan re some of Israeli suggestions reported in Palun 197.1 Boisanger reiterated Arabs continued find it difficult meet directly with Israelis and pointed out Arabs and Israelis had both agreed as result Beirut meeting merely come to Lausanne for exchange views.
Hare summarized Israeli and Arab proposals to PCC and observed next move up to Israeli delegates.
Eytan replied that six months had passed since adoption GA resolution December 11, and it seemed logical believe Arabs should now be able to meet directly with Israelis. Although Israel still had Arab memo outlined in Palun 1662 under study, Eytan did not believe immediate affirmative action would be productive as Arabs had not thus far even commented on action already taken by Israelis as reported in Palun 145.3 Furthermore he seriously doubted efficacy of particularist approach to general settlement. Eytan then put hypothetical question whether, if Israel accepted principle of repatriation “without any strings attached,” Arabs would be persuaded to conclude [Page 1136] peace. Eytan continued that under present circumstances in Israel and elsewhere in Near East it would be impossible for Israel actually to consider return refugees until Israel was informed of complete scientific, economic and financial plan for repatriation and resettlement of refugees. Until latter was known in detail, Israel would not even be in position to consider how many refugees could be repatriated to Israel. Meanwhile, Eytan contended that Israel’s proposal re separated families (Palun 145) and its willingness to take Gaza strip and refugees therein (Palun 1624) was liberal realistic approach to refugee question. Here again Eytan observed Arab delegates had not even commented on Israeli proposals.
Yalcin made moving statement re more affirmative approach by Israel pointing out Israel could accept principle of repatriation subject to such provisions as those who wished to return, those who wished to live at peace with their neighbors, special categories, international aid. Yalcin’s contention was that acceptance in principle contingent on numerous provisos would provide Arabs with point of departure and thereafter permit both Israelis and Arabs to tackle refugee question constructively.
Hare observed that all were convinced that Israel and Arab states sincerely desirous of establishment lasting peace in Palestine and Middle East. If refugee question remained unsolved, such peace would hopelessly be delayed. But to approach refugee question, it would be necessary to have preliminary agreement of both sides. Unless such agreement were obtained UN, international agencies, member governments and private organizations would have considerable difficulty in developing economic and financial plans for Palestine and Middle East which would assist in solving refugee question.
Eytan listened attentively although Ethridge discussion reported Palun 1745 must have been familiar to him. Eytan’s argument might be described as: “Tell me how much you will pay and I will tell you what, if anything, I will sell.”
Eytan agreed further discussion with PCC would be helpful at some future date. At moment it is difficult to determine Eytan’s motivation and intent in refugee question. Developments during next few days may make his meaning clear.
Sent Department 577, repeated Paris 73 (for Jessup). [Hare.]