501.BB Palestine/6–1549: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting Secretary of State
Actel 74. During call on Secretary June 14 Bevin inquired as to our current thinking on Palestine situation, including Lausanne conference and problem of Transjordan. Secretary outlined to him views expressed by Ethridge during visit Paris, mentioning probable adjournment Lausanne talks and Ethridge view neither side wants to make peace. Bevin inquired whether we thought Jews would start to [Page 1144] fight, stating this raised urgently question of supplying arms to Transjordan. Secretary discussed recent US note to Israelis and Israeli reply, reading substance paragraph two Telac 781 and pointing out Department wished Bevin consider carefully problem which might be created if UK becomes involved in conflict between Israel and Transjordan. Bevin said he had not had report from British chiefs of staff. He was much concerned about abandonment of Abdullah and said trend of UK thinking was now in direction of giving Abdullah arms and de jure recognition of incorporation of administered territories in Palestine. Bevin said Abdullah had strong support in House of Commons, including Churchill’s support. He promised to give us considered answer on this question in day or two.
Secretary then gave Bevin substance first paragraph Telac 792 reporting McDonald’s views on current Israeli claims, adding that Ethridge agreed with general view of Bevin about desirability of concluding agreement on water rights. Jessup mentioned view expressed by both Ethridge and Cordier, who had just come from Lausanne, to effect Arabs counting on weakening of Israel in next two years. Bevin said some of his people believed civil war in Israel quite possible, and they doubted whether Ben Gurion could maintain his hold. Secretary also commented on difficulties Jewish drive for funds in US now experiencing.
- Dated June 12, to Paris, p. 1126.↩
- Dated June 13, 5 p. m., to Paris, not printed; the first paragraph of this “top secret summary for the Secretary” digested Mr. Sharett’s views as set forth in telegram 443, June 10, from Tel Aviv, p. 1110, and Ambassador McDonald’s views as given in his two telegrams of June 11; regarding these two latter messages; see editorial note, p. 1115.↩