501.BB Palestine/6–1649: Telegram
The Consul at Jerusalem (Burdett) to the Secretary of State
426. Dayan yesterday explained to Consulate General Israeli position on relation between Jordan armistice agreement and SC resolution on Palestine and present status UN personnel here. Armistice agreement which was signed to implement November 16 SC resolution represents one step beyond SC truce order of July 15 and previous SC resolution on Palestine. Israel and Jordan have progressed from truce stage to armistice stage on road to final peace. Armistice agreement supersedes various SC resolutions which no longer apply and powers conferred by them on UN personnel as well as restrictions imposed no longer in effect. To interpret situation otherwise would result in numerous contradictions. Terms of armistice conflict with SC resolution and interpretation of mediator. For example, SC truce resolution of July 15 and mediator’s instructions prohibit any change in lines while armistice provides for various shifts. Also under SC resolution UN observers empowered to issue orders to either party in case of violation of truce; under armistice Chief of Staff can only vote as one member of PAC [ MAC ]. Under SC resolution UN officers free move anywhere, observe and enforce truce; now can only move when requested by MAC and lack enforcement powers. Bunche at Rhodes much concerned with these contradictions but urged both parties proceed on basis realities rather than technicalities.
Because only armistice now binding UN no longer possesses rights at Govt House and personnel privilege of moving as wishes. PCC never possessed special right conferred by SC resolution. UN personnel in same position as any other civilians and have no more right remain in No Man’s Land than any other. Dayan denied any intention challenging entire position UN in Jerusalem.
I replied stating was expressing only personal views, that did not believe armistice supersedes and cancels out SC resolution. Latter could only be altered by SC and remains in force until SC takes specific action or peace established. Mediator and UN personnel hold same powers and rights as before but could logically refrain from exercising certain ones. Restrictions in SC resolution on both parties remain fully in force. If Israel feels situation incongruous and wishes change should as UN member apply to SC. Not proper question for consideration by MAC. However, I doubted SC willing rescind various resolutions until final peace treaties signed.
Sent Department 426, repeated Geneva 38, London 21, Baghdad 39, Beirut 86, Damascus 41, Tel Aviv 58. Pouched Amman, Cairo, Jidda.