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

501.BB Palestine/6–1449: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Legation in Switzerland

secret
priority

Washington, June 20, 1949—8 p. m.

Unpal 160. USDel Lausanne. For Hare. Palun 204, June 14.¹ You shld inform Israeli rep US views along fol lines: USG greatly disturbed over present Israeli attitude refugee question, which represents marked departure assurances expressed by Eban May 5² before Ad Hoc comite GA when seeking UN membership. This attitude equally difficult reconcile with Gaza strip proposal, which represents firm admission on part Israel its ability assume responsibility 230,000 refugees plus 80,000 normal residents area. By refusal come forth with constructive proposal based on quantitative acceptance without territorial acquisition (penultimate para Palun 174, May 28³), Israel has effectively blocked any possibility obtaining cooperation Arabs in resolving refugee question and any justification further US approaches to Arabs this purpose.

You shld express to Israeli rep USG’s disappointment re failure his Govt carry out purposes GA res Dec 11, despite Elath’s formal assurances contained his letter May 11 to SecState re Israel’s desire make utmost effort to bring its policy into conformity with resolutions of UN, and despite US offer technical financial assistance to Israel and Arabs in implementing program for solution of refugee problem under conditions specified and as part UN program (Unpal 114, May 23⁴). You shld emphasize that onus of responsibility resolving refugee question lies squarely on Israelis and Arabs, and that USG is under no mandate from UN to lend its material resources to solve problem of Israeli-Arab making.⁵ Therefore USG greatly regrets Eytan’s implication that Israeli agreement repatriation is contingent upon assumption financial responsibility by US, and must reiterate that agreement repatriation is obligation placed upon Israel by international community under Dec 11 res.

USG further notes with disappointment that Israeli Govt has shown no inclination meet conditions on which US offer assistance (Unpal 114) was based. In event conditions met at future date, USG wld be prepared at that time consider question of assistance to Israel and Arab states. However, you shld emphasize implications such delay, since US support of refugee settlement program conditional upon UN action and sponsorship. Such program wld necessitate time-consuming and laborious preparation by PCC prior to presentation to GA this autumn. Under present circumstances, PCC not in position initiate preparation such program in absence necessary political cooperation. Therefore any additional delay will mean increasing difficulty if not impossibility obtaining UN action this year.

You shld also inform Arabs USG attitude.⁶

Webb

1. Identified also as telegram 577 from Geneva, not printed.
2. See footnote 2, p. 979.
3. Identified also as telegram 821 from Bern, p. 1069.
4. Identified also as telegram 674 to Bern, p. 1047.
5. Mr. Hare, on June 23, advised the Department that prior to and after Mr. Ethridge’s departure, the American Delegation had been reluctant to raise the question of general economic aid at PCC meetings, in the absence of general political agreement between the Arabs and Israelis. Its reluctance was based on the expectation of “almost certain leak” to the press and on the possibility that the PCC and the UN Secretariat might devote their entire attention to this subject. The American Delegation, however, had “privately discussed substance Unpal 114 and Palun 180 with French and Turkish members PCC but does not plan discuss question officially in PCC until commitments mentioned Palun 168 and 174 are forthcoming. We continue to attach importance to reservation in Palun 180 because of importance keeping PCC handling of refugee and territorial questions in step.” (telegram Palun 226 from Lausanne, 501.BB Palestine/6–2349)

   Palun 180 from Lausanne and Unpal 114 to Lausanne are printed on pp. 1086 and 1047, respectively. Palun 168 and 174 from Bern are printed on pp. 1065 and 1069, respectively.

6. Mr. Hare delivered the message contained in Unpal 160 to Mr. Eytan on January 22. The latter “made no comment on substance of message other than to say it would be duly considered and that he assumed reply in action rather than words would be preferred. I said that was exactly the case.” (telegram Palun 227, June 23, 11 a. m., from Lausanne, 501.BB Palestine/6–2349)

   The Department, on June 27, directed Tel Aviv to take the line set forth in Unpal 160 in discussing the refugee question with the Israeli Government (telegram 406, 501.BB Palestine/6–2749).