501.BB Palestine/6–2449: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Israel
priority
398. Following Aide-Mémoire delivered today to Israeli Chargé1 by Deputy Under Secretary Rusk:
“The Government of the United States has received the note delivered by the Government of Israel to the United States Ambassador in Tel Aviv on June 8, 1949, in response to the note of the United States Government dated May 29, 1949. The United States Government considers that there is an identity of interest between it, the Government of Israel and the Governments of the Arab States in the early accomplishment of an equitable settlement of the Palestine question, an interest which is in fact shared by all of the Members of the United Nations. It is therefore regrettable that the Government of Israel did not respond more affirmatively with respect to the questions of Palestinian refugees and of boundaries discussed in the United States note. The United States Government will wish at an early date to discuss these questions further with the Government of Israel and other interested Governments, but in the meantime desires to make the following observations with respect to the note of the Government of Israel dated June 8, 1949.
The United States Government does not consider that there has been any misunderstanding on its part of the position taken by the Government of Israel, as stated by Israeli Representatives at Lausanne, on the disposition of the refugee problem and on the final terrritorial settlement in Palestine.
With regard to refugees, Israeli Representatives stated that the Israeli Government will do nothing further at the present time, although it has under consideration certain urgent measures of a limited character. This position appears to be strongly reaffirmed in the Israeli note of June 8, 1949. The Government of Israel referred in that note to its readiness to pay compensation for land abandoned, to reunite families separated by the war, and generally to make its contribution to the solution of the problem by resettlement. It does not indicate that [Page 1175] it is ready to contribute to the problem by accepting a substantial portion of the refugees on the basis of repatriation. On the contrary, the note states, “It is inconceivable that the Government of Israel should find itself able to undertake in one and the same breath the absorption of mass Jewish immigration and the reintegration of returning Arab refugees.” It is quite true that the Resolution of the General Assembly of December 11, 1948, indicated that repatriation should be permitted “at the earliest practicable date” but it can hardly be supposed that this reference to practicability was intended to subordinate repatriation to mass Jewish immigration into Israel.
With regard to the statement in the Israeli note of June 8, 1949, that the incorporation within Israel of the Gaza strip and the refugees located therein was suggested by the United States member of the Conciliation Commission, the Government of Israel will recall that Prime Minister Ben Gurion made this proposal to Mr. Mark Ethridge at Tiberias on April 18, 1949.2 The United States Government has studied with interest a proposal along similar lines made by Israeli Representatives at Lausanne on May 20, 1949,3 and sees no reason why the proposal might not become the basis for discussions between the Government of Israel and other interested Governments.
The United States Government regards the solution of the refugee problem as a common responsibility of Israel and the Arab States, which neither side should be permitted to shirk. It is for this reason that it has urged Israel to accept the principle of substantial repatriation and to begin immediate repatriation on a reasonable scale, and has urged the Arab States to accept the principle of substantial resettlement of refugees outside Palestine. The United States Government is convinced that unless both sides contribute fully to the solution of this problem, there is no basis for a settlement either of the refugee problem itself or of the other principal issues remaining unsettled. The United States Government is also convinced that the assumption of responsibility for the refugees by Israel and the Arab States constitutes a necessary condition to the provision of international assistance in the permanent disposition of the refugee problem.
The Government of the United States notes that the Government of Israel maintains that it cannot accept the principle of territorial compensation, related to the 1947 partition award, since that award was based on a series of assumptions which failed to materialize. It is observed, however, that the Government of Israel places considerable emphasis upon the continuing validity of the 1947 award where such emphasis supports its own position, for example, in connection with the military occupation by Israel of the southern part of the Negev during a period of truce and in connection with the presence of Syrian troops in a portion of Palestine allotted in 1947 to Israel. In any event, the partition of 1947 is the only authoritative expression of the views of the United Nations with respect to a just territorial division of Palestine between Arabs and Jews. The General Assembly has not indicated in which respects, if any, it believes the territorial basis of that award should be modified in the light of any changes in the assumptions on which that partition was based.
[Page 1176]With regard to the statement that the United States position on the territorial question does not represent a policy of the United Nations, it must be recalled that, as a member of the United Nations Conciliation Commission, a body charged by the United Nations with promoting a final solution of the Palestine problem, the United States has the right and, indeed, the duty of advancing such positions as it believes may contribute to a just and lasting settlement. The United States Government could find no basis for such a settlement in the position taken by Israeli Representatives that Israel expects to retain all areas allocated to it by the 1947 Resolution of the General Assembly, to retain areas which it has occupied outside the 1947 partition lines, and to submit further demands as to territory in Arab Palestine in connection with the Israeli development program.
The United States Government can not accept the contention of the Government of Israel that the admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations indicated that the members of the world community considered as satisfactory the attitude of Israel with respect to the provisions of the General Assembly Resolution of December 11, 1948. Mr. Eban stated before the Ad Hoc Committee of the General Assembly on May 5, 1949,4 that it was his Government’s understanding that nothing but the provisions of Article IV of the Charter were relevant in the consideration of an application for membership in the United Nations. He added that, while proposing to give the official views of the Government of Israel on the problem of Jerusalem and on the Arab refugees, he reserved Israel’s opinion with regard to the relevance of extraneous issues to the question of admission to membership. The present effort of the Government of Israel to invoke support from the General Assembly for its position on such questions seems to be at variance with the basis on which it itself sought support for its admission to the United Nations. If there is any misunderstanding on this point which appears to impair the prospects of a settlement, the General Assembly can itself provide an authoritative interpretation of its action at its next regular session.
The United States Government has noted with appreciation the reference of the Government of Israel to the friendship for Israel of the Government and people of the United States. The suggestions which the United States Government has made in connection with a settlement of the Palestine problem have been motivated by deep and genuine concern for the peace and stability of the Near East, of which Israel is as much a part as are the Arab States, and by friendly interest in the future welfare of Israel. The United States Government continues in its resolve to do everything within its ability to assist the governments and peoples concerned to find a peaceful and lasting settlement of the Palestine question.
In conclusion, the United States Government wishes to emphasize its view that the military phases of the Palestine question must now be considered as terminated, and that any government which attempts to effect a particular settlement by the renewal of hostilities or the threat of hostilities would incur a grave responsibility before the community of nations. The United States Government welcomes the assurances it has received on this point from Representatives of the [Page 1177] Governments directly concerned and looks forward to an early settlement which will relieve the peoples of all communities in and around Palestine of the misery and violence which has been their lot during recent years.”
Further comment will follow.5
- In a memorandum of June 24, Acting Secretary Webb described his meeting of June 20 with President Truman, as follows: “I reported to the President on my talk with the Israeli representatives [on June 17] and indicated that it would be necessary for us to answer the latest Israeli note.” (501.BB Palestine/6–2449)↩
- See telegram 312, April 20, from Jerusalem, p. 925.↩
- See telegram 769, May 20, from Bern, p. 1036.↩
- See footnote 2, p. 979.↩
- This telegram was repeated to Bern for the American Delegation at Lausanne. Thomas E. Bromley, First Secretary of the British Embassy, called on Gordon H. Mattison, Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs, on July 5 to inquire on behalf of the Foreign Office whether the United States had modified its recent approach to Israel regarding the refugee question and territorial compensation. Mr. Mattison informed Mr. Bromley that the second communication to the Israeli Government “did not represent any change in our approach to the subject. The reply had been designed to clear up certain Israeli misconceptions, as well as to reiterate our point of view.” (memorandum of conversation, by Mr. Mattison, 867N.48/7–549)↩