501.BB Palestine/7–1149: Telegram
The Ambassador in Israel (McDonald) to the Secretary of State
niact
528. Acting immediately on Department’s instructions its circtel unnumbered July 9 and Deptel 433, July 7,1 Ford and I talked with Sharett at Foreign Office 35 minutes early morning July 11.
I presented with utmost earnestness USG’s strong views that Israel should accept broader base MAC jurisdiction Jerusalem in order advance settlement of additional issues including permanent demarcation lines and possible agreement to be incorporated by PCC in its general Jerusalem plan for UN GA.
Replying Sharett gave “conditional” answer promising “fuller and more definitive” later after consultation. He put forcibly these objections:
- 1.
- Transjordan armistice is binding but not yet implemented. Israel insists on implementation before broadening base discussions with Transjordan. USG “instead of putting pressure on Transjordan to carry out armistice is putting pressure on Israel to agree new terms negotiations without and before implementation existing armistice”.
- 2.
- USG position if accepted would be “unhealthy precedent” because any agreement “could be made null by one party insisting on new terms before carrying out original terms”. Moreover, acceptance USG proposal would involve “much larger issues than Jerusalem”; e.g. Abdullah’s authority over whole Arab Palestine which Sharett said would “remain Arab but not necessarily under Abdullah”.
- 3.
- “Practically USG terms difficult acceptance because in negotiating final demarcation lines Jerusalem, Transjordan is expected make far-reaching claims including return of former Arab portions new city, which Israel will resist.” Acceptance USG’s present suggestion would mean that “Washington influences would he used against Israel on issue permanent lines.”
- 4.
- At end, Sharett reiterated that above answer was conditional. Not final.
Comment: I anticipate that Israel’s final reply will in essence be as above. Unless Department can offer to Israel more convincing reasons for acceptance than those in Deptel 405,2 Israel will continue, I fear, to resist USG proposal and will insist on carrying out Transjordan armistice.
Personally, I cannot avoid conviction that some Burdett’s arguments Jerusalem’s telegram 66, June 25, repeated Department 405 [445] are ingenuous. For example, his contention that “problems mentioned in Article 8 are of prime importance to Israel but of relatively [little] interest to Arabs” and that if US supported Israel’s demand for carrying out this armistice article “without Arabs receiving adequate return” they “could only conclude US indirectly exerting further pressure for further concessions to Israel;” this argument seems to me to demand that Israel make new concessions in order that USG consent to urge Transjordan Garry out armistice terms. Tough-minded realistic Foreign Office here not likely accede unless offer tangible Quid pro quo. End comment.
Re my suggestion (Embtel 524, July 93) I still feel Jerusalem conference with Riley and Burdett highly desirable.
New subject re refugees; I put most strongly considerations Depcirtel July 9.
Sharett’s reply in summary follows:
- 1.
- “Israel is not responsible for refugee problem.”
- 2.
- “We are vitally interested in problem and that something be done soonest and are anxious help. We may not have said last word re our proposals but situation extremely difficult”. Then Sharett added grimly that “repeated and publicly obvious representations by USG to Israel on this subject make government’s concessions more difficult. We need to be allowed to act without visible American pressure”. Further reply awaits conference Foreign Office with Eban who expected July 12.
Comment: I hope but I am not sure that Sharett’s words foreshadow more constructive refugee proposal by Israel than any heretofore. End comment.
Sent Department, repeated Jerusalem 58, Amman 18, Bern 12.