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

501.MA Palestine/7–1349: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Legation in Syria

secret

Washington, July 16, 1949—6 p. m.

284. Urtel 380 July 13¹ indicates different interpretation than that intended by Dept of word responsibility in Depcirctel June 27. Dept’s position that Israelis and Arabs bear primary responsibility for solution refugee problem contains no implication of blame for sequence of events leading to creation of refugees but is based squarely upon physical fact that problem intrinsic to the area by virtue of physical presence of refugees in Arab states, separated from their property, asssets and homes in Israeli or Israeli-controlled territory. Since US does not accept primary responsibility nor would support UN in acceptance, such responsibility must reside in Israel and Arab states. Concept of responsibility was dicussed openly and frankly by US rep with all Arab dels Lausanne, all of whom appeared fully to understand US position. For these reasons, Arab dialectics can do no more than perpetuate deadlock, without in any way removing refugee problem from geographical sphere of Arab states. Both sides have inescapable responsibility to take action re refugee question or suffer consequences to their own security which will inevitably result from continued inaction.

Dept fully aware of pros and cons of past history with respect to creation refugee problem. We are firmly convinced, however, of necessity both parties abandoning their preoccupation these arguments if any solution is to be achieved before major disaster is precipitated by refugee problem.

Depcirctel June 27 and Depcirctel July 9 1 a. m. in essence offer Arabs and Israelis two alternative choices: Depcirctel June 27, together with Depcirctel May 27 1 a. m.² on which it is based, clearly indicate basis on which USG prepared offer material assistance in solution refugee problem. Depcirctel July 9 1 a. m. cites alternative of complete inaction by Israelis and Arabs, with resultant inability of international community initiate further action and attendant repercussions upon best interests Israel and Arab states.

You shld therefore proceed make representations along lines Depcirctel June 27 and July 9, emphasizing considerations set forth above.³

Acheson

1. Not printed.
2. Not printed; it repeated to Arab capitals the text of telegram 674, May 23, to Bern, p. 1047.
3. This telegram was repeated to Tel Aviv and was pouched to Arab capitals, London, Paris, Jerusalem, and Ankara and to Bern for the American Delegation at Lausanne. Minister Keeley discussed the content of telegram 284 with the Syrian Prime Minister on July 17 and reported that the latter “was visibly and volubly disappointed that no distinction was made between Syria and Israel or between Syria and certain other Arab states in assessing blame for alleged inaction.… In addition to making maximum contribution to refugee relief it long ago offered to accept for resettlement double or more number already parked on its territory. Acceptance responsibility for creation of refugees as implied by Department in referring to problem as one of ‘Israeli-Arab’ making was another matter and simple justice aside no Syrian Government could stand which accepted any part of blame for creation of Arab refugees or which thus or in any other way admitted or connived in alienating right of refugees to return to their ancestral homes in Palestine and their right to compensation for losses if in actual circumstances they are precluded by Israel from returning or do not wish to return to live under Israeli tyranny.” (telegram 390, July 18, 9 a. m., from Damascus, 501.MA Palestine/7–1849)