501.BB Palestine/7—2849: Telegram
The Chargé in Jordan (Stabler) to the Secretary of State
294. Tel Aviv telegram [566] July 26 to Department1 repeated Amman 24. I agree with Ambassador McDonald it would be futile attempt settle Jerusalem problem on basis first suggestion Deptel 101 July 22.2 If proposal meant demarcation of zones without internationalization, Transjordan would probably accept. However if it meant internationalization of Jerusalem called for in GA resolution of November 29, 1947, it is believed King would oppose it notwithstanding official attitude of Transjordan as expressed at Lausanne. On Israeli side there seems little doubt proposal, with or without international, would be resisted in every possible way. Consequently if UN should proceed along this line, it is believed another opportunity would present itself for flaunting [flouting] of such decisions.
Unless it shortly becomes clear that Israel accepts Department’s proposal re MAC (Deptel 82, June 17)3 without reservation it would appear problem will have to be dealt with by PCC along lines second alternative Deptel 101 and as originally proposed by Legation. Would suggest definite time limit now be set re Israel’s final reply Department’s proposal.
While agreeing with Ambassador McDonald that it would be most unfortunate if members of PCC prove unable agree amongst selves on single proposal, feel time has now come for PCC to take matters into own hands and put forward soonest definite joint proposals for settlement all outstanding issues. Further discussions with Arab and Israel delegates along lines first part Lausanne conference will, I believe, prove to no avail and will only lead to failure present session. With anticipated change Israel attitude and with continuing pressure on both Arabs and Israel it may be that sufficient leeway will exist between positions both parties to permit PCC to put forward compromise proposals.
I fear single man authority suggested by Tel Aviv would have no more chance success than PCC in settling Palestine question as he would still be obliged deal with Arab states as group and Israel. It seems certain Arab states would not agree at this stage enter into separate negotiations with Israel under UN auspices. Moreover it would not be possible for Arab states in their present frame of mind to undertake direct negotiations with Israel. This due fact that for [Page 1269] first time since beginning Palestine conflict Arab states represented at Lausanne have reached some degree cooperation and understanding and deviation by any state from this line would be regarded as “treachery”. Transjordan for one which is so sensitive to criticism at this time could not consider such direct negotiations. In addition to above it is felt any plan put forth by “single man authority” would suffer the same fate as Bernadotte plan in GA.
I concur views expressed Deptel 105 July 264 that at this critical stage fullest support should be given US representatives PCC and to PCC in general. PCC should be encouraged present joint proposal, acceptable to member states and UK, to Arab and Israel delegates Lausanne. Moreover US should be prepared to give its fullest support to such proposal with assurance that its position will not change.
Department summarize USDel PCC.
Sent Department 294, repeated Tel Aviv 37, London 54, Jerusalem 138, Baghdad 73, Beirut 54, Cairo 36, Damascus 57. Pouched Jidda.