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

501.BB Palestine/8–149: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom

secret

Washington, August 1, 1949—8 p. m.

2710. Brit Emb reps and Dept officials have recently had further discussions re points in Deptels 2432, July 13 and 2582, July 23. Brit and ourselves now appear in substantial agreement in principle. It is of course understood that this is not a rigid position as developments at Lausanne might necessitate modification as discussions progress at Lausanne. Proposed Brit approach to Arab States, Israel, France and Turkey in support our similar views relating such matters as Palestine refugees, territorial settlement and Jerusalem area wld be most timely at this stage in view second phase of discussions at Lausanne.

For ur information, on July 25 Brit Emb rep conveyed to Dept further FonOff observations re certain details relating to points discussed in Deptel 2432, July 13. Dept plans transmit following comments to Brit Emb rep Aug 1 and suggests you also inform FonOff prior to general approach it proposes to make:

1. Re territorial settlement Dept does not believe only alternative is restoration of Western Galilee to Arabs by Israelis. Other alternatives might conceivably lie in area north of Beersheba and along Egyptian frontier south of El Auja; or,¹ in some form of UN guarantee of access across southern Palestine and to ports in Palestine;

2. Although it proved impossible to bring Israel and Egypt together with Gaza strip proposal as basis of discussion during recent PCC recess Dept hopeful proposal might be integrated with other refugee and territorial proposals for discussion during present phase Lausanne talks;

3. Dept agrees Arab govts might prefer conclude something less formal than peace treaty in first instance but does not believe absence of formal declaration of war would be valid argument as armistice agreements have been concluded between Israel and contiguous states.

Acheson

1. As originally drafted, there appeared at this point the words “if territorial compensation proves impossible.” They were deleted by the drafter prior to the encoding of the message.