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

501.BB Palestine/8–749: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom

secret
niact
priority

Washington, August 7, 1949—5 p. m.

2798. Dept has following comments on Embtel 3071 Aug 4 and Embtels 3099 and 3104 Aug 6:¹

1. Ref Para 3 Embtel 3071 and after studying Embtel 3099 Dept reiterates position stated in Deptel 2710 Aug 1, which stated “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 would be most timely at this state in view second phase of discussions at Lausanne.”

Dept considers Brit might approach NE govts as have French Turkish and US govts during recent months on these and other matters. Dept does not consider that supporting approaches necessitate quote formal unquote agreement. In our view Brit approach would represent voluntary indication to interested govts of general Brit thinking and of basic conformity with our general thinking. Dept considers it preferable to maintain flexibility at this stage rather than to adopt rigid position.

2. Ref Para 4 Embtel 3071. Dept considers that Brit might approach French, Turkish and NE govts simultaneously although it has no objection if Brit prefer to approach French and Turkish govts in advance. Dept has no objection if Brit inform French, Turkish and NE govts that US–UK are in substantial agreement in principle providing it is pointed out that our position is not rigid and will take into consideration developments as discussions progress at Lausanne where USDel is following same line in private discussions with French and Turks.²

3. Ref Para 5 Embtel 3071. Dept considers that our substantial agreement in principle holds promise as basis for approach to interested govts and might serve as basis for informal discussions at Lausanne, but that it does not represent quote basis for negotiations in PCC unquote. US, French and Turkish Dels are already taking initiative at Lausanne as indicated in Palun 265.³ British supporting approach to French, Turk and NE govts should therefore be helpful at this time.

4. Ref Embtel 3099. Dept is in substantial agreement in principle but suggests regarding section “g” that sentence should read quote US–UK favor incorporation central Arab Palestine in Jordan, when feasible unquote.

5. Ref Para 3 Embtel 3071 and Embtel 3104. Dept would appreciate your informing Brit FonOff foregoing views before Brit approach French, Turkish and NE govts.⁴

Acheson

1. Telegram 3104 not printed.
2. London reported, on August 9, that the Foreign Office had instructed the British Embassies at Paris and Ankara to approach the French and Turkish Foreign Offices regarding the proposals and that it had decided to await the reactions of the French and Turkish Governments before approaching the Arab Governments and Israel (telegram 3129, 501.BB Palestine/8–949).
3. Dated August 5, from Lausanne, p. 1286.
4. This telegram was repeated to Bern for Mr. Porter.