501.BB Palestine/8–1149: Telegram
Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell to the Secretary of State
Palun 273. Following is résumé important positions developments since recess.
1. General—since July 18 PCC through formal and informal contacts informing self on position parties since recess. Principal advisers now preparing questions on specific points at issue which PCC could put to parties in effort get them clarify and make more specific their positions. After receiving replies intention USDel and Turk delegation that PCC draw up compromise proposal which it could present to parties. If parties reject proposal USDel and Turk delegation favor placing general Palestine question on GA agenda, with possibility PCC might present suggested compromise solution for consideration GA.
One difficulty in this is attitude Boisanger who states belief it premature to present compromise proposal to parties and that PCC must continue discussions in effort conciliate parties. Alleges PCC has made progress and that on number important questions cannot be decided so fast. Moreover opposed to PCC going to GA with proposed solution stating PCC has mandate conciliate not arbitrate and that long as either party ready continue conciliation discussions PCC has no choice but do so.
Boisanger position coincides with that of Israelis who strongly opposed going to GA and state ready continue discussions here until settlement reached. Type of settlement they have in mind indicated by Sasson in private conversation when he said Israelis thought main task PCC was persuade Arabs adopt Israeli position and that PCC was wrong if it considered that conciliation involved proposals which would deprive Israel of any territory or envisage return of much more than 100,000.
Arabs generally favor going to GA. Some desire do so in order use GA as sounding board for restatement their position. Others such as Jordan delegation in order be “forced” to acquiesce in possible decision of GA resolution problem. USDel believes no Arab chief delegate here would dare break front by reaching agreement on important points which could be considered unfavorable to Arab position, and that view this and adamant Israeli attitude, position of Boisanger re possibility reaching agreement not sound. There has been progress on minor points but basic positions remain unchanged. USDel also believes that if GA passed plan which gave something to Arabs on territory there is good chance Arab states would accept.
[Page 1300]USDel thinks attitude Boisanger personal and not based on instructions his government. May be necessary for US and Turk governments discuss matter with French Government since there is extremely undesirable possibility parties may learn of serious divergence within PCC and also PCC can take no decisive steps unless agreement unanimous.
Territory—Israelis insist they need all territory they now hold especially Negev. Sasson has however twice indicated Israel might be able give up territory along Egyptian frontier in vicinity Auja.
Arabs are standing on 1947 partition, May 12 protocol and US territorial position. Syria and Lebanon interested in western Galilee, Jordan wants back triangle areas and Ramie Lydda and desires corridor to Mediterranean, and Egypt wants Negev up to line known to Department. Department familiar with tentative territorial suggestions USDel and Turk delegation. Work on established common territorial position in informal meetings of principal advisers has been stopped because Boisanger in line with his general position has instructed De la Tour Du Pin1 take no effective part in discussions and no responsibility for France in any proposal which might be drawn up. USDel knows however that French delegation possesses map probably prepared by Benzihta’s personal initiative, indicating suggested territorial distribution.
Refugees—Department familiar with Israeli proposition. In addition, Sasson states if several thousands of refugees are left over after Arab states have indicated how many they will accept, Israeli will accept for sake agreement.
Arabs publicly stand on December 11 resolution and state they will consider resettling those refugees who do not wish to return Israel.
Privately Syrian and Jordan representatives agree to inevitability resettlement large numbers in their countries but state view necessity maintain Arab unity and public opinion at home they cannot reach political agreement envisaging this.
Arabs about to present to PCC utterly unrealistic counterproposal on refugees in reply to Israeli proposition.
4. Jerusalem—Jerusalem committee has run into unexpected snag due attitude French representation. Benoist2 now arguing that it premature for committee to agree on Jerusalem as long as other issues unsettled, that Vatican pressure makes it difficult for French government to agree to anything less than complete internationalization, that UN authority in Jerusalem must control real property transfers [Page 1301] and immigration to city etc. Sudden tactics Benoist certainly reflect overall attitude Boisanger toward PCC initiative and probably desire French Government accommodate Vatican. Members French delegation state important French Catholics sending them personal letters urging complete internationalization.