501.BB Palestine/8–1549
President Truman to President Weizmann, at Rehovoth, Israel 1
My Dear President Weizmann: Thank you for writing me personally with regard to our note of May 29, 1949, and your Government’s reply of June 8. I appreciate your desire to remove any misapprehension regarding the position and intentions of your Government. I am certain a personal talk would be helpful. As this is not possible at the present time I shall endeavor to answer certain of your points.
It is true that many long months have passed since the Palestine question was first referred to the United Nations. On the other hand, it is our belief that the United Nations has made remarkable progress in view of the complexity of the problem. It may also be true that, in theory, a single individual such as Count Folke Bernadotte or Dr. Ralph Bunche would have been able to proceed more rapidly than a commission consisting of three or more members. In practice, however, experience has demonstrated that a single individual can only succeed with active assistance on the part of interested governments. We believe that the present Palestine Conciliation Commission has been able to function effectively, when one considers that it is responsible for negotiating a longer range political settlement whereas the Acting Mediator’s functions were confined to the achievement of shorter range military agreements.
The proposals which the Israeli delegation at Lausanne has advanced have undoubtedly been helpful to the Palestine Conciliation Commission. Although some of these proposals have not been adopted, it may be recalled that the representatives of Israel, Lebanon, Syria, [Page 1306] Transjordan and Egypt on May 12, 1949 were signatories to a protocol of the Commission which should have the effect of facilitating further discussion of all questions, including the refugee problem, and thereby of achieving a final peace settlement. It seems reasonable to consider the Arab agreement to the protocol of May 12 as a general reply to the Israeli proposals.
With regard to the general question of the Arab refugees, you may recall that the General Assembly resolution of December 11 provided that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return. I am, therefore, glad to be reassured by your letter that Israel is ready to cooperate with the United Nations and the Arab states for a solution of the refugee problem; that Israel pledges itself to guarantee the civil rights of all minorities; that Israel accepts the principles of compensation for land abandoned by Arabs; that Israel declares its readiness to unfreeze Arab accounts under certain conditions; that Israel has set up a custodian of absentee property; and that Israel is ready to readmit members of Arab families.
It may be noted, however, that in making these proposals the Israeli delegation made them conditional, in general, on the conclusion of peace and other limiting factors, and that the representatives of the Arab states, on the other hand, considered the General Assembly resolution as imperative and mandatory.
With regard to (1) access to ports and means of communications, and (2) the delimitation of frontiers, it again seems reasonable to believe that the protocol of May 12 might be considered as a constructive basis on which these matters could be discussed. With regard to the Jerusalem question, it is my understanding that the Palestine Conciliation Commission has made excellent progress during which it consulted all interested parties and that it is presently in the process of preparing its report on this subject for the General Assembly in accordance with paragraph (8) of the General Assembly resolution of December 11.
In view of these developments at Lausanne, I believe one may conclude that the Arab representatives are prepared to enter into negotiations with the objective of achieving a peace settlement. This conclusion would appear to be reinforced by the Commission’s communique of July 28, which reports that “the Arab delegations and the delegation of Israel have given express assurances regarding their intentions to collaborate with the Commission with a view to the [Page 1307] definitive settlement of the Palestine problem and to the establishment of a just and permanent peace in Palestine.”
The Commission has already activated a number of subsidiary groups, such as the General Committee, the Jerusalem Committee, and the Technical Committee on refugees. It is my understanding that the Commission now has your project regarding additional subcommittees under consideration and that the commission might take advantage of your project to facilitate further discussions.
With regard to direct negotiations, it may be recalled that the General Assembly resolution of December 11 provides for negotiations conducted either with the Palestine Conciliation Commission or directly. Thus far the representatives of the Arab states have been unwilling to enter into direct talks. It may be hoped, however, that further progress at Lausanne might make it possible to conduct negotiations both with the Palestine Conciliation Commission and directly.
With regard to the refugee problem, we are of the opinion that primary responsibility for a solution to this problem rests with Israel and the Arab states and that, assuming all concerned are willing to approach it realistically and constructively, the United Nations, including its individual members, might be willing to assist the states concerned in reaching such solution. It is reassuring that Israel, for humanitarian reasons, is ready to contribute as far as it can toward a solution of this problem and has been readmitting Arab refugees and is ready to reunite Arab families.
During your recent visit to the United States I talked to you about my feelings regarding the refugees and the question of a final territorial settlement. These views were repeated in the recent exchange of notes between your Government and mine. I would be less than frank if I did not tell you that I was disappointed when I read the reply of your Government to our note of May 29. Even after talking with Ambassador Elath, following his recent return from Tel Aviv, I am not certain that the present proposals of your Government will affect the current conversations at Lausanne in such a way as to achieve a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab states.
Whether or not one can say that Israel has cooperated with the Commission, it seems to us that the views of the Israeli Government are in many respects at variance with the General Assembly resolution of December 11. The views of the Israeli Government may also be considered as failing to take into account the principles regarding territorial compensation advanced by the United States as indicated in our Aide-Mémoire of June 24.
[Page 1308]With regard to territory, your reassurances that Israel has no aggressive designs against anyone and that it is not looking for additional territory are appreciated. We can understand that you might be somewhat apprehensive on security grounds; nevertheless, it seems reasonable to believe that the conclusion of armistice agreements with the neighboring Arab states should prove reassuring and that both Israel and the Arab states on the basis of the General Assembly resolutions of November 29, 1947, and December 11, 1948, should be able to discuss the territorial question.
I sincerely hope that both Israel and the Arab states will continue the discussions at Lausanne in a conciliatory spirit and with a greater understanding of the problems which exist between them. If both sides undertake an approach of this kind a settlement in Palestine would be greatly facilitated. Such a settlement would be an extremely important contribution to the stability of the Near East and the well-being of its peoples. It would, in addition, provide a basis on which it would be possible more constructively to plan for the future.
Very sincerely yours,
- This letter was drafted by Mr.
Wilkins on August 8 and transmitted to President Truman for
approval by Secretary Acheson with his memorandum of August 10.
The memorandum noted that “Sending a reply [to President
Weizmann’s letter of June 24] at this time should be helpful in
view of the discussions now taking place at Lausanne.” The White
House returned the proposed reply to the Department on August
15, with the President’s approval.
Mr. McGhee handed the President’s reply to Ambassador Elath on August 18 (see Mr. McGhee’s memorandum of that date, p. 1323) for transmission to the Israeli President. The Department, on August 19, sent a summary of the reply to Tel Aviv (telegram 535, 501.BB Palestine/8–1949) and on August 31 transmitted copies of the Truman–Weizmann correspondence to Tel Aviv, Arab capitals, Paris, London, Ankara, New York, and Jerusalem for background information only and not for discussion outside these various missions (501.BB Palestine/8–1549). Copies were also sent to Geneva for the American Delegation at Lausanne on September 6 (501.BB Palestine/9–649).
↩