501.BB Palestine/8–949
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Harlan B. Clark of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs
| Participants: | NEA—Mr. Hare |
| Mr. Paul A. Porter | |
| Mr. Mark Ethridge | |
| Mr. Fraser Wilkins, NE | |
| Mr. Clark (in part), NE | |
| [Mr. Faiz el-Khouri Syrian Minister] |
- (a)
- Problem: The Syrian Minister expressed the opinion that an injustice had been done in Palestine and said that he would like to have a further opportunity to make his views known to Mr. Porter and Mr. Ethridge in this regard. It is believed he may be motivated by personal reasons of prestige in asking to consult with Mr. Porter and Mr. Ethridge.
- (b)
- Action Required: In the present circumstances, it is recommended that any further request by the Syrian Minister for conferences with Mr. Porter be discreetly declined.
- (c)
- Action Assigned to: NE
Discussion:
After calling on Mr. McGhee (see memorandum of today’s date entitled “Views of the Syrian Minister on the Syrian Coup d’état of August 14”)1 the Syrian Minister asked to speak with Mr. Porter and Mr. Ethridge, who were consulting with Mr. Hare and Mr. Wilkins in an adjoining office. Upon being introduced to them, Faiz Bey began to criticize United States policy in regard to Palestine. He declared that this Government was powerless to act fairly in the matter since, like nearly every other country, the United States was completely controlled by Jews. He said that Jewish groups in England had extracted all the benefit that they could out of the British Government during the mandate period but that now Israel was an independent state they relied mainly on the United States to assist them in achieving their objectives. Mr. Ethridge and Mr. Porter asked specific questions as to how Faiz Bey believed that progress might be made in settling outstanding questions, but he turned them aside, with the remark that only by removing American support from Israel could a satisfactory settlement be made. He added that even Soviet Russia appeared to have been subject to Jewish influence and that in these [Page 1311] circumstances when all the countries of the world were under the control of the Jews, “why could I be blamed for acquiescing in their control?” This mystifying query appeared to be rhetorical and before discussion was resumed, Mr. McGhee came in to say that Mr. Porter and Mr. Ethridge were due in another conference in 2 or 3 minutes and asked that they be excused. Faiz Bey took his leave with the remark “You see, there is never any time for me to make my views known”.
Mr. Clark who accompanied Faiz Bey to the elevator said he was sure that Mr. Porter and Mr. Ethridge had been pleased to have this opportunity to talk with him and would have been glad to have discussed the question with him further were it not for the fact that their presence was urgently required at an important meeting already scheduled. Faiz Bey replied that he understood that perfectly and that what he was ref erring to was that he had tried to see Mr. Porter before his departure for Lausanne and had been told that he was so busy making necessary preparations for his work on the Palestine Conciliation Commission that it was not possible to arrange a meeting. Mr. Clark said that he knew that Mr. Porter had indeed been very busy prior to his departure but that at Lausanne he had had full opportunity to discuss all aspects of the Palestine question with the Arab delegates to the Conciliation Commission meetings including the Syrian delegation which was in possession of pertinent instructions from its government. Faiz Bey replied, “Yes, but Lausanne is not enough. The Palestine question must be discussed everywhere”. The Minister said he appreciated having the opportunity to meet Mr. Porter and Mr. Ethridge and seemed pleased at the reception he had received.
[Here follows the final paragraph giving an analysis of the personal motivations of the Syrian Minister in desiring a meeting with Messrs. Ethridge and Porter.]