501.BB Palestine(E)/9–149
The British Embassy to the Department of State
55/121/49
Palestine
1. While pursuing with the State Department plans for the Survey Group the Foreign Office have also had under consideration what policy should be adopted by the United Kingdom Delegation at the forthcoming General Assembly when the future of the present Palestine relief measures is debated. They have reached the following conclusions:
- (a)
- The final solution of the1 problem lies in resettlement, and not in relief. The emphasis should lie heavily on resettlement when further international help is considered.
- (b)
- The final settlement of the refugee problem can only be reached within the framework of a territorial settlement for Palestine. Moreover, Israel and the neighbouring Arab States have an inescapable responsibility in regard to the refugees which they must be made to acknowledge if they are to receive large scale financial help from outside for development projects in connection with resettlement.
- (c)
- It should be represented to the Arab States concerned that whatever territorial settlement is finally reached and whatever number of refugees Israel is persuaded to accept there is bound to remain a “hard core” of refugees with which they will have to cope. They cannot escape this responsibility by postponing a political settlement, and they may well forfeit international help for resettlement by doing so.
- (d)
- Development projects will not be able to absorb all the refugees for a period of years after the development projects are started. Even though the latest estimate for United Nations relief for Palestine refugees suggests that relief can be carried on until December (i.e. two months longer than previously estimated), the Survey Group will hardly be able to make its report, let alone secure the necessary finance before the present relief runs out. There will, therefore, be a gap in the provision of relief which will have to be filled.
2. The Foreign Office believe that the State Department shares their reluctance to continue relief without being certain that resettlement is on the way. Equally the Foreign Office fear that the number of refugees to be settled might drastically be reduced by illness and death if no provision, other than that of local governments, were to be made to fill the gap before resettlement. The Foreign Office therefore wish to proceed on the following lines as soon as the constitution of the Survey Group may definitely be spoken about:—
- (a)
- To put to Israel and the Arab States the basis for a settlement contained in the attached paper2 and urge them to reach final agreement within this framework as soon as possible on the lines set out in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 above.
- (b)
- To warn these governments that existing funds for relief are expected to run out in the autumn or early winter, and that it is at present highly problematical whether further funds for relief will be forthcoming from the United Nations. However much either side may argue that they are not themselves responsible for the refugee problem the fact remains that the refugees are in their territory and will constitute a very great burden if no settlement is reached and the provision of financial help for resettlement is thereby discouraged. (A British approach to the Jordan Government, which has done so much more than any other for the refugees in proportion to its now exhausted resources, would have to be on somewhat different lines.)
- (c)
- Explain the functions of the Survey Group and hold out the3 financial help for resettlement schemes.
In the approach described above the British Government would not speak of further plans for relief but would be prepared to take the following lines at the General Assembly when the matter comes up. Provided the Survey Group is duly constituted with the task of reporting to the Conciliation Commission and makes recommendations to the appropriate bodies for the financing of development projects leading to resettlement the United Kingdom Delegate could announce at the United Nations Assembly British willingness to participate in further interim relief measures (provided contributions already promised to UNRPR are paid up) in the ratio of one to nine as against all other international contributions including that of the United States, i.e. the United Kingdom contribution would form one in ten of the total contribution. The upper limit of the British contribution would be £500,000 (in inconvertible sterling as before) and funds could not be voted until the 5th April 1950. The Foreign Office feel that the present United Nations relief scheme has relied too exclusively on American and British contributions and that every effort should be made to secure proportionate contributions from other member States.
3. The debate in the General Assembly is likely to raise the question in what proportion it is considered that refugees should be resettled as between Israel and the Arab States. The Foreign Office is aware that the United States Government have been pressing Israel on this subject and would be grateful to learn of what number in excess of 100,000 the United States Government consider Israel should take. It is clearly difficult to fix an exact figure but the Foreign Office consider it important that agreement should be reached on an approximate figure.
4. From information in possession of the Foreign Office it seems that the three delegated authorities (the International Red Cross, the League of Red Cross Society and the Quakers) at present engaged in Palestine refugee relief will be extremely unwilling to continue their work under the UNRPR unless fresh funds are in sight by October and there seems to be a real danger of the present relief measures breaking down unless something can be offered by that date.
5. The Foreign Office would much appreciate the observations of the State Department on the above proposals and would be most grateful if these observations could be received within the next week.