501.BB Palestine/9–449: Telegram
Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell to the Secretary of State
Palun 295. Following comments USDel on Arab-Israeli replies PCC questionnaire (Palun’s 290 and 294).1
- 1.
-
Refugee—replies refugee questions seem fairly satisfactory in circumstances. Although Arab position on, return of refugees continues be as set forth Palun 277,2 Arabs can be considered to have accepted principle of resettlement, and Syria and Transjordan have formally stated they can receive those refugees who do not return. This seems substantial step forward, although by “those who do not return”, Syria and Transjordan theoretically mean those refugees who are left over after large numbers have returned to areas Palestine allotted Arabs by partition and to areas which will remain in Israel. Israel has once more formally committed itself to measure of repatriation. Although Arab position is as stated above, and Israelis state the wish only repatriate as part overall settlement refugee problem and Palestine conflict, and both sides say they can do nothing without international assistance, Arab and Israeli replies may be considered as political agreement on sharing responsibility for solution refugee problem.
Israeli and Arab agreement on necessity for continuation relief funds pending establishment repatriation and resettlement project [Page 1355] should be helpful when time comes seek further relief funds from UN.
- 2.
- Survey group—Israelis and Arabs at Lausanne have made commitments to facilitate task survey group and give full consideration its findings. Neither side has committed self to accept findings group, and Israeli has limited its willingness facilitate groups work to framework refugee proposition it has already made.
- 3.
- Territory—Arabs have weakened their territorial position by demanding more than partition gave, and by basing their demands upon confused mixture of May 12 protocol, need for Arab territorial continuity, alleged desire to secure territory for refugees in compensation for their lost homes, security needs, and plain desire for more territory. Arabs were clearly unable to agree among themselves on common territorial position and so threw everything into the pot, apparently leaving it to PCC or GA to decide what pieces should be pulled out given to them. Arab representatives have privately admitted this first territorial position is unreasonable but state they made it so because they knew Israeli position would be equally unreasonable.
Israeli territorial position, although mentioning May 12 protocol cannot be considered as based on it since it contemplates no adjustments in favor Arabs. Israeli emphasizing alleged legality their position view international instrument (November 29 Resolution) and international agreements (armistice) conveniently disregarding clause in armistice agreements safeguarding territorial claims parties.
Wide divergence territorial positions parties and rigidity Israeli position once more reveal unlikelihood arriving at voluntary agreement. USDel believes that no matter how attractive proposals of survey group may be to Arabs, there is little likelihood of proceeding from present armed truce line to more stable conditions unless Israel can be persuaded to relinquish some of territory it has occupied beyond partition lines. Some measure of agreement has been achieved on refugees, but judging from attitude representatives here, Arabs will not accept any territorial solution which makes the armistice lines, perhaps with minor modifications, the final boundaries of Israel. Syria and Transjordan, however, will probably in the end agree to put into effect survey group recommendations for resettlement of refugees actually in their territories even if there has been no territorial agreement and substantial numbers of refugees have not returned to Israeli controlled areas.