357.AC/3–3050: Telegram
The United States Representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission (Palmer) to the Secretary of State 1
niact
455. Following receipt US views (Unpal 247, 24 March) Boisanger and Yalcin agreed to presentation memorandum embodying PCC proposal without release any information to press. Text as forwarded Department Palun 3382 remains unchanged except for minor grammatical improvements. PCC also agreed that Boisanger and Principal Secretary should proceed to Jerusalem about April 5 to be available ME Governments for consultation. They will return before April 17 to attend meetings to be arranged with Kennedy Mission.
In view Yalcin’s departure for Turkey 6 a. m. 30, PCC invited Arab and Israel Delegates to meetings afternoon of 29th. Upon receiving notice of scheduled meeting Rafael immediately called Barco to request private conversation before seeing Commission. In conversation morning of 29th Rafael showed marked spirit of cooperation. He wished to know purpose of afternoon’s meeting with Commission in order to coordinate efforts to greatest extent possible. Barco explained first purpose of meeting would be to inform all delegates of chairman’s prospective trip to Jerusalem and that no meetings of PCC with delegates would be scheduled during period 1 April to 17 April to enable delegates to make contact their governments if they desired. PCC would remain intact at Geneva for any meeting that might be necessary. Rafael expressed keen disappointment USDel would not be going to ME and surprised that French Foreign Office had agreed to trip by Boisanger alone. Barco explained that as things had developed alternative to trip by chairman was full Commission trip which [Page 826] could not be made as informal as we felt conditions required. He said that Palmer had great desire to visit countries concerned but especially wished to be able have frequent and informal contacts on both government and non-government level which would not be possible during Commission tour. We felt therefore Boisanger as chairman could elucidate Commission’s position and lay groundwork for later visit by Palmer. Rafael seemed satisfied with wisdom this decision. Barco then explained Commission would present memorandum to each delegate for transmittal to governments concerned outlining PCC’s views on how present deadlock can best be broken. He summarized contents of PCC proposal and explained procedure PCC would follow in effort maintain confidential nature of communication.
Rafael took no exception to substance of proposals. He expressed no objection to idea of coupling appeal for direct over-all negotiations with mediation, asserting that Israel’s only fear of mediation was Arabs interpretation of mediation as in fact arbitration. Commission’s view of mediation role appeared acceptable to him. He was concerned, however, over PCC’s decision maintain its proposal as confidential, saying that time had come when soft approach should be abandoned since only decision to be made by Arabs was whether have peace or war. Issue had to be presented squarely by Commission and this required public announcement. Israel Government he said was on point of addressing note to PCC outlining its views on present stalemate which might constitute reply to PCC memorandum and which Israel would insist should be made public.
Barco told Rafael PCC had decided on keeping memorandum confidential to give it best possible chance of acceptance and to avoid misinterpretation in press which might crystallize whatever opposition to it there might be. He told Rafael Commission was most anxious no government make hasty reply and pointed out that if statement by Israel Government at this time could be interpreted as negative response to Commission’s proposal this might well insure negative response from Arab Governments. He hoped therefore Israel would give most thoughtful consideration to this possibility before addressing any communication to PCC and that before any release were made to press it would be possible for Rafael and USDel to consider together how best this could be accomplished. Rafael agreed not to make any reply before giving USDel opportunity study text but urged Commission not close door on possible release to press of PCC memorandum and Israel communication. He recognized that release of Israel note alone might put PCC in awkward position.
In view these developments USDel proposed and Boisanger and Yalcin agreed Commission should inform Arab and Israel Delegates that for time being PCC memorandum should be regarded as confidential [Page 827] and that before PCC made any release to press each government would be informed in order that any communication from them could be coordinated with PCC’s release. At meetings afternoon of 29th Israel and Arab Delegates received PCC announcements and memorandum without significant comment other than to extend cordial invitation to chairman to their countries and to agree to forward memorandum to their governments who would give it most careful consideration.
USDel believes Israel may now be more disposed take reasonable attitude to PCC proposal. Rafael’s attitude, at least, so indicates, although his reaction may be personal. Arab countries may not be so well disposed in view of position they have taken re Jordan-Israel talks. We feel it is essential that Department indicate at earliest possible moment in Washington and ME capitals its support for PCC proposal and its concurrence in trip to ME by PCC chairman for consultation.