357.AC/4–1930: Telegram
The United States Representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission (Palmer) to the Secretary of State
priority
548. Palun 348. Today and 17 April PCC had most cordial and satisfactory meetings with Director and Advisory Commission PRA who leave tomorrow for Beirut. Meetings consisted of exchange views on respective roles PCC and PRA, which revealed no misunderstandings or differences of opinion, and review by members of PCC of developments Middle East and progress PCC’s work. It was agreed effective liaison between two bodies should be maintained and that staff members PRA and PCC Jerusalem should be designated to receive and transmit information of interest both groups.
As yet no reply has been received from Israel to PCC proposal. Sharett requested Boisanger forward information coming from Arab states to him through Kahany, local Israeli liaison officer with European headquarters UN. PCC has communicated to Kahany1 substance Arab reply, given Boisanger Cairo 14 April, with request Israel reply be made in near future and that such reply be given PCC on merits PCC proposal and without undue concern over Arab reply to Boisanger.
[Page 866]PCC is hampered in dealing with present critical stage by absence qualified representatives Israel and Arab states. Israeli officials have already made statements in press tantamount to negative reply to Arab answer. USDel is convinced that best move Israel can make, in own interests, is to accept promptly and without condition PCC proposal and send representatives here to work out details. PCC proposal is in fact affirmative response to Israel’s own demand for direct negotiations to settle all outstanding questions, and while it includes provision for PCC mediation, the latter proposal has been explained by us to apparent satisfaction Eban and Rafael. In absence an affirmative and unconditional reply from Israel there is little with which PCC can go to Arabs in effort obtain satisfaction amendment their position. Under the circumstances, USDel believes this viewpoint can be most effectively expressed to Israel by Department in Washington and AmEmb Tel Aviv.
Eytan has stated to press recently that talks with PCC in Lausanne, New York and Geneva have got exactly nowhere. He should remember that at Israel’s request Geneva talks have left greatest possible freedom of action and initiative to Israel, which has got Israel exactly nowhere. It could well be impressed upon Israelis that more reliance on PCC assistance and less on their own methods might in end be more profitable. Unless Israelis ready make genuine and magnanimous effort through PCC, USDel sees little prospect peace negotiations with any Arab state in near future or any justification for continuation PCC’s efforts. Arabs have for first time agreed sit down with Israel provided principles UN resolution area agreed to. Unless Israel meets this challenge we doubt Arab states mood is such that any further concessions will be forthcoming from them. Israeli acceptance unconditionally of PCC proposal would in our opinion be effective acceptance Arab challenge which would provide opportunity work out terms of reference for overall conference which, when put into operation, would not, we are convinced, prejudice Israel’s interests. USDel recommends Department consider making known these views to Government Israel through Embassy Washington and AmEmb Tel Aviv. Boisanger and Eralp2 concur in our view and of necessity such démarche. They intend recommend immediately similar action to their respective FonOff’s with whom Department may wish coordinate.