357.AC/4–2250: Telegram
The United States Representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission (Palmer) to the Secretary of State
niact
559. Palun 349. Rafael called on USDel last night en route New York from Israel. He had stopped in Geneva at Sharett’s suggestion to talk with USDel concerning Israel’s reply to PCC proposal of March 29. Having received from PCC substance Arab answer to Boisanger in Cairo 14 April, Israel would have to take into account real purpose and intent Arab answer. Israel regarded Arab answer as completely “bogus” and designed to make it impossible for Israel to reply affirmatively. Israel had received from most reliable source including Jordan delegation to Arab League, account of Arab League Political Committee decision with respect PCC proposal. It had been clearly stated that Arab answers should be couched in terms to give appearance of cooperation with PCC while in fact “thwarting” PCC’s efforts bring about agreement. Israel was thus convinced Arab states were as far as ever from making decision in favor final peace. Jordan however still intended renew peace negotiations and Israel put its greatest reliance on this prospect. Rafael read from letter which he said came from Abdullah in which King outlined steps he intended take. These were: (1) to proclaim on April 25 annexation east Palestine. (2) Immediately thereafter Jordan would welcome return of Shiloah to renew talks. (3) Discussions should take place both in Palestine and Geneva. Neither Israelis nor Jordanians would take seriously Geneva discussion where PCC would be used simply as “cover” for real talks in Palestine. (4) At later stage if it seemed desirable agreement reached locally could be brought forward for final acceptance under auspices PCC.
Rafael did not know what changes in previously initialed agreement King contemplated, if any. Israel had made clear to Jordan, however, that Israel would look favorably upon annexation eastern Palestine only within context of final peace settlement or nonaggression pact.
In discussing further Israel’s reply to PCC proposal, Rafael agreed that an affirmative, unconditional reply by both Israel and Jordan might strengthen Jordan’s position vis-à-vis Arab League and pave way for Israeli-Jordan agreement. Israel’s present intention however was simply to reply to PCC by reaffirming desire for settlement of all outstanding differences and by “clarifying” Israel’s understanding of mediation. While Israel accepted USDel’s definition of mediation, Israel was not sure other Commission members had similar views and [Page 868] was quite sure Arab views on mediation were entirely different. At same time Israel’s attitude would be affected substantially by knowing whether or not PCC would take clear and unequivocal position on Arab reply and for this reason Israel wished to know USDel’s views before deciding finally on its answer.
We told Rafael that in our opinion only way PCC could take the clear and unequivocal position Israel desired was to receive from Israel an affirmative, unconditional reply to PCC proposal. With such a reply, PCC would have strongest answer to Arab’s conditions. We feared moreover that should Israel undertake so-called clarification of mediation, this would start all over again the process of trying to reconcile unreconcilable views. If on other hand Israel accepted PCC formulation on mediation as contained in memorandum of 29 March, which did not differ from USDel views on mediation, whole theoretical question might be avoided in practice without prejudicial effect. In short PCC could be of greatest assistance under present circumstances if Israel’s answer was on merits of PCC proposal and without reference either to Arab reply or to what was behind Arab reply.
Discussion of pros and cons this question lasted for hour and half, in very frank and friendly exchange of viewpoints and in “thinking out loud together”. Rafael said that he would make known our views to Israel Government. We had impression he was partially convinced at least of wisdom unconditional acceptance. He suggested possibility of Israel’s clarifying mediation question in press and public relations campaign which Israel was considering undertaking, without including question in reply to PCC. Such a campaign in itself might prove dangerous to healthy atmosphere, but for time being USDel feels it is most important concentrate on encouraging acceptance our proposal without conditions. Department assistance this respect (Palun 348 April 19) at this time will be most helpful.