357.AC/5–1150: Telegram
The United States Representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission (Palmer) to the Secretary of State
niact
606. Palun 351. Following receipt of Israel delegation reply on 6 May to PCC memo of 29 March, PCC has been in almost continuous session considering best method of replying to Israel and Arab states. PCC considered that in view of Israel’s acceptance of PCC proposals and Arab states’ conditional acceptance of procedure, only course open to PCC was to reaffirm its belief that its proposals taken as a whole provided best means of bridging gap between parties and to invite governments to designate fully empowered representatives to enter into negotiations in accordance with procedure proposed in 29 March memo. PCC this morning adopted note to be delivered this afternoon to Geneva representatives for transmission their governments. Text of notes mutatis mutandis follows:
“The Conciliation Commission for Palestine has the honor to acknowledge the reply of the Arab Governments to its memo of 29 March 1950. The Commission has also received the reply of the Government of Israel, under date of 6 May, accepting the proposals contained in its memo. The Commission finds in these replies a spirit of cooperation which it appreciates.
“In making its proposals the Conciliation Commission was guided by the resolutions of the GA on Palestine. The Commission also took into consideration the position of the Arab Governments and the Government of Israel on the implementation of these resolutions, having in mind those principles of law, justice, and humanity referred to [Page 889] by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt in Cairo on 14 April 1950 when he delivered the reply of the Arab Government. The Commission believes that its proposals of 29 March represent the best method of reaching a settlement of the refugee problem as well as all other questions outstanding between the parties.
“The Commission has not failed to note the various observations which have been formulated in response to its proposals. It considers that the problems thus raised could best be examined under the procedure proposed by the Commission in its memo of 29 March.
“The Commission wishes to take this opportunity to reaffirm that its objective in suggesting the creation of mixed committees was the attainment of the final settlement called for by the GA’s resolution of 11 December 1948. The past experience of the Commission has proved that the questions involved in such a settlement are linked to each other. Certain of these questions might be of a particularly urgent character and might be studied before others by common agreement of the parties.
“The Commission considers that the work of the mixed committees could not lead to favorable results unless the discussions take place in a completely frank manner and the parties have the opportunity of expressing their points of view with unrestricted freedom. It goes without saying that the principles laid down by the GA’s resolution of 11 December 1948 would have to be respected.
“The Conciliation Commission hopes that the Arab Governments and the Government of Israel will be represented in negotiations under the procedure envisaged in the Commission’s proposals of 29 March by delegation fully empowered to act on their behalf. The Commission would appreciate notification of the names of the delegates so empowered.
“The Conciliation Commission considers that negotiations under its auspices as proposed in its memorandum could begin in Geneva on 23 May 1950.”
An unfavorable response by Arab Governments to above note does not necessarily preclude further useful work by PCC. USDel feels however that in that case it is unlikely Israel will continue participate in PCC work, and that it will be difficult and perhaps undesirable continue indefinitely in desultory fashion such refusal will make inevitable. We feel therefore crossroads have been reached and that anything which Department can do to encourage favorable Arab response will be more than justified. We are aware, in view manifestations in ME capitals of rising anti-American feeling, that on balance Department may not find it desirable exert equal persuasion in all capitals concerned. In view first favorable reaction King Abdullah to PCC proposals, Jordan Cabinet’s reluctance continue unilaterally direct negotiations with Israel, Jordan’s recently expressed enthusiasm for concentrating UN assistance under UNPRA in Jordan, and doubt surrounding Jordan’s endorsement of Arab reply delivered [Page 890] Cairo on “behalf Arab Governments”, latest PCC note should provide Jordan with excellent opportunity undertake negotiations with Israel under PCC auspices and lessen risk incurring opprobrium of Arab neighbors. It is also possible acceptance by Jordan, if discreetly indicated in advance to other states, would encourage acceptance by all. USDel strongly recommends Department consider making known these views to King and Jordan Cabinet, as well as British, as early as possible.1
Success renewed negotiations under PCC proposals will depend also on quality of delegations sent to Geneva. Israel has indicated she will be ready send highest authorities, but will of course wait to see how Arabs will be represented. As for Israel, USDel and other members PCC feel it highly desirable Eban and Rafael, with whom we have been able work most successfully and who complement each other in their approach, return to Geneva. Boisanger intends take up in Paris this weekend question of Syria’s being represented by Atassi, Syrian Minister Paris. He has also sent telegram to Beirut suggesting Mikaoui’s replacement here by Fouad Ammoun, who in Lausanne had influential position among Arabs. It will in our opinion be difficult make any progress towards Israeli-Jordan agreement here unless Abdul Hadi is replaced by able Jordan representative with substantial authority. Abdul Hadi’s position borders on ridiculous with his complaints that he knows nothing of his government’s policy and his requests that PCC inquire as to whether or not he is expected by his government to remain Geneva. Department may wish consider these questions also with Jordan Government.
-
The Department, in a circular telegram of May 12, 7 a. m., informed U.S. missions at Arab capitals (except Amman) of the May 11 note of the Palestine Conciliation Commission and requested their views as to the course of action the United States should take. Similar messages were sent to London (telegram 2255) and to Amman (telegram 66) the same day making inquiry also concerning the views of the British Foreign Office and of the British Minister Kirkbride, respectively. These messages, as well as the replies from the various posts, are filed under 357.AC in the Department of State files. The Department concluded, on May 23, that “USG approach Arab Govts on behalf negots proposed by PCC appears inadvisable. Missions may in discretion offer informal encouragement.” (Circular telegram of 2 a. m., 357.AC/5–2350) Three days earlier, the Department had authorized Amman to “informally encourage acceptance PCC proposal, in response request ur views. Essential avoid impression new US approach or ‘pressure’ being exerted.
“Dept understands UK FonOff favors joint US-UK approach. Dept desires you consult Kirkbride but favors above line in order avoid any impression UK-US pressure being applied.” (Telegram 67 to Amman, 357.AC/5–1750)
↩