357.AC/5–1650: Telegram
The United States Representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission (Palmer) to the Secretary of State
priority
619. Palun 353. Shiloah returning from vacation trip to London stopped last night in Geneva to call on USDel on instructions from Sharett to obtain clarification PCC letter of 11 May (Palun 3511). Israeli Foreign Minister was anxious to know PCC’s exact intention in sending letter, with particular reference following points: (1) Did PCC expect reply from Israel prior to informing Israel of designation Arab delegates participating in new PCC procedure? (2) What [Page 894] was significance date of 23 May for convening conference? (3) What would be minimum PCC would accept as Arab reply? (4) If Arabs replied making conditions similar to those made by Egypt Foreign Minister in Cairo, would PCC expect Israel to send representatives Geneva?
In explanation his questions, Shiloah pointed out to best their knowledge Israel believed Arabs did not intend engage in serious discussion for settlement outstanding issues whatever form their answer might take. Israel did not wish repeat experience of Lausanne2 and saw no utility in going through motions of peace settlement. Their discussions with Abdullah were on point of recommending [fruition?] and they would require certain time to develop understanding with Jordan which could then be completed here under PCC auspices. Because of shortage qualified representatives, it would be difficult carry on necessary preliminary discussions with Jordan in Palestine simultaneously with meetings in Geneva with PCC. In reply Shiloah’s questions, USDel explained that PCC’s intention was to reiterate that its proposals of 29 March in their entirety represent finest method of procedure; in having Israel’s acceptance of procedure as proposed, PCC had in effect requested from Arab states similar acceptance without conditions. Because we believed no progress likely under other procedure, minimum which PCC could usefully accept from Arabs was in fact reply such as Israel had given PCC. We could not expect Israel to send representatives to Geneva for proceedings substantially different from those we had proposed and Israel had accepted, unless it appeared to them and to us at later date that such would serve useful purpose. Date of 23 May was indicated as possible time for reconvening, but not as fixed time. We did not actually expect all delegations to be represented at this early date, nor did we expect further reply from Israel until we could inform them of acceptance by some or all of Arab states.
Beyond these explanations, with which Shiloah appeared satisfied, we did not indicate approval idea of postponement replies pending outcome negotiations in Palestine with Jordan. On contrary USDel continues feel, and so informed Shiloah, Jordan would be well-advised promptly accept PCC proposals. Actual date for commencement negotiations here could be adjusted to give time for any preliminary talks thought desirable.
- Identified also as telegram 606, May 11, from Geneva, p. 888.↩
- The Palestine Conciliation Commission had used Lausanne as its headquarters in 1949 for its discussions with Arab and Israeli delegations; for relevant documentation, see Foreign Relations,1949, vol. vi, pp. 594 ff.↩