357.AC/6–1350: Telegram
The United States Representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission (Palmer) to the Secretary of State
priority
730. Palun 361. Egyptian representative requested with PCC afternoon 12 June to deliver Egyptian reply to PCC note of 30 May and to make general statement on behalf government. Abdul Monem requested also that representatives of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan be invited to attend. In three-hour meeting Abdul Monem, noticeably tense, made lengthy statement, general tenor of which was disappointment of Egyptian Government at meager results of Commission’s year and half of existence, denunciation of Zionist and Israeli policy and tactics, sharp criticism of Western Powers, and throughout a distinct note of finis. At end of statement Abdul Monem announced replacement of Egyptian delegate by Egyptian Minister at Bern, Safwat Bey, to continue Egyptian representation during PCC meetings Geneva.
In his statement Abdul Monem declared Egyptian delegate had been astonished at failure of PCC to reply to question of Arab States as to whether Israel had agreed to follow the GA recommendation for return of refugees to their homes. Commission in its 30 May note had merely made a statement to effect that right of refugees to return and payment of compensation to those not wishing to return was one of basic principles of GA resolution. Such statement indicated nothing justifying a change in attitude already taken by Egyptian Government to PCC proposal. If Israel accepted unconditionally and categorically return of refugees, Egypt would be willing take part in discussions in mixed committee on refugees. On other questions present procedures should be followed until agreement with Israel had been reached on principle and then, and only then, would Egyptian delegate participate in mixed committees on such other questions.
[Page 929]Turning to a review of year and half of PCC’s existence and Palestine situation in general, Abdul Monem characterized PCC’s work as having achieved meager results of little value. Proposals put forward in PCC by Arab delegates had never been taken up as result of Israel refusal to consider them. Past experience forecast a pessimistic future for PCC, while reason for present distressing situation in Palestine, including discriminatory treatment and brutal persecution of Arabs living in Jewish-occupied territory, to be found in policy of Zionist and Jewish ideology, unfortunately supported by certain powers whose actions concerning everything except Palestine problem were based on democratic principles and peaceful intentions. Policy of Jewish immigration presented serious danger to Middle East security and something for powers supporting Zionists to think over carefully. Jewish immigration policy had two calculated results: to prevent return of refugees to their homes and to make expansion inevitable.
Summing up, Abdul Monem stated that PCC had failed in its mandate as result of policy of fait accompli followed systematically and with impunity by the Jews and encouraged by certain of great powers. He had learned with great disappointment of joint French, UK and US declaration of 25 May, the first consequence of which was to help consolidate present state of affairs in Palestine and to support those following the policy of faits accomplis. It was high time for PCC, which had dealt too tenderly with Jewish susceptibilities, to make clear to world that reason for its failure was refusal of Israel to respect UN resolution.
Shukairi, Syrian representative, supported wholeheartedly Egyptian statement, which offered point of view of entire Arab world. Syria’s position was exactly same as Egypt’s on PCC proposals. PCC’s clarifications brought to light no new factors. It was in fact redundant and superfluous for PCC to give analysis of its own terms of reference. Arab States had not asked for that, but for assurance by Israel of its intention abide by GA resolution. What Arab States had asked could not be regarded as condition to accepting PCC proposals, but as something already laid down by GA. Shukairi then took up various matters included in PCC’s progress reports (reunion of families, blocked accounts, et cetera) and inquired why PCC characterized any of these as progress.
He next outlined the four stages of PCC’s failure. First was when great powers had advocated and supported admission of Israel to UN without making any effort to assure the success of PCC’s efforts. PCC was bound to fail under these circumstances. Second was lending of military, financial and political assistance to Israel by members of UN without requiring any assurances for the success of the PCC’s work. PCC was likewise bound to fail under such conditions. Third [Page 930] was de jure recognition by certain countries of Israel without requiring any assurance of cooperation with UN and with UN organ, PCC. Why would not PCC fail under these conditions? Last and most fatal blow to efforts of PCC was Three-Power declaration of 25 May. PCC could not be blamed for its failure. It had not been supported by the UN or governments of members of PCC itself. Perhaps actions taken in four stages he had outlined had been taken without consulting PCC. In any case such actions were opposite of support for PCC work.
In conclusion Shukairi said that it was PCC’s duty to look at situation in this way: that continuation of present state of affairs would lead ultimately to a human catastrophe and upset peace of Middle East and it was PCC’s duty to so report to UN. In its report PCC could not complain of Arab attitude which was simply to ask for carrying out of UN resolution. Israelis, on other hand, demanded negotiations and peace treaty which meant simply opening of Arab markets, establishment of diplomatic relations, refugees out, and all territory retained. The philosophy of Israel was no concession, no retreat, continued consolidation and continued aggression. This was bound some day to ignite Middle East. Shukairi then stated that if PCC thought it possible to continue, he should like to be informed in order to advise his government, to whom he would report in next few days, since he would be leaving Geneva at end of week.
Mikaoui, representative of Lebanon, in a comparatively brief statement declared that Israel had done nothing to facilitate PCC’s task, which had become so arduous as result their intransigence, and stated that Lebanon maintained common attitude adopted by all Arab countries at Arab League Political Committee meeting and communicated to PCC by Egyptian Foreign Minister 14 April.
Abdul Hadi, Jordan delegate, remained silent until chairman raised question of press communiqué on Arab attitude to outline of which Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese representatives had agreed. Abdul Hadi then stated that communiqué could not accurately reflect “Arab” attitude, since he had not spoken and could not speak for lack of instructions. Communiqué as issued today stated briefly that Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese delegates had maintained their attitude and that Jordan representative being without instructions had reserved his right to reply to Commission’s note of 30 May at later date.
American and French delegates with Principal Secretary (Eralp, Turkish adviser, being absent in Marseilles to meet Yalcin who returns tomorrow) met this morning to consider situation with which PCC is now confronted. It was generally agreed no immediate action should be taken pending possible reply from Jordan to 30 May note. Possibilities of a recess for delegates and PCC members to make contact their governments or removal of PCC to Jerusalem to make further efforts with governments concerned and prepare report to GA [Page 931] where considered. Consensus seemed to be PCC’s best course, if Jordan reply is negative, would be to remove to Middle East probably around July 15. US delegate believes PCC cannot by its action or reports minimize seriousness present impasse and that forthright action is required. Trip to Middle East seems to be first step to be taken this direction.1
- The Department summarized this message, with a request for comments, in a circular telegram of June 16, 6 a. m. to Cairo, London, Paris, Tel Aviv, Damascus, Beirut, and Amman for action and to Jidda, Ankara, and Baghdad for information (357.AC/6–1650).↩