Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V

IO Files, Lot 71 D 440¹

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Wells Stabler²

secret
US/A/AC.38/96

[New York,] October 9, 1950.

Subject:

1) Uniting for Peace

2) Jerusalem

3) Refugees and PCC

4) Timing of Palestine Question

Participants:	H. E. Abba Eban, Israeli Delegation
	Arthur Lourie, Israeli Delegation
	Gideon Rafael, Israeli Delegation
	John Ross, U.S. Delegation
	Wells Stabler, U.S. Delegation

Mr. Rafael asked Mr. Ross and me to lunch today to discuss the following questions:

[Here follow two numbered sections of discussion on the American draft resolution on “Uniting for Peace” and on Jerusalem.]

3. Refugees and PCC

Mr. Eban spoke with some emphasis regarding the necessity for eliminating any reference in any refugee resolution passed this year to the right of refugees to return to their homes, which was contained in the 1948 resolution and reaffirmed in 1949. Israel felt that such reaffirmation would only give the Arabs further excuse to procrastinate. Israel considered that any Arab entering Israel was no longer being repatriated but he was being resettled in a foreign land. Those who went to one of the neighboring Arab countries were considered as having been repatriated. He doubted whether Israel could repatriate any substantial number of refugees. Mr. Rafael said that there were now 167,000 registered Arabs living in Israel, as well as 20,000 Bedouins.

Mr. Ross and Mr. Stabler said they felt Israel would make a great mistake in opposing the reaffirmation of the 1948 principle on refugees. In practice, most people believed that resettlement was the only answer, but at the same time the principle enunciated in 1948 could not be abandoned. Moreover, its reiteration in 1950 could do no possible harm to the Israeli position. Mr. Ross then raised the question of whether Israel could not lift the compensation question out of the context of an overall settlement and express a willingness to examine that question immediately. It might be possible to establish a sub-committee to consider this question without relation to other outstanding problems. This question might conceivably be what was causing the log jam at the present time. It was pointed out that Israel would not be committed to anything immediately upon agreement to consider the compensation question in this manner, because it would take a long time for a Committee of Experts to study this highly complex problem. Mr. Eban said the Israeli government might be willing to consider the compensation question as the first item, but it was essential that this be a forerunner to more definitive negotiations. He stated that payment of compensation was something that ordinarily was done only between two governments that were at peace and that until such time as peace had been achieved, it was difficult for the Israeli government to pay compensation. He explained that a continued state of war between the Arab states and Israel cost Israel money and weakened her financial position. Consequently, they found it very difficult to agree to the payment of compensation unless they were assured that settlement of other outstanding questions would follow. He expressed the thought that the General Assembly might pass a resolution which might refer to the compensation question as being a matter for discussion outside of overall settlement and to the need for the two parties to get along with their negotiations for the settlement of outstanding issues, either directly or through the PCC.

4) Timing of Palestine Question

Mr. Eban thought that the Palestine question, at least the Jerusalem part, might come up in the next ten days or so. He said his delegation would not object to this. With respect to refugees, it was of course necessary to wait until the reports of the PRA and PCC had been received.

Wells Stabler

1. Lot 71 D 440 is a master file of classified records and correspondence of U.S. Delegations to sessions of the U.N. General Assembly for the years 1945–1965, maintained by the Bureau of International Organization Affairs.
2. Detailed as Adviser to the U.S. Delegation to the Fifth Regular Session of the General Assembly, which met at New York from September 19 to November 5.