357.AC/9–1851: Telegram
The United States Representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission (Palmer) to the Secretary of State 1
niact
1698. Palun 445. On afternoon of 15th Fischer, Israel rep, called at his request to inform USDel he wld not be able fol procedure we had agreed upon for today’s mtg as reported Palun 444, Sept 14.2 He had however submitted certain suggestions to his govt which he hoped wld be accepted and wld provide way out of difficulty. He agreed inform me of his govt’s reply to his suggestions as soon as recd.
Yesterday evening Fischer called again to say Shiloah wld arrive Paris 8:15 Monday morning and wished call upon USDel as soon as possible after his arrival. This morning, Monday, Fischer arrived at Emb without Shiloah, who he said had not arrived as scheduled. Under circumstances he cld not receive PCC proposals and requested Comm withhold submission to Arab Dels. I explained Arab Dels had clearly expressed their wish receive PCC proposals at today’s meeting after they had responded to chairman’s opening statement and that in our opinion it wld be unfortunate for Comm to have to submit [Page 865] proposals to one of parties without communicating them to other. I wld, however, inform my colleagues of Israel Rep’s request.
At immediately fol PCC meeting Comm decided if Arab Dels concluded their statements in today’s meeting and continued indicate their desire receive proposals, Comm had no choice other than submit proposals this time. To withhold proposals at request of one govt when four govts had indicated wish receive them wld inevitably create impression PCC delaying its proposals in order make them compatible with Israel views. At this morning’s meeting with Arabs after statement by Shukairy in name of all dels, I therefore read text of proposals to dels and provided them with copies. In reading text, I divided proposals into two parts, preamble and proposals proper indicating PCC view that consideration preamble was important preliminary to consideration remaining items. Shukairy’s statement fols:
“The Arab League Dels desire at outset, to repeat their thanks to the warm welcome extended to them by the Honorable Commission. We wish also to place on record our appreciation of able explanation of term ‘conf’ frequently referred to in opening statement of the Comm. Apart from being praiseworthy, the interpretation of the chairman on this point tends to remove any misinterpretation. The Arab Dels wld like to seize this opportunity to reiterate their readiness to collaborate with the conciliation Comm in its efforts to arrive at a just and equitable settlement of the Palestine question. Ever since the Comm embarked upon its mission, the Arab League Dels have been responding to invitations to meet the Comm in Beirut, Lausanne, Geneva and New York. It is in this spirit that we have come to Paris to resume our meetings with the Comm.
“We have given a careful study to the opening statement delivered by the chairman of the Comm last meeting. The general pattern of the proposals the Comm intends to place before us is so wide that it is not appropriate at this stage to attempt a detailed analysis. It is only when we are presented with specific proposals that we deem it possible to define our final attitude.
“The Statement of the Comm, however, has introduced certain criteria and considerations foreign to the resolutions of the UN, and not within the context of the Palestine problem. To begin with, it is our respectful submission that the PCC as its name and terms of ref indicate, is confined to dealing with the Palestine problem. All the outstanding questions together with the refugees problems are part and parcel of the Palestine question. As such, the problem does not involve rights, duties and relations of states. Interstate relations are matters regulated in accordance with the established principles of international law, inasmuch as such relations are acts of sovereignty which are exercised at will and discretion. The creation, cessation or absence of relations between states are exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of every state. These relations ranging between recognition and ‘bon voisinage’ agreements exclusively fall within the orbit of national sovereignty, and as such cannot be subjected to the cognizance of the UN or any of its organs.
[Page 866]“Confident that the Comm does not challenge this principle, the Arab Dels can rest sure that the proposals to be offered by the Comm will be restricted to the issues relevant to the Palestine problem. The Comm, we believe, will refrain from touching upon any matter incidental to the rights, duties and relations of states. Yet it is worthy in this connection to point out that the provisions of the armistice agreements have taken due care of the security situation in Palestine. Ample injunction has been made in the said agreements against resort to mil force or any aggressive action. As parties to these agreements we shall continue to respect obligations thereunder. This undertaking of no aggression, no resumption of hostilities and no resort to the force of arms is the sole obligation that the charter of the UN can dictate over states members.
“In second place, the Arab Dels wish to point out that proposals envisaged by the Comm shld be within the framework of the resolutions of the GA. With regard to the problem of the refugees, the Comm has a specific mandatory task in para II of the res of 11 December, 1948. It is well understood that the fairness and realism referred to in the statement of the Comm will be applied in the direction of implementing the resolutions of the GA. Any other interpretation wld lead to the frustration of the GA resolutions. It must be remembered, however, that the role of the Comm with regard to para II is implementation and not conciliation. The Assembly has already decided the issue by fairness, realism and any other criterion it has to apply. The matter of the refugees stands res judicata, passed to the Comm for effective implementation.
“Thirdly and without discussing the interdependence or otherwise of the various aspects of the Palestine question, the Arab Dels deem it necessary to emphasize the priority and urgency which shld be accorded to problem of the refugees. Recognized by the GA the rights of the refugees are not contingent or dependent upon the say of Israel. The only qualification placed upon the refugee in his option to return to his home is his readiness to live at peace with his neighbors. Peace here shld emanate from the refugee himself. It is obvious that the rights of the refugees do not constitute commitments by Israel. Israel’s respect to these rights, apart from being fundamental and imperative, does not place upon the Arab States obligations not imposed under the charter of International Law. Under the GA res of 1947 the rights of the Arabs in Israel prevail over any constitution or enactment of law. To ask the Arab States to provide assurances for the economic security of Israel in return to the respect of the rights of the refugees is a novelty in international dealings. The economic security of Israel is Israel’s concern and duty. Israel claims to be a sovereign state and it is for her to secure an economy which is her making and in which we have no say. The deplorable plight of the refugees shld not be used as lever to secure Israel in the very economy she has planned. The rights of the refugees are preexisting the existence of Israel, and the Arab Dels legitimately consider themselves under no obligation towards the economic development, stability or security of Israel.
“In conclusion, it is appropriate to recall that the Arab League Dels have discussed with the Comm the various aspects of the Palestine question. The refugees, the territorial aspects, blocked accounts, broken families and various other conservatory measures—all have been exhaustively examined. To each of these items due time and effort have [Page 867] been dedicated. Concentration of discussion was not a monopoly to one aspect or the other. The failure so far is not due to certain procedures. Likewise, it is not due to concentration on one item or its isolation from the general context. The reason is to be found primarily in the negative conduct of Israel and its persistence not to recede from the ‘fait accompli’.”
The incessant and sincere efforts of the Comm to achieve the acceptance by Israel of the res of the GA did not succeed. The protocol of May was ignored by Israel. The armistice lines, against the express provisions of the armistice agreement, are final in the eyes of Israel, to say nothing of expansionist intentions. The attitude of Israel as shown in the various documents of the Comm, has contributed in bringing about the failure of the conciliation efforts.
It has thus become clear that the process of conciliation lacks a party to conciliation. Before Israelis made to respond to the call of the UN for cooperation with the Comm within the perimeter of the resolutions of the GA the conciliation efforts will remain fruitless. For our part we shall continue to collaborate with the Comm in goodwill, faith and determination.”
After my reading text PCC proposals, Arab Dels stated they wld not respond at this time but wld reserve their comments for more detailed exposition by Comm of its proposals at subsequent mtgs. USDel was encouraged by relative moderation Shukairy’s statement, absence insistence prior settlement refugee question before discussion other subjects and apparent acceptance Comm’s proposals as substitute for agenda.
During this mtg, Shiloah arrived in Paris and telephoned requesting USDel lunch with him. I informed him at luncheon of action taken at mtg with Arab Dels and urged him see way clear to receive PCC proposals at mtg scheduled with Israel Del this afternoon. In long discussion of pros and cons Comm’s procedure, Shiloah indicated Israel preoccupation was with idea of PCC’s putting forward own suggestions for solutions various problems during course of mtgs. For PCC to suggest any solutions was in fact, to take position on what Israel shld “give” and to prejudice whole issue by stiffening Arab attitude. PCC, he indicated, shld restrict itself to discussing with parties choice of agenda items and leave to parties negotiation solutions under such agenda items. In response to our question as to whether Israel did not expect “give” something in course of negotiations, Shiloah clearly implied Israel cld not consider giving anything, and referred to Israel’s original offer re repatriation as withdrawn. He believed, however, it would be appropriate for Comm to call upon the parties to sign a nonaggression declaration, which Israel wld be prepared to do at once, and to refrain from submitting other suggestions. He felt Israel cld not even consider other matters until after signature such an agreement.
[Page 868]USDel explained, without apparently convincing Shiloah, that best chance in our opinion for successfully negotiating nonaggression declaration was to emphasize it as preliminary item for discussion and agreement before consideration items in pattern of proposals. But we further explained that to submit to Arab Dels nonaggression declaration as sole item for discussion wld be to invite their refusal consider such item until they were informed full extent Comm’s other proposals.
On matters arising under armistice agreements Shiloah stated Israel wld never agree discuss with all Arab Dels items relating only to relations between Israel and one Arab Govt and that Comm shld propose parallel conf in which Arab Dels interested in over-all problems wld be invited only to such problems together, while series individual mtgs shld be arranged on problems involving Israel and single Arab country.
USDel again urged Shiloah find way receive proposals at this afternoon’s mtg and pointed out discussion such as was then taking place between us wld be more profitable and less academic if Israel Del had before it very proposals under discussion. It was our impression at this point Shiloah agreed receive proposals at this afternoon’s mtg.
At mtg, however, Israel Rep declined receive proposals in brief statement read by Fischer as follows:
“Before making any ref to the statement made by Mr. Palmer on Thurs last, my del wld like to submit to the Comm a few observations on the atmosphere surrounding the opening of the conf. The very word ‘conf’ invokes in the public mind the idea of the invited parties mtg round the same table. It is not surprising that the public and the press shld tend to interpret the calling of the parties to separate mtgs as the result of the refusal of certain of them to meet the other, which other can be none but Israel, whose attitude in principle is well-known. The adoption of an official attitude by the Comm wld serve to avoid any misunderstanding suggesting that the invitations separate mtgs were not the free choice of the Comm.
“My del deeply deplores the statements made on the occasion of the conf by certain Arab leaders. Statements which go so far as to proclaim that the Arab States refuse ‘to the end of time’ to make peace with Israel indicate a disposition as incompatible with the spirit of the UN as with that of the conciliation Comm’s mission. In fact, these statements proving in advance the failure of the Comm’s effort. The Arab Govts accepted the invitation, but their acceptance can be nothing more than a pure formality, devoid of any reality, unless the attitude of extreme hostility again so recently manifested is replaced by the expression of a sincere desire to live in peace with their Israel neighbors.
“My del thought it necessary to make these few gen remarks before referring to the text of the statement marking the official opening of the conf. The text of that exposition of the Comm’s intentions was communicated to the Israel Govt in order that they might transmit to us their instructions as to a reply. The nature and importance of the text are such that my del will be unable to give the Comm the [Page 869] elements of a reply until it has recd its instructions. I can assure the Comm that the question is being studied with all the despatch appropriate to the importance of the subj.
“In the meantime, my del has recd instructions to answer the common, one specific and essential point, which it emphasizes as being the first requisite for any positive advance towards a peaceful solution of the problems before us.
“It is in the desire to live peaceably together, as good neighbors, with the Arab people, that my govt has sent us as its reps to this conf. It is therefore without any reserve that, at the beginning of the conf, my govt expresses its determination—and I quote the text of Mr. Palmer’s statement—to respect each other’s right to security and freedom from attack, to refrain from warlike or hostile acts against one another, and to promote the return of permanent peace in Palestine.
“As to the proposals, I wish to recall the chairman’s statement to the effect that the Comm offered to submit proposals to the parties.
“This offer was communicated to my govt which has not as yet had time to take a stand on this matter. Therefore, I cannot on my own auth take the initiative of agreeing to receive the Comm’s proposals.
“It was stated at the first mtg that the proposals wld not be tabled before the parties had had an opportunity of answering the chairman’s opening statement.
“I wld like to recall that before this present mtg I had expressed the hope that the Comm wld find a way of not handing in its proposals before my govt had had an opportunity to answer the opening statement. Also, I believe that it wld have been more equitable not to give these proposals to one party when the other party had indicated that it was not ready to receive the same proposals. The reason why I am not in a position to receive the Comm’s proposals at the present time is that a question of a principle is involved. Also, I want to repeat that the Comm had clearly stated that the proposals wld be tabled only after the parties had answered the chairman’s statement. It is not for me to answer the question of whether the proposals shld have been tabled before the govts had decided on their answer, but under the present circumstances I must await a decision of my govt before being able to receive the Comm’s proposals.”
In view Fischer’s statement, I stated Comm regretted Israel Rep was not in position receive proposals but that we hope he wld soon be in position to do so. Comm wld await further word from him.
If Israel continues object to principle of PCC’s putting forward suggested solutions, USDel sees little hope for success present mtgs. Very raising of issue is bound have adverse effect upon Comm’s position with Arab Dels which in our opinion is better at this point than at any time in past 2 and 1/2 years. Comm is, however, proceeding with plans for further mtgs with Arab Dels when nonaggression declaration will be presented as first order of business. Outcome these discussions unlikely be encouraging to further work if meanwhile it is known PCC is in jurisdictional impasse with Israel, implying Israel’s unwillingness consider concessions.