357.AC/9–2451: Telegram
The United States Representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission (Palmer) to the Secretary of State 1
priority
1834. Palun 450. 1. Shiloah, now in US, returning Paris shortly. After talks with Sharett and Eban he will probably seek to explain to Dept Israel Govt concern re PCC submittal formal proposals without [Page 876] having first reached understanding with parties re agenda in this form and procedure.
2. Shortly before Israel del submitted September 21 Israel Govt response2 to PCC opening statement Shiloah personally expressed to me hope that if response was disappointing or seemed somewhat unpleasant US Del wld not take it too seriously. I felt then he wished avoid appearance Israel responsibility for possible breakdown PCC discussions here and I had same feeling in last minute talk he sought Sept 22. In course of talk I told him US Del naturally disappointed Israel govt response had not evidenced better understanding present PCC effort and doubly disappointed in that some phrasing and particularly refs to Arab states had made next steps more difficult for PCC. I suggested it wld have been helpful to PCC and in Israel’s interest if recent Arab pronouncements unfriendly to Israel had been ignored at this time by Israel Govt.
3. Shiloah said Israel Govt’s general concern re new PCC effort strongly expressed last week’s cabinet mtg which he attended. He explained concern as due to: (a) Feeling that proposals as submitted indicate a position taken by PCC and preclude bargaining between parties Israel Govt considers essential for settlement “outstanding differences” whether through direct negots or with PCC mediation or under other UN auspices; (b) conviction Arabs regard proposals as involving commitment by PCC and therefore establishing minimum concessions which they may expect from Israel; (c) doubt Arabs disposed sign non-aggression accord preliminary to consideration of proposals without knowing details of proposals and prospects for obtaining such minimum concessions at least; (d) certain misgivings as to possible unanticipated significance of present PCC effort, whether this conf with its new PCC procedure and program as submitted to parties might involve policy questions in NE which Israel Govt wld not recognize as within PCC competence but might better discuss with US govt and other interested govts.
4. In further ref to form of proposals and importance of bargaining possibilities Shiloah mentioned as examples questions of war damages and port facilities at Haifa. He emphasized that while Israel had large claims for war damages there cld be no Egyptian, Syrian or Lebanese claims against Israel for war damages and therefore no basis for mutual cancellation. Re question of port facilities at Haifa, he referred to his participation in Jordan-Israel negots concerning this and other questions and implied Israel might be disposed take up this question again on bargaining basis.
5. Shiloah expressed particular immed concern over possibility that PCC proposals handed to Arab dels Sept 17 and to Israel del Sept 21 might be released for publication at early date.
[Page 877]He said he feared that impact on public opinion both in Israel and in Arab States wld seriously prejudice chances of Israel Govt effectively participating in “conf” program as proposed by PCC.
6. I assured Shiloah no concealed Pol objective in present PCC effort; new approach natural outcome unsuccessful experience previous years; no “take it or leave it” intentions; in preparing program and proposals PCC endeavored provide for, hopes maintain, atmosphere conducive to “give and take” solutions. Am sure Shiloah does not doubt sincerity of my assurance. He went out of his way to avoid appearance Israel not interested in “give and take” solutions. But in Wash he or Eban will undoubtedly emphasize Israel govt doubts re purpose and usefulness present PCC effort and advisability and effectiveness program of proposals. US Del believes Dept and Amb Davis can be of great help now in encouraging Israel Govt participation in discussions here on basis PCC program as submitted to parties; also highly desirable that at same time Arab Govts be encouraged by US and other interested govts to subscribe to non-aggression accord, urging of which solely by PCC might prove embarrassing if not actually regrettable shld Arab states in view of outspoken Israel Govt insistence on a non-aggression accord as condition precedent, consider PCC emphasis on importance of such accord as primarily in interest of Israel.
7. PCC secretariat officers report growing conviction among Arab dels Comm is simply acceding to Israel demands. Press report contained NY Times Sept 21 dated Tel Aviv Sept 20 contains substance Israel Govt reply to be delivered to Comm fol day. Art V discusses Israel position regarding various items of PCC’s proposals, whereas Israel rep requested Comm on 21st defer publication its proposals. Incidents of this nature increase PCC difficulties with Arab dels and tend provoke statements like that of Shukairy to Assoc Press in Paris Tribune today to effect Arabs wld not sign pact proposed by Israel. PCC is today therefore issuing to press text of proposals with fol press release: “On 17 Sept the PCC submitted to the dels of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria proposals for solutions to the problems outstanding between Israel and the Arab states, as foreseen in its invitations to the parties on 10 Aug. These proposals were recd by the del of Israel on 21 Sept. At that time the Comm announced that it wld make public these proposals after all interested govts had had an opportunity to study them.
“In view of statements already having appeared in the press in various countries concerning certain parts of the Comm’s proposals, including the preamble, the Comm feels it is now desirable to make public the full text of its proposals. The Comm emphasized that the [Page 878] above-mentioned preamble was submitted to the parties as part of an integrated comprehensive pattern of proposals. At its next mtg with the parties, the Comm will be ready to discuss this comprehensive pattern of proposals.”
US Del feels this action necessary for retention initiative by PCC and continuing emphasis on essential equilibrium its proposals.