357.AC/9–2651: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission (Palmer), at Paris1
secret
Washington, September 26, 1951—7 p. m.
1816. Unpal 292. Re Palun 448.2 In anticipation possible unfavorable Israel reaction PCC integrated proposals Dept suggests you personally give Israel rep fol friendly expression US views:
- 1.
- US shares Israel belief direct negots most likely obtain profitable results but believes Israel shld appreciate (a) GA Res Dec 14, 1950 leaves PCC no other choice but continue present negot procedure in absence Arab willingness undertake direct discussions and (b) Israel continued insistence on direct negots not likely produce results and might be rock on which conf might founder with Israel receiving blame. US does not dismiss possibility of shift Arab attitude re direct negots in later stages conference provided progress made in indirect negots.
- 2.
- US concerned by Israel tendency insist on exacting from Arabs precisely defined bargain in return for possible Israel concession. It is US view if Israel is to move towards lasting peace settlement with Arab neighbors it shld manifest sincere willingness carry out responsibilities toward refugees without regard possibilities of final written peace settlement. Dept believes Israel shld be prepared make substantial concessions re compensation as evidence Israel good faith irrespective attitude Govts Arab States.
- 3.
- US hopes Israel will understand spirit in which PCC has made proposals and will at least undertake discuss with PCC points suggested. US believes it shld be possible for Arab States and Israel reach agreement on at least some suggestions contained in PCC proposals either under PCC auspices without sitting face to face or through [Page 879] informal mtgs on outside between Israel and Arab reps even though such limited agreement not immed extended overall peace settlement.
- 4.
- As we see it, Israel has more to gain from present PCC Conf than Arab States. Conf can founder from present Israel insistence on face-to-face talks and comprehensive peace settlement. Unfortunately, little or no progress toward overall settlement has been discernible past two years. On other hand present conf provides oppor for Israel and Arab reps make clear their views claims and counterclaims to each other on broadest variety problems, and we think Israel wld be missing important bet if they shld let slip this their first oppor since early 1950. We feel that, in addition to broad topics set forth by PCC, there must be nr of minor ones which might be dealt with to advantage both sides and which cld be settled framework overall settlement. PCC will have had some success if only a few of the severed tissues are knit up.
Acheson