Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

357. AC/10–1151: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the United States Representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission (Palmer), at Paris¹

secret

Washington, October 18, 1951—4:22 p. m.

2289. Unpal 294. Re Palun 455² and 456,³ Deptel 2103 Oct 10.⁴ Dept now of opinion recent actions Egypt re Suez and Sudan and its rejection MEC proposals make inadvisable proposed representations to Arab govts for time being.

Re Cairo and press reports Arab League rejection PCC proposals stating Arabs “Do not recognize the Conciliation Comm auth for formulating such proposals” Dept believes you might make fol observations informally to appropriate Arab dels, particularly Abdel Monem if deemed wise:

1. US had hoped Arab League states wld take advantage opportunity afforded by presentation PCC proposals discuss matters thoroughly and that rejection of proposals wld be blow to efforts to make any progress toward peace.

2. If Arab dels will reject proposals out of hand, PCC might well feel obliged request Arab dels indicate views to PCC on each separate item listed in proposals since failing over all agreement PCC wld feel Arab shld explore all possible areas limited agreement.

3. Lacking some concrete indication soon that Arab dels will negot even on limited basis, PCC left no alternative terminating conf and indicating complete failure to GA.

Re Israeli letter rejecting comm views its letter 6 Oct, Dept strongly endorses firm position PCC’s reply in Palun 456. You shld informally advise Israeli Del you, and if necessary US Govt, believe:

1. Such letter particularly at this stage negot hasty to the point of being ill-advised in that in view known developments in NE Israeli intransigence at this time clearly not in its best interests. Whatever might have been opinion of Israeli and Arab dels re preamble at this stage negot Israel shld be indicating eagerness explore all aspects PCC’s proposals however slight prospects of progress toward over all agreement with Arabs.

2. Wld be most advantageous Israel undertake prompt reconsideration its position which if allowed to stand may well serve as basis for termination conf with subsequent PCC report to GA of complete failure.

3. Any real prospects negot with Arabs which Israel continually asserts most desirous to have will be considerably lessened by Israel’s resorting to press re position vis-à-vis Arabs.

In your discretion informally you might assure Arab dels and Israeli Del both sides being advised by you reconsider their positions.

FYI Dept suggests if it appears feasible particularly in light Palun 456 you mgt raise with colleagues idea of submitting at appropriate time and if some progress appears possible compromise draft set forth in Unpal 293.

Acheson

1. Drafted by Mr. Ludlow; cleared for transmission and signed for the Secretary by Mr. Wainhouse. Repeated for information to Tel Aviv, Amman, Ankara, London, Damascus, and Beirut.
2. Dated October 11, p. 890.
3. Palun 456 from Ambassador Palmer, identified also as telegram 2250 from Paris, October 17, not printed, contained a partial text of the Israeli reply of October 14 to the PCO letter of October 6. It also contained the text of a response to be sent by the PCC to Israel on October 18. (357.AC/10–1751) An Israeli reply to the PCC on October 19 was reported in Palun 458 from Ambassador Palmer, identified also as telegram 2327 from Paris, October 21, not printed (357.AC/10–2151). With respect to the three letters, see U.N. Doc. A/1985, p. 7.
4. Ante, p. 889.