357. AC/11–1051: Telegram
The United States Representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission (Palmer) to the Secretary of State
2784. Palun 466. In opinion USDel, Israel’s reply to PCC letter of Oct 31 by implication reiterates Israel’s previous position that it cannot discuss questions involving negots with Arab States before change in Arab position re nonaggression declaration but is prepared discuss selected questions with Comm which do not involve negotiating with [Page 926] Arab States. Israel has not specifically answered question put to it in PCC’s letter of Oct 31 as to whether Israel was prepared discuss within framework of present conf all points in PCC’s comprehensive proposals. USDel feels that Israel del shld be asked to make explicit their answer to this question and PCC has authorized chairman to make such inquiry on informal basis as soon as remaining Arab answers recd. It seems likely in view Sharett’s statement Nov 4 to Knesset that Israel will reply to this further inquiry in vein similar to that contained their previous communication of 19 Oct. In these circumstances PCC remains faced with question whether, in conf based upon resolutions of GA calling upon parties to negot with each other thru Comm, and in view of firm position PCC has taken that all questions shld be considered by parties in context of comprehensive pattern and with Comm mediating between them, PCC shld now discuss with Israel items chosen by Israel for discussion with Comm alone and on condition such questions are not to be negotiated with Arab States.
USDel’s opinion is that it wld be desirable to be able to include in PCC’s report to GA Israel del and Arab dels specific comments on any or all of PCC’s proposals, but that it will be difficult for PCC to receive Israel’s comments during this conf under conditions Israel imposes. Israel’s position as announced by Sharett Nov 41 that as long as Arab States refuse accept PCC preamble Israel must defer entering into discussion of “any problem between it and Arabs” and that Israel will negot re compensation only with UN agency, is in fact refusal to proceed with conf on terms that PCC has maintained from beginning are essential to success. Hence if Israel maintains this position, we believe conf shld terminate before entering into any consideration with Israel of counter-proposals on new terms. This view is shared by Args, Turk rep, and Secretariat, but is opposed by Marchal, French rep, who seems wish prolong conf as such as long as possible. Marchal seems motivated by desire avoid putting any blame on parties for conf’s failure and hope of avoiding sitn which might lead to PCC’s discharge by GA. French attitude in this respect foreshadows difficulties USDel will encounter in proposing discontinuance PCC and transfer PCC functions to other UN body.
In USDel opinion, however, PCC can best clarify sitn if, having recd final negative answer from Israel as anticipated, Comm shld inform parties conf in these circumstances has been terminated, but that in order complete full report to GA, comments already requested on all points of PCC’s proposals shld be given to Comm in writing. Dept’s views requested question of timing PCC’s report to GA remains uncertain in view fact GA Secretariat pressing for its submission [Page 927] within few days to permit distribution before comite’s debate, fact Ad Hoc Comite agenda may be exhausted by end of month necessitating early debate re Palestine questions, and fact UNRWA members indicate little likelihood that a delay in presenting their report wld result in anything more substantial as to its contents. Substance PCC’s conclusions and recommendations, therefore, becomes matter some urgency. USDel is in general agreement Dept’s position paper and has from beginning conference been working with these objectives constantly in mind. In particular USDel is in full agreement that PCC shld report frankly failure its mission. Specifically this failure shld be attributed to impossibility implementation its terms of reference as contained para 11, GA Res of 11 Dec 1948, and that PCC shld, therefore, be discharged of its responsibilities. USDel also believes UN interest in overall political questions shld be maintained and that PCC general responsibilities for assisting parties in arriving at final peaceful settlement shld be given to other UN body. We are convinced, however, that any UN body will be seriously handicapped if PCC’s terms of reference as contained para 11, GA Res become part of such body’s terms of reference. In particular we agree with Blandford and AdCom that UNRWA’s resettlement responsibilities wld be seriously hampered shld UNRWA be given responsibility for negotiating repatriation and compensation (SD/A/C.1/373, P4, para 3).2 In somewhat lesser degree, Riley’s present functions might likewise suffer were hegiven any responsibilities re repatriation and compensation. Greatest importance, therefore, in our opinion attaches to necessity overcoming handicap PCC’s terms reference whatever body or bodies replace PCC. PCC can report its opinion that terms of reference cannot be implemented by itself or any other UN organ but question remains how these terms of reference can be eliminated in GA debate.
Re Dept’s position paper, para B–10, draft resolution (SD/A/C.l/373, P16) might well perpetuate for UNRWA difficulties PCC has experienced and shld in our opinion be eliminated. Paras A–5, 6, 7, 8 draft res are in our opinion appropriate terms of reference for agent general provided language of para A–5 does not lend itself too readily to inclusion responsibility for repatriation and compensation.
Questions this nature will have to be considered by PCC within next few days and decision will have to be taken as whether PCC shld itself make any specific recommendations for eliminating undesirable terms of reference or for particular UN organ or machinery to replace PCC. We hope receive Dept’s views earliest.