684.85/12–2453: Telegram
No. 757
The Secretary of
State to the United States
Mission at the United Nations
priority
304. Re Palestine in SC (your telegram 313).1 Zeineddine (Syria) called at his request this morning and gave us detailed review of Arab position. He prefers no resolution to tripartite resolution in present form. He asserts our resolution cannot be passed because it [Page 1465] will not receive seven votes and even if after January first there should be required majority in new SC Soviets still will veto.
We are concerned at propaganda advantage which would accrue to Soviets if they should use their veto on behalf of Arabs. Now that Zeineddine has taken initiative and approached us indicating clearly continuing desire reach agreement with us suggest you consider following possible modifications which we developed in light of Zeineddine’s principal criticisms of tripartite resolution.
- 1.
As you know Zeineddine’s main concern is failure of tripartite resolution to make clear in paragraph 11 that Syrian agreement is necessary for continuation of Israeli project. To make this clear he proposes that we insert after “to explore” the following: “with full regard of rights, obligations and consent of parties.” In the alternative he suggests after “the interests” in second line paragraph 11 insertion “of the parties to the dispute on the basis of mutual agreement.” While he recognizes Bennike has authority reconcile rights of individuals within DZ without consent of Syria he claims agreement by Syria is necessary in reconciliation of rights and interest of Syria. He claims that Article 11 adds new authority to Bennike particularly in view last clause directing him to have in view development of natural resources and general welfare. He was most emphatic in his opposition to this last clause as going beyond SC function as organ for peace and security.
In light of above suggest you explore possibility redraft Article 11 as follows: “Requests and authorizes Chief of Staff to explore possibilities of reconciling the interests involved in this dispute including rights in the DZ and full satisfaction of existing irrigation rights at all seasons, and to take such steps as he may deem appropriate to effect a reconciliation, it being understood that in seeking such reconciliation Chief of Staff may not without the consent of the parties exceed the authority accorded to him by the terms of the General Armistice Agreement.”
This text in our view is not contrary to our position that we shall not accept amendments which would modify basis of tripartite resolution. It does not require Syria’s agreement to steps taken by Bennike under his GAA authority unless he himself decides such agreement is necessary. We are of course not certain that this amendment would satisfy the Arabs.
- 2.
- Zeineddine strongly opposes paragraph 13 in present form and believes it should merely ask SYG to provide additional personnel. If Arabs agree on acceptable version of paragraph 11 and paragraph 13 becomes only point of disagreement you may wish raise this point again with the French with view to developing some language more acceptable to the Arabs.
- 3.
- Zeineddine again emphasized need for Israel cooperation in MAC consideration of problems arising in DZ. We might meet his point by adding to present paragraph 7 a clause calling on both parties to cooperate with MAC.
Department made clear to Zeineddine we could not give him any assurances on specific amendments but assured him we shall consider his views. He understood specific language would have to be discussed in New York.
Malik (Lebanon) and Zeineddine calling on Secretary Monday morning.
- Not printed.↩