501.BB Palestine/6–2549: Telegram
The Consul at Jerusalem (Burdett) to the Secretary of State
priority
445. Last night together with Riley met Sharett at reception and he outlined Israel reply to Department proposal re Jerusalem. After thorough discussion with Riley following comments submitted on different points:
- 1.
- Israel not willing accept proposition threat to peace exists in Jerusalem. Both Riley and Consulate General feel definite threat to peace existed but danger diminished for moment by action of Department. Believe preferable play down this aspect now and Department might reply glad draw conclusion from Israel note that Israel has no intention disturbing peace in Jerusalem. If necessary cite evidence threat to peace could mention movement of troops by both sides into Government House zone, failure both sides reduce forces Jerusalem in accordance with armistice, flat statement by Dayan to Consulate General that if not able obtain Scopus by negotiation would take it by force (would prefer Department not quote Dayan).
- 2.
- Israel feels special committee should not be superseded. No objection perceived to special committee remaining in being to handle minor matters by direct negotiation such as harvest in triangle. Riley also plans establish subcommittee of MAC to deal with armistice questions leaving MAC free consider Jerusalem problem.
- 3.
- Sharett stated willing instruct Israel delegation at next special committee meeting propose or support if proposed by Jordan reference to MAC of questions in article 8 of armistice agreement. I inquired whether would also include elimination of Arab and Israel zones which was essential part Department proposal. He stated Israel not prepared discuss territorial changes Jerusalem until questions in article 8 successfully settled. Felt ample room for agreement existed in article 8. Argued broadening terms of reference would only enable Arabs dodge fulfilling armistice and carrying out agreement already reached in principle at Rhodes. Said armistice lines now settled and should not move on to questions of permanent lines until all armistice problems solved.
Consulate General believes discussion of territorial changes as well as other Jerusalem problems in addition to those mentioned specifically in article 8 indispensable part Department proposal. Change proposed by Sharett strikes at foundation of plan. Problems mentioned article 8 are of prime importance to Israel but of relatively little interest to Arabs. Acquiescense in Sharett views would have effect of US supporting Israel demands without Arabs receiving adequate return. Arabs could only conclude US indirectly exerting pressure for further concessions to Israel.
Consulate General has considered proposal as opening way to real and permanent settlement of many practical problems affecting Jerusalem including principally limits of two zones and freedom of access. Such agreement would not conflict with international status plans and would be based on premise of demilitarized and neutral city. Riley agrees with this conception. However, he feels also MAC might be able make progress on article 8 questions alone although this not desirable.
Strongly recommend Department insist on consideration of territorial changes. Department might reply along following lines: Since agreement apparently not possible on narrow range of problems in article 8 hoped by broadening questions for consideration possible reach accord. Because certain matters apparently not soluble under armistice conditions suggested move forward towards permanent peace. Plan will permit overall discussion of Jerusalem problem in interest of establishing lasting arrangements and permitting return of normal life to maximum extent possible for both Jews and Arabs. Department feels that working on premise Jerusalem area will be permanently demilitarized zone two parties by direct negotiation under UN chairmanship can make progress toward solution in permanent manner of many practical problems affecting Jerusalem. Such agreement could be incorporated in plan of PCC for international status of city. Both parties have stated armistice agreements including demarcation lines only temporary and changes eventually necessary affecting daily life of people will cause much less dislocation now than in future.
As previously reported Israel has approached armistice agreements with intent that they shall constitute in practice permanent arrangements especially as to boundaries. This explains attitude on Syrian armistice. Riley shares this view. Once Israel obtains satisfaction on questions in article 8 of Jordan armistice will have all it wants and be content allow armistice agreement remain in effect indefinitely. Would just sit back and refuse any territorial changes as is doing at Lausanne [Page 1184] despite efforts of US. Final position taken by Israel on territorial question Jerusalem will certainly indicate attitude towards territorial shifts as whole. In view Day an statements to Consulate General that willing discuss territorial changes Jerusalem, still believe possible induce Israel negotiate on whole Jerusalem question including specifically delimitation of zones. If Israel acceptance limited to article 8, feel Department should consider reply rejection proposal.
Sent Department 445, repeated Geneva 42 for USDel PCC, Amman 42, Tel Aviv 66.