684A.85/2–750: Telegram
The Ambassador in Israel (McDonald) to the Secretary of State
priority
86. Shiloah February 7 at residence during [for an?] hour reported on Israel-TJ meeting night February 3 in Jerusalem as follows. Absence of Palestine Arab “probably reflected desire of Samir and Mulki to make progress.”
TJ expressed willingness accept “three-fourths’ Israel basic demands” by granting access (1) to Jewish Quarter and Wailing Wall through Dung Gate, and (2) to Scopus “provided Scopus remains TJ territory.”
Israel answered that this “is not acceptable since TJ offer is in principle and substance already ‘granted under Article 8 of Armistice.’”
Shiloah “argued for final settlement for own sake and to forestall political internationalization Jerusalem.” TJ offer “would satisfy neither Israel’s minimum demands nor avoid internationalization.”
Samir replied he “would like to explore” Israel’s demands and added “what would Israel offer in return”.
Shiloah then reiterated earlier three basic proposals (see Embtel 76 February 3 [4]).1
Samir rejected Israel proposed “radical solution” by which North Jerusalem to be Jewish and South Jerusalem to be Arab. Samir said he “would consider combination of other two Israel offers” so that Israel should return some Arab quarters and pay financial compensation for quarters not returned.
Shiloah indicated Israel acceptance “if clearly understood that territorial exchange would be merely nominal and if this exchange and financial compensation achieved settlement whole Jerusalem problem.”
Shiloah argued that TJ’s offer was less than Garreau Plan which gives access to Jewish Quarter, Wailing Wall, Scopus and Mt. Olive. Shiloah “did not use Garreau argument as bargaining point but as means of clearing whole picture.”
At end both sides agreed that procedure of intermittent inconclusive meetings was futile and that at next meeting, probably this week, both would agree explore possibilities finding basis for continuous sessions to try reach early settlement.
[Page 730]After giving me above summary, Shiloah said his personal estimate situation was as follows: King and Samir see possibility basis for settlement but Palestine Arabs in Cabinet strongly against. King probably influenced by, (a) desire early settlement, (b) financial offer, (c) worried about alternate Garreau Plan. Shiloah thinks King could get representative Palestine Arab group to support settlement.
On question I asked re desirability USG–UKG aid in negotiations, Shiloah seemed personally to favor such assistance, but added that any approach to USG would have to be made by Foreign Minister or Prime Minister. As to PCC possible assistance Shiloah spoke warmly of Palmer and Barco but otherwise was non-committal.
Comment: In light Shiloah’s report, my earlier suggestion in Embtel 76 February 3 [4] and suggest that Department consider consulting with UKG re possible informal parallel appeals to King and USG separate informal appeal to Ben Gurion. (End Comment.)
Department pass Amman 9, Geneva unnumbered for USTC and USPCC, London 15, Moscow 2.
- Not printed.↩