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

357.AC/5–351: Telegram

The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Department of State

confidential

New York, May 3, 1951—5:57 p. m.

1485. Re Syrian-Israeli dispute. Following are USUN observations regarding draft res contained in Deptel 891 of May l.¹ These are based on conversation yesterday with British and French,² views of Gen Riley, and opinions developed within mission.

1) Immediately following para 3, a new para 4 might be inserted calling attention of parties to Art. VIII, para 3 of Syrian-Israeli armistice agreement (providing that “either of the parties may call upon the SYG of the UN to convoke a conference of reps of the two parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising or suspending; any of the provisions of this agreement other than Articles I and III. Participation in such conferences shall be obligatory upon the parties”). Practice of parties in bringing complaints direct to SG, when agreement is not reached through MAC’s, contravenes spirit of this para, since we understand Bunche’s design in putting it into armistice agreement was to keep disputes away from SC until all means of settlement provided by armistice agreement were exhausted.

2) Drafting of para 6 raises two points:

• a) In calling upon parties to bring complaints before MAC, para would provide for MAC consideration of some matters which are primarily or solely concern of chairman in his capacity as agent for Arab residents. This would constitute violation of Art. V of armistice agreement. For instance, firing by Arab civilians in zone is matter for chairman and is no concern of Syria’s unless MAC is called upon to make interpretation in connection with decision of Chairman.
• b) Some elements in situation created by the retaliatory bombing are fit subjects for MAC consideration and should not be excluded from the request to parties. Therefore mission suggests language of this sort, “requests Govts of Israel and Syria to bring before MAC or its chairman, whichever has the pertinent responsibility under armistice agreement, the complaints of which the SC is presently seized and to abide by the decisions resulting therefrom.”

3) Begin para 7 with word “considers” and delete “reminds the Govt of Israel”. We feel sure if shoe fits Israelis will put it on and we consider original language is not well calculated to induce reasonable attitude.

4) Regarding para 9, we suggest that the finding by SC entailed in use of word “violation” may be getting SC into MAC’s terrain. Furthermore, the retaliatory bombing was violation of cease-fire of July 15, 1948 and was therefore of direct concern to SC under provision of August 11, 1949 res which reads “requests the Chief of Staff mentioned above to report to the SC on the observance of the ceasefire in Palestine in accordance with the terms of this resolution …”. Council can therefore make finding that bombing violated cease-fire and the last part of the para might read “is a violation of the ceasefire provided in the Security Council resolution of July 15, 1948, and is inconsistent with the terms of the armistice agreement and the obligations of Israel under the Charter of the United Nations.”

5) Substitute “considers” for “decides” under para 10A and “considers” for “holds” in 10B on grounds not well calculated to induce reasonable attitude.

6) Omit “at end of 30 days” in para 12. Chief of Staff is submitting periodic reports to Council on continuing authority granted by November 17, 1950 res. We question whether Chief of Staff should be tied down to hard and fast schedule and are inclined to believe he should be given discretion to report when he considers circumstances warrant.

7) With regard to new suggested para in Deptel 894 of May 2,³ we wish to point out that on at least one occasion Arab villagers refused to give observers access to place where they wished to go. However, since this refusal may have been based on fact that observers were accompanied by Israeli police (possibly at request of MAC chairman), possible Israeli charge of bias based on their being singled out in para might be met on ground that Arab villagers had right to exclude Israeli police. Please advise your decision after consideration this point.

Riley suggests substituting “required” for “requested” after words “whatever such access is”.

Austin

1. Ante, p.652.
2. A memorandum, by Mr. Bechhoefer of the conversation held in New York, March 2, between Representatives of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States to the United Nations is in IO Files: US/S/1750. A further memorandum by Mr. Bechhoefer on the same subject, addressed to Mr. Wainhouse, is in UNP Files: Lot 59 D 237.
3. Not printed, but see footnote 3, p. 654.