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

357.AC/5–951: Telegram

The United States Representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission (Palmer) to the Secretary of State

secret
priority

Jerusalem, May 9, 1951—noon.

208. Palun 403. This tel is in nature of situation report on activities of PCC since first mtg of current year on 25 Jan. It is motivated both by need for better understanding of Dept’s present views on problems with which PCC is seized, but also by increasing sense of frustration and futility on part of PC as whole. During past three months there has been no progress made on compensation repatriation blocked accts or peace negots as envisaged in GA res of 14 Dec 1950. Meanwhile Israel-Syrian relations have reached alarming point of deterioration while PCC has been largely out of touch with situation. There now remain six months before opening of next GA session. This wld be sufficient time for carrying out an active program in connection with above problems provided a more vigorous leadership cld be undertaken by USDel. Under present circumstances, I do not feel in a position to assert such leadership in absence of clear understanding of Dept’s objective with respect to above-mentioned problems.

On compensation USDel has proceeded in PCC in accordance with Dept’s basic instrs contained in document SD/S/C. 1/261 of 6 Sept 1949, Dept memo of Jan 3, 1950 and Unpal 246 of 6 Feb 1950.¹ These documents assume that compensation shld be paid on basis of individual losses and distribution of compensation shld at least in part be made to individual claimants.² We have also assumed that a basis can be worked out for linking compensation and reintegration whereby individual refugees being compensated can use their compensation for resettlement as pointed out in Palun 400 of 6 Mar 1951.³ On these assumptions USDel initiated a work program which was approved by PCC on 10 Mar 1951 (doc Comgen/17/Rev 1) for arriving at an estimate of total value of refugee lost property, consideration of means of linking compensation and reintegration, and study of means of obtaining funds with which compensation might be paid. This program was discussed with Wainhouse in Jerusalem prior to adoption by PCC and with Jones and McGhee thereafter. It was also discussed informally with Shiloah by Barco. While an estimate of total Arab losses can be undertaken by PCC’s refugee office on arrival of Andersen who is expected end of this month fact remains that consideration of compensation claims is academic unless means can be found for financing compensation payment. Shiloah has expressed an interest to Barco in possibility of a long-term United Nations loan to Israel which wld enable Israel to assume obligation to pay compensation. I have not felt in a position to discuss this question with reps of Israel Govt in absence of a better understanding of Dept’s position in this respect. It is fundamental question in my opinion in any consideration with Israel of her compensation obligations. Unless this matter can be negotiated with Israel, I see little for PCC to do on this question prior to its next report to GA.

Repatriation is a dead letter as far as PCC is concerned. Yet under 14 Dec res new refugee office is expected to work out arrangements for repatriation. USDel doubts Andersen will succeed where PCC has failed in this respect.

On blocked accts, Barco’s discussion with FonOff in London indicated clearly UK no longer has any control over sterling balances due Israel which wld be required in event Israel was willing release Arab accts. Question of release or non-release of Arab accts thus remains entirely with Israel Govt. In view of negative attitude Israel Govt I have not felt in a position make any proposals in this connection.

On peace negots as envisaged in 14 Dec res there exists no grounds on which PCC cld at present time propose direct or indirect discussions in absence Dept’s initiative. Basis for such discussions wld necessarily lie in Israel’s willingness consider making concrete offers to Arab States.

Israel’s deteriorating relations with Syria have produced a situation within PCC where members feel responsibility to UN and states concerned without having means make any contribution. Boisanger intends to raise problem at next PCC meeting and to propose report to SYG raising question PCC’s dilemma. His principal concern is to protect PCC from charges of indifference in event of major Israeli Syrian conflict.

Foregoing indicates sense of futility with which PCC now regards its present task. Active consideration of these problems by members of comm are becoming increasingly infrequent. Boisanger has only last week returned from a month in Paris, is now touring Syria and will leave again for Paris probably early in June. Aras likewise is seldom in Jerusalem. SYG Lie’s recent discussions at Govt House with PCC clearly indicated his realization that PCC activities had reached a stalemate and that only remaining function was to include in report to GA recommendations for consolidation of United Nations activities in this area and elimination unproductive organizations. My Fr and Turkish colleagues apparently are in agreement with his views and favor adjournment following Andersen’s arrival until time for preparing GA report. USDel hopes for Dept’s guidance and support for more positive achievement than this.

In view circumscribed position in which PCC finds itself, this can best be done by Dept’s supporting (1) realistic plans for compensation and first and foremost for financing of a fund from which Israel can pay compensation. This in itself wld be important contribution toward political settlement in area. Failure to deal effectively with compensation will encourage new charges by Arab world of emptiness of promises of UN generally and US specifically. (2) Immed direct negots under UN auspices between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Syria on questions best suited to transform armistice arrangements into formal peace. (Shiloah recently admitted that in his opinion continued failure direct Israel-Jordan talks at Shuneh was due to absence of third party to talk as mediator). Under these two categories, new efforts by PCC can be productive, but such efforts required determined US leadership. In absence of such leadership, PCC is becoming symbol of UN failure, and, in minds of Arab world, a cover for US indifference. Time may come when responsible Israel leaders will feel likewise.⁴

[ Palmer ]

1. None printed.
2. In his immediately preceding telegram, 207 (Palun 402), also of May 9, (357.AC/5–951), Ambassador Palmer had in substance reiterated his views as outlined by Mr. Ludlow in his memorandum to Mr. Hickerson of March 14, p. 592.

3. In this telegram Mr. Palmer had stated in part:

   “US delegate does believe that a basis for linking compensation and reintegration can be worked out. He does not believe however that this can be done prior to an agreement with Israel as to sum of money to be paid for compensation. Once agreement has been reached as to this sum and as to means of obtaining necessary funds for payment of this sum, US delegate believes that methods can be devised in cooperation with UNRWA to enable individual refugees being compensated to use their compensation for their own resettlement.” (357.AC/3–651)

4. In telegram 220 from Jerusalem (Palun 405), May 28, Mr. Palmer indicated that no reply to Palun 403 had as yet been received and stated in part: “As was also indicated in Palun 403 my colleagues feel that PCC’s early adjournment is necessary. … Criticism in press and among public of PCC as irresponsible body and demands for resignation are becoming more frequent.” The Ambassador stated that the PCC planned to adjourn its Jerusalem sessions the following week and to reconvene in Geneva no later than August 15. (357.AC/5–2851)