Office of the Historian

357.AC/6–1951: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the United States Representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission (Palmer), at Jerusalem1

secret
Washington, June 19, 1951—7 p. m.

141. Unpal 271. Fol Dept’s views re Palun 407:2

1.
Dept concurs important element progress with Arabs towards peace is abandonment by Israel “orthodox view” re concessions thus giving PCC and friends both sides talking pts with Arabs. Israel has operated for three years on “orthodox view” without appreciable progress towards peace: alternative course has yet to be tried.
2.
A policy of unilateral initiative towards settlement with Arabs is matter strictly for decision by Israel. Polit repercussions such a policy shift will be profound inside Israel and consequently its statesmen must themselves be convinced new policy in Israel’s best interests. While agreeing unilateral concession by Israel wld be most helpful in facilitating final peace with Arabs, Dept believes it wld be unwise bribe or cajole Israel into so major a policy change which to be successful shld so command itself that Israel politicians wld be willing risk their reputations in its behalf.
3.
Sharett’s ref to Israel’s reparations claims against Ger has some earmarks “deal”. Secy made clear Ben Gurion May 8 (see memo conversation)3 such reparations cld only come from pockets US taxpayers and US opposed for many vital reasons reparations from current Ger production.
4.
Re internatl assistance financing large scale fin obligations undertaken by Israel towards refugees on understanding its own econ future not jeopardized (paras numbered 6 and 7 reftel) this again boils down to US taxpayer who in last analysis wld be asked pay Israel so Israel can pay Arabs, While hard facts situation still under study, Dept is not reconciled advocating solution along these lines. (Re numbered para 3 Unpal 270)4 It wld be wrong for Sharett to entertain on basis ur interesting and helpful talks any misconceptions to contrary. In any case Israel must take initiative in developing proposals for internatl financing as a long-term obligation on Israel. Such proposals cld then be studied by UN members.
5.
Sharett can obviously not be given answers to his questions by Dept because this wld imply advocacy if not some moral commitment by Dept. If Israel is seriously interested we presume PCC cld work out in conjunction with Israel for study by interested parties a comprehensive scheme covering these problems. Trends of thought in Dept re Sharett’s questions are being aigamd FYI.
6.
We believe at this stage ur talks shld remain on present informal personal level.
Acheson
  1. Telegram drafted by Mr. Jones in NE and cleared in UNP and NEA; approved for transmission by Mr. Jones.↩
  2. Dated June 7, p. 704.↩
  3. Dated May 8, p. 667.↩
  4. Dated June 12, p. 714.↩