Attached is a brief summary statement of the effect on our position
in the Near East of recent developments on the Palestine question
based on the best information from the field available to the
Department.
I am sending this to you so that it will be readily available to you
for background purposes in the event that this issue continues
extremely active.
[Annex]
Memorandum by the Secretary
of State to President Roosevelt
As agreed in our recent conversation regarding Palestine, I am
giving below a brief account of the effect upon our position in
the Near East of recent developments.
The bipartisan endorsement of a Jewish state during the recent
campaign in this country produced a strong reaction in the Near
East. You will recall in this connection that last year
assurances were given on your authority to King Ibn Saud that in
our view no decision should be reached regarding Palestine
without consultation with both Arabs and Jews. These assurances
were repeated subsequently to various Governments in the Near
East and are regarded by them as a solemn commitment in harmony
with the Atlantic Charter.
The recent pro-Zionist statements in this country accordingly
gave rise to a wave of shocked disillusionment and protest in
the Near East. There were demonstrations in Syria, an intensive
anti-American campaign was carried on in the press of several
countries, and many telegrams of protest were dispatched to
political leaders in this country as well as to our
representatives in the field. In Palestine itself, the reaction
took the form of a boycott of the Culbertson Economic Mission,
and there was a press campaign in favor of a complete boycott of
American trade. A significant comment was that made by the
[Page 649]
Amir Abdullah of
Trans-Jordan, who suggested that economic concessions might well
be withheld from countries which did not respect “Arab
rights”.
If this trend should continue, it would seriously prejudice our
ability to afford protection to American interests, economic and
commercial, cultural and philanthropic, throughout the area. It,
of course, would have a very definite bearing upon the future of
the immensely valuable American oil concession in Saudi Arabia,
where the King’s opposition to Zionism is well known.
From the broad political view, moreover, our position in the area
vis-à-vis Great Britain and Soviet Russia would be weakened. The
British, whose situation with regard to Palestine is already
difficult, naturally welcome any development which strengthens
their own position with the Arabs. The Russians are showing a
growing interest in the Arab world and are quite plainly anxious
to expand their influence in the area, particularly toward the
Persian Gulf. Such expansion would of course, be in the
direction of the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and Bahrein as well
as those in Iran, Iraq and Kuwait. The Soviet Union has never
endorsed Zionism. In fact, and on this point you recently had
some first-hand information from Ambassador Harriman, we now
have reason to believe that Soviet Russia definitely opposes a
Jewish state and is actively cultivating the goodwill of the
fifty million Arabs.
