501.BB Palestine/9–148: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom
us urgent
3544. Re Deptel 3468, Sep 1 and urtel 3927 Sep 1 we are [of] opinion that, quite aside from such doubts as might exist on constitutional interpretation UN Charter as to SC powers to use Chapter VII enforcement action to establish a permanent frontier in Palestine, it would be highly unwise from political point of view for SC to entertain resolution to that effect. For your strictly private info SC enforcement action to establish final frontiers in Palestine might not find popular support in US at a given moment and would certainly meet with disapproval of JCS on strictly military grounds if enforcement [Page 1382] were contemplated which, would involve use of troops. Furthermore (and this seems conclusive to us) it would be inexpedient to bring issue before Council because of almost certain Soviet opposition to any settlement on which UK and US were in agreement.
In consequence foregoing considerations we do not find ourselves able agree with suggestion para 6 your 3880 Aug 27. SC would however of course continue its responsibilities for maintenance truce in Palestine.
Likewise, on political grounds, we feel it would be inexpedient to reanimate Palestine issue in SC or GA unless there were prior acquiescence by both Arabs and Jews to a suggested settlement and one side or both required extra stimulus of SC or GA recommendation in order to convert public opinion to accept a given settlement. In such case we would have no objection appropriate UN action.
Re timetable suggested Embtel 3927 Sep 1 we agree with FO view in second para Embtel 3962 Sep 3 that timetable should be speeded up and US–UK proposals placed in hands Mediator by US and UK earliest possible moment. We consider, however, that we should await PGI reaction, which should be forthcoming shortly. We agree on immediate joint approach Bernadotte thereafter with view public announcement by him of reasonable solution. This solution would include Mediator’s territorial recommendations for frontier between Israel and Transjordan. We continue believe preferable for both of us to exert extreme diplomatic pressure on both sides. Both Govts would inform PGI and Arab states their belief that recommendation Mediator was equitable and to advantage all concerned to accept. If this procedure is attended with success GA, toward end session, might be able pass quickly brief resolution recommending Mediator’s suggestion to favorable consideration of parties, thus saving face Arab and Jewish leaders.
Re para 5, Embtel 3962 Sep 3, Embs reply was correct. Dept has not given up principle similar approaches by US and UK to both Arabs; and Jews.
Re para 6 Embtel 3962 Sep 3. Deptels 3468 and 3469 Sep 11 may be considered replies in principle to Embtels 3880 and 3881 Aug. 27. Further replies re specific points and details will follow. Dept concurs in general with Brit ideas re Israeli frontiers. US does not favor Jewish corridor to Jerusalem on assumption some acceptable plan for Jerusalem itself can be worked out. Dept still considers Haifa as important point. US agrees that Mediator’s proposal should refer specifically to Arab refugees.
Pls insure foregoing is treated with utmost discretion.