501.BB Palestine/9–2848: Telegram
The Special Representative of the United States in Israel (McDonald) to the Secretary of State
niact
151. Reference Depcirtel September 22, 8 [2?] p. m., and further Mistel 148, September 27.1 Foreign Minister goes Paris tonight prepared acknowledge Bernadotte’s report as basis of discussion and in spirit of hope for reasonable settlement, but prepared by Cabinet instructions to fight for claims that PGI consider legitimate. Among these will be principally the vital problem of the Negev, and some not unfavorable solution of Jerusalem.
As regards exchange Galilee for Negev, Bernadotte’s proposal considered unacceptable by PGI because:
- 1.
- Reduces Israel’s net area by nine million dunums, leaving state with but five million dunum total.
- 2.
- Deprives Jews access Dead Sea.
- 3.
- Cuts off any hope Jewish trade route to Orient through Gulf Aqaba.
PGI argument is that Negev is only large unpopulated area affording [Page 1429] hope settlement Jewish refugees and allowing absorption natural population increase for many years. To give up Negev means reducing Israel to miniature state which would constitute area of population pressure and breed future conflict; gain of Galilee is not compensatory in that Galilee is relatively small and already heavily populated. The loss of the 22 Jewish settlements in Negev, which are still holding out against tremendous odds, is a politico-military factor which public and army will simply not permit PGI to ignore.
With reference to Jerusalem, Foreign Minister was instructed in secret session Cabinet to take stand:
- 1.
- That internationalization of total city, although theoretically possible, is very improbable of effective implementation, basically impracticable, will be source of constant difficulty owing natural topographical and racial complications and create terrific economic problem in that Jerusalem has no economic basis survival cut off from Israel.
- 2.
- To request that Jewish-held part of Jerusalem be incorporated in Israel as well as a corridor roughly of same area scope as present Jewish military corridor. In order accomplish (2), Jews might agree to partition of new city Jerusalem between Arabs and Jews and might suggest internationalization of old city within walls.
My personal opinion is that PGI delegation Paris will do utmost prove that loss of Negev is fatal blow to Israel’s future and the argument is patent.
Apart from above, but as general consideration, I note press here making much ado about British desire have air bases in Negev by agreement with Transjordan. Although without any information on subject, it is not impossible imagine Israel considering give British same airbase rights if Jews can retain Negev.2
Further, in my own mind I raise question of possibility, improbable as it may seem at moment, of Abdullah and Jews coming some sort of arrangement, under which both would agree re-stake Arab territory of Palestine roughly as shown in November 29 partition (leaving most of Negev and Jaffa to Israel) and straightening out weird frontiers configuration, followed by bilateral agreement or regional pact of economic cooperation and mutual military alliance to defend both states against outside aggression. Such an alliance would, in my opinion, afford only effective native military force in entire Middle East area south of Turkey.
Department pass Paris information GADel.
- Latter not printed.↩
- Mr. Burrows of the British Foreign Office “categorically” informed an Embassy officer on October 1 that “British Government has no special ideas re air base or bases in Negeb, although if territory went to Transjordan and thus came within area of Anglo-Transrjordan treaty British military would naturally consider Negeb on its merits from point of view UK strategic needs.” (Telegram 4357, October 4, 1 p. m., from London, 501.BB Palestine/10–448)↩