501.BB Palestine/3–848: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)
niact
122. For Austin from Lovett. Despite negative Soviet attitude reported in your 256, March 8,1 we feel it is essential for those permanent members of SC which are willing to cooperate to develop clearly the attitude of Jews, Arabs and the Mandatory Power with respect to the situation in Palestine. In particular it is necessary to show their opinion on whether the plan of partition with economic union can be implemented by peaceful means without agreement between the Jews and Arabs of Palestine. We suggest the following procedure:
The Soviet Union should today formally be invited to participate with the US, China and France in questioning the Jewish Agency, the Arab Higher Committee, the Mandatory Power, and the Palestine [Page 702] Commission. Following anticipated Soviet refusal to participate in such questioning, the US, France, and China should collectively interrogate the parties. Approved questions for your use in this connection are listed in next telegram.2 It would seem preferable to commence the interrogatory with the UK, since this would in effect constitute consultation among four of the five Permanent Members.
After testimony has been taken from the Jews, Arabs, the Mandatory Power, and the Palestine Commission, consultation should proceed among the Big Five according to the terms of the resolution of March 5. Since the attitudes of the parties in Palestine are known in advance it seems obvious that their replies to Big Three questioning will have served once more to show the utter irreconcilability of the attitudes of Jews, Arabs and the UK on the plan for partition with economic union.
In light of this testimony therefore, the question, directed severally to the Big Five, “Do you believe that the plan of partition with economic union can be implemented by peaceful means without agreement between the Jews and Arabs of Palestine?” can scarcely receive an affirmative answer.
If the Soviet Representative says “No” to this question he can later scarcely fail to object to the logic of our position as developed in Deptel 107, March 5. If the Soviet Representative says “Yes”, the burden of proof will be on the USSR, to show how partition can be carried out by peaceful means in the absence of agreement. If the Soviet Representative advocates the use of SC force to carry out partition he must refute the constitutional argument established in your statement of Feb. 24.
In view of scant time at your disposal it is hoped that immediate agreement can be found between US, France and China for procedure outlined above. You should apprise your British colleague of our intentions arid of our expectation that UK cooperation will be informed, immediate, and imbued with realization of that responsibility which the British still hold for Palestine. [Lovett.]