IO Files, Lot 71 D 440
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Wells Stabler
US/A/AC.38/167
Subject: Refugees
| Participants: | H. E. Mr. Abba Eban, Israeli Delegation |
| Mr. Gideon Rafael, Israeli Delegation | |
| Mr. Arthur Lourie, Israeli Delegation | |
| Mr. Reuven Shiloah, Israeli Delegation | |
| Ambassador John B. Blandford, Jr., PRA Representative | |
| Mr. John C. Boss, United States Delegation | |
| Mr. Arthur Z. Gardiner, United States Delegation | |
| Mr. Wells Stabler, United States Delegation |
At lunch yesterday Ambassador Blandford outlined to the Israeli Delegation the contents of the PRA report1 and explained what PRA had in mind with respect to reintegration. Mr. Ross indicated that he felt Israeli opposition to reaffirmation of the resolution of December 11, 1948 was unrealistic and believed that more harm than good would be done by such opposition. He also suggested to the Israelis that, in view of their desire for peace, it was incumbent on them to remove the “key log” to break the log jam. In this connection he suggested that a more forthcoming attitude on the question of compensation might contribute to a solution and would certainly be in line with the PRA concept of a reintegration fund.
Mr. Eban said that he realized that the December 11, 1948 resolution was still on the books, but felt that its reaffirmation could have no other effect than to retard what was believed to be growing realization on the part of the Arab states that resettlement was the only answer. The Israeli Government had been informed by the PCC that it had found amongst the Arabs a more realistic attitude on resettlement versus repatriation. With respect to compensation, the Israeli Delegation had always accepted the principle that the refugees should be compensated for their losses. However, they had no indication that the immediate payment of compensation would contribute towards a settlement between the Arabs and Israel. On the contrary, the Arabs are more than ever convinced that their economic blockade will eventually force Israel to its knees and there are signs that the Arabs are tightening the economic blockade. This blockade, Eban asserted, had done considerable damage to Israel, even though its extent might not be known to the Arab states. However, with regard to compensation, it might well be that the Arab states would feel that by extorting large sums of money from Israel they could further weaken Israel’s economic position. In other words, the compensation demands would, therefore, be satisfied.
Mr. Ross and Ambassador Blandford argued that this was not realistic and that one had to look at this question from a humanitarian point of view. There were eight or nine hundred thousand refugees with no place to go and at the present time without hope. They were now entering their third winter and this impasse could no longer continue. Israel had a definite responsibility towards these refugees and must condition itself to make a substantial contribution to its solution. This solution would not only include compensation, but the repatriation of a number of refugees.
Mr. Eban said that his delegation would report fully what had been said at the meeting and would propose to his Government the [Page 1038] possibility of Israel paying a substantial sum for the purpose of the reintegration fund. This payment could be considered in the nature of compensation.