Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XVIII, Near East, 1962–1963

330. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to Certain Posts⁰

Washington, September 26, 1963, 9:03 p.m.

585. SPC-UNRWA Debate: USUN’s 974.¹

For USUN: Dept believes Mission should at early appropriate moment seek meeting with Comay and outline frankly our views on direct negotiations resolution along following lines: (Dept will make parallel approach to Harman or Gazit).

1. USG has indications from many sides (including sources in Cairo, Amman, Beirut, Damascus, Arab League, and Arab UN circles) Arabs not eager for knockdown, drag out battle this year on refugee problem. This does not mean there won’t be usual contentious oratory, but does appear to mean they have not thus far pushed and are not eager to push their past resolutions calling for property custodian or PCC enlargement. Therefore there good chance these Arab resolutions may be left in abeyance at least for this year, providing Israel and its friends do not promote proposal for direct negotiations. However it foregone conclusion any further efforts to advance latter resolution will spur Arabs to action on one or several of their proposed resolutions.

2. On other hand we have heard from numerous quarters that Israelis are promoting direct negotiations resolution, and we have been informed by Israeli Embassy (Tosec 47 Sept 25)² that Mrs. Meir intends to press Secretary hard for reconsideration US opposition to direct negots res.

3. Before going into specifics our proposal we wish to remind Israel of nature our package agreement last year for handling Johnson Plan in GA, and especially question of two-year moratorium on res for direct negots: Although Amb Harman on Dec. 4, 1962 declined to commit Israel to two-year moratorium, Asst. Secty Talbot, on Dec. 6, after consideration by highest level USG, informed Amb Harman USG would proceed in GA along lines discussed in package proposal “on the basis of our interpretation” of the agreement. Mr. Talbot added if there any differences about interpretation of agreement we should consult to resolve them. Thus as far as we concerned USG proceeded with package agreement on understanding Israel would not push direct negots agreement in 63, at minimum not without prior consultation and agreement with USG.

GOI has informed us of its intention to work for direct negots res. This is not equivalent to consultation either on differences of interpretation of agreement or on question of direct negots res itself. Israel has always said it wanted close consultation with USG on this problem, and we believe our agreement at minimum called for more consultation than we have had so far before Israel should feel itself free to seek to revive this res.

4. We would like to make clear again to GOI our position on question direct negots:

As explained many times, we do not oppose principle of direct negotiations, but we do believe (a) resolution for direct negotiations could not be adopted by GA; (b) if by some extraordinary chance it were adopted, it could not possibly lead to any useful, practical result; (c) on contrary, it will only provoke Arabs to pushing equally useless and impractical partisan resolution; and (d) the greater the heat on this question the greater the strain on USG talks with Israel and Arab states, and other USG efforts to obtain practical accommodations on specific issues (Jordan waters).

5. We therefore seek from Arab states and Israel assurances that neither side will introduce resolution providing other side does not push his. We wish to be able to tell Arabs Israel has assured us it will not introduce direct negots resolution providing Arabs do not introduce resolutions calling for property custodian, enlargement PCC, or any res to gain additional status for Palestine entity. We will seek matching assurances from Arabs. Naturally we cannot give either side ironclad guarantee of other’s conduct, but we believe such mutual assurances through us may achieve desired result; in any case, if either side breaks agreement, other side also naturally free to act.

6. We hope GOI will give earnest consideration to this proposal, and that Mrs. Meir will be prepared when she meets with Secretary to indicate Israel’s willingness to give it fair trial. We would of course remain in close consultation with Israel.³

7. Since UNRWA was extended last year for two-year term, we do not believe there is need this year for any resolution at all on this subject. FYI Noforn. In final analysis we may have to develop innocuous resolution continuing PCC mandate to keep working at the problem, but would prefer to start strongly on intention to have no resolution since none is called for. End FYI.

For All Action Addressees: Re last para Damascus tel 236 to Dept,⁴ re idea of inflating Palestine entity project as central issue in refugee debate, Embs and USUN should quickly and firmly discourage this sterile Arab project any time it emerges. You may say as appropriate USG will vigorously oppose any plan for “Palestine entity” or any move, such as seeking increased status for so-called “Palestine Arab delegation.” As in past, we have no objection to hearing certain Palestinian Arabs for light they may be able to throw on debate, but we oppose their appearance at GA as “Palestine Arab Delegation” or as official representatives of Palestine Arabs.

Ball

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, REF 3 UNRWA. Confidential. Drafted by Campbell; cleared by Crawford in draft, Jernegan, and Buffum; and approved by Cleveland. Sent to USUN, Amman, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, and Jerusalem and repeated to Ankara, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv.
1. Telegram 974 from USUN, September 26, reported information received from a reliable source that the Arab States would not push for the adoption of an Arab property custodian item during the current U.N. General Assembly session, and suggested that the United States seek to convince Israel not to push for a direct negotiations resolution during the session. (Ibid.)
2. In Tosec 47 to USUN, September 25, the Department of State reported that Gazit, Minister of the Israeli Embassy, had indicated that Foreign Minister Meir would push hard for a direct negotiations resolution during the current General Assembly session. (Ibid., POL ARAB-ISR)
3. On September 27, Wallner outlined U.S. views on direct negotiations to Ambassador Harman, who indicated that Israel had never agreed not to pursue the direct negotiations resolution. (Telegram 873 to USUN, September 27; ibid. POL 3 UNRWA) On September 27 in New York, Israeli Permanent Representative Comay made a similar response when Plimpton presented the U.S. position. (Telegram 1027 from USUN; September 27; ibid., REF 3 UNRWA)
4. Dated September 25. (Ibid., REF PAL)