867N.01/2–547: Telegram

The Chargé in the United Kingdom (Gallman) to the Secretary of State

secret
us urgent

775. During call at Embassy yesterday Neumann confirmed Beeley’s outline of February 3 meeting (Embassy’s 752, February 4) but provided many details which follow:

1.
When Jewish Agency Delegation received only Hansard report of Morrison’s speech (Embassy’s 690, January 31, paragraph 7) instead of the complete report with a map it expected, at Neumann’s suggestion, Jewish Agency Delegation handed Creech Jones, by way of comment, a copy of Ben-Gurion’s speech re Morrison plan made at Basel Congress.
2.
British Delegation had abandoned term “bi-national state” as a description of what it had in mind in favor of “unitary state” which it used throughout yesterday’s meeting.
3.
Ben-Gurion held forth on history Palestine problem for benefit of Bevin “who did not seem to be too well informed”. Ben-Gurion said that first partition Palestine took place in 1922; in 1937 the Peel Commission suggested partition; and in 1939 White Paper division of Palestine into zones was partition in fact since it confined Jews to narrow area. Ben-Gurion said that from point of view Jews, Britain’s “unitary state” is form of partition which Jewish Agency Delegation [Page 1027] could not accept. Ben-Gurion then reverted to his earlier criteria (Embassy’s 677, January 30, paragraph 3).
4.
Bevin attacked partition as a “counsel of desperation” and said that Britain had no intention of imposing a solution which would result in Britains taking up arms against Arabs. Britain does not need Palestine strategically and is prepared to throw problem without recommendation into UN. On other hand, Bevin thought unitary state, although he had not checked with lawyers, would be within framework of mandate which was an advantage in his eyes. Bevin did not define area he had in mind for Jews.
5.
Neumann said it was apparent to Jewish Agency that Bevin and Creech Jones did not see eye to eye because when Creech Jones referred to Jewish zone having a large measure of freedom re immigration to the extent of zones’ absorptive capacity, “Bevin tried to correct him”. Bevin said that there should be specified limits within which immigration might take place just as in present White Paper. Bevin wanted pre-determined maximum immigration for a number of years. Further along in discussions Creech Jones indicated that if after giving unitary state a fair trial either community desired to withdraw from Federal Union after five or ten years, this might be possible. Bevin said quickly that he did not agree with Creech Jones on this point.
6.
Neumann asked Bevin whether British Delegation had received any indication from Arab Delegation that it would consent to British conception of unitary state. Bevin replied that he could not answer this question.
7.
Re acquiescence on both sides instead of agreement Neumann described Bevin’s reply exactly as reported in paragraph 6, Embassy’s 752, February 4.
8.
Bevin said that British Delegation would be willing to put its ideas re unitary state in writing. He hoped for early Jewish Agency Delegation consideration of these explanatory views because he wanted to go before Parliament next week to state position.
9.
At this point Creech Jones, knowing how Jewish Agency Delegation feels about Morrison plan in any form asked whether Jewish Agency Delegation would be willing to consider the British views set down as in paragraph 8 above. Jewish Agency Delegation said that it would be willing to look at unitary state proposal. In so doing Neumann feels personally that Jewish Agency Delegation was too polite.
10.
Jewish Agency Delegation expected to receive British views re unitary state within few hours on the understanding that it was a British suggestion submitted without prejudice.
11.
Ben-Gurion ended talk with an appeal to Bevin as Socialist to [Page 1028] Socialist and Laborite to Laborite. Bevin was unmoved being concerned with “practical politics of situation”.
12.
In summary Neumann felt that Jewish Agency Delegation got no new information on major points and that meeting had clearly shown divergence of views between Bevin and Creech Jones, latter obviously being more inclined to give Jews a square deal than former.
13.
Neumann said that at Jewish Agency Delegation meeting today he would recommend to his colleagues that Jewish Agency Delegation terminate talks at once. He thought his colleagues would accept his recommendation which was based on fact that unitary state plan is only Morrison plan disguised, and secondly, because evacuation of British women and children from Palestine and other military measures have established a background against which Jewish Agency leaders in London can hope to do nothing. Of the two reasons latter was most important. Jewish Agency has information of the coming repressions Britain’s plan for Palestine. Such repression would play into hands of Irgun. In face of military action, which might include repression of Jewish Agency, Neumann could see no purpose in sitting quietly at conference table with Britains [sic]. By so doing Jewish Agency leaders would be ridiculous. He had told some of his colleagues from Palestine that they had better get ready to go back to jail.
14.
Neumann said that he had talked yesterday on telephone with Rabbi Silver who was in Washington seeing Ambassador Gardner and the Secretary. He had explained to Silver that nothing could come of present talks and that Jewish Agency was being maneuvered into hopeless position.
15.
Embassy seeing Neumann and possibly Shertok later today.

Gallman