Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume VI

501.BB Palestine/2–1549: Telegram

The Chargé in Egypt (Patterson) to the Secretary of State

confidential

Cairo, February 15, 1949—6 p. m.

173. Palun 46. [From Ethridge.] During February 15 meeting between Egyptian Prime Minister accompanied by Foreign Minister and PCC. Prime Minister replied to Commission aide-mémoire on subjects of general negotiations, Commission assistance, Jerusalem, economic matters and refugees as set forth in GA resolution December 11 and on subject territorial questions.

Prime Minister reiterated previous view Egyptian Government as reported in Palun 43¹ that present negotiations at Rhodes should be concluded and solution for refugee problem should be achieved before considering other matters which Commission had raised. Egypt and Israel had embarked on Rhodes negotiations as basis SC resolutions. Although Egypt agreed respect these resolutions Israelis not satisfied and does not wish implement. Even Acting Mediator’s suggestions which have exceeded SC resolutions in some respects are not accept able to Jews. Successful conclusion either at Rhodes or for Commission seems impossible as long as Jews do not feel bound respect GA or SC.

Refugees:² Principle of return to homes and respect for property and rights is fundamental and must be accepted in advance. Refugees who do not wish return should be compensated. GA considered this matter and instructed accordingly. Until appropriate measures taken UN has responsibility for refugees. Despite right Arab return as guaranteed by UN Jews may continue object. No single country, however, restricts residence on basis of religion. All countries have minorities which have full rights as citizens. If some Arab refugees return and some do not, latter category can be agreed between Israel and Arab states on basis of exchange for Jews now in Arab lands.

Jerusalem:³ Arabs have had long and good record in Jerusalem. No reason to take from Arabs and make international. Egypt’s attitude will, however, be based on GA resolution December 11.

Economic matters: Egyptian Government will be glad examine proposals at later date.

Territorial questions: Prime Minister did not discuss in reply at first but later indicated there was no use discussing pending conclusion Rhodes talks and concrete evidence of Jewish good faith and real wish live up to GA and SC resolutions.

Commission argued each of foregoing points with Prime Minister without avail. Ethridge pointed out as member Commission and as US representative interest in success at Rhodes and observed that if all Arab states had views similar those Egypt endless talk might result. If Rhodes talks should fail Commission might be requested assume responsibility for armistice negotiations. Such delays would be serious for refugees and might contribute to political unrest in Near East. It therefore seemed wise now have informal talks at least on all outstanding problems.

Prime Minister stated he had sincerely attempted give Egyptian attitude to fullest extent now possible and that he would continue cooperate with Commission. Egypt did not believe, however, it would be useful progress further at this stage until Jewish intentions were really known. Their reaction at Rhodes and to problem of refugees would be best demonstrations their good faith.⁴ [Ethridge.]

Patterson

1. Identified also as telegram 166, February 14, 10 a. m., from Cairo, not printed; it stated that the Commission arrived at Cairo on February 12 and that preliminary discussions with Egyptian officials began the next day. Egyptian Foreign Minister was said to have welcomed the Commission but to have denounced the “intransigent line” of the Israelis at Rhodes. He was also reported as saying that Egypt would not approve “historical injustice in Palestine.” (501.BB Palestine/2–1449)
2. In the discussions of February 13, Chairman Yalcin stated that the return of the refugees “was logical though difficult because conditions had changed on account Jewish immigration. If Arabs could not resettle in Egypt, perhaps other Arab states could accommodate?” The Foreign Minister retorted that the Arab States would “never admit no right to return.”
3. In the discussions of February 13, the Foreign Minister refused to commit himself on the question of the internationalization of Jerusalem, “pointing out Jerusalem had always been Arab but that this matter could be discussed after Israel had complied with SC resolutions and refugees solution had been found.”

   Telegram 166 also stated that Mr. Ethridge sought Egyptian views regarding “general or separate peace conferences or combination of both.” The Foreign Minister expressed his belief that “direct negotiations would be preferable but stated Egypt would have to wait and see if Israel wanted peace and would abide by SC resolutions.”

4. Mr. Ethridge concluded that “Talks here have convinced me that unless Rhodes negotiations are quickly successful Commission’s work will be greatly delayed while situation, particularly as to refugees, disintegrates and becomes more dangerous. In circumstances urge Department exert utmost pressure in addition to that already taken to make them successful and consider suggesting to very highest levels that this is time to intervene with Israel. The maul is badly needed.” (Telegram 172, February 15, 5 p. m., from Cairo, 501.BB Palestine/2–1549)