Israeli Response to Truman Letter Regarding Territory, Refugees

The Ambassador in Israel (McDonald) to the Secretary of State

top secret
niact
priority

Tel Aviv, May 29, 1949—6 p. m.

406. ReDeptel 322, May 28. During half hour conference (Ford also present) May 29 with Prime Minister and Foreign Minister at former’s home they read slowly note from President. At end of reading Foreign Minister said “this grave note calls for considered answer which we shall prepare.”

Prime Minister then expressed following: US is world power which helped us much before and after state set up. US has right to “have a say.” But note ignores two fundamental facts:

1. November 29 resolution never carried out by UN, US or Middle East States. It contemplated two states, Israel and independent Arab Palestine, united by customs and other ties at peace with one another and neighbors. Prime Minister unable recall any strong action by US or UN to enforce November 29 or prevent aggression by Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq. Instead embargo encouraged aggressors against Israel whose very existence was in danger. Had Jews waited on US or UN they would have been exterminated. Israel was established not on basis November 29 but on that of successful war of defence. Hence note’s suggestion is today unjust and unrealistic for it ignores war and continued Arab threats which make November 29 boundaries impossible.

2. Solution refugees can be considered only as part peace settlement. Arab States refuse make peace and on May 4, Israel’s independence day, threatened renewal war. So long as this attitude persists refugees are potential enemies of Israel. If war were renewed could Israel appeal to US to send arms or troops for defence against refugees fighting on side of aggressors? Upon whom does US ask Israel to rely?

In impassioned conclusion “off the record” Prime Minister said: “US is powerful and we are weak; we could be destroyed; but we do not intend to commit suicide by accepting November 29 settlement in today’s fundamentally changed conditions.”

Comment: Manner of Prime Minister’s response and unusual reticence of Foreign Minister indicated extreme seriousness their reception of President’s note. When Prime Minister opined that this was strongest representation yet sent by US to Israel I agreed but otherwise made no comment. There is no grounds however, for confidence Israel will accept without substantial reservations fundamentals of US position. I anticipate Israel’s formal reply soon. End comment.

McDonald

Source: U.S. State Department