U.S. Prepares for UN Debate on Palestinian Refugees
(November 26, 1961)
This memorandum addresses the U.S. belief that the
upcoming UN meeting concerning
the Palestinian refugee problem will be one that incorporates hostile sentiments.
Washington, November 26, 1961.
/1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, 886.411/11-2661. Confidential.
Drafted by Crawford and Palmer on November 24 and cleared by Talbot,
Cleveland, Strong, and Sisco.
SUBJECT
United Nations Debate on the Arab Refugee Problem/2/
/2/The decision to send a memorandum to the President on this subject
resulted from a discussion held on November 21 among Talbot, Cleveland,
Plimpton, and other Department officials on U.S. tactics during the
forthcoming U.N. debate on the Palestinian refugee question. (Memorandum
of conversation; ibid., NEA/NE Files: Lot 64 D 73, Palestine Refugees)
See Supplement, the compilation on the Arab-Israeli dispute.
The United Nations Special Political Committee debate on the Palestine
Arab refugees is scheduled to begin shortly after November 27. We have
done considerable spadework to persuade both Arabs and Israelis of the
wisdom of avoiding an acrimonious debate like that of last spring. Nevertheless,
the debate promises to be a rough affair, with the United States getting
at least as many brickbats as thanks for our efforts. The Arabs will
probably press for several proposals designed to embarrass and hurt
Israel, including appointment of a United Nations custodian of former
Arab properties in Israel, reconstitution of the Palestine Conciliation
Commission (PCC), appointment of a Commission to inquire into the status
of the Arab minority in Israel, and official recognition of a delegation
of Palestinian Arabs who have come to New York for the coming debate.
On its side, Israel is preparing itself for vigorous counterattack.
Armed with a Ben-Gurion statement and Government-sponsored Knesset motion
openly contradictory to United Nations resolutions which would permit
some refugee repatriation,/3/ Israel will probably attempt to float
for tactical purposes a resolution calling for direct Arab-Israel peace
negotiations. We do not regard any of these possible proposals as helpful
in terms of a practical advance on the refugee problem.
/3/See footnote 2, Document 139.
You will recall our sponsorship earlier this fall of the PCC's appointment
of Dr. Joseph E. Johnson (Carnegie Endowment) as Special Representative
to undertake an exploratory mission to the Middle East on the refugee
problem. Dr. Johnson reports three basic conclusions: (1) there is a
very guarded willingness on the part of both Arab and Israeli leaders
to consider some gradual step-by-step process towards solution of the
refugee problem, (2) the Special Representative function should be continued
for about one more year to permit more thorough examination of the possibilities
of a step-by-step solution, and (3) it will be necessary even under
the most optimistic assumptions to continue international assistance
to the refugees for at least a decade./4/
/4/Johnson submitted his report on November 24; see Document 140.
Our objectives at the General Assembly are clear-cut. In terms of a
resolution, we will seek support for two main elements of Dr. Johnson's
findings: (1) the continuation for one year of the unobtrusive diplomatic
effort already initiated by the PCC (i.e., the Special Representative),
and (2) assent to a limited extension of the mandate of the United Nations
refugee relief agency (UNRWA) now scheduled to expire on June 30, 1963.
We believe this path offers the best hope for progress in an admittedly
unpromising situation. We intend to press resolutely for our two proposals.
Our general posture will be to examine other proposals from any quarter
with an eye to their probable effect on the advancement of the PCC effort.
This may entail opposition to Israeli as well as Arab initiatives, but
we are anxious to avoid a role that would identify us as the special
pleader for the partisan considerations of either side. Only thus can
we hope to fortify our position as an objective party seeking constructive
action in the interests of the refugees and area stability.
Our proposed positions on the proposals which may be introduced by
the Arabs and Israelis, respectively, are as follows:
U.N. Custodian of Former Refugee Properties in Israel: We are opposed
to this proposal, which is impractical, has dangerous implications for
the future of Israel, and is based upon erroneous legal assumptions.
We will vote against the proposal if necessary. We do not believe the
complicated legal issues involved can properly be resolved by a body
such as the SPC or UNGA. Privately, we regard the ICJ as an appropriate
institution to which such legally contentious issues can be referred,
and would not oppose such referral if it is urged by others.
Israel-Sponsored Motion for Direct Arab-Israel Negotiations: Since
there is not the slightest prospect of the Arabs agreeing to sit down
with the Israelis, we think this proposal could offer no practical result
in advancing the interests of the refugees or a solution of the problem.
(We recognize, however, that its introduction later as a counter to
equally unhelpful Arab proposals might serve our interests. This would
be the case if, by opposing it as well as Arab proposals, we could enhance
our posture as a non-partisan supporter of progress along realistic
lines.) For the foregoing reasons, we propose to vote against the Israeli
proposal if necessary.
PCC Reconstitution: The PCC is now made up of France, Turkey, and the
United States, a composition with which the Israelis are satisfied and
the Arabs suspicious. While ultimately some benefit might derive from
the addition of a few responsible neutrals less open to accusations
of pro-Israel bias, efforts at this session to reconstitute the PCC
would not be helpful to that body's current initiative, and might raise
the specter of application of the Soviet "troika" principle
in a Near Eastern context. We have made this clear to all concerned
but are prepared to re-examine our position should broad support for
the proposal develop. However, we consider it unlikely to be pressed
seriously by the Arabs.
Inquiry into Status of Arabs in Israel: Israel representatives have
tentatively indicated Israel might welcome a United Nations inquiry
into the situation of Israel's Arab population. A greater probability,
in our view, is that Israel would counter such an Arab proposal, if
made, by demanding a parallel investigation into the status of Jews
in the Arab countries. Should this issue arise, we would decide our
position in the light of the tactical situation then prevailing.
"Palestine Arab Delegation": As in previous years, our position
remains that membership of any Palestinian group should be heard by
the SPC as individuals only and not officially recognized as "The"
delegation representing all Palestine Arabs. This helps preclude an
"Algerianization" of the Palestine problem. Should a proposal
that the SPC hear "The Palestine Arab Delegation", as such,
be pressed to a vote, we would vote negatively./5/
/5/On December 6 in circular telegram 1072, the Department sent additional
guidance relating to the U.S. positions described in this memorandum
to certain Near Eastern, North African, and European posts. (Department
of State, Central Files, 325.84/12-661) See Supplement, the compilation
on the Arab-Israeli dispute.
Dean Rusk/6/
/6/Printed from a copy that indicates Rusk signed the original.
Sources: Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1961-1963: Near East, 1962-1963,
V. XVIII. DC: GPO,
2000. |