ISRAEL a 1117

Pls take early opportunity discuss disposition Gaza strip with Kgyp-
tian Govt, requesting its views re Israeli offer. You shld emphasize to
Egyptian Govt US concern re refugees that area, which thas no eco-
nomic potential for future settlement, and ask Egyptian Govt ‘its

plans re disposition those who do not wish return. Israel, since latter

might be considerable number. You might in this connection obtain

Egyptian views with regard frontier in light Ambs reference to stra-

tegic rectification in order that we might explore possibility of ex-

change of Gaza strip for frontier rectification further south.
Rpt reply to USDel Lausanne.”

| | | | WEBB

 

4 This telegram was repeated to Bern as No. 778 (Unpal 145), for the American
Delegation at Lausanne. Chargé Patterson, on June 14, reported that prior to
receipt of telegram 578, i.e, on June 11, he had prought up the question of the
Gaza strip proposal with Foreign Minister Khashaba. The latter’s views “were
to effect that while Egypt contemplated. retention no portion Palestine as such
-Bgypt required most effective frontier for defensive purposes. This frontier
stated to be Gaza—Beersheba—Dead Sea line. Responsive to my question Minister
admitted that Egypt at present not willing cede Gaza coastal strip to Israel in
return for Israel's offer assumptions charge 200,000 or more refugees in Gaza—
Rafa strip.” (telegram 578 from Cairo, 867N.01/6-1449) a

 

867N.00/6-1149 : Telegram

The Consul at J erusalem (Burdett) to the Secretary of State |

SECRET | _Jerusaem, June 11, 1949—6 p. m.
409. Present tense situation Jerusalem attributable in large part to
failure reach agreement in Special Committee on questions both Jews
and Arabs consider essential. Break in deadlock likely to result in

quick relaxation and barring complete failure Lausanne eliminate in
immediate future present danger resumption hostilities Jerusalem.
Essential element is speedy solution through simplified procedure. |
Consulate General considers not advisable refer question to Lau-
sanne. Would thus become involved in whole peace treaty procedure
with consequent long delays, personnel at Lausanne not familiar with
details of problem and would have start all over again, extent of dis-
agreement would not be diminished by simple reference to Lausanne.
Same issues must be resolved regardless locale. Arbitration procedure
would also involve delay, arbitrator would not be familiar with ques-
tion, and Israel at least could be expected refuse accept principle ar-
bitral award. | ee a
Consulate General therefore, suggests following approach combin-
ing certain features Department and Amman proposals. Settlement
Government House matter necessary prerequisite. Request by Special
Committee to MAC to hold series extraordinary sessions under direct