Marx-Engels | Lenin | Stalin | Home Page
Stalin, Soviets and Israeli QuestionFROM THE INFORMATION LETTER OF THE MISSION OF THE USSR IN LEBANON TO THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR V.A. ZORIN
April 14, 1949
Secret
During the month of March, the general political situation in the Middle East was characterized by a kind of lull, under the cover of which active preparations were made for violent events that resulted in a coup d'etat in Syria at the end of March.
The main issues during this period include the following:
1. The Palestinian question
After signing on February 24 this year. The Egyptian-Israeli armistice agreement was followed by the Transjordan-Israeli and the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations continued and the signing of the Lebanese-Israeli agreement on March 23 and the Transjordan-Israeli agreement on April 3 this year. In addition, after a very long and sharp hesitation, the Syrian government in the twenties of March finally decided to negotiate with Israel, which began on April 5 after the accomplished coup d'état in Syria.
A very lively Anglo-American struggle was waged around these negotiations all the time, into which both sides involved their agents and extremely nationalist reactionary elements of the Arab countries. The fact is that, in spite of the most unbridled chauvinist propaganda, the broad masses of the Arab countries began to understand and feel the grave consequences of the Palestinian adventure started by the ruling clique, so they began to put pressure on their governments and force them to end the Palestinian question. However, an agreement between the Arab countries and Israel would deprive the British and Americans of the opportunity to carry out their plans in the Middle East.
In view of this, Great Britain has thrown out a new trick. It allowed the King of Transjordan, Abdullah, to conclude a truce with Israel, since his refusal would have shown the British game too openly and would have made it somewhat difficult for him to develop the Arab part of Palestine, but forced Iraq to take an implacable position, leaving Iraqi troops in Palestine.
In parallel with the bilateral negotiations between individual Arab countries and Israel and the signing of these ceasefire agreements in the Middle East, the United Nations Conciliation Commission on Palestine which, after visiting Jerusalem and bypassing the capitals of Arab states, began to hold meetings with representatives of the Arab countries on the settlement of the Palestinian question.
At these meetings, the following main issues were discussed:
About the fate of Arab refugees from Palestine, who, according to some sources, number over 800 thousand people. Moreover, about half of this number refers to those areas that, according to the decision of the UN General Assembly of November 29, 1947, should go to the Arab state, but in the process of armed struggle in Palestine were captured by Jews.
On the Statute of Jerusalem and On the Possibilities of Establishing Peace in Palestine.
According to the materials available to us, the main difficulty in the work of the commission was and still is the question of refugees, although it is not the main issue, for with the establishment of peace in Palestine, the situation of refugees would have been determined without any particular difficulties.
Representatives of all Arab countries strongly insist on the unconditional return of all refugees without exception to their former places of residence with full return or compensation for their property.
The State of Israel, referring to the changed conditions as a result of the hostilities in Palestine, refuses to accept all Arab refugees and agrees to accept only a known small part of them.
Thus, those who like to muddy the waters have turned the issue of refugees upside down in such a way that under the current circumstances it is really difficult to find a solution, especially since, according to individual statements of Arab politicians, Arab countries insist on the return of all Arab refugees, not because there is nowhere to place them in the rest. Arab countries or in the Arab part of Palestine, but because they want to have a kind of fifth column on the territory of the Jewish state, which in case of resumption of hostilities in the future will be able to provide serious support to the Arab offensive.
On the issue of the statute of Jerusalem, the Arab countries do not yet have a unanimous opinion. Some states, such as Syria, agree to grant Jerusalem an international statute, while Transjordan has indicated its intention to share Jerusalem with Israel.
Regarding a general solution to the Palestinian question in some Arab countries, even in the highest ruling circles, sentiments are beginning to appear about the adoption of the UN General Assembly decision of November 29, 1947 as a basis.
The commission stopped its work on April 3, having not found an acceptable solution to any of these issues, having achieved only the consent of the Arab countries, except for Iraq, to begin negotiations by the end of April in one of the European countries in Switzerland or Austria through the mediation of the commission with representatives of Israel.
2. Arab League
The December-January defeat of Egypt in Palestine finally revealed that the contradictions existing between the Arab countries and the dependence of some of them on Great Britain are much stronger than the capabilities of the Arab League, which actually ceased to exist. However, after the truce negotiations began with Israel and passions gradually subsided, the Arab ruling circles took a number of measures in order to find ways to prevent the official open collapse of the Arab League and to maintain its formal existence. The situation was further complicated by the fact that the month of March was approaching, during which, according to the charter of the Arab League, the next session of the League Council should take place. Consequently, the disruption of the convening of the session of the Council in March would mean not only the actual, but also the formal collapse of the League.
Perhaps, under other circumstances, this would have been easily reconciled, but in view of the fact that all the attempts of the British to put together the Small Eastern Bloc or to implement the project of Greater Syria and the Blessed Crescent did not give noticeable results, and the unambiguous American campaign unfolding at that time to put together the Mediterranean Entente temptation from the ruling elite of some of the Arab countries, the collapse of the Arab League could seriously weaken the British position in the Middle East. In view of this, it was very important for the British, at least for a while, to preserve the Arab League, which in many difficult turns made it possible to keep the Arab countries under British influence. To save the League, the British resorted to the services of their Lebanese agent Kamil Chamoun, who at the end of February and during the first half of March traveled to the Arab capitals: Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad and Amman, in which he obtained the consent of the Arab governments to a formal convocation on March 17 in Cairo regular 10th session of the Council of the Arab League.
The artificial nature of this session is evident from the fact that the delegates were third-rate representatives of the Arab governments, who, after several sessions of the Council, quietly interrupted their work, did not touch upon any pressing issues. But nevertheless, they fulfilled their task, preserving the formal existence of the Arab League.
3. Blocks
To strengthen its influence in the Middle East, to preserve its positions in the Arab countries, Great Britain has been striving for a very long time and persistently to carry out either the formation of Greater Syria, or the Union of the Fertile Crescent, or to achieve the conclusion of bilateral treaties of alliance and joint defense. But, when none of these intentions could be realized due to serious disagreements between the main inspirers of these blocs - Great Britain and the United States - and also because of the obvious objections, protests and even indignation of the Arab peoples against these blocs, then the British, apparently, decided temporarily abandon their projects and start giving power in the already existing Arab countries to their protégés and obedient lackeys such as Abdallah in Transjordan and Nuri Said Pasha in Iraq.
The main attention of the British was directed to Syria, in which Lawrence's associate Colonel Sterling, who remained in Syria as a "correspondent," has significantly strengthened his activities. During February and March, prominent British intelligence officers John Trudbeck and Getwood, Air Force Commander in the Middle East, Air Marshal William Dixon visited Syria, and Chief of General Staff General Dixon arrived at the British military base on the Suez Canal in Fayyad. In addition, the commander of the Transjordanian army, the notorious Glabb Pasha, allegedly also met with the commander of the Syrian army, Colonel Husni al-Zaim, who carried out a coup d'etat in Syria shortly thereafter.
Thus, a certain lull in open political activity in the Middle East that was observed in March in fact meant a change in the methods of action of the British and a deeply conspiratorial preparation of a new strike, this time delivered to Syria. [...]
Messenger D Malt
WUA RF. F. 0106. Op. 8.P. 10.D. 1.L. 7-12, 15.