May 7, 1949 was a day of recorded diplomatic testimony and proposals. The king of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan described his earlier meeting with משה שרת MOŜE SHARETT, American officials discussed resettlement in the Lebanese Republic, and the UN membership hearing continued.

Which meeting did the king recount?

Richard Stabler’s 2 p.m. telegram says that King عبدالله ABDULLAH spoke to him that morning about the May 5 encounter at Shuneh. The king’s account addressed access, infrastructure and territorial demands. The full article keeps the May 5 occurrence, May 7 interview and May 10 confirmation distinct. Reporting the account today does not create a second meeting between the minister and the king.1

What did the American resettlement proposal ask?

A State Department instruction to Beirut recognized the country’s sensitive confessional balance and proposed a limited permanent resettlement principle. It sought selection on the basis:

half Christians half Moslems, in order maintain equilibrium.

This is source-owned wording. The instruction is evidence of a proposed selection rule, not a decision accepted by the Lebanese Republic or a transfer of a single family. A later response appears in the document’s editorial note; it is not backdated to May 7. Compensation and repatriation discussions continued separately.2

How did אבא אבן ABBA EBAN connect refugees and interstate relations?

At the committee’s continued hearing he answered a question concerning Charter principles and argued for rehabilitation through negotiations among governments. That is the government’s declared position, not evidence that each refugee had consented or obtained a remedy. The record’s description of rehabilitation and friendly relations does not convert a proposed policy into fulfilled individual rights. Nor did the hearing itself confer membership; the plenary admission article covers that later act.3

How is this dated?

The civil day May 7 uses ח׳ באייר ה׳תש״ט 8th 𝑜𝑓 Iyar, AM 5709. Stabler specifies a morning interview before his 2 p.m. dispatch. The May 5 Shuneh meeting retains its earlier date. The committee record identifies May 7; the instruction to Beirut supplies a date without a precise dispatch clock, leaving an after-sunset alternative for that act. Later editorial notes are separately dated.456

Guided reflections

  • Why should the king’s May 7 account leave the Shuneh meeting on May 5?
  • What further evidence would show whether the proposed resettlement principle became an accepted policy in the Lebanese Republic?

Footnotes

  1. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 638, FRUS638, heading and first sentence. ↩
  2. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 639, FRUS639, main instruction and May18 response note. ↩
  3. United Nations, A/AC.24/SR.48, SR.48, opening response and four points; original PDF held as source53. ↩
  4. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 638, Dispatch and morning interview. ↩
  5. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 639, Document heading. ↩
  6. United Nations, A/AC.24/SR.48, Original meeting heading. ↩

Works cited

  1. United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949. Vol. VI. Document 638. Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d638. Accessed October 11, 2026.
  2. United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949. Vol. VI. Document 639. Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d639. Accessed October 11, 2026.
  3. United Nations. A/AC.24/SR.48. Hosted official record or excerpt; corresponding original PDFs held where identified in the custody ledger. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-189757/. Accessed October 11, 2026.
  4. United Nations. A/AC.24/SR.48. Original bilingual official PDF held; OCR not globally proofread. https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC24SR48.pdf. Accessed October 11, 2026.