On June 9, 1949, diplomats at Lausanne presented incompatible positions on return, territory and the Government House dispute. American officials assessed the previous night’s reply and pressed both parties for commitments. The records establish negotiation and policy disagreement, without a completed settlement.123

How did Washington respond?

Dean Rusk described the reply as restrained in tone but a rejection of principal American positions. A separate instruction sought commitments from מדינת ישראל MEDINAT YISRAʾEL toward repatriation and Arab governments toward resettlement before an economic survey could advance. These were American assessments and instructions, not a judicial ruling or agreement accepted by both parties.4

5

What did the Arab delegations protest?

At 10:30 a.m., delegates of the Kingdom of Egypt, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Lebanese Republic and Syrian Republic presented the Government House complaint. They treated the movement as a threat to the peace process. The full incident study preserves the difference between their formal allegation and the later commission finding. The protest made the dispute a documented diplomatic matter without verifying every military detail.6

How did Eitan explain refusal of return?

At 11:30 a.m., ולטר Eitan WALTER described changed housing in יפו YAFO and the demographic consequences of war. He denied that the government would have advocated removal, while arguing that restoring the displaced population would recreate a minority problem. The full policy study quotes both statements. His security rationale and refusal of large-scale immediate return are explicit; his general narrative does not determine every family’s wartime experience.7

What followed from the June 9 Sharett conversation?

McDonald’s June 10 telegram reports a separate conversation with משה שרת MOŜE SHARETT on June 9. Sharett supplied about 24,000 as prior repatriation and discussed possible family reunion. The figure has uncertain dates and categories and cannot become 24,000 new admissions this week. Permission considered for wives and minor children is not a completed border crossing.8

How is this dated?

This is Day 558 of the 599-day civil-date series: 1949-06-09. Its public daytime route is י״ב בסיון ה׳תש״ט 12th 𝑜𝑓 Sivan, AM 5709. The civil slot is not the occurrence date of every item discussed. The UN meeting headings give June 9 at 10:30 and 11:30 a.m. Rusk’s memorandum and Washington instruction are dated June 9. McDonald’s June 10 telegram expressly describes a June 9 conversation without supplying its hour; unknown evening boundaries remain unresolved, with י״ג בסיון ה׳תש״ט 13th 𝑜𝑓 Sivan, AM 5709 adjacent.91011

Guided reflections

  • How can Eitan deny an original preference for removal while opposing reversal of its demographic consequences?
  • Why is Sharett’s reported 24,000 not a ten-day admission count?

Footnotes

  1. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 737, FRUS 737. ↩
  2. United Nations, A/AC.25/SR/LM/18, Arab delegation meeting. ↩
  3. United Nations, A/AC.25/SR/LM/19, Delegation of Medinat Yisrael meeting. ↩
  4. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 737, FRUS 737. ↩
  5. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 739, FRUS 739, minimum commitments. ↩
  6. United Nations, A/AC.25/SR/LM/18, SR/LM/18, pp. 1–4. ↩
  7. United Nations, A/AC.25/SR/LM/19, SR/LM/19, pp. 2–5. ↩
  8. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 742, FRUS 742, June 9 conversation, paragraph 2b. ↩
  9. United Nations, A/AC.25/SR/LM/18, Heading. ↩
  10. United Nations, A/AC.25/SR/LM/19, Heading. ↩
  11. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 742, June 9 conversation. ↩

Works cited

  1. United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949. Vol. VI. Document 737. Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d737. Accessed October 11, 2026.
  2. United Nations. A/AC.25/SR/LM/18. Official English summary record, June 1949. https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC25Srlm18.pdf. Accessed October 11, 2026.
  3. United Nations. A/AC.25/SR/LM/19. Official English summary record, June 1949. https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC25Srlm19.pdf. Accessed October 11, 2026.
  4. United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949. Vol. VI. Document 739. Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d739. Accessed October 11, 2026.
  5. United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949. Vol. VI. Document 742. Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d742. Accessed October 11, 2026.