On June 17, 1949, אבא אבן ABBA EBAN and colleagues discussed refugees, territory and negotiating methods with American officials. Washington also considered assurances to the Syrian Republic. The documents preserve incompatible demands and attempts to keep diplomacy moving without establishing a completed peace settlement.12

What was discussed in Washington?

The Eban–Webb meeting joined the Gaza proposal to larger refugee and territorial questions. Conditional figures in the neighborhood of 300,000 were arguments about a possible settlement, not verified people absorbed. The parties disputed who had originated the proposal and how Lausanne should proceed. Earlier Egyptian opposition remained distinct from American conditional consideration.3

What did the Arab delegates require?

Hare’s report from Lausanne describes insistence on refugee measures and positions connected with the May memoranda before territorial bargaining. The Kingdom of Egypt’s instructions were part of that account. Agreement on sequence among delegations cannot be read as agreement on every boundary or every government’s private goals. The report dates their position, not a new expulsion or refusal issued to an individual household.4

Did allegations establish a new offensive?

An inquiry about military leave was answered by אסתר הרליץ ESTER HERLIẒ with a categorical denial. Without the operational orders, neither allegation nor denial supplies a verified plan. The day’s record supports diplomatic work on security and peace; it does not justify adding a new battle to the chronology.5

How is this dated?

This is Day 566 of the 599-day civil-date series, 1949-06-17, using its daytime route כ׳ בסיון ה׳תש״ט 20th 𝑜𝑓 Sivan, AM 5709. The recap groups developments and reportage; it does not give every discussed event this date. FRUS 772 dates the Washington conversation June 17, 11:45 a.m.–1:45 p.m., supporting 20 Sivan. FRUS 774 was transmitted June 17 at 7 p.m.; its report clock must remain separate from individual conversations. The next day’s assurances and June 19 instructions are later steps.678

Guided reflections

  • Why do conditional population figures remain distinct from admissions?
  • How can agreement on a negotiating sequence conceal disagreement over territory?

Footnotes

  1. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 772, FRUS 772, meeting heading. ↩
  2. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 774, FRUS 774, Lausanne report. ↩
  3. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 772, Gaza and negotiating procedure passages. ↩
  4. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 774, June 17 report, delegation positions and memoranda. ↩
  5. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 772, Footnote 4, Herlitz denial. ↩
  6. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 772, Heading. ↩
  7. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 774, Heading. ↩
  8. FRUS 1949, vol. VI, document 778, Instruction date. ↩

Works cited

  1. United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949. Vol. VI. Document 772. Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d772. Accessed October 11, 2026.
  2. United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949. Vol. VI. Document 774. Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d774. Accessed October 11, 2026.
  3. United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949. Vol. VI. Document 778. Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d778. Accessed October 11, 2026.