Office of the Historian

294. Telegram From the Embassy in Israel to the Department of State1

Washington,September 21, 1955—7 p.m.

278. Called on Prime Minister at my request this morning and gave him orally substance Deptel 195.2 Despite fact in so doing I underscored that Secretary’s statement not plan and USG has no blueprint for settlement problems Sharett made following comments:

1.
George Allen’s statement to Eban (memo conversation September 15)3 to effect USG not thinking in terms of unilateral concession of territory by Israel and there must be some give and take on both sides “somewhat but not completely reassured”Sharett following latter’s apprehension over general reference to subject in Secretary’s statement.
2.
He was not clear as to meaning attached to term “settlement” of problems as used in statement. Does it mean permanent settlement [Page 499] in terms of peace? Does USG feel Arabs amenable to peace settlement? Or are changes or amendments to armistice agreement contemplated? If latter these must be done according to armistice agreement machinery. (This is second time he has made this point.)
3.

Referring to territorial concessions Egypt has demanded continuity with Jordan. What is US attitude on this point? Is Egypt’s approach accepted? If so what happens to Israel’s continuity?GOI will not sacrifice its continuity to give Arab States continuity.

At this point I again injected remark that although Prime Minister’s comment of interest USG has no plan it imposing on either party and statement made to indicate desirability of working toward settlement principal issues in connection with which Secretary set forth what we prepared to do. We hoped Israel and Arab States study problem and indicate contributions each willing to make. Then we and UK would if desired by both parties aid in initiating exchange of views of both sides. His only reply was “Yes, but Arabs have already put forth their claims for continuity and I would like to know USG attitude”. I made no further comment.

4.
Re tripartite declaration there was no question as to borders it guaranteed. Now statement says those border lines cannot be guaranteed. This seems inconsistent—why any question of frontier changes from those guaranteed under declaration.

I said I must take issue with him on this point as it seemed clear to me that declaration pertained to armistice lines which by their very nature were recognized as temporary. On other hand Secretary was quite obviously visualizing lines which would be considered permanent in nature [and so] recognized by both parties before any guarantee involved. He accepted these remarks without further comment on subject.

Re minimum publicity, he agreed in principle but pointed out there no way to prevent general discussion of statement in Knesset.

Comment:Sharett in view my insistence US not proposing settlement plan did not at this juncture expect definitive replies to his questions. But character of his comment may be helpful in marking his line of thinking and aid us in anticipating his expressed reaction in these particular fields if and when he indicates what contributions Israel is willing to make. Also these discussions should help us prepare specific questions to be presented to him at some later date and his reception of these questions. For these reasons I am reporting his remarks on each occasion.

Lawson
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 684A.86/9–2155. Top Secret; Priority; Alpha; Limit Distribution. Received at 11:50 a.m., September 22. Repeated priority to London, Cairo, Amman, Damascus, Beirut, and Baghdad.↩
  2. Document 273.↩
  3. No record of this conversation has been found in Department of State files.↩