394. Telegram From the Embassy in Israel to the Department of State1
493. Reference Deptel 2992 French Ambassador informed me his Government in agreement our formula and he prepared to go ahead that basis. However as of 16:00 Tuesday November 8 British colleague had not received approval our formula which he endeavored get London to accept.
In view of Foreign Minister’s departure for US November 7 it was agreed three Ambassadors pay courtesy call on Sharett3 in Jerusalem, French [British?] Ambassador feeling that asdoyen concurs he should not delay call until return of Sharett. It was likewise agreed that I should inform Foreign Minister we in agreement with principles as expressed in views presented to me; that principle of reciprocity in receiving Chiefs of Missions in Tel Aviv as well as Jerusalem was implicit in our authorization to call on him in Jerusalem; that our position of adherence to UN resolution4 until ultimate settlement Jerusalem problem remained unchanged; and that it clearly understood there is to be no publicity our current visit to him in Jerusalem or reference arrangement at any time.
I made presentation as indicated with full support British and French Ambassadors. In view fact British colleague not authorized to agree our formula approach (Deptel 269 paragraph 1)5 merely suggesting “arrangement whereby either would make periodic visits to Tel Aviv perhaps once weekly or not less than once fortnight” (London insisting we pin down Sharett to specific day each week) we agreed to postpone statement of particulars as to operations under “reciprocal basis”. It so happened Sharett although mildly objecting to term reciprocity volunteered statement he expected to continue his custom of visiting Tel Aviv weekly, usually on Fridays, and drew our attention to fact he still maintaining office in Tel Aviv. He foresaw no possible difficulty of an equitable operation of [Page 727] formula as agreed in principle and gave UK definite assurances reference no publicity, application of this formula to all Chiefs of Missions, and continuation of principle of interchange of visits in both cities by Mission and foreign affairs officials.
We feel we now have workable arrangement for effective representation but propose to see Sharett on his return to Israel and supplement our talk with comment along following line:
“In view your statement that you usually visit Tel Aviv once a week and would as rule be available to Chiefs of Mission on Fridays we have been authorized to call on you in Jerusalem whenever circumstances demand it.” Under my instructions I assume this is acceptable procedure and will be acceptable to French. British Ambassador is submitting suggestion to London.
I anticipate not slightest tendency Sharett to deviate from past practice of balancing up Tel Aviv and Jerusalem loci of meetings with us.6
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 601.84A/11–955. Confidential. Received at 1 p.m., November 10. Repeated to London.↩
- Document 373.↩
- Lawson reported on November 2 in telegram 449 from Tel Aviv that he and his British colleague agreed that it would be preferable to discuss this subject with Sharett rather than with Ben Gurion. (Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/ 11–255)↩
- General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), adopted November 29, 1947, provided for the partition of Palestine, with international status for Jerusalem. The text is printed in Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. V, p. 1709. General Assembly Resolution 303 (IV), approved November 9, 1949, reaffirmed the international status of Jerusalem. The text is printedibid., 1949, vol. VI, p. 1530.↩
- Printed as Document 346.↩
- The Embassy in London informed the Department on November 14 that the British Foreign Office had instructed the British Ambassador in Tel Aviv to join in the approach to Sharett on the Jerusalem question along the lines indicated in telegram 493 from Tel Aviv. (Telegram 1984 from London; Department of State, Central Files, 601.0084A/11–1455)↩