Office of the Historian

412. Telegram From the Consulate General in Geneva to the Embassy in Israel1

Geneva,November 16, 1955—noon.

10. For Ambassador from Secretary.Macmillan told me yesterday Eden is concerned over impression in Tel Aviv that US Government does not fully support his Guildhall speech which UK Ambassador has assured Israeli Government had Secretary’s “full agreement”. He asks at minimum that Ben Gurion be told by you that US supports UK in this matter.

For your information:

While not desiring to disassociate myself from Eden initiative which on whole I consider constructive, you should know that I did not approve Eden speech in advance. In fact I was only shown by Macmillan single paragraph from speech at noon on day of its delivery and I raised question about point it discussed reference to UN resolution of 1947.2 End your information.

Unless Department instructs you to contrary I suggest you might however let Ben Gurion know in general terms that US and [Page 773] UK see alike on imperative need for Arab-Israeli settlement even at some substantial sacrifice by Israel and US endorses Eden speech insofar as it supports my speech of August 26.

For Hoover. I understand British Embassy, Washington has copy UK cable from Tel Aviv on which Eden’s concern based.3 I incline strongly against public statement which cable suggests unless you were consulted more fully than I was and in timely advance of Eden speech.

Dulles
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–GE/11–1655. Secret; Priority. The source text is a copy repeated to Washington as Secto 317. Received at 8:42 a.m. Also repeated priority to London.↩
  2. See Document 391.↩
  3. Patrick Hancock of the British Delegation in Geneva gave Merchant a copy of the telegram from Tel Aviv under cover of a memorandum dated November 15. The telegram reported that Israeli press comment on Eden’s speech was “increasingly uncompromising and unfriendly”; that “the Israel Government believes that the U.S. Government are not fully behind it”; and that the United States could best correct this misconception by issuing a public statement of support. (Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–GE/11–1555)↩