Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Arab-Israeli Dispute; United Arab Republic; North Africa, Volume XIII

103. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Israel¹

Washington, November 20, 1959—10:39 p.m.

426. Following based on uncleared memorandum of conversation:²

In interview with Secretary November 20 Israel Ambassador conveyed personal gratitude Foreign Minister Meir re US efforts on behalf Syrian Jews. On general US–Israel relations, Harman said increased strength Ben Gurion’s party resulting from election gives assurance continuity Israel foreign and defense policies, and discussed following substantive points:

1) Arms requirements: Ambassador did not present list of arms requirements promised Foreign Minister Meir in September 29 interview.³ No new points raised but Ambassador reiterated GOI anxiety re a) adverse trend arms balance in Near East because of “continued massive armament” by UAR; and b) economic impact of arms purchases needed to redress balance.

2) Suez transit issue: Ambassador referred to SYG Hammarskjold’s efforts resolve transit issue and said Israel had made considerable accommodation in order achieve progress toward return of 1958 status quo. Israel now preparing send chartered ship through canal without publicity. In response query he said SYG informed this plan and ship would probably leave within few weeks. In course of discussion Secretary indicated we have been in touch with Hammarskjold on question and he aware our interest in solution of problem.

3) Jordan water: Referring to US note of November 19⁴ replying to GOI request for assistance Jordan water development, Ambassador said he instructed point out GOI concern that USG appears not give same weight to GOI assurances re compatibility its plans with Johnston Plan as given to similar assurances by Kingdom of Jordan. Major GOI concern is that HKJ proceeding with implementation its portion of Johnston Plan with full US support and assistance while this lacking for Israel. Ambassador reiterated GOI arguments Beit Shean project in no way equivalent to East Ghor. Noting differences in GOI and HKJ projects, Department officer pointed out problem is not acceptance GOI assurances but resolution differences over interpretations of technical aspects Johnston Plan.

(US note observes inter alia that GOI interpretation of Johnston Plan differs from that of USG and suggests it might be useful if talks could be arranged between Israel and US experts with view to assuring that Israel’s understanding of technical aspects of Johnston Plan coincides with our own.)

Herter

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.84A/11–2059. Secret; Priority. Drafted by Theodore A. Wahl and approved and signed for Herter by Meyer. Repeated to Cairo, Amman, and USUN.
2. A briefing paper for the interview and a memorandum of the conversation on general U.S.-Israeli relations are ibid. A memorandum of the conversation on arms requirements is ibid., 601.84A11/11–1959.
3. See Documents 91 and 92.
4. See footnote 3, Document 100.