111. Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, December 7, 1959, 2:30 p.m.1
SUBJECT
- U.S. Policies in the Near East
PARTICIPANTS
- The Secretary
- Mr. Philip M. Klutznick, Chairman of the Presidents’ Conference
- Mrs. Rose L. Halprin, Acting Chairman, Jewish Agency for Israel
- Dr. Maurice N. Eisendrath, President, Union of American Hebrew Congregations
- Mr. Adolph Held, Chairman, Jewish Labor Committee
- NEA—G. Lewis Jones
- NE—Armin H. Meyer
- NE—Theodore A. Wahl
Mr. Klutznick expressed on behalf of the group his great pleasure in being able to meet with the Secretary and offered his congratulations to the Secretary on his assumption of office. He recalled a number of earlier meetings between members of the group and the late Secretary Dulles, and explained that an important reason for forming the Presidents’ Conference, which he said represents 90 to 95 per cent of the organized Jewish community in the U.S., was to reduce the number of such individual calls.
The Secretary responded that he was pleased to meet with the group and indicated his desire to have the talk on an off-the-record basis. Mr. Klutznick agreed, stating that the group would report back to the other presidents in the Conference but that the latter as well as the present group would respect the Secretary’s confidence.
[Page 245]Turning to matters of substance, Mr. Klutznick said the group felt obliged to bring to the attention of the Secretary matters which are causing uneasiness and concern among their members. He said he realized the Middle East is not at present an area of primary concern to the Secretary and the President. He then raised the following three subjects:
Suez Transit Issue
Mr. Klutznick emphasized the group’s belief that freedom of passage through the Suez Canal is a matter of direct interest to the U.S. and the entire world, not merely to Israel. He referred to President Eisenhower’s announcement in 1957 that freedom of transit for all nations would be defended by the U.S.2 and questioned the propriety of the IBRD’s going ahead with a loan for Canal improvement in the present circumstances.
The Secretary recalled his reaffirmation of the U.S. position on freedom of transit in his speech before the UN General Assembly3 and added that our position has not changed in the least. He reviewed the difficult problem of the IBRD loan, emphasizing that it would be unfortunate from the position of the bank’s future utility if the U.S. should try to use the bank as a political instrument. The Secretary said he had spoken to IBRD President Black on the subject of freedom of transit and could assure the group that Mr. Black is very conscious of the issue. It may well be that the delays in formal consideration of the Bank loan are not unconnected with that issue. The Secretary referred to U.S. support of freedom of passage into the Gulf of Aqaba, and later in the discussion mentioned our continuing hope that UN Secretary General Hammarskjold’s direct efforts to resolve the Suez transit issue may be successful.
Mrs. Halprin later rejoined that the point at issue in the IBRD loan was not entirely political but rather one of international morality, including the fact that Nasser is flouting his own word regarding freedom of passage. She also emphasized the traditional U.S. position in favor of freedom of the seas.
Palestine Refugees
Mr. Klutznick said American Jewish organizations are keenly aware of the importance of resolving the Arab refugee problem but he doubted that returning to the 1948 resolution would be useful in this regard. Indeed, this might be seriously disadvantageous.
[Page 246]The Secretary reviewed recent U.S. consultations with the Israel Government on the UNRWA resolution. His impression was that Prime Minister Ben Gurion now seems relatively relaxed about the resolution. The Secretary pointed to the recurring problem of obtaining Congressional appropriations for UNRWA and the need to have something of a constructive nature to indicate to Congress that a real effort is being made to achieve progress. The current resolution before the UN would be useful for this purpose. Furthermore, we cannot see how the resolution could do Israel any harm in view of the composition of the Palestine Conciliation Commission.
The Secretary also reviewed U.S. discussions with the Arabs and our success in having persuaded them to agree to such points as rectification of the relief rolls. He said the resolution referred only to paragraph 11 of Resolution 194 (III) and not to the resolution as a whole. We have sensed, he said, some improvement in the Arab attitude toward the refugee problem and are gratified that the Arabs have in general agreed to the resolution as it now stands.
Arab Boycott of Israel
Mr. Klutznick said he knew the moral principles which govern the Secretary’s attitude on the boycott question, but he felt he should nevertheless raise as a matter of continuing concern to Jewish organizations the discrimination against American Jewish interests resulting from the Arab boycott.
The Secretary responded that the Department equally deplores this situation, but in cases involving regulations of foreign countries there is little we can do except resort to exhortation. Mr. Held brought up a specific case involving a U.S. Navy contract for delivery of oil to the Mediterranean fleet. He asserted that the contract contained a clause forbidding tanker owners to call at Israel ports. The Secretary commented that he was sure this had no relation to Navy policies except perhaps under force majeure, which might make it essential to effect delivery of oil. He indicated that the Department would look into this question.
- Source: Department of State, NEA Files: Lot 79 D 215, Palestine—General. Drafted by Wahl on December 8 and approved by S on December 11. A briefing paper for the meeting is ibid., Central Files, 611.84A/12–459.↩
- For text of this statement, February 28, 1957, see Department of State Bulletin, March 18, 1957, pp. 438–439.↩
- For text of Herter’s address to the General Assembly, September 17, 1959, see U.N. Doc. A/PV.797, pp. 9–14.↩