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

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

Washington, April 6, 1959—7:43 p.m.

684. Embtel 782.² During call by Israel Minister Herzog April 6,³ Rountree raised subject Foreign Minister Meir’s reported distress over Department’s press statement (re her budget speech) and apparent belief by Foreign Ministry officials that US displeased with Israel.

Rountree said he wished clarify motivation Department’s press statement and said he was disturbed by reported feeling in Foreign Ministry. He assured Herzog US not unhappy with Israel and made following comments on points cited reftel:

1) Re Meir’s speech Rountree explained we had wire service reports giving quotations, and question was raised in Department’s press briefing. Although obvious Foreign Minister did not intend speak for USG, implication even in official text could clearly be that she was referring to USG views or spoke with knowledge USG. Our statement was intended remove possibility such interpretation and to reiterate US policy re friendly relations with all countries in Middle East including UAR. Our prompt response is explained by sensitivity our relations with states in Middle East and need obviate any misunderstanding before speech made its initial impact. Rountree asked Herzog inform Mrs. Meir that Department statement in no way directed at her personally nor did it have any implication on cordiality US–Israel relations. Rountree indicated we would ask Embassy convey above to Chef de Cabinet.

2) Re Suez issue Rountree emphasized US has been concerned at problem and has taken what it considered to be most constructive steps to resolve issue. Added we were pleased at indications UAR had not adopted rigid policy on detaining cargoes. Mentioned belief Ceylonese Ambassador Cairo (Cairo’s 2908)⁴ that foreign pressure on UAR might prejudice solution; and said Ambassador Hare and Department continue believe reliance should be put on Hammarskjold approach to Fawzi. Herzog assured RountreeGOI fully informed and appreciates US efforts. Mentioned problem press treatment US action and resulting lack public awareness US efforts.

3) Re economic assistance Rountree explained decision not include Special Assistance in Israel FY 1960 illustrative program not politically motivated but made on economic grounds and related to specific purposes various types of assistance. Noted: Israel economic progress reflected in growth per capita GNP; general trend from Special to DLF and PL–480 assistance; and fact FY 1959 SA actually used to purchase surplus agricultural commodities. Rountree pointed out US has not decided on levels of FY 1960 aid but fund availabilities will be limiting factor, especially re SA; also noted contingency funds can be used for emergency purposes. In reply Herzog inquiry, Rountree agreed Israel economic officers could meet with Department officials to explain economic and technical bases Israel request for Special Assistance.

Chargé should make approach indicated numbered paragraph 1.

Herter

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 684A.00/4–359. Confidential. Drafted by Wahl and signed for Herter by Rountree. Repeated to Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, London, and Amman.
2. Telegram 782, April 3, reported that Meir was “distressed and upset” about a Departmental press statement and commented that the Foreign Ministry was “decidedly unhappy” at what it believed was U.S. displeasure with Israel. (Ibid.) The text of the Departmental statement was transmitted to Tel Aviv in telegram 664, March 31. (Ibid., 611.80/3–3159)
3. Memoranda of Rountree’s conversation with Herzog are ibid., 784A.5–MSP/4–659; a briefing memorandum for the conversation, also dated April 6, is ibid., 601.84A11/4–659.
4. Telegram 2908, April 4, described efforts by the Ceylonese Ambassador to obtain the release of an Israeli cargo of potash. (Ibid., 986B.7301/4–459)