Office of the Historian

867N.01/12–1247

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Armour)

confidential
[Washington,] December 12, 1947.
Participants: Mr. Armour
Mr. Shertok, Jewish Agency
Mr. Epstein, Jewish Agency
Mr. Mattison, NE

Mr. Shertok opened the discussion with a review of the current situation in the Middle East as it affected Palestine, including the disturbances against Jews in Aden and Aleppo. He again urged, as in [Page 1312] his meeting with Mr. Henderson on December 8, that the United States Representative on the Security Council make a statement which would serve as a warning to the Arab States not to interfere in the Palestine matter. I replied that the matter would be considered by the officials concerned in the Department.

I took the occasion to emphasize our continued concern over the possibility of the departure of the Pan Crescent and the Pan York from Constanza. Mr. Shertok replied in the same vein as he had yesterday in his talk with Mr. Johnson in New York (New York tel. 1301, December 111), i.e., explaining the Agency’s position and that while the Agency was against the departure of those ships that they might not be able to stop them. I again emphasized our earnest desire that the ships not be allowed to depart.

  1. Not printed; it reported Ambassador Johnson’s statement to Mr. Shertok that “we felt very strongly that it would be unwise for these ships to sail and for any illegal immigration to reach Palestine under present circumstances.” (501.BB Palestine/12–1147)

    Later the same day, Mr. Shertok sent a letter to Mr. Armour in which he noted that he “had intended to refer during our interview to the question of supplementary military equipment for the present Jewish defense organization or the future militia in Palestine, and I hope an early opportunity may be afforded for us to discuss the matter.” Mr. Armour’s reply of December 22 noted that Mr. Shertok’s tentative views had already been given to Mr. Henderson and that Mr. Goldmann planned to raise the question with British authorities. He, suggested, accordingly, “that a further discussion of this matter might be postponed for the time being.” (867N.01/12–1247)

    ↩