Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2

501.BB Palestine/11–448

Mr. Aubrey S. Eban to the Secretary of State, at Paris

Paris, 4th November, 1948.

Aut. 04–10
04–41

Sir: I have the honour to present the compliments and respects of Mr. Moshe Shertok, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel, and to convey the following information on his behalf:

1. Approaches of a serious and welcome character are being made by responsible Egyptian circles for negotiations with Israeli authorities on the adjustment of the immediate situation in the Negev, and on a possible permanent settlement between the two Governments in that area.¹ The incentive for these negotiations was the failure of the Egyptians to maintain their obstruction of Jewish communications, and the defeat of their armies in these fruitless attempts. These negotiation prospects would be gravely impaired by any premature action by the Security Council in upsetting the existing situation.² They would, on the other hand, be greatly enhanced by Security Council action summoning both parties to negotiate directly or through the Mediator on current outstanding questions. This latter course has been publicly recommended by the Mediator.

Details of the approaches to which I refer above have been conveyed to Mr. Dean Rusk, who has also conveyed to the Government of Israel an important approach by the Government of Transjordan, which also, in Mr. Shertok’s view, arises out of the new position in the Negev.

2. In his recent telegram to you Mr. Shertok placed primary emphasis on the inability of Israeli forces to withdraw from positions which they now hold in the Negev territory of Israel, and also on the circumstances which operate against the return of Egyptian troops to the positions which they previously held as a result of their unauthorised invasion of Palestine territory last May. Mr. Shertok now asks me to state that, even if a return of Egyptian troops is not intended, the objections of the Government of Israel to a Jewish withdrawal from the positions now held would remain unaffected. The Government of Israel is not able to give up Israeli territory, regardless of whether it be re-occupied by the enemy or “Neutralised”. It regards the “neutral zone” proposal as calculated to prejudice the territorial issue against Israel, and as constituting an inadmissible confusion of two questions. The Security Council is primarily concerned with the cessation of hostilities, a result which has already actually been achieved. It should not take action which would prejudice the discussion of the territorial dispositions raised in the Mediator’s Report now before the Assembly.³

3. Mr. Shertok wishes to add that he has information from United Kingdom sources that the object of any withdrawal of Israeli troops is conceived by the sponsors of the Draft Resolution as being quite frankly to secure the detachment from Israel of the greater part of its territory without its consent. Such a withdrawal would gravely prejudice Israel’s political position.⁴

I have [etc.]

Aubrey S. Eban

Representative of the Provisional Government of Israel at the United Nations

1. Mr. Epstein, presumably on November 3, gave information of a similar character to Mr. Lovett, who suggested that Epstein “pass this info on to his delegation Paris in order that latter might inform members SC this development.” (Telegram Gadel 381, November 3, 4 p. m., to Paris, 501.BB Palestine/11–148)
2. According to Mr. Epstein, the Provisional Government was “terribly concerned lest vote on subcommittee report (Gadel 381) interfere.”
3. Mr. Epstein, in discussion with Department officers on November 4, “adduced argument for Israel remaining in military occupation of northern Negev on grounds that, if forced to withdraw, Arabs would be encouraged to further action and in any case would feel their hands so strengthened as to make possibility of negotiations very slight. Epstein deplored US support of SC res on grounds it might jeopardize prospect of negotiation and said his govt was content with res of Oct. 19. We [the Department officers] reviewed our position under resolutions of May 29, July 15 and Aug. 19, stressing that Govt, of Israel could have been under no illusion as to meaning of language in these resolutions.” (Telegram Gadel 412, November 5, 7 p. m., to Paris, 501.BB Palestine/11–548)
4. Mr. Rusk acknowledged Mr. Eban’s letter on November 8. Cairo, on November 4, expressed great doubt that the Egyptians had approached the Israelis regarding peace negotiations (telegram 1569, 501.BB Palestine/11–448). The following day, however, Cairo advised that an Arab League official had informed the Embassy that a secret delegation had been sent to the Israelis for such negotiations (telegram 1573, 501.BB Palestine/11–548).