Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume VI

887N.01/6–1149: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in Egypt

secret

Washington, June 11, 1949—2 p. m.

573. Egyptian Amb called on ActSec June 10 at own request and left memo¹ re lifting arms embargo. He stated Egypt greatly desires lifting of restrictions which as result embargo it has imposed on trade navigation, pointing out no serious fighting has occurred for six months and stating Arab states have no aggressive intentions.

He said sole concern Arabs is just settlement Pal question, to which major obstacle is Israel’s aggressive attitude. While Arabs originally opposed partition, they now willing accept it although cld not state fact publicly. Arab states have two major objectives, settlement refugee problem and final settlement which wld protect them against Israeli aggression. They desire all of the UN resolutions to be observed, particularly res calling for repatriation refugees. They also feel Pres’ principle territorial compensation shld be observed. In response to query as to whether Amb felt independent Arab state cld be established in Pal, he stated this was matter which wld have to be settled by Arab states.

ActSec emphasized importance which USG attaches to Israeli Arab cooperation in achieving final solution. USG does not wish negots Lausanne to fail. Amb stated Egypt doing all possible to make negots succeed.

To specific query re his Govt’s position on Israeli offer accept Gaza refugees in return acquisition Gaza strip,² Amb said Egyptian Govt regards proposal as “cheap barter”. He stated first step is to permit those refugees in Gaza so desiring to return their homes, but had no suggestion re disposition remainder. He further stated Egypt wld wish make proposals re frontier rectification, which wld not involve large amount territory but wld be designed secure strategically defensible frontier for Egyptian and Israeli security. Did not state when these proposals wld be put forth.

ActSec stated question re arms embargo wld require careful study on part of Dept, pointing out it involved not only US regulation but SC truce res. Amb agreed, and indicated Egypt did not wish raise contentious argument in SC re question but desired prior discussion with SC members before raising question in SC.

Amb then took up subject training Egyptian officers in US. ActSec explained we had recently informed NME³ we no longer have any objections to training Israeli and Arab officers. However NME has very limited quota for foreign students and therefore needs of many countries require consideration. Moreover because security considerations, many courses open only to Amcits. ActSec stated we are anxious be helpful in matter but quite possible NME cld not place all students which Egyptians might wish send to US.

Pls take early opportunity discuss disposition Gaza strip with Egyptian Govt, requesting its views re Israeli offer. You shld emphasize to Egyptian Govt US concern re refugees that area, which has no economic potential for future settlement, and ask Egyptian Govt its plans re disposition those who do not wish return Israel, since latter might be considerable number. You might in this connection obtain Egyptian views with regard frontier in light Ambs reference to strategic rectification in order that we might explore possibility of exchange of Gaza strip for frontier rectification further south.

Rpt reply to USDel Lausanne.⁴

Webb

1. Dated June 10, not printed.
2. Mr. Eban informed Mr. Ross during the afternoon of June 10 that “following Rhodes armistice discussions with Egypt, Abdul Munim Mustapha, head of Egyptian delegation, had first raised question of Israel taking over Gaza strip. This discussion was inconclusive. Subsequently on April 30, presumably, Eban said, because Egyptians had talked in same sense, Ethridge at Lausanne in conversation with Eytan had suggested Israel take over Gaza strip Including the 250,000 refugees therein (this is figure Eban used). The idea of taking over this number of refugees shocked Eytan who, however, reported matter to his government which, after much consideration and in sincere effort to get something tangible started at Lausanne, instructed Eytan to make proposal of May 20.” (telegram 712, June 10, from New York, 501.BB Palestine/6–1049)
3. See letter of April 6, p. 898.
4. This telegram was repeated to Bern as No. 778 (Unpal 145), for the American Delegation at Lausanne. Charge Patterson, on June 14, reported that prior to receipt of telegram 573, i.e., on June 11, he had brought up the question of the Gaza strip proposal with Foreign Minister Khashaba. The latter’s views “were to effect that while Egypt contemplated retention no portion Palestine as such Egypt required most effective frontier for defensive purposes. This frontier stated to be GazA–BeershebA–Dead Sea line. Responsive to my question Minister admitted that Egypt at present not willing cede Gaza coastal strip to Israel in return for Israel’s offer assumptions charge 200,000 or more refugees in GazA–Rafa strip.” (telegram 578 from Cairo, 867N.01/6–1449)