Editorial Note
Following his return from Tel Aviv, Ambassador Elath called on Mr. McGhee to discuss his recent trip. Mr. McGhee’s memorandum of conversation, dated July 25, cited the Ambassador as expressing “the opinion that our recent note to Israel regarding refugees and territory had been emotionally phrased. The Government had been somewhat hurt, possibly because it is a new state and unused to diplomatic exchange. I replied that we did not consider that our note had been emotionally phrased but had reflected the facts regarding the situation relating to Palestine under UN resolutions and established US policy.” Regarding the note, see telegram 398, June 24, to Tel Aviv, page 1174.
The Ambassador was also reported to have stated that Egyptian refusal to discuss the Gaza strip proposal “showed that Egypt, and probably the other Arab states, did not sincerely desire peace. If they did they would be endeavoring to seek a way out of the present situation in the Near East.
“I pointed out that we had hoped the Egyptians would be willing during the recent recess of the PCC to adopt this proposal as a basis for discussion. Although this had not proved possible, I hoped that future developments at Lausanne might lead to this result through a simultaneous discussion of such interlinked subjects as territory and refugees. I added that I felt that the inability of the Egyptians recently to discuss the Gaza strip proposal was not indicative of a lack of desire for peace but was merely based on Arab emphasis on other matters such as repatriation under the GA Resolution of December 11. I emphasized the importance we attach to a conciliatory attitude on the part of the Israeli delegation at Lausanne in order to break the vicious circle which had thus far existed in Israeli and Arab talks with the PCC.” (867N.50/7–2549)