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

501.BB Palestine/10–1849

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs (McGhee)¹

confidential

[Washington,] October 18, 1949.

Subject: Jews in Iraq; Proposed SyriA–Iraq Union; Jerusalem; and Israeli attack in the Gaza Area.

Participants:	Eliahu Elath—Ambassador of Israel
	NEA—Mr. McGhee
	ANE—Mr. Wilkins
	ANE—Mr. Clark
	ANE—Mr. Stabler

[Here follow introductory sections and the discussion on “Jews in Iraq.”]

2. Proposed SyriA–Iraq Union:² Mr. Elath said that reports his Government has received regarding the proposed SyriA–Iraq union had caused considerable concerned in Tel Aviv. Israel did not, of course, wish to intervene in the internal affairs of any country and did not wish to do so in this situation, particularly if union was popularly desired. However, his Government wished to inform the United States Government of its concern over the proposed union with respect to the security of Israel and the general stability in the Near East. His Government felt that such a union might bring with it disorders which would threaten the security of Israel, It might also give rise to the belief among the peoples of Syria and Iraq that the strength of the new state was such that it could take revenge on Israel for the defeat of the Arab states. Israel believed that the union of two weak states did not mean a strong state and in any event Israel could defend itself. However, it was possible that all the present armistice arrangements and any prospects for peaceful settlement of the Palestine problem might be upset by the union.

Mr. Elath also said that this union could have grave internal repercusions in Israel. The extremist elements might well regard the union as justification for action by Israel to annex Eastern Palestine. The Government, which would be extremely hard pressed by the extremists, would be placed in a most difficult position.

I told the Ambassador that we had received a certain amount of information concerning the proposed union and that there were certain aspects which have caused us concern. I indicated that it was, of course, the policy of the United States not to intervene in the affairs of other states and that while we would follow developments closely, the attitude which we adopted would necessarily be within the limitation of our basic policy regarding non-intervention. We neither supported nor opposed the proposals for a union of Syria and Iraq and believed the peoples of these two countries should have an opportunity of expressing their views concerning them through their own constitutional processes. I expressed appreciation for the expression of views of his government which I said we had, in fact, anticipated.³

With reference to the Ambassador’s remarks regarding the annexation of Eastern Palestine, I expressed the hope that Mr. Elath did not mean by this that the proposed union and the question of Eastern Palestine were in any way related. The Ambassador assured me that his remarks only meant to indicate the possible attitude of the extremists toward union.

3. Jerusalem: Referring to his talk with Mr. Rusk on September 28, Mr. Elath said that he had discussed the matter of the PCC Jerusalem proposals with Mr. Eban, Permanent Israeli Representative to the United Nations. Mr. Eban had informed him of his belief that most of the South American delegations to the United Nations agreed with the Israeli point of view with respect to Jerusalem. Mr. Eban, following the suggestion made by Mr. Rusk to Mr. Elath at their meeting on September 28, had also discussed the Jerusalem question with members of the United States delegation in order to clarify any misunderstanding which might exist between the two positions. From these discussions it was quite clear that basic differences existed between the United States and Israeli positions. Mr. Elath, believing that we would wish to avoid any headlong clash of views during the General Assembly consideration of the Jerusalem proposals, suggested the possibility that the United States and Israeli delegations might now work out some agreement of views. He implied that the United States should adopt a position more in line with that of Israel.

I told the Ambassador that the United States as a member of the PCC had participated in the drafting of the proposals for a permanent international regime of the Jerusalem Area and that we generally supported the plan. We recognized that amendments would probably be presented during General Assembly discussion and this Government was prepared to give careful consideration to any amendments which were advanced. Meanwhile, it was suggested that as the PCC was convening shortly in New York, the Israeli delegation might find it useful to consult with the Jerusalem Committee of the PCC in order to clarify any misunderstandings.

[Here follows an account of the discussion on Jerusalem and on the Israeli attack in the Gaza area; regarding the latter subject, see telegram 673, October 20, to Tel Aviv, page 1448.]

1. Drafted by Mr. Stabler.
2. For documentation on this subject, see pp. 180 ff.
3. Ambassador McDonald conversed with Foreign Minister Sharett on October 17. The proposed union of Syria and Iraq was the chief subject of discussion. Mr. Sharett exhibited “considerable perturbation” and indicated it “would be idle pursue peace objectives when surrounded by an earthquake.” The Ambassador gave as his “overall conviction” that “Sharett wishes distinctly to convey to me that ‘all bets are off’ re any previous commitment Israel may have made on territorial, refugee or any other settlement looking forward peace in NE if a fusion of Iraq and Syria is consummated.” (telegram 752, October 18, noon, from Tel Aviv, 790D.90G/10–1849)