Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

683.84A/4–2651

Memorandum of Conversation, by Bernhard G. Bechhoefer of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs

secret

[New York,] April 26, 1951.

Subject: Controversy between Israel and Syria

Participants:	Mr. Gideon Raphael—Israeli Delegation
	Mr. Bernhard G. Bechhoefer—Department of State

At the end of yesterday’s Security Council meeting, Mr. Raphael approached me and asked my views on Ambassador Eban’s speech.¹ I replied that I considered it a very eloquent and persuasive speech and was very anxious to study in detail the legal points which Ambassador Eban had made.

Mr. Raphael then asked me whether, in my opinion, the situation would be helped by Ambassador Eban’s admission that Israel was at fault in engaging in the retaliatory bombings. I said that I thought it probably would help, that I could see no possible justification for the retaliatory bombings. Mr. Raphael indicated that, from the legal standpoint, he agreed that there was no justification.

Mr. Raphael then asked my views concerning the outcome of the Security Council proceedings. What were the plans of the United States concerning any action by the Security Council? I stated that the evidence was very complicated, and before coming to any conclusions, the United States wished to hear all the evidence. I pointed out that both Ambassador Eban’s speech and General Riley’s statement at the April 25th meeting had tended to clarify points which were previously somewhat obscure.

Mr. Raphael then asked whether it was true that the United States wished to stop the Huleh drainage project. I suggested that Mr. McGhee’s statement to Ambassador Eban was entirely clear on that point.² He replied that in general Mr. McGhee’s statement was constructive but that he wondered whether the United States had changed its position since then. I said I had no knowledge of any change.

Mr. Raphael then expressed the hope that General Riley could continue his work in Palestine.³ He stated that regardless of the ability of any successor, it would take that successor at least a year to work out the cordial working relationships which General Riley had already established with Israel and the Arab States. Ambassador Eban at that moment spoke to me and reiterated Mr. Raphael’s strong endorsement of General Riley. It should be noted that this conversation took place after General Riley’s statement to the Security Council which was sharply critical of the Israeli position. Mr. Raphael specifically stated to me on a very confidential basis that he did not disagree very sharply with the main lines of General Riley’s statement.

1. For text, see U.N. Doc. S/PV.542, pp. 3–27.
2. Reference uncertain. For the attitude of the U.S. Government on the drainage project, see the memorandum of conversation by Mr. Berry, March 30, p. 611.
3. At this time the Department of the Navy wished to return General Riley to active duty with the Marine Corps while the United Nations and the Department of State were trying to obtain an extension of his tour with the Truce Supervisory Organization. The matter was finally resolved late in May when General Riley, after an extension of his tour had been approved by the Navy, accepted a permanent position with the United Nations and applied for retirement from the Corps. Documentation is in file 683.84A for 1951, and UNP Files: Lot 59 D 237.