784A.00/9–451
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs (McGhee)1
Subject: Visit of Israel Ambassador Abba Eban.
| Participants: | Abba Eban, Ambassador of Israel |
| Moshe Keren, Counsel, Embassy of Israel | |
| Mr. McGhee—NEA | |
| Mr. Waldo—NE |
The Ambassador said that he was calling to take his leave before departing for a week’s rest at Lake Placid. He then reviewed briefly several items:
1. Suez: The Ambassador expressed his gratitude for US support on the Suez Canal issue and his relief that the resolution had been adopted by the SC on Saturday, September 1. I said that, as the Ambassador knew, our position all along had been one of support for the resolution. The Ambassador then alluded to the surprise Russian move on Wednesday, August 29, requesting postponement.2 He said that the Russian representative3 had told him that actually the Soviet position was against the restrictions, whether they were restrictions on the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal or other international waterway of this sort. The Ambassador said he had noted that the Arab States had received a temporary morale boost in the belief that the Russians were now prepared to support them. It was agreed that their disillusionment with the Soviet Union was the severer for the fact that the Soviet gesture requesting postponement had been made at all.
2. PCC: The Ambassador said that his Government fully intended to accept the PCC invitations but hoped the Arab States would not insist on refusing to discuss outstanding problems with Israel face to face as a precondition of their acceptance of the invitation. The Ambassador was informed that the Egyptians had accepted the invitation without making this a precondition. I said it was probable they would refuse to talk directly with the Israelis at first, however, but we hoped that in the course of the discussions they might be brought to acquiesce in direct talks. It would probably be easier to get them to agree to direct talks if no publicity were given to their initial refusal and no attempt was made to argue the point publicly. The Ambassador said he felt that unless direct talks were held it was highly improbable that any progress toward a settlement could be achieved. He pointed out that, after all, the Arabs negotiated directly with the Israelis on a continuing basis in the several Mixed Armistice Commissions and had [Page 851] even talked directly with them at the Lausanne Conference, but never in a formal meeting. He expressed the hope that the US would do its best to get the Arabs to agree to go along with the idea of direct negotiations, or at least to keep them from interjecting any preconditions into their acceptance of the invitation. I said that we would certainly look into it and do what we could in this regard.
Mr. Waldo mentioned that the PCC report in the autumn of 1950 had recommended that direct discussions were necessary to permit constructive progress toward a peace settlement. The US had supported the conclusions of the PCC report.
3. Plans for the General Assembly: The Ambassador said that he wanted to have a good talk with me some time in the future concerning US plans for the GA. I said that I would be happy to do so. The Ambassador asked if we knew whether the Jerusalem question would be raised in the Assembly. I said that I did not know about this. Mr. Waldo said that there were several countries, including Israel, opposed to General Assembly consideration of this question; we were not particularly anxious to bring it up. It was possible, however, that one of the Latin America delegations or delegation of a Catholic country might raise the question. In the event the question should be raised, our tentative view was that our position this year would be very similar to that of last year. We would probably support a resolution along the lines of the Swedish Draft Resolution4 of last year. The Ambassador agreed that it would be desirable not to discuss this question at all but if it were determined that some country planned to raise the question he thought the interested delegations should be prepared to introduce and support promptly a plan along the lilies of the Swedish Draft Resolution in order to forestall opposition and the likelihood of another Belgian plan. I told the Ambassador that Mr. Plitt, former US Minister in Tangier, would be NEA’s representative at the GA this year and we would all get together for general discussion of the Assembly at a later date.
4. Requirements: The Ambassador said he also wished to mention the subject of requirements. Israel was having a great deal of difficulty in obtaining steel these days. Steel was necessary for pipe and pipe was necessary for irrigation purposes to increase crop acreage which would provide for the vast numbers of new immigrants. The Ambassador said that the various representatives of the American Government who dealt with requirements had been very cooperative with the Israel representatives and in most instances they had received the necessary requirements tickets. The difficulty began, however, when Israel representatives attempted to get their orders filled by the steel companies. The attitude of the latter was that Israel was [Page 852] a relatively new customer and that the old customers deserved priority. The Ambassador asked me if there was anything the Department could do to assist Israel to obtain the necessary steel from private concerns. I said that we would certainly look into it; that Mr. Hyman might usefully talk with Mr. Norman Burns in NE. We would see what we could do.
5. Visit of Foreign Minister Sharett: I inquired when the Foreign Minister was arriving in the US. The Ambassador replied that Mr. Sharett would arrive in the US on the 13th of September. He would be in Washington the 20th of September and would stay about three days. While here he would address a meeting of the National Economic Conference for Israel—the bond-raising organization. I said I should like to do something for him and hoped he would hold a little time open, either for lunch or dinner, or something of that sort. The Ambassador said that could certainly be arranged and he would let me know.
6. Huleh: The Ambassador then got up to depart, and I mentioned to him the fact that I understood the cosponsors of the SC Resolution of May 18 had held useful talks with him in New York; that I was glad to hear this. I thought that the talks Israel would have with General Riley in Tel Aviv would also be most important. The Ambassador said he understood the General had already talked to the Foreign Minister, but an account of the conversation had not been received.