McGhee Files: Lot 53 D 468
Memorandum by the Director of the Office of Near Eastern Affairs (Jones) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs (McGhee)
Subject: Visit of the Israel Ambassador
The Israel Ambassador is calling on you today at 3:30 to discuss developments in Paris at the Conference of the Palestine Conciliation Commission. It is understood that the Ambassador is rather concerned over a telegram which he received from the Israel Minister in Paris who is representing Israel at this conference. Apparently Mr. Fischer and Ambassador Palmer have held a conversation in which the latter allegedly used “strong language” to the effect that Israel would be responsible for breaking up the PCC negotiations if it refused to consider the five substantive proposals.
The Israelis have been unhappy about the compromise the PCC decided upon in connection with the non-aggression declarations. Agreement on the text of these declarations was originally intended to precede consideration of the five proposals. Since the Israelis and the Arabs could not get together on any wording, the PCC, in a letter of October 6 to both parties, quoted the text of the two drafts—the comprehensive Israel one, and the strict constructionist Arab one which was based solely on the military provisions of the Armistice Agreement. The PCC letter then stated that the two drafts represented [Page 916] a satisfactory preliminary basis for the parties to proceed to discuss points at issue. The Israelis take the position that the PCC letter is not satisfactory since by quoting the Arab declaration they consider the PCC is giving the stamp of approval to the Arab attitude, which of course fails to include any injunction against hostile acts, such as the Suez Canal blockade. The Israelis feel that what they consider tacit approval by the PCC of the Arab declaration definitely prejudices the SC interpretation of the Armistice Agreement incorporated in the Suez Canal Resolution of September 1.
On October 19, Israel stated its doubts that the Arab text of the nonaggression declaration could constitute a basis for the pursuit of further negotiations. Apparently Ambassador Palmer has now told the Israelis that PCC did not consider that the PCC note quoting the two separate texts of the non-aggression declaration in any way prejudiced the Armistice Agreements and that controversy over this point should not be permitted to hold up discussion of the substantive points at issue. In doing so the Ambassador may also have used “strong language” in telling the Israelis that they would be responsible for breaking up the PCC Conference if they refused to discuss the proposals, particularly in the light of the fact that the Arab states have already agreed to discuss them.
Recommendations:
That you inform the Ambassador that we appreciate and sympathize with his Government’s views on the question of the non-aggression declarations. As the Ambassador is aware, however, the United States dóes not accept the Arab position on the Suez Canal blockade. We should point out that the absence of any injunction against hostile acts in the Arab text of the non-aggression declaration does not thereby justify the commission of such acts or legalize the Suez Canal blockade.
The Arab delegations have now agreed to discuss the substantive proposals. We would hope some progress could be made on this matter. We hope, therefore, that the Israel views in connection with the nonaggression declaration, which appear rather legalistic, will not hold up consideration of the points at issue. It would be our suggestion that Israel might wish to state its objections to the Arab non-aggression declaration and then at the same time agree to consider the substantive points. We do not believe that Israel can lose anything by discussing with the Commission the various items. It is unlikely that any final settlement can be reached at this time, but any informal or partial settlement should be welcomed by all concerned.