McGhee Files: Lot 53 D 468
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs (McGhee)1
Subject: Visit of Israel Ambassador
| Participants: | Abba Eban, Ambassador of Israel |
| Mr. Shmuel Bendor, Officer in Charge, U.S. Affairs, Israel Foreign Office | |
| Mr. McGhee—NEA | |
| Mr. Waldo—NE |
The Israel Ambassador called, accompanied by Mr. Bendor. He complained that the PCC, in particular the US delegation, was pressing the Israel delegation to agree to consider the substantive proprosals of the PCC without further discussion of the non-aggression declaration. The Ambassador restated the Israel position; i.e., that the PCC letter of October 6 prejudiced the SC interpretation of the Armistice Agreements which was contained in the SC Resolution of September 1 concerning the Suez Canal blockade. The Ambassador contended that the PCC letter was not satisfactory, and urged the Department to instruct the US delegation to reopen the entire question of the non-aggression declaration in an effort to get the Arab delegations to agree to a wording which would signify their agreement to refrain from “hostile acts.” The Ambassador insisted that the fact that the Arab delegations had refused to include any reference to hostile acts in the non-aggression declaration thereby legalized the position that they were entitled to commit them.
I told the Ambassador that I thought the Israelis were taking too legalistic a position on this question. (The pertinent sections of the PCC letter were then read aloud.) It did not seem to me that the letter in any way prejudiced the Armistice Agreements, the SC Resolution, or even indicated that the PCC considered the Arab delegation one hundred percent satisfactory. I said I thought the PCC passed lightly over the non-aggression declaration because they were convinced that no further useful purpose would be served in attempting to work out phraseology for the non-aggression declaration which would be satisfactory to both the Arabs and the Israelis. It did not appear necessary to waste any more time on this question since no agreement could be reached on it. It was desirable to proceed to considering other problems on which there might be some possibility of agreement. I said that at least both sides had indicated their willingness to refrain from acts of force against one another.
I told the Ambassador we would inform our delegation to the PCC of the representation made by the Israel Ambassador in Washington, [Page 918] but that we still hoped useful discussions could be held by both sides on the various proposals which the PCC had submitted. The Ambassador said he was not satisfied. If the PCC would not reopen the question of the non-aggression declaration the Israel Government would agree only to consider those problems on the PCC agenda which were of mutual interest to the UN and Israel but not those of concern to the Arab states. I again urged that the Israelis not be too fussy, and emphasized that no harm could come to the Israel position and no commitment would be involved in discussing with the PCC all of the points.
The Ambassador then turned to another question, and said that Israel was desperately short of steel and hoped that some special arrangement could be made which would permit Israel to get a 25,000-ton additional allocation for the first quarter. The Ambassador said he understood that Mr. Fleischman of the Defense Production Agency was willing to allocate some of the 500,000-ton reserve of International Trade for this purpose. I said I would be happy to take the matter up with Mr. Fleischman as soon as I got the necessary data, which I believed NE was preparing.
- Drafted by Mr. Waldo.↩