Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The Near and Middle East, Volume IX, Part 1

684A.86/7–2352

No. 459
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge of Palestine–Israel–Jordan Affairs (Waller)

confidential

[Washington,] July 23, 1952.

Subject:

• Israel Government’s Views Regarding (1) Israel-Arab relations; (2) Suez Canal; (3) Representation of the Middle East in the Security Council; and (4) Jerusalem.

Participants:

• Ambassador Abba Eban, Israel Embassy
• Miss Esther Herlitz, First Secretary, Israel Embassy
• Mr. Byroade—NEA
• Mr. Dorsey—NE
• Mr. Waller—NE

Ambassador Eban called on Mr. Byroade today to discuss a number of questions before proceeding on vacation. Among the questions discussed were the following:

1. Israel-Arab Relations: The Ambassador recalled that informal suggestions had been made by Mr. Byroade regarding direct talks between Israel and Syrian representatives and by Mr. Kopper regarding the use of the Department as a “post office” in exchanging views with Egyptian representatives. The Ambassador said that Israel was ready at any and all times to discuss with any Arab state the possibility of an advance in Israel-Arab relations; that Israel does not insist that discussions with any one Arab state take precedence over discussions with any other; and that Israel would appreciate any action whereby the US would encourage any Arab state to engage in negotiations or discussions with Israel.

Mr. Byroade replied that he appreciated having this information and that no one could ask for anything more. He continued by saying that we consider Col. Shishikli of Syria a good prospect and that he may even be a better prospect than Egypt for pursuing direct talks. He said he had had a frank discussion with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion on the possibilities of talks with Egypt and the Prime Minister felt that he himself might be able to do something with the Egyptians. Mr. Byroade said he hoped that the Prime Minister would find it possible to initiate action with the Egyptians as soon as a stable government is established there.

Ambassador Eban said that the Israel government, although it does not expect an attack on Israel, nevertheless feels disquiet at recent actions and statements on behalf of Arab governments which cannot fail to increase tension. He pointed out that Col. Shishikli, Azzam Pasha, and Mr. Ahmed Shukeiry have made statements threatening Israel’s integrity and security. Also meetings of Arab chiefs of staff are publicized in direct relation to action against Israel.

With regard to Israel and Jordan relations, the Ambassador stated that during the period of May 30 to July 10 the Israel–Jordan Mixed Armistice Commission adopted nine resolutions condemning Jordan of twelve breaches of the Armistice Agreement, most of them involving loss of life. In addition, Israel has ten outstanding complaints awaiting consideration by the MAC, including the recent killing of five Israeli watchmen near Elath. The Ambassador felt that the cumulative effect of these statements and actions is very serious and he hoped the US could find it possible to request greater moderation in Arab attitudes toward Israel.

Mr. Byroade replied that he would have this matter gone into and that he wished something could be done to help families along the border who are separated from their lands. The Ambassador said that agreements had been worked out which involved the drawing of new boundary lines and exchanges of lands which would permit families to be reunited and which would in general benefit both Jordan and Israel. However, the Jordan Parliament had declined to ratify the agreement, and so the matter remained. It might be possible, he continued, for the agreements to be returned to the MAC level for minor changes which might possibly be more acceptable to Jordan, but there seemed to be an inability on the part of the Jordanians to complete agreements with Israel even when the agreements are in Jordan’s best interests.

2. Suez Canal: Ambassador Eban said that the Israel government will present a note in Washington, London, and Paris on July 28 suggesting concerted action to secure the implementation of the Security Council resolution of September 1, 1951. The Ambassador stated that this is the first instance of a breach of the Israel-Egyptian Armistice being confirmed by the United Nations and remaining uncorrected, with the result that the Egyptian-Israel Armistice Agreement is not operating fully. He pointed out that failure to implement the resolution is costing Israel great sums of money since Israel now must bring oil from Venezuela at approximately twice the cost of oil located nearer and Israel is unable to take advantage of cheap imports from Africa and Asia, including Japan, with which Israel has just established diplomatic relations. Israel feels that the maritime powers have been maneuvered into unwilling submission to the Egyptian regulations.

Mr. Byroade replied that he understood fully the Ambassador’s feelings on this subject and he felt sure that the Ambassador was aware of ours. However, he pointed out that there appears to be no present possibility of diverting Egyptian attention from the Anglo-Egyptian problem which, when he was recently in Cairo, occupied so much of the time of the Egyptians that he was hardly able to get beyond it.

3. Representation of the Middle East in the Security Council:

Ambassador Eban said that the Middle East traditionally has a member on the Security Council and that Israel believes Iran should be the next Middle East member rather than Lebanon. Israel has promised Iran full support and he hoped that the US would be able to support Iran’s candidacy. He believed that Iran is better qualified for regional defense and that Iran, having good relations with all parts of the region, is better qualified to represent the area than Lebanon, which has good relations with only limited parts of the region.

Mr. Byroade replied that the question of our support is under consideration but our policy is not to decide finally until just prior to the meeting which will vote on the matter. He said he would bear in mind the views of the Israel government as expressed by the Ambassador.

4. Jerusalem: The Ambassador inquired whether in view of the aide-mémoire left at the Israel Foreign Office July 9¹ the United States considers that the General Assembly should attempt to solve the problem of religious interests in Jerusalem at its next session and whether the US believes there is a prospect of a satisfactory solution of this problem acceptable to Israel and Jordan. He also inquired whether the position of the US remains the same as embodied in the resolution sponsored by the US at the GA in 1950. The Ambassador gave as his opinion that there does not appear to be much virtue in throwing the Jerusalem question into the UN unless Jordan, Israel and enough others can agree on a workable solution and enough support can be obtained to assure its passage. Otherwise, in raising the question the result would be “lots of sound and fury” and nothing more.

Mr. Byroade told the Ambassador that he had not been informed of the latest thinking in the Department on the subject but that he was certain the Department does not have a resolution to introduce. He said that there are UN resolutions on the books and he believed it advisable to devise a workable solution, if possible.

Ambassador Eban said that he understood that US support for the resolution two years ago (not passed) was fully compatible with Israel’s having its Foreign Office in Jerusalem. Mr. Byroade said that the announcement of plans to move the Foreign Ministry to Jerusalem was most unfortunate since it gave the Arabs an issue which they picked up with great glee and are making the most of it. The Arabs apparently feel that if the new city of Jerusalem should become Israel’s capital it would be only a question of time before the whole city would be included in Jerusalem’s orbit. He realized that this approach was largely emotional but it was nevertheless real and had to be taken into consideration. The over-all result is that it is not in our interests for Israel to move its Foreign Office at the present time. Ambassador Eban quickly replied that Israel has no interest in Arab Jerusalem even though some Jewish Holy Places are located there. Israel believes that if a UN supervisor of the Holy Places should be set up it would be in the interest of both Israel and Jordan, since Israel has Holy Places on the Arab side and the Arabs would no doubt find interest in certain Holy Places on the Jewish side.

Ambassador Eban said that if the US should decide to raise the Jerusalem question in the next GA or if the US decides to support some other country that might desire to raise the question, Israel would be glad to cooperate in order to work out a solution. Mr. Byroade thanked the Ambassador for this offer and said it would be kept in mind.

1. See Documents 455 and 456.