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

784A.02/8–1152: Telegram

No. 468
The Ambassador in Israel (Davis) to the Department of State

confidential

Tel Aviv, August 11, 1952—5 p.m.

230. Embtel 45.¹ FonMin told me late Friday he would reply orally to Emb aide-mémoire re proposed FonOff move to Jerusalem since IG is not planning make reply in writing. He alluded to fact USG only one to make written representation and commented on note as follows: He made point intention move Ministry FonAff did not represent new decision, and covered in some detail steps that had been taken to concentrate Knesset and various Ministries in Jerusalem. He doubted whether there would be any serious advantage in bringing up question again before UN, and did not see how our opposition to move followed logically our proposition that UN be afforded further opportunity act on question. As to Arabs, he expressed opinion their opposition foregone conclusion whenever Israel should act in matter.

It was apparent from his discourse that IG has no intention of receding from position taken; he stated in fact Ministry had been under pressure to move for practical reasons, and if it came to choosing between having to be separated indefinitely from remainder of IG or from missions of fon govts, he feels latter would have to be choice. He concluded by saying he expected Ministry to move when quarters for offices and staff are ready, which should be about May, 1953.

Emb comments: The above reaction is not surprising since it is typical of highly subjective attitude encountered whenever leaders feel they have been crossed in matters affecting their polit position at home or abroad. FonMin had already been informed of contests Depcirtel 67¹ and I made no attempt discuss publicity further or review details of question. I saw no reason nevertheless to leave any impression of tacit agreement on my part, and therefore expressed view that Israel Govt’s announcement had affected all govts represented here, many of which including US were on record as supporting UN res in principle, and that important change in policy on part of such countries wld be necessary before there cld be any consideration of moving missions. I concluded by saying it was my personal opinion that unilateral action taken by Israel in this case had been unfortunate.

Davis

1. Not printed, but see footnote 2, Document 456.
1. Not printed, but see footnote 2, Document 456.