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

611.80/6–953

No. 622
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge of Palestine-Israel-Jordan Affairs (Waller)

secret

[Washington,] June 9, 1953.

Subject:

• 1) Discussion of Secretary’s Speech of June 1¹ (Arab resentment, Israel expansion, resettlement of refugees, defense organization, Israel territory); 2) Military Aid; 3) Military Missions to Israel; 4) Jerusalem; 5) MSA Program.

Participants:

• Ambassador Abba Eban
• Mr. David Goitein
• Mr. Byroade—Assistant Secretary
• Mr. Waller—NE

Ambassador Eban opened the conversation by saying he would like to express some frank reflections and in turn obtain clarification of some parts of the Secretary’s recent address. He said the speech shows there is general unity of policies between the two governments, particularly on the character of the relationship, the need for peace in the Near East and the general approach to peace. There were some points, he said, regarding which the Israel Government would prefer to go somewhat further than the United States, such as the settlement of all the refugees in Arab countries and the concept of peace as a prerequisite to a defense organization, but these exceptions only emphasized the extent of the points of agreement.

There were three points concerning which the Israel Government would like clarification. These were:

(1) Arab resentment toward the West, and the United States in particular. The Israel Government does not question the existence of the resentment, but it questions the justification for it. He said that several Arab states have been created in recent years such as Jordan and Libya, and there was no opposition or resentment by Israel or by any other country. Israel’s national independence should therefore not be a matter of concern to others. During the period of Israel’s national existence, neighboring countries such as Jordan and Egypt have even expanded their boundaries.

The Israel Government believes that the Arab states owe the West, particularly the United States, a great deal of gratitude for the benefits they have obtained in contrast with the relative benefits for Israel. The main point which he wished to emphasize, he said, was that by pointing out to the Arabs that they have cause for resentment will only confirm in their minds justification for the resentment.

(2) Arab fears of Zionist expansion and aggression. Ambassador Eban pointed out that it was the Arabs who made the war by invading Palestine and it is the Arabs who refused to make peace with Israel, not vice versa. He suggested that the United States might alleviate to some extent Arab fears of Israeli aggression by expressing our confidence that Israel has no aggressive intentions. He continued by saying that if the Arabs wish guarantees, they could have them any time in a peace settlement.

(3) Resettlement of refugees. The Israel Government believes that the Arab world must undertake its responsibilities toward the refugees and resettle them in Arab countries. He said that Israel’s refusal to agree to the return of refugees is primarily because of security reasons and to a minor extent economic.

The Ambassador then asked for an interpretation of “inter-related” as used with reference to a defense organization and of the phrase “territory under Israel control”. He wondered whether the first had some reference to the Arab League Collective Security Pact and said with regard to the second that Israel does not have any territory not sanctioned by treaty or agreement and that the present Armistice lines are guaranteed by the tripartite powers and by the Security Council.

Mr. Byroade said he was grateful that the Israel Government had found in the Secretary’s speech so many points for reassurance. He felt it was unfortunate that the speech as originally drafted was too long for the radio time allotted and had to be cut by several minutes. He also felt it was unfortunate that a trip of the kind just completed could not have permitted the party to visit Israel first and then again as the last country. However, he said, he could reassure the Ambassador on some points. The first pertained to resentment in the Arab world. He felt that the Ambassador’s reference to the need of a counter-balance to Arab criticism was well taken. The American audience wanted to know the facts, however, and the Secretary’s intention was to provide those facts. He said that if only Israel and Arab relations were concerned, the problem would be relatively easier. What is at stake, however, is the possible loss of all Western influence in the Middle East, including oil, airfields, etc. The decline in influence has resulted partially from Western support of Israel, and we are quite concerned about it. He said that Arab resentment against the West and especially the British is worse now than last year and it is so serious that warfare may break out in Egypt at any time. The American people and the American Congress should realize that the United States and the West is not in a position to exert much influence on the Arab world today. It is in Israel’s interest, Mr. Byroade said, to have us retain a position of influence in the area, and Prime Minister Ben Gurion has wisely recognized this.

With regard to Israel expansion, Mr. Byroade said that in his opinion the Arabs are not greatly concerned over the short-term; they are not worried about Ben Gurion and Eban and their contemporaries. The Arabs do believe, however, that one day Israel will be forced to expand. There is the feeling in the Arab world that if, for example, the Soviet Union should permit the departure of Jews from Communist countries and if they should find their way to Israel, Israel would be forced to expand its frontiers to make room for them. He said he did not know how to allay the Arab fear, but we must keep trying.

The use of the expression “territory now under Israel control” was an accident of drafting and had no hidden significance. The Secretary apparently feels that peace cannot be achieved unless the back of the refugee problem is broken. Settlement of refugees along the lines of present endeavors is not going to work because, for example, Syria cannot settle refugees on a higher standard than that of the present population. Future settlement must be in such a way that the camp or locality cannot be labelled “refugee”. Further, we know now that available water is sufficient for not more than half the present number of refugees. Therefore, the Secretary feels that if there are areas in Israel where the refugees could be settled, as in hill areas, it is in the interest of all to cooperate. He emphasized that we were not thinking specifically in terms of Western Galilee, the Negev, or in numbers such as 50,000 or 100,000 or any other number. We are thinking of the possibilities in general terms only.

Mr. Byroade said, with reference to a defense organization, that it was immediately evident on reaching the field that the past concept of a Middle East Defense Organization would not work at the present time. That decision had actually been reached in the Department some six months ago. In Egypt it was apparent that the East-West conflict was happening on another planet so far as the Egyptians were concerned. In Iraq the situation was somewhat different because Iraq fears for her northern frontier. The Iraqis tell us that they cannot wait forever on Egypt for a defense organization. They need help and Mr. Byroade said he did not see why we should not extend military aid to Iraq in a modest way. Pakistan also offered important possibilities. The amount which the Department hoped to get for the area ($100,000,000) must be spread all the way between Libya and Pakistan and it is thus evident that this amount would not create a powerhouse anywhere.

Mr. Byroade said he did not believe military aid should go to Syria in great amounts as long as the Israeli situation exists and that we no longer believe that military equipment should go to Egypt as long as the trouble with the British remains unresolved. Instead we are thinking more of strengthening the mountain pass states in the northern part of the area.

For Israel, Mr. Byroade said that he would like to see some of the funds used in Israel for construction of strategic roads, for port improvements, etc., but not for anything in combat terms. He emphasized that he was not quoting from any plan but was merely expressing thoughts that developed during the recent trip.

Ambassador Eban asked whether the concept for defense would be to find states willing to cooperate. He felt it would not be prudent to consider a state having anti-Israel sentiments and supply to that state the missing element for aggression, namely arms. Mr. Byroade replied that the Ambassador’s analysis would depend on the situation, e.g., if we could have prevailed on the British to move more rapidly, and if we would have given Egypt some small arms aid after the Sudan agreement, we would probably not be in our present impasse in Egypt. In any event, Iraq and Pakistan offer the main prospects for beginning a defense arrangement. We have not given up the desirability of having a regional defense arrangement of some kind, but until that can be achieved we plan to concentrate on individual states.

Ambassador Eban thanked Mr. Byroade for his clarification of the Secretary’s address and asked if he could take up some other matters. He said that in discussions between the Pentagon and Israel Embassy officials, it was apparent that there was great interest in the Pentagon in Israel’s military potential. In the past all United States military missions to the Near East had stopped short of Israel and Israel was beginning to get the feeling of being boycotted. Lt. General McAuliffe and Major General Eddleman are planning a trip to Greece and Turkey in the near future and have expressed a willingness to go on to Israel. The Israel Government has invited them and would like to have the Department of State’s “no objection” to it. Mr. Byroade expressed doubt that the Greek–Turkish team would be the best one to visit Israel and suggested that General Hull might more appropriately visit Israel. He said that it had been planned for General Hull to visit the Near East but it had been postponed because of the Secretary’s trip. He thought it might be possible for General Hull to make the trip early in August, but he would like to think a little more about it. The purpose of General Hull’s visit would be to see what can be done toward the defense of the area.

Mr. Byroade said that the Secretary believes that something should be done with reference to Jerusalem. Although there is no plan, he feels that this question should have about the same priority as the settlement of the Arab refugees. The Secretary realizes that any plan for Jerusalem must not be too disruptive to Israel and Jordan and cited as an analogy the New York Port Authority which operates ports, tunnels and other facilities by an agreement between the States of New York and New Jersey.

Ambassador Eban said he had one more matter, namely, the mutual security program for Israel. He said that approximately $6,000,000 remain in MSA funds for the present fiscal year. The Israel Government would like to use this money for debt retirement, rather than for the regular program. It could apparently be authorized by MSA with some slight change in administrative procedure. In support of the request he wanted Mr. Byroade to know that figures would be supplied the Department and Mr. Stassen’s office tomorrow. Mr. Byroade said he would do whatever he could under existing authority but it would not be possible to ask Congress for anything requiring additional legislation. He concluded by emphasizing again that he was indulging in a purely informal exchange of views on a number of subjects and that his thoughts were not necessarily firm on any of them; also that he had spoken much more frankly than with any other representative from the area and he hoped Ambassador Eban would bear this in mind in reporting the conversation to his Government.

1. For text, see Department of State Bulletin, June 15, 1953, pp. 831–835.