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

611.84A/6–2353: Telegram

No. 630
The Chargé in Israel (Russell) to the Department of State¹

confidential

Tel Aviv, June 23, 1953—6 p.m.

1951. Acting Director General of Foreign Ministry Comay saying he making statement at specific request of Foreign Minister Sharett who is absent from country said yesterday he wished “confirm Israel’s understanding of parts of Secretary’s June 1 address² on which Israel had sought clarification in conversation between Byroade and Eban”:³

(1) Phrase “area presently controlled by Israel.” Israel understands not implied by this phrase it would be asked to give up some of its territory. Comay added that if no special significance attaches to phrase, “it would be happier avoid expressions creating unwarranted expectations.” Referring to Secretary’s reaffirmation of tripartite declaration (which was “designed strengthen existing frontiers”) he said “it would be valuable to use language which would have effect of strengthening those frontiers rather than giving air of impermanence to them.”

(2) Phrase “inter-related defenses.” Comay said this phrase interpreted by many in Israel and elsewhere as giving endorsement to idea of support of Arab League Collective Security Pact, especially in light of UP story. Israel now understands Secretary in mind there would be military aid to individual countries willing to cooperate, such as Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Israel. He added that while this assurance was welcome, Israel still had fears and misgivings with regard arming any Arab State prior to establishment peaceful relations with Israel.

(3) Phrase “alleged Israel encroachment.” Comay asserted manner in which phrase followed statement about Arab economic warfare implied latter warranted by these “alleged encroachments” and that Foreign Minister Sharett wondered what these “encroachments” were.

Comay said he also wished mention two other questions:

(1) Jerusalem and holy places. Israel understands Secretary had in mind scheme for internationalization of holy places that would not affect Israel sovereignty. He said Israel interposed no objection in principal, would welcome any suggestion with respect tactical and parliamentary steps particular reference next General Assembly.

(2) Coordinated use of water resources. Comay said there appeared to be contradiction between Secretary’s reference to coordination and fact that Yarmuk program going forward concerning details and implications of which Israel in dark.

I replied that I had no instructions on specific points he raised and could only give informal comments. I said Secretary’s address was not attempt to set forth definitive and detailed solutions to problems of area but rather to indicate lines of approach which could serve as basis further discussion. Precise phraseology of kind Comay suggested might well defeat this purpose. Re “area presently controlled by Israel” I pointed out refugee problem can only be solved if frame of mind can be induced in Arab countries which will lead them to desirable solution and therefore to agree to resettlement major portion of refugees in Arab countries. I added that great many Americans uneasy over refugees and feel there are moral grounds for permitting some of them return to land they once owned which is now “in area presently controlled by Israel.” Said Secretary’s remarks raised both these tactical and moral considerations.

Re “inter-related defenses” I said Department constantly examining and re-examining problem of area security and I viewed Secretary’s statement as effort narrow down solution my ruling out on one hand tightly knit approach such as one built around Arab League Collective Security Pact and on the other the notion of each country going it alone. Secretary may well have hoped general delineation of arrangements without spelling them out in detail would promote realistic and cooperative approach to problem.

Re “alleged encroachments” I suggested Secretary undoubtedly attempting indicate how situation looks to Arabs, which necessary for us to do if we to make headway with them.

Re “Jerusalem and holy places” I said I knew of no concrete plan as yet for implementing arrangement which would take cognizance of legitimate interests of religious groups in the holy places in Jerusalem area but suggested from “tactical” point of view a plan which Arabs felt they had played some part in evoking might stand best chance.

Re Yarmuk. I reviewed present status of matter along lines Embassy telegram 1563.⁴

In summary I suggested complicated area problems can be ameliorated only if all parties concerned willing move toward solution a step at a time without efforts by individual countries to try any runs or drives through center. United States, I said, should be able to play constructive role in adducing receptive frame of mind among Arabs, but at present Arab countries feel United States more partial to Israel than to Arab States and many Arabs despair of United States adopting evenhanded attitude. Until Arabs have confidence in our impartiality we can do very little. In attempting achieve it may occasionally have to use expressions Israel would not itself select.

In conclusion Comay noted Israel Government had refrained from public reply to Secretary’s speech and had attempted avoid appearance of controversy above issues.

Russell

1. Repeated to Amman, Beirut, Damascus, Cairo, London, Baghdad, and Jidda.
2. For text, see Department of State Bulletin, June 15, 1953, pp. 831–835.
3. See Document 622.
4. In telegram 1563 from Tel Aviv, Apr. 10, Chargé Russell reported on a conversation with Eytan in which Russell reviewed the importance which the United States attached to the success of the Yarmuk project as an instrument for meeting the refugee problem, as a symbol to the Arabs of constructive possibilities of cooperation, and therefore as helping to create an atmosphere conducive to peace in the area. Russell reiterated the U.S. expectation that Israel would cooperate in the resolution of any conflicting riparian claims and expressed the hope that there would be no action by Israel which might make the solution of the question of riparian rights more difficult. In conclusion, Russell informed Eytan of the expected visit of Arthur Z. Gardiner later in April and suggested the entire question could be discussed then in greater detail. (884A.211/5–1053)