Office of the Historian

140. Telegram From the Consulate General at Jerusalem to the Department of State1

Jerusalem,June 30, 1955—11 a.m.

381. According press communiqué being issued by UNTSO Egyptian-Israeli discussions on Gaza2 postponed until next week owing “technical difficulties” in drafting agenda. General Burns gave me evening June 29 following account meeting that date.

Gohar was willing to accept as an agenda the four points of the March 30UN resolution plus Nasser’s proposed neutral zone. He was not willing have Israelis three points (Tel Aviv’s 1070 to Department3) also included in agenda. Gohar indicated he was ready talk about latter provided they were not set forth in agenda itself. Israelis maintained that they should not be put in an inferior position with respect preparation agenda and therefore would not accept Gohar’s position.Burns considered Israeli viewpoint as logical and made number of efforts reconcile differences and achieve formula regarding agenda agreeable both parties. In so doing he proposed some seven different possibilities none of which acceptable to Gohar.

In view complete rigidity Gohar’s position,Burns mentioned to Gohar his opinion that latter given no authority deviate from fixed instructions. Gohar replied to effect he had authority but did not wish “deviate” owing “question of principle” which caused him adhere his fixed position.

Burns told me he assumes Gohar attitude dictated by necessities Egyptian internal politics, thus involving forces he is not well able to assess. Meeting June 29 adjourned on understanding it would be resumed about July 6 if some progress could be made toward agreement on agenda.Burns said he is not optimistic about prospects and will not call future meeting unless they show considerable improvement meanwhile.

I also discussed subject with Vigier, who generally takes pessimistic view such matters. He referred to idea he had expressed earlier (mytel 3314) to effect Egyptians would yield to pressures [Page 268] favoring holding talks Gaza situation merely to forestall Israeli propaganda which could result from their refusal. He thought that this had in fact occurred and that Egyptians had no discernible intention of making real progress toward bettering situation through such talks. Vigier regards virtual breakdown talks as potentially dangerous, since in face Egyptian intransigence Israelis may again resume “provocative” patrols, etc., and be more inclined than previously retaliate against any interference.

Cole
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/6–3055. Confidential; Priority. Received at 8:05 a.m. Repeated priority to Cairo, London, Paris, Tel Aviv, Amman, Beirut, Baghdad, Damascus, Jidda, and USUN.↩
  2. Cole reported in telegram 379 from Jerusalem, June 28, on the first meeting of Egyptian and Israeli representatives with Burns that day. (Ibid., 674.84A/6–2855) He reported in telegram 375, June 25, that Burns had informed the Israelis that Gohar had been named the Egyptian representative with full authority to discuss and agree to subjects forming the agenda. (Ibid., 674.84A/6–2555)↩
  3. Document 134.↩
  4. Not printed. (Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/5–2555)↩