Office of the Historian

214. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Israel1

Washington,August 24, 1955—4:01 p.m.

139. Dept has agreed with UK on fol position to be taken by reps in Israel and Arab states in any background comment on Secretary’s speech Aug 26.2 You should not volunteer comment beyond urging earnest consideration and support of statement. But if pressed and you believe situation warrants you may informally use fol background:

1.
It is important that statement not be regarded as a “plan” for a settlement. Rather it an explanation of what US would do to make a settlement possible.
2.
Statement declares our policy re border guarantees. Israel Govt may object that it makes guarantee dependent on a settlement. Arab Govts may assert it attempts force them into settlement with Israel. We must insist there is no suggestion of coercion. Statement does not demand immediate decisions from Govts concerned in dispute but offers opportunity for discussion which we trust they will not throw away. Our real hope is it will provide impetus to instill in parties to dispute a sense of urgency in seeking a settlement; and that after a possible initial period of adverse statements it will lead them discuss possibility of a settlement with US and UK who are in position help them in ways Secretary’s statement indicates.
3.
If you are questioned on details of statement you may make use fol points:
a)

Refugees. There should be no dispute on principle of compensation. Israel has from time to time admitted her liability pay it as part of a general settlement. There is no doubt Israel could not pay the compensation which is due without help. The offers of US and UK to take part in a loan to Israel for this purpose are a most important contribution to a solution this difficult problem.

Re question repatriation we cannot be dogmatic. Secretary’s statement reserves right by which Arabs set so much store. It is reasonable expect Israel find homes for some of refugees who wish return; but it clearly not possible for all or most of them go back. Large numbers will have be resettled in Arab countries and Secretary announces backing of US for appropriate resettlement projects.

b)
Guarantees. Importance this passage of statement as a definition of US policy is mentioned above. If Israel could now get an unconditional guarantee of her existing frontiers she would have less need seek a solution through a settlement with Arabs while Arabs would of course remain unreconciled to situation. But Arabs should not jump to conclusion they can afford reject a reasonable settlement in hopes blocking guarantee forever.
c)
Frontiers. This passage directly concerns Israel and Arab States. The problem of sovereignty over demilitarized zones between Israel and Syria should not prove serious. There is the notably unsatisfactory frontier between Israel and Jordan dividing villages from their lands and in some places cutting villages themselves in two. Finally there is the Arab claim for unbroken land connection between Egypt and rest of Arab world to East. These are the kinds of frontier problems that need to be tackled. We believe that with patience and good will, ways could be found reconcile vital interests all parties.
d)
Jerusalem. Here Secretary simply defining another problem that must be dealt with. There have been many proposals on status Jlem and it is for United Nations to review them. You may recall that in past US has supported proposals for changing original UN resolution on territorial internationalization and you may say you are sure US is not committed to any particular solution.
e)
Econ Questions. In any settlement, Arab blockade of Israel would have be brought to end. There have also been proposals that Jordan might be offered a free port and transit facilities in Israel. That is the kind of econ question that might be discussed. If pressed you may say that Secretary’s statement does not imply that Arabs wouldnecessarily have to engage in direct trade with Israel. But you should avoid this question if possible.
4.
If you are asked whether you think there should be a conference of the parties you should point out it has always proved difficult get them sit down together. There may be other more fruitful ways of proceeding.
5.
If you are asked about UN resolutions you should say it well known that Arabs take their stand on UN resolution of 1947 as their opening bid and that Israelis claim their present frontiers. If settlement ever reached there will have be concessions from both these positions. We believe that in present circumstances neither is practicable. All agreements require concessions by both sides.

Dulles
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 684A.86/8–2455. Top Secret; Priority; Alpha; Limited Distribution. Drafted by Russell; cleared with Jernegan; and approved by Russell, who signed for Dulles. Transmitted priority to Cairo, Baghdad, Beirut, Amman, Damascus, Jidda, and Tripoli. Repeated priority to London, Paris, and Ankara.↩
  2. For text of Dulles’ address, see Department of State Bulletin, September 5, 1955, pp. 378–380.↩