Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1955, Volume XIV

295. Telegram From the Embassy in Israel to the Department of State ¹

Tel Aviv , September 21, 1955—7 p.m.

279.Sharett awaited my call this morning with determined attitude and armed with notes to raise Jerusalem question (Embtels 165² and 191;³ London’s 995 to Department⁴). This is second time he raised this subject, but this time in much more emphatic manner.

Prefacing statement with comment to effect it rather likely Ben Gurion will soon head GOI and Sharett would hold Foreign Ministry Portfolio, he made following remarks in firm and somewhat categorical manner and designed I thought, to express his very great concern over possible events which would so vitally affect his position and conduct of foreign relations with chiefs of mission of major powers: He hoped US Government “would not fall into error”;

(A) Of treating major issue and disturb our existing fine personal relations on basis of technical question; it would be unfortunate “if personal relations between American Ambassador and Foreign Minister were cut off because another room in Jerusalem was substituted for room in which they had in those capacities met in past”. This he said, would be impossible to explain to public. He insisted that regardless of technical inferences it was as Foreign Minister that he had discussed GOI matters with me.

(B) Of assuming that new Prime Minister would act as channel for communications instead of Foreign Minister. This would be impossible. The Prime Minister would receive Ambassadors on special business and even then appointment would be made by Foreign Minister who would be official contact for normal foreign affairs business.

After developing these points extensively and underscoring again dangers inherent to upcoming conditions, he volunteered following:

1. That he and I continue under existing formula with meeting me alternately at Foreign Office in Jerusalem and in Tel Aviv. (This is a new factor in picture and an agreement we thought very unlikely he would agree to if we presented it to him (Embtel 191).)

2. There would be no publicity of any change in procedure. He was confident that first meetings would pass off unnoticed.

Comment: My only comment was that I would send his remarks and positive suggestions to Department and inform him of any reply thereto.

Later Herzog who seemed very much excited over possible trouble in this field, suggested that I send Prime Minister’s comments to Secretary in a personal message. I did not engage to do so. When I questioned him as to whether Prime Minister had delivered similar comments to my French and British colleagues, he replied in negative, but said he would so recommend to Sharett. I shall inform those colleagues of my conversation as soon as practical.

Lawson

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.84A/9–2155. Confidential; Priority. Received at 2:28 p.m., September 22. Repeated priority to Paris, London, and Rome.
2. Document 224.
3. Document 241.
4. See footnote 3, Document 241.