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

78. Telegram From the Embassy in Israel to the Department of State¹

Tel Aviv,April 15, 1955—5 p.m.

887. British Ambassador² and I met this morning with General Burns to exchange views regarding the Egyptian-Israel situation relative to the Security Council’s second resolution and to Prime Minister Sharett’s proposal. The consensus which Burns is transmitting to the UN Secretary General and which Nicholls and I undertook to transmit to our governments follows:

1. First priority should be given to obtaining from Egyptians a firm commitment regarding their willingness to participate in high level talks in meetings which would be held under General Burns’ auspices.

2. Re problem of agenda it is suggested that this be defined as discussion of General Burns’ proposals in pursuance Security Council resolution and any other proposals for the reduction of tensions on the border which in the opinion of the two parties should be discussed.

3. Re level of representation it is suggested that the Egyptians be informed that the Israel Government expects to be represented by the Director General of the Foreign Ministry³ that presumably he would be accompanied by the IDF Chief of Staff.⁴

4. Although it was recognized that the IG might take the position that not one of General Bums’ proposals should be resolved until a general meeting is held, the proposal for joint patrols in view of its importance at this moment, should immediately be pressed as vigorously as possible by Burns with his regular IG contacts with US and United Kingdom diplomatic support.

It appeared to us in today’s discussion that in order for Security Council to act intelligently on the Israel complaint to that body (Department telegram 596⁵) it was necessary to know before hand whether in fact the Egyptian Government was prepared to participate in high level meetings along the lines set forth above.

As preamble to discussions which led to foregoing suggestions General Bums gave us the following appraisal situation. Majority incidents since February 28 Gaza action have been chargeable to Egypt. As these were largely sins of omission rather than commission he assumed that any Security Council decision on Israel complaint would be somewhat milder than SC condemnation of Israel for February 28 incident.

He appraised attitudes two parties as result preliminary discussions as follows:

a. Joint patrols—Egypt favorable. Israel rather strongly opposed but has not closed door.

b. Barricades along demarcation line—Israel desires but Egypt somewhat opposes.

c. Both sides agreeable to use trained soldiers only in area one kilo each side demarcation line.

d. No insurmountable obstacles to eventual local commanders agreement.

As we were leaving,Burns said that accompanied by Chief of Staff Dayan, he was visiting this weekend a number of the Israel border settlements near the Gaza strip.

Lawson

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/4–1555. Secret; Priority. Received at 9:32 a.m., April 16. Repeated priority to Cairo, London, Paris, and Jerusalem.
2. John Walter Nicholls.
3. Walter Eytan.
4. Moshe Dayan.
5. The Department informed the Embassy in Tel Aviv in telegram 596, April 11, that earlier in the day Israeli Embassy representatives had requested U.S. support for an urgent Security Council meeting to continue consideration of Israel’s complaint against Egypt, had urged U.S. backing for Israel’s contention that Egypt was responsible for the current situation along the frontier, and inquired as to the U.S. attitude toward Burns’ efforts to initiate high-level Israeli-Egyptian discussions. The Americans responded that the Department fully supported Burns’ efforts and that it thought a Security Council meeting would prejudice prospects for their success. (Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/4–1155)