Office of the Historian

273. Telegram From the Embassy in Egypt to the Department of State1

Cairo, April 11, 1956—2 p.m.

2036. We called on Col. Gohar this morning to obtain general review situation. Gohar said meeting between Hammarskjold and Fawzi yesterday afternoon (also attended by Burns and Gohar) had been general in scope. However Egyptians had reaffirmed to Hammarskjold their unconditional acceptance Burns’ 4 proposals of March 19552 and Secretary-General proposals reference Al Auja3 and reiterated Egyptian proposal reference 500 meter withdrawal.4

Hammarskjold is seeing Nasser at eleven today and will meet with Fawzi this afternoon to “discuss details”. Gohar said Egypt had assured Hammarskjold they fully prepared cooperate with U.N. in implementing any proposals which he might make within framework GAA to reduce tension.

Speculating regarding motivation latest incidents along border, Gohar echoed local editorial line. Israel, he said required peace with Arab States in order develop sound economy free from dependence foreign aid. Arabs too were willing effect settlement. Egypt in particular had great need devote its resources economic development. However Arabs could not settle on terms less favorable than U.N. resolutions which unacceptable Israel. Settlement refugee question was particularly important. Gap between two positions was becoming steadily wider (by implication as Arabs grew militarily stronger). Therefore Israel’s best chance achieve settlement on terms which she could accept would be provoke tension which Israel would [garble— hope?] would lead West intervene to prevent “threat to world peace” and would result in imposed peace on something approaching Israel’s terms.

Gohar said he did not know how long Hammarskjold might remain Cairo but felt it would be at least day or two.

Byroade
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 684A.86/4–1156. Confidential; Priority. Received at 2:03 p.m. Repeated priority to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, USUN, Damascus, Amman, Beirut, London, and Paris.↩
  2. See the editorial note, vol. XIV, p. 76.↩
  3. See telegrams 395 and 398, Ibid., pp. 690 and 702.↩
  4. Reference is to a proposal of June 1, 1955; see Ibid., footnote 3, p. 220.↩