Office of the Historian

40. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in France1

Washington, January 26, 1956—7:36 p.m.

2714. Reurtel 3253.2 Department consulted Jan 24 with British, Italian, French Ambassadors concerning Israeli request arms including 12 Mystere IV’s from France.3 French were informed that if they wished to interrupt offshore production in France for length of time necessary to secure 12 planes, U.S. would have no objection. However, decision on Israel request of France was one for France. Initiative must be theirs and planes must be manufactured, processed and shipped by France.

It was also noted that Hammerskjold in area trying to get agreement of parties reduce tension and his efforts should not be prejudiced; Security Council had recently condemned Israel in strong resolution4 and grant of arms immediately after might involve difficult public relations problem. All representatives agreed Israeli requests should continue in suspense for another week or two. After [Page 80] that time question would again be considered in light of developments.

Dulles
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 784A.56/1–1856. Secret. Drafted by Wilkins and Geren and approved by Rountree who signed for Dulles. Repeated to London, Rome, and Tel Aviv.↩
  2. The Embassy in Paris reported in telegram 3253, January 18, that, according to Henri Roux, Director of Afrique-Levant Affairs at the French Foreign Ministry, “political tensions within Israel daily becoming more critical as Ben-Gurion, pushing for early attack on Egypt, becomes more difficult to restrain by Sharett, who urges restraint. Ben-Gurion appears to French to have increasing support within Israel.” Roux also stated that the Israelis were pressing all levels of the French Government for the early delivery of the 12 OSP Mysteres, and Roux “reiterated that if US Government approved feasibility delivering OSP Mysteres, project would then be submitted to Ambassadorial Committee for consideration.” (Ibid.)↩
  3. The memorandum of this conversation is not printed. (Ibid., 784A.56/1–2456)↩
  4. See the editorial note, vol. XIV, p. 854.↩