639. Note From the Secretary of State to the Israeli Ambassador (Eban)1

The Secretary of State presents his compliments to His Excellency the Ambassador of Israel and has the honor to refer to the Ambassador’s note of November 30, 1956, requesting that the United States Government at this time make a public statement concerning its attitude toward Israel.

On a number of occasions during the past several years the United States Government has publicly made clear its position with regard to the security of the states in the Near East. These declarations have included statements to the effect that the United States would take action, within and outside the United Nations, to prevent any violation of the frontiers or armistice lines by the states of the area; that the United States would, within constitutional means, [Page 1273] oppose any aggression in the Near East and render assistance to the victim of aggression; and that United States foreign policy embraces the preservation of the independence of the State of Israel. There has been no change in the policy set forth in these statements, which reveal the concern of the United States Government for the independence and security of Israel and the other states in the area.

The November 29 statement of the United States Government to which the Ambassador of Israel alludes referred to the states concerned in their capacity as members of the Baghdad Pact.2 Thus the inclusion of other states would not have been appropriate, and their exclusion can in no way be construed as indicating any particular attitude of the United States Government toward these states.

The United Nations has revealed its abiding interest in maintaining the integrity of states against aggression. In recent days the United Nations has taken effective action to preserve security in the Near East. The United States has provided strong support to the United Nations in this task, and will continue to do so.

In the light of the steps which the United States Government has taken to demonstrate its concern for the security of the states in the Near East, it is believed that the position of the United States on this point has been amply affirmed.

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.84A/11–3056. Drafted by Rountree in response to Eban’s note of November 30 (see footnote 3, Document 627). Bergus handed the note to Meroz on the morning of December 7 during a meeting. At 8:17 p.m., December 7, the Department of State transmitted a summary of the note’s contents to Kabul, Cairo, Paris, Tehran, Baghdad, Tel Aviv, Beirut, Moscow, Amman, Ankara, London, and USUN. (Circular telegram 477; Department of State, Central Files, 661.84A/12–756)

    On December 5, while transmitting the text of the note for approval, Rountree had advised Secretary Dulles that Israel’s primary motive appeared to be a desire to terminate its diplomatic isolation and, evidently, the Israelis were seeking to mobilize public opinion in the United States behind their request. Rountree recommended that the U.S. reply to Israel should be couched in such terms as to prevent its being publicly construed as a shift in U.S. policy toward the Near East crisis and that no new statement of policy toward Israel was required at the time. A marginal notation on Rountree’s note indicates Dulles approved of the note’s contents on December 7 and Hoover concurred. (Ibid., 661.84A/11–3056)

  2. Regarding the November 29 statement, see footnote 2, Document 626.