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

165. Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, February 27, 1957¹

Washington, February 27, 1957

SUBJECT

• Israeli Withdrawal Declaration

PARTICIPANTS

• Ambassador Abba Eban, Embassy of Israel
• Mr. Reuven Shiloah, Minister Plenipotentiary, Embassy of Israel
• Dr. Jacob Robinson, Counsellor, Israeli Delegation to the 11th General Assembly
• Mr. Francis O. Wilcox, IO
• Mr. Herman Phleger, L
• Mr. Leonard Meeker, L/UNA
• Mr. Fraser Wilkins, NE
• Mr. Samuel DePalma

Ambassador Eban and his group called to discuss the arrangements and procedures envisaged in connection with the Israeli withdrawal declaration suggested by Mr. Pineau. Ambassador Eban began by presenting a copy of the proposed Israeli statement concerning its intention to assert the right of free passage through the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba (attached).²

Turning next to the points which were discussed on February 24 in the meeting with the Secretary, Ambassador Eban and Mr. Shiloah pointed out that it would no longer be necessary to work out an agreed version of the clarifications sought by Israel and the responses received from the United States since several of the points in question have either been superseded or are no longer being pressed by Israel, and others will be covered in statements to be made by Israel and the United States. Mr. Phleger agreed, but pointed out a number of inaccuracies and clarifications in the responses attributed to the United States in the Israeli memorandum of that conversation. It was further agreed that some of the points covered in the February 24 meeting might be covered in a bilateral exchange of notes.

Ambassador Eban asked if in our statement concerning the Israeli declaration we would be prepared to refer to the question of innocent passage through the Straits of Tiran. Mr. Phleger indicated that we would reaffirm our views as set forth in the Aide-Mémoire of February 11 and, if we elaborated on this point, we would do so on the basis of the statement of the International Law Commission. In this connection, Mr. Wilcox pointed out that Article 2 of the Egyptian-Israeli Armistice Agreement would appear to prohibit the passage of Israeli warships through Egyptian territorial waters, and by implication through the Straits of Tiran. Ambassador Eban made no response. Mr. Phleger pointed out that the United States might take note of the proposed Israeli declaration concerning its rights in the Gulf of Aqaba, but of course would not subscribe to the Israeli statement. The United States would continue to assert its rights independently.

Ambassador Eban then noted that Israel would no longer press its proposal for a United Nations naval patrol in the Gulf of Aqaba in view of the Secretary General’s negative reaction.

Ambassador Eban also asked that the United States reiterate in its statement following the Israeli declaration the statements made by Ambassador Lodge on January 28 and February 2 with regard to UNEF’s role in the Sharm el-Sheikh area. He stated that Israel’s former apprehension concerning a unilateral departure of UNEF from its various positions has been allayed by the statement of the Secretary General that he would expect to consult with the UNEF advisory committee concerning any withdrawal of UNEF. Ambassador Eban also suggested that the United States take note of the Secretary General’s statement in its statement. Mr. Phleger indicated that we could in our statement indicate our expectation that reasonable advance notice would be given to the Assembly of any plans for the withdrawal of UNEF so that the Assembly would have an opportunity to express its views.

Ambassador Eban then asked whether we would include in our statement any reference to the Suez Canal. Mr. Phleger replied that we did not think it would be productive to relate this matter in any specific way to the present situation.

The discussion then turned to the procedures for dealing with the Israeli declaration in the General Assembly. Ambassador Eban indicated that the Israeli Cabinet was still meeting on this question but that he expected a final and affirmative reaction in the course of this evening. In response to Mr. Wilcox’s suggestion that it would be necessary for Israel to take some action tomorrow morning in order to head off further Assembly debate on the basis of the current resolutions being discussed in New York, Ambassador Eban indicated that he would seek authority to make a statement by tomorrow morning which would signify in a general way Israel’s intentions and would thus serve as a basis for seeking a postponement of further discussion until Friday, March 1. He hoped that the declaration could be issued by March 1.

It was agreed that it would be important for other governments to be informed of Israel’s intentions so that as many as possible could be prepared on Friday to join the United States in making appropriate statements taking into account the Israeli declaration. Ambassador Eban said that he hoped to be able to give the Secretary a final draft of the proposed Israeli declaration tomorrow morning which could serve as the basis for the preparation of a United States statement.

Ambassador Eban next raised the question of a further exchange of communications between Prime Minister Ben Gurion and President Eisenhower. He noted that the need for such an exchange with regard to Israel’s intention to assert her rights in the Gulf of Aqaba appeared to be clear. Mr. Shiloah raised the question of a more general statement which would serve to terminate the series of exchanges that have taken place between the Prime Minister and the President on these matters and to do so on a note of agreement. Ambassador Eban said he assumed that Prime Minister Ben Gurion would want to inform the President that Israel’s decision to withdraw had been taken partly as an act of faith and in reliance upon the statements of United States policy which it had received. He assumed that the Prime Minister might communicate with the President, notifying him of his government’s decision to withdraw and that he would then expect an appropriate reply.

Mr. Phleger stated that this was a matter which would have to be decided in consultation with the Secretary, but expressed the view that a further exchange of communications bearing on at least some of these points would appear to be appropriate.

Ambassador Eban then summarized the Israeli position with regard to the Armistice Agreement and said that his government would continue to take the view that Egypt’s assertion of belligerency and its continued behavior as if it were in a state of war with Israel have rendered the Armistice Agreement academic. Mr. Phleger pointed out that the United States has constantly asserted the need to restore full compliance by both sides with the Armistice Agreement. He added that in responding to Israel’s request that we state our position with regard to free passage through the Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba, we have done so and are continuing to do so on the basis of the normal rules of international law. This meant that in this particular case it is the Armistice Agreement which provides the basis for contesting any assertion of belligerent rights on the part of Egypt. It is the view of the United States that the whole structure of the peace in the area depends on the continuation of the Armistice Agreement. Mr. Meeker added that if Israel maintained its position with respect to the Armistice Agreement, it would itself create a basis for Egyptian claims to belligerent rights.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/2–2757. Secret. Drafted by DePalma.

2. The text of the Israeli Declaration, which is attached to the source text, reads: “Israel will protect ships of its own flag exercising the right of free passage on the high seas and in international waters.

   “Interference by the use or threat of force with ships of Israel flag exercising free passage in the Gulf of Akaba and through the Straits of Tiran will be regarded by Israel as an attack entitling her to exercise her inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter, and to take such measures as are necessary to ensure the free passage of her ships in the Gulf and in the Straits.”