183. Telegram From the Embassy in Israel to the Department of State1
1021. Re Deptel 835.2 I delivered President’s letter to Ben Gurion at his Jerusalem residence at 4:30 local time this afternoon. He told me that on basis of his previous knowledge of contents he had already instructed Eban to request one more appointment with Secretary tonight and hoped that conversation, if appointment granted, would give him basis for decision and reply to President well before GA reconvenes Monday.
He said he very much wanted “little more on Gaza”; something that would give him confidence to face his Cabinet tomorrow and Israel at large later in day. It would not matter, he said, if he could not make it public; if it were just something that would reassure him in [Page 349] taking step that was very critical one for Israel. “Will we have right”, he asked, “if there is renewal of trouble originating in Gaza to defend ourselves according to charter or will we be blamed as in past?”
We talked about 30 minutes in what was largely his review of GA proceedings. Ambassador Lodge’s speech he said had been very bitter surprise. “It was not as we had reason to expect—there were surprises of omission and commission. Certainly something in it had been changed at last minute and it was French who said what I had hoped to hear from you. I don’t know what was changed but let us hope it can be cleared up in time”.
He said his troubles would have been great enough even if Lodge had said what GOI had every reason to hope he would. Public which is emotionally greatly exercised about withdrawal would have been upset at decision to withdraw even if Assembly proceedings had gone as Ben Gurion had anticipated. But he thought he could have defended decision and public disgruntlement would have dissolved as ships began to move through Aqaba and tranquility Gaza border settlements had enjoyed since Sinai continued. “Gaza is not political issue, but deeply human question. I cannot persuade my people I am making right decision if Lodge’s reference to armistice agreements, which means simply Egypt can come back, is last word on subject”.
I expressed appreciation of difficulty persuading his people that this decision was wise one. I told him that whole act was based on confidence and assured him such confidence was justified. He could be certain that Secretary meant whatever he had told Eban, even if it had not been announced in that form at UN. He agreed but added, “under most favorable reading of our circumstances, it is still wholly matter of confidence on our part. We would have had no real guarantees even if Lodge’s speech had been as we hoped”.
Ben Gurion plans to see his Cabinet early Monday, hoping at that time to have encouraging report from Eban. In afternoon he will announce his decision to Knesset which generally meets Monday afternoon in any case, but which tomorrow of course will devote session to this matter.
He was obviously very pleased with President’s intervention at this stage and said with sincerity I found convincing that he “shares President’s hope we will be able to withdraw and that things will be better in future. His words that he believes “Israel will have no cause to regret’ mean a very great deal to us”.
Comment: Ben Gurion and I talked in completely relaxed atmosphere. He was in calm, philosophical mood but nevertheless fully expected lively battle with his Cabinet tomorrow. He is, I believe, prepared to see Achdut Avod and Mapam bolt (Embtel 1020)3 and not [Page 350] concerned if anything Secretary may tell Eban is sufficient to reassure him he is not making bad mistake. It would not even be necessary to divulge such reassurance to others. I think he wants to withdraw without further delay but feels that Ambassador Lodge’s speech should not stand on record as our last word on Gaza.