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

205. Telegram From the Department of State to the Secretary of State, at Canberra¹

Washington, March 8, 1957—8:06 p.m.

Tedul 5. For Secretary from Acting Secretary.

1. At his request, I saw the President today with Rountree, Dillon and Phleger to discuss Egyptian situation including Canal, Gaza, Tiran, etc. At his request we outlined what we seek from Egypt, how we have made known what we would like, and steps which might be taken if Egypt does not undertake measures desired. I do not believe that he was seeking any specific conclusions nor did we reach any.

2. You will have seen the SYG report of this afternoon and Lodge’s following statement.² We felt here and Lodge agreed that since SYG had not specifically mentioned subject of troops on both sides of border preferable have Lodge support SYG’s statement and not himself raise question. We are satisfied that SYG position on this point and our own are adequately clear and on the record.

3. In conversation today, Lodge told me SYG was uncertain whether he would proceed Egypt Monday or week from Monday. He expects momentarily to receive from Fawzi Egyptian position re interim canal arrangements. If this reasonably satisfactory, he would hope delay visit for another week in order provide “cooling off” period in Gaza, particularly since he confident Egyptians will make no immediate move re Gaza. We are emphasizing urgency of visit unless entirely satisfactory interim agreement can be made here, which would involve more than unilateral Egyptian declaration.

4. Eban is coming in tomorrow morning at his request. Meanwhile, Ben Gurion’s reply to the President’s message of March 2 which was made public has just come in and we are repeating to Canberra. I shall probably emphasize to Eban the importance of having some UNEF on the Israeli side of the border and that acceptance of this is quite definitely in Israeli interests. In view Ben Gurion’s repeated statements to Lawson when letter handed to him March 7, that Armistice Agreement is “dead letter”, I plan also to restate our attitude concerning relationship existence Agreement to claim that Egypt cannot legitimately exclude Israeli shipping through Straits and Canal.

I hope that you had a pleasant and not too exhausting trip out and that the conference goes well.

Herter

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/3–857. Secret. Drafted by Howe, cleared with Rountree, and approved by Howe. A copy of this telegram, ibid., Conference Files: Lot 62 D 181, CF 847, bears the marginal notation: “Sec saw”.
2. For texts of Hammarskjöld’s report (U.N. doc. A/3568) and Lodge’s remarks at the 668th plenary meeting of the General Assembly on March 8, see United States Policy in the Middle East, September 1956–July 1957, pp. 342–346, and Department of State Bulletin, April 1, 1957, pp. 543–546. In his report, Hammarskjöld affirmed that Israel was in full compliance with General Assembly Resolution 1124 of February 2 and had withdrawn behind the Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Demarcation Line.