92. Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, September 29, 1959, 2 p.m.1
PARTICIPANTS
- The Secretary
- Mrs. Golda Meir, Israel Foreign Minister
- Mr. Avraham Harman, Ambassador, Embassy of Israel
- Mr. Yaacov Herzog, Minister, Embassy of Israel
- NEA—G. Lewis Jones
- NE—William L. Hamilton
Mrs. Meir reviewed briefly Israel’s efforts to obtain support from UN delegations for the concept of freedom of passage through the Suez Canal, particularly for Israel. She said that when all delegations have spoken in the General Debate, 18 or 20 will have supported the proposal, with or without reference to Israel. Israel does not hope to improve that total very much because its obligations to support France on the Algerian question preclude special solicitation of support among those African or Asian countries otherwise uncommitted. The question confronting Israel, she said, is what step should be taken next.
The Secretary commented that he saw no course presently open except continued reliance on the Secretary General whose renewed efforts might be strengthened by the references to the issue in the UNGA General Debate.
Mrs. Meir registered doubt as to the efficacy of the Secretary General’s efforts and said that she believes her Government would continue to press the matter, adding that the Israel Cabinet probably would want an appeal to the Security Council despite the inevitability of a Soviet veto. She hinted strongly that new cargoes would leave Haifa under the same circumstances as the Inge Toft, which she observed has now been detained at Port Said since May, and that there might develop a whole string of detained ships at Port Said.
Mrs. Meir said that not only is Israel greatly concerned with preserving its developing trade with the Far East but it is very much afraid that Nasser’s success in blocking Israel at Suez will tempt him to make the Straits of Tiran his next target.
The Secretary asked Mrs. Meir if either Nasser or the Saudis had manifested any interest in the departure through the Straits of the frigates which Israel had sold to Ceylon. Mrs. Meir replied in the negative but said Nasser would be seeking new ways to enhance his [Page 205] prestige sooner or later. Eilat would be a logical target. She said one move by Nasser toward Eilat would bring an automatic reaction from the Israelis who would move in the manner of which the world had been warned in March 1957 (presumably a reference to Mrs. Meir’s speech to the General Assembly on March 1, 19572 in which Israel threatened military measures).
A discussion ensued on the possibility of Eilat as an alternate route to the Far East. Mrs. Meir said that Eilat can be used as a port of exit for potash and phosphate from nearby works in the Negev, but it would be folly to consider transporting cement from northern plants, including the largest near Haifa. Government subsidies would have to be so great that such trade would bear no relationship to the economic facts of life.