175. Telegram From the U.S. Interests Section of the Spanish Embassy in the United Arab Republic to the Department of State1

2448. 1. With all due respect, I find our arguments against timetable concept as set forth para 3, State 1658312 pretty thin and unconvincing. I am certain UAR will assume, once they hear of these conversations from British, Italians and others (as hear they will), that real reason for US opposition to timetable concept is US support for Israel insistence on direct negots and peace treaty.

2. Think we would be well advised withhold comment on timetable concept until at least we get Jarring’s views on it. It may be that Jarring himself considers it non-starter. Another possibility would be further discussions with FonMin Riad in Cairo with aim of expanding timetable concept to something more to our liking.

3. I am also troubled by reference in para 6 reftel to “Our understanding with Israel as to how we were proceeding on whole question of talks.” This and other hints in other telegrams over past couple of months make me wonder if we have a secret agreement with, or have made secret commitments to, Israel which go beyond President’s June 19 statement and our pledge of support for Nov 22 resolution. Would appreciate clarification on this point.

Bergus
  1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967-69, POL 27 ARAB-ISR. Secret; Priority; Exdis.
  2. Telegram 165831 to USUN, May 17, reported on a conversation between British officials and Under Secretaries Katzenbach and Rostow on May 16. The conversation dealt with the Jarring Mission, and Katzenbach and Rostow persuaded the British that the timetable concept favored by the UAR should be opposed. The Department viewed the concept as a “mechanistic approach,” which deviated from the objective of promoting an agreed settlement between the parties, and saw the timetable concept as a device that could be exploited to substitute for negotiation and agreement. (Ibid.)