611.84A/9–1450
The Chargé in Israel (Ford) to the Secretary of State
No. 118
Subject: A Pattern for Behavior toward Israel
The State of Israel, assisted materially in its creation both by the Government of the United States and the American people, has been in existence a little over two years. Throughout that period our official relations with the country have been maintained on a friendly mutually cooperative basis, while in the furtherance of that relationship the vast reservoir of sympathy and good-will in America for all Jewish people has been freely tapped as occasion has warranted. An informality not normally associated with the high-level political ties found between two sovereign states has characterized both the official and the public relations of the United States and Israel. Because of the disparity both in size and age between the two countries, a considerable measure of paternalistic tolerance has likewise entered into America’s attitude toward and treatment of Israel. Again, the nature of our diplomatic representation in Tel Aviv and the intimate, longstanding interest of American Jewry in the Zionist movement have tended to give us the position of a benign father confessor in the estimation not only of the Israelis themselves but of a great many people outside of Israel. Finally, an over-all emotionalism inevitable in the drama of a nation’s birth and particularly of the Jewish nation’s birth has tended to clog the channels of normal political intercourse and has at once made difficult a fair estimate of Israel by the world at large and hindered the Israelis in reaching an accurate appraisal of their own true value to the community of nations.
[Page 1007]In the belief that, however desirable and perhaps even necessary these pleasantly informal relations may have been during the formative stage of Israel, the time has now come for an objective review of the situation and for the adoption of a rather more impersonal approach in our top level official dealings with Israel, the Embassy presents for the Department’s consideration the following suggestions relative to our future relations not only with the Government and people of this country, but with regard to our handling of political problems and tensions which, while not an integral part of Israel, are nevertheless affected by the coming into existence of this new state.
I. Relations Inside Israel
First, it is believed that the United States Diplomatic Mission accredited to Israel and at present stationed in Tel Aviv is offered a unique opportunity during the pending change of Chiefs of Mission to inaugurate with a minimum of notoriety a completely non-partisan attitude in its daily dealings with officials of the Israel Government. It is not even remotely suggested that a get-tough policy be adopted either overnight or ever with Israel, but a relationship stripped of the casually dropped hints and even openly advanced offers of advice and suggestions which heretofore has all too often characterized our top level contacts with Israel officialdom is believed to be desirable, both in our own interests and for the good of Israel itself. Our over-all job is to serve our country by conveying an unbiased, strictly impartial picture of Israel and the Israelis to our Government, and to present a similar view to Israel of America’s sentiments, official and otherwise, toward the Israelis, and any departure from that impartiality tends to weaken not only our country’s purposefulness as a world leader but our own official standing in this community. Moreover, after the observations of two years the Embassy is convinced that the Israelis themselves would prefer, in the interests of consistent continuity and long-range planning, that American diplomatic representation be kept on a friendly but objective level.
It is therefore the Embassy’s considered opinion that the time has come to name a Chief of Mission to Israel who embodies not only the qualities of effective leadership but who understands the importance to our interests in this entire area of not offering advice or suggestions to the Israel Government or its officials in the conduct of its affairs unless and until such advice or suggestions shall have been received in clearly worded instructions from the Department of State.
Finally, to sketch in briefly this portion of the diagram, the new Chief of Mission to Israel should be supplied with a staff each American member of which shall have been assured in advance, and preferably in writing, that his or her tenure of duty in Israel will not [Page 1008] exceed a maximum of 18 months. There is no need to spell out a situation with which the Department is fully aware. It is sufficient to note that, until over-crowded, underfed, pioneering, intensely exigent Israel shall have solved some of its pressing economic problems, American objectivity here will best be realized by specifying clearly each staff member’s period of assignment.
II. Relations Outside Israel
It is appreciated that the Department is in a far better position to draw a blueprint of official attitudes outside Israel than is this Embassy. However, it is believed well to point up in this discussion certain factors which inevitably come to our attention as the Department’s listening post in this country and which must necessarily form part of the pattern of our behavior toward Israel.
Two years of hard knocks have solidly confirmed Israel in the fact of its existence, and all the dialectical efforts to dash away unpleasant dreams on the part of the Arab States will not change that fact. The new state is here to stay, and from all present appearances it will continue to remain very much a reality despite the enormous cost its maintenance is going to mean to the world generally and to American Jewry in particular. However, the heroics attending Israel’s birth have largely passed and there is now little occasion for wide-eyed wonder at this fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Israel is settling down to the prosaic tasks first and foremost of survival and thereafter of getting on with its social experiment in the highly volatile Middle East. This is not the place for a discussion of the political merits or demerits of Israel; it suffices to bear in mind the present fact of Israel’s existence and the future probability that this nation will become an increasingly important member of the Middle East community. Finally it is likewise well to remember that the Government of Israel as at present constituted and a sizeable majority of the people of this country are sincere in their friendship and preference for the United States and for the Western group generally.
In the immediate neighborhood of Israel itself the current wave of anti-American feeling, indubitably caused to a large degree by the moral and material aid extended by the United States to the Jews during and following their fight for independence, must necessarily be taken into consideration in seeking to draw a diagram of our attitude toward Israel. The present poised moment in world affairs and particularly in the overwrought and overly-sensitive Middle East will permit of no abrupt change of approach either toward Arab sensibilities or toward Jewish touchiness. At the same time, the hard cold fact of Israel remains. It is inescapable, and a way must be found to convince the several Arab neighbors of Israel that their own present [Page 1009] national interests and future welfare can best be served by reaching a modus vivendi with the unwelcome newcomer in their midst and to reach it in the shortest time possible.
With the foregoing observations in mind, it is believed that the time has come to put into active practice the following rules with regard to our external relations with Israel and our treatment of both political and economic problems which may stem from or lead to this country: (a) The tendency of American officials and private citizens to speak and write about Israel as one of the wonders of the modem world will be discouraged wherever and whenever possible, whereas any mention made by anyone anywhere tending to merge Israel’s political apartness into the general background of the Middle East and to lump Israel in a regional rather than an isolated economy will be given the utmost encouragement, (b) American officials will hereafter refrain from sympathizing with Arab political leaders and other persons who would seek to turn back the clock, and continuing efforts will be made to bring home to these people the desirability of coordinating their efforts with those of the United Nations in reestablishing a peace in the Middle East based on the situation as it actually exists.
This Embassy is the first to appreciate that the problem of Israel as it relates to the United States will never be susceptible of either an easy or a normal solution. No set of rules can hope to cope with the emotional unknowns inherent in the relations which will ever exist between Israel and the five million American Jews. Nevertheless, we are convinced that an opportunity presents itself now to gather together the known factors, including the existence of the new state, the determination of its leaders to survive, the demonstrated will of American Jewry to assure that survival, and the inevitability of Israel as an important influence in the political and economic future of the Middle East, and to fashion a pattern of behavior based on straightforward objectivity, friendly impartiality and normal common sense which will be more effective as a long-range instrument for peace and understanding in this region than the more informal, frequently paternalistic, and occasionally biased attitude which has heretofore prevailed.