Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The Near and Middle East, Volume IX, Part 1

680.84A/9–2252

No. 491
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge of Palestine–Israel–Jordan Affairs (Waller)

secret

[Washington,] September 22, 1952.

Subject:

• Visit of Ambassador Eban regarding: (1) Arab Israel Relations;

Participants:

• Mr. Byroade—NEA
• Ambassador Eban, Israel Embassy
• Minister David Goitein, Israel Embassy
• Mr. Waller—NE

Ambassador Eban called at his own request on Assistant Secretary Byroade at 10:30 this morning. He was accompanied by Minister Goitein. The subjects discussed were:

1. Arab Israel Relations

2. Defense Problems and Military Aid

With regard to the first subject, Ambassador Eban started with Egypt. He said that General Naguib apparently does not wish to do anything regarding Israel that would prevent him from taking a more favorable course later on and that his failure to reply to the Israeli peace offer created a “zone of silence” which must be penetrated before any evidence of progress, or the lack of it, can be seen. (Note: The Ambassador was apparently not aware that Egypt had replied to the Israel offer, as reported in telegram no. 451, September 17, from Tel Aviv.)¹ He continued by saying that his government has the impression that US influence in Egypt is growing and will continue to grow; whereas the UK position will probably not get any better, and may worsen. He said that the U.S. may therefore have an opportunity to use its influence in bringing about a settlement between Egypt and Israel.

Mr. Byroade replied that we have not pressed Egypt in this regard because the Egyptians have a lot of housecleaning to do before they can think much of foreign policies; that Egypt might, however, move fast in cleaning house and in reaching an understanding with Israel. He expressed the belief that we are in a good position with the Egyptians to be helpful, and he assured the Ambassador that we would do what we could when the time was opportune.

Turning to Syria, the Ambassador said that Israel’s relationship with Syria is the most disappointing element on the horizon for Israel. There has been no improvement in relations with Syria since Israel was founded and Israel feels there is no disposition on the part of the Syrians to ease the situation.

The Ambassador continued by saying that the paramount problem in the Middle East was the interstate relationships between Israel and the Arab States. The UN has advised the parties to endeavor to settle their differences by direct negotiations. The Arabs have made no effort to settle problems by this means and yet they assume an attitude of surprise at the end of the year when no progress has been made and the UN is ready for another session.

Mr. Byroade asked whether the intensification of Arab feeling was not precipitated by the Israeli plan to move its Foreign Office to Jerusalem. The Ambassador felt that this was not the basic cause of any Arab reaction as the latter would in any case have found some excuse to put Palestine on the UN agenda. Mr. Byroade replied that, although Jerusalem is not specifically mentioned in the items placed on the agenda by the Arabs, nevertheless he felt certain the subject would be brought up.

Ambassador Eban went on to refer to the Arab policy as one of ostracism; the Arabs do not wish to discuss any question of mutual interest although Israel is ready. He pointed out that the Jews had the deepest antipathy toward talking with the Germans and yet they brought themselves to do so because the US advised them that the only way a solution could be found would be by talking to the Germans about it. This led to the signing on September 10 of a reparations agreement between Israel and the German Federal Republic.

Mr. Byroade expressed the wish that we might have more influence with the Arabs. Each time we have tried to accomplish a regional objective we have become even more closely identified in the Arab mind with Israel. Further, the UN record regarding Palestine is not good. It is on the question of Palestine that the UN has shown the greatest weakness.

The Ambassador said that even the UN has had no success in getting the parties together. The Arabs and Israelis have never negotiated directly to try to solve their problems. In his opinion many UN members regret that the Palestine issue has been raised again by the Arabs in view of the fact that the Arabs have made no effort at direct negotiations.

Mr. Byroade said he hoped the Arab attitude would not interfere with arrangements being made for the payment by Israel of Arab blocked accounts. The Ambassador said that progress is being made. The most recent question was the rate of exchange and Israel has now agreed to the rate of exchange which prevailed at the time Israel agreed to pay the blocked accounts, rather than the present rate of exchange. This means that Israel will pay at the rate of one Israel pound equals $2.80, or a total the equivalent of $2,800,000, instead of the equivalent of $1,000,000 as recently appeared would be the case. The Ambassador continued by saying that the political phase of the blocked accounts negotiations is about finished and the matter can soon be turned over to experts to handle the actual payments.

Mr. Byroade expressed himself as pleased with the Israel decision and said that this action would make Israel look much better.

On the subject of defense problems and military aid, the Ambassador said he understood that because of the increase in American influence in Egypt that country would likely request military assistance from the US. In mentioning this matter, he wished to remind Mr. Byroade that Israel was first in the queue for military aid, having applied for grant assistance some eight months ago. Application was made under the Mutual Security Program in the belief that the granting of military assistance should not wait for any regional arrangement. He suggested that the US proceed on a bilateral basis and then “build the roof over the region” as was done in Europe in connection with NATO.

Mr. Byroade informed the Ambassador that it would be very difficult for us to get away from a regional approach. His view was that, while we cannot wait indefinitely for MEDO to evolve, the approach must nevertheless be a regional one. What he would really like he said, would be for Congress to authorize enough military production so that equipment could be furnished other states. He would like to see the present ratio kept between the Near Eastern states, but on a higher level. He felt that it would be necessary to enter into formal agreements on the use of equipment but that it should not be necessary to wait for MEDO to develop.

On the area as a whole, Mr. Byroade said he felt that we are moving along the right way and that he is not as pessimistic as he was a few months ago. He continued by saying that the more he considers the relationship of Israel with the Arab states the more it seems to him that compensation to the Arabs for their property in Israel may be the key to the whole solution. For example, the Arab continues to say that he will one day return to his former home in Palestine, but that in his heart the Arab knows he cannot do so. Compensation, on the other hand, is entirely different. This is largely a financial matter, and one for which he hopes Israel will be able to find a solution. Ambassador Eban, regarding compensation, said that his government considers there are three aspects of this problem: (1) assessment, (2) determination of the size of the debt, and (3) the payment. The latter is the only one of the three points that presents any particular problem. In response to a question, the Ambassador said that Israel is now willing to consider the concept of compensation as a problem in itself and separate from an overall peace settlement. Mr. Byroade said he was glad to learn this.

1. Telegram 448 from Tel Aviv, Sept. 17, was originally numbered 451; for text, see Document 488.