784A.02/8–453
No. 647
Memorandum of Conversation, by the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian,
and African Affairs (Jernegan)1
Subject:
- Arab Attitude Toward Transfer of Israeli Foreign Ministry to Jerusalem.
Participants:
- Sheikh Asad Al-Faqih, Ambassador of Saudi Arabia
- Dr. Charles Malik, Ambassador of Lebanon
- Dr. Ahmed Hussein, Ambassador of Egypt
- Dr. Farid Zeineddine, Ambassador of Syria
- Mr. Abdul Jalil Rawi, Chargé d’Affaires of Iraq
- Sayed Abdurrahman Ibn Abdussamed Abu-Taleb, Chargé d’Affaires of Yemen
- General Walter B. Smith, The Acting Secretary
- John D. Jernegan, NEA
Dr. Malik acted as spokesman. He began by emphasizing the unique character of Jerusalem as a spot Holy to all three of the world’s great monotheistic religions. He felt that such a place deserved special consideration, particularly in the present age of atheistic materialism.
He continued that the recent Israeli move of the Foreign Office to Jerusalem was a matter of the greatest concern to both the Arab Governments and their peoples. The Arab Governments considered that it was appropriate to discuss the question of Jerusalem with the United States Government for a number of reasons, which he enumerated as follows:
- 1.
- Secretary Dulles himself had recently taken the initiative on at least three occasions to discuss the Jerusalem problem publicly; (1) in his speech of June 1, 1953, (2) in his first press statement of some three weeks ago on the move of the Foreign Office to Jerusalem, and (3) in his second press statement issued last week. With regard to these statements, Dr. Malik observed that there were certain points he wished to note. For one thing, Mr. Dulles had spoken of the Israeli move as being “inopportune at this moment”. This appeared to imply that at some later time the move would have been proper. Secondly, the Secretary had spoken of the internationalization of the “city” of Jerusalem, whereas the United Nations in its three resolutions on the subject had called for internationalization of the “area” of Jerusalem. Thirdly, Mr. Dulles had at least implied that what the United States had in mind for Jerusalem was only a partial internationalization. Dr. Malik emphasized that the United Nations had repeatedly called for complete internationalization.
- 2.
- The United States had participated in the Tripartite Declaration of May 25, 1950, which had emphasized its desire to see peace in the Near Eastern area. By its recent action, Israel had defied the World and such a step could not promote peace in the area. The United States was, therefore, necessarily concerned with this development which was contrary to the principle laid down in the Tripartite Declaration.
- 3.
- The change in location of the Israeli Foreign Office constituted a violation of the Armistice Agreements upon which reposed the present state of peace in the area. This again was necessarily a matter of concern to the United States because of its declared policy of promoting and maintaining peace.
- 4.
- It was to be noted that the Foreign Office move substantially coincided with the resumption of Soviet-Israeli relations. As shown by statements of the Israeli leaders themselves, Israel regarded this resumption of relations as a gain in its policy of trying to play the East against the West. Such a policy in the Near East does not contribute [Page 1267] to peace in the area and is therefore a matter of concern to the United States.
- 5.
- Dr. Malik recalled that when Prince Faisal of Saudi Arabia visited Washington early this year, he was assured by the President and others that the United States was going to try to redress any injustices which might have been committed with regard to the Arabs. This assurance had been welcomed by the Arab leaders, who attach great importance to it.
- 6.
- All the Arabs were convinced that the complete establishment of the Israeli capital in Jerusalem was only a preliminary to further Israeli aggression against the rest of Jerusalem and of Palestine. This was clearly shown by the nature of Zionist doctrine and statements of Zionist leaders, who would never rest until they had possession of the entire Holy City. Furthermore, the Israeli capital in Jerusalem was in a terribly exposed position at the end of a narrow salient and almost entirely surrounded by alien people. No one would so expose a capital unless he intended later to make it secure by annexing surrounding territory.
- 7.
- It is difficult to see how real peace can be brought about in the area if a policy of faits accompli is allowed to succeed time and again without forceful reaction on the part of the rest of the world.
- 8.
- Everyone in the world knows that without the United States there would have been no State of Israel and that Israel could not exist today without American aid. Israel depends on the United States economically, morally and politically. Therefore, the United States must be held responsible for Israel’s international acts.
In the light of the above reasoning, Dr. Malik and his colleagues considered it proper and necessary for the United States and the Arabs to consult together in a frank and friendly fashion on this problem.
Dr. Malik added that the Arabs were also greatly concerned about the possibility of large-scale immigration to Israel from behind the Iron Curtain of Eastern Europe. It would be tragic if the United States should help in this process.
He concluded that the Arabs were very grateful for the interest shown by the present American administration in their problems; they greatly appreciated, among other things, our efforts to solve the Anglo-Egyptian problem, our readiness to listen to Arab views and our frequent expressions of good will.
The Acting Secretary said he welcomed the visit of the Chiefs of Mission, whom it was always a pleasure to see. He also welcomed their frank expression of opinion and would be equally frank in reply.
With regard to the Secretary’s recent statements, he would only observe that they stand on their own feet and mean what they say.
The United States Government, General Smith said, deplores Israel’s recent act. It cannot, however, accept responsibility for all that Israel does. We must treat Israel as a sovereign state, just as [Page 1268] we treat the Arabs, and he wished to point out that the Israeli representatives frequently attacked our policy even more severely than the Arabs. We were in the unhappy position of being in the middle between the two.
Since Dr. Malik had referred to history, General Smith wished to recall that the Arabs themselves, especially Jordan, had refused to accept the 1947 United Nations Resolution which provided for the internationalization of Jerusalem. They had resorted to arms and the verdict of war had been given. We ourselves regretted that the internationalization had not gone into effect but that was now history.
We were not prepared to use force in the Jerusalem matter, and he was not prepared at this time to say what other steps we might take.
He had no comment to make at this time on the statement that the Foreign Office move constituted a violation of the Armistice Agreements. This would require some study.
With regard to the question of the Holy Places, General Smith understood that all the Moslem Holy Places were in the area of Jerusalem controlled by Jordan. Mr. Malik confirmed that the most important Moslem Holy Places were in fact in Jordan-held Jerusalem.
General Smith concluded by saying that we sympathize with the Arab worries and that we stand by the United Nations resolutions and by what we have ourselves said. He promised that he would convey the visitors views to Secretary Dulles.
Finally, he emphasized that the United States has a supreme interest in the Near Eastern area and that we are prepared to help the Arabs just as we have helped Israel.
In reply to General Smith’s question, Mr. Jernegan said that there were several observations he would like to make on Dr. Malik’s remarks, but he felt that this had better be done on a different occasion since it would involve going into details which might take too much time.
(It is of interest to note that the Jordan Embassy was not represented among the group, although Dr. Malik repeatedly said he was speaking for all the Arab States. Following a call at the Department later in the day, on a different subject, the Jordanian Minister emphasized to newspaper correspondents that he had had nothing to do with the joint approach of this morning.)
- This conversation was summarized in circular telegram 83, Aug. 7, 6:45 p.m., sent to the Arab capitals, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem. (784A.02/8–753)↩