780.5/9–253: Telegram
No. 655
The Chargé in Israel (Russell) to the Department of State1
287. Ambassador Eban called yesterday at his request; said Israel Government especially concerned over (a) absence any substantial contact between Foreign Ministry and Embassy following move of former to Jerusalem, and (b) United States plans for military assistance to Middle East.
Eban said Israel government could not understand sudden tightening of our position re Jerusalem pointing out other ministries and elements of government had been in Jerusalem for several years. I stated: Our postion had remainded unchanged since adoption of 1949 UN resolution and referred to chapter in McDonald’s book Mission in Israel2 describing original United States position; it was for Israel to decide what its own attitude toward UN resolution was to be, but move of Foreign Ministry to Jerusalem inevitably involved position of other governments toward UN; position of United States is that at a time when it has suffered 140,000 casualties in maintaining integrity of UN in Korea it is not disposed to violate UN resolution and weaken UN by following Foreign Ministry to Jerusalem; we have repeatedly made this known to Israel Government. I said it was particularly unfortunate Foreign Ministry had chosen to move at very time Secretary had indicated in public statements his hope that a solution to problem of Jerusalem could be found. In reply Eban’s query as to what solution present impasse might be, I said most immediate and promising solution would seem to lie in making a reality of liaison office which Foreign Ministry had announced it would maintain; various officials of Foreign Ministry could make practice of being there at certain times each week for conduct of business. Eban said he thought [Page 1298] there should be some reciprocity. I said I doubted whether specific quid pro quo could be given at present time in terms of visits to Foreign Ministry Jerusalem in view importance we attach to compliance with UN resolutions. I said practice of Israel press of distorting visits of any kind to Jerusalem as endorsement of Israel Government position had been unfortunate and in fact had resulted in chief on one mission (Argentine) giving instructions to all members of staff not to go to Jerusalem even for purpose of passing through Mandelbaum Gate.
Regarding Eban’s query re our policy on military assistance I made following points: (1) Importance to Israel, as to whole area and to free world, of ending security vacuum in Middle East which now inevitably tempts Soviet Union as similar vacuums previously had in Eastern Europe, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Korea; (2) United States had made and will continue to make every effort to bring about peace between Israel and Arabs but if nothing is to be done to build security until Arabs willing to join with Israel in the effort, present indications are this would delay effective measures beyond point of utility; (3) A policy of one gun for Israel for every gun given to anyone else in the rest of the area would limit program to such proportions as to nullify it; (4) United States has as great a stake as Israel in assuring that security program for area achieves objective of area peace, as intra-area conflict could well bring in Soviet Union and touch off World War III; (5) important, therefore, that all efforts be devoted to finding ways accomplishing security objectives and not to obstructing program.
In following discussion I said we regarded Arab refugee problem as central to tensions of area and felt there was a triple—not a dual—responsibility for dealing with the problem; that Israel as well as Arab States and UN must make contribution to solution.