Office of the Historian

784A.5/8–2254: Telegram

No. 868
The Chargé in Israel (Russell) to the Department of State

confidential
Tel Aviv, August 22, 1954—2 p.m.

190. Jerusalem Post this morning reports Prime Minister at press meeting yesterday said:

(1)
Secretary had shown in talks with Eban he was clearly disposed to reassure Israel but Prime Minister did not consider these assurances met the issue. “With all appreciation of good will in statements we hear from time to time, we shall not regard mere verbal assurances as capable of compensating for fundamental facts likely to affect adversely our position in balance of forces in Middle East.”
(2)
Asked if British had ever hinted at possibility of bases on Israel territory, Sharett said emphatically, “never”.

Embassy comment: Yesterday at lunch, Eban told me he was urging IG adopt a four-point policy toward US:

(1)
Continue all-out opposition to US program of arms aid to Arab countries. He said if US proceeded with present plans, he did not see how we could expect other than that Israel would become increasingly uneasy and active and eventually strike out against its enemy-neighbors.
(2)
Insist on arms aid for Israel.
(3)
Demand US hold up economic aid to Egypt until latter takes concrete steps to carry out its international obligations to Israel.
(4)
Endeavor obtain formal agreement between Israel and US whereby US would give guaranteed use military forces if necessary to maintain Israel’s border. In reply my query as to what present IG position was on this in view Eytan’s statement July 25 (Embtel 88),1 Eban said he did not believe Eytan had authority to state IG would be uninterested in new border guarantee.

I reiterated my belief US decision to make effort to build up area security was firm, US [garble] for making most of present opportunities for steps toward area peace were particularly keen, and that Israel action designed to thwart either would result in deterioration of Israel’s position with US public which, it seemed to me, could only be to Israel’s disadvantage.

Russell
  1. Not printed, but see footnote 3, Document 845.↩