190. Telegram From the Mission at the United Nations to the Department of State1
Delga 834. Re Palestine/Israel’s withdrawal. Fawzi (Egypt) called on Lodge at his request regarding further proceedings in GA. Fawzi said it was “natural” expect to have further meeting to see what had happened on withdrawals. He did not say how soon he “expected” such meeting.
Fawzi also stated that today he and Arab colleagues would avoid saying anything which might prevent forward movement. This not entirely dependent on Arabs, however. There was obviously certain limit beyond which they would not go in allowing statements to go unanswered. In this connection he noted there was “something in the air” which he was confident did not exist except as rumor in suspicious minds; namely, that US had given promises or committed itself to actions not known to others.
Lodge interrupted Fawzi to say there was nothing hidden, that Fawzi knew everything there was to know. All that existed was Lodge’s speech and President’s letter to Ben Gurion over weekend. That was all.
Fawzi said he assumed US position remained as stated last Friday, i.e., that whereas US had expressed its view re Aqaba, that did not amount to “legislation” or a “recommendation”; nor was it part of US policy to use force to put across that policy. Lodge said that was correct. Re Gaza Fawzi understood US to maintain that Egypt’s position was absolutely according to Armistice Agreement—nothing more and nothing less. Lodge replied that this too was US stand.
Fawzi assumed that what US claimed for itself, i.e. to state own point of view, it would concede to others. He therefore wanted make clear where Egypt stood. Egypt believed, he said, Charter clearly set out ways and means for resolving differences.
Egypt “quite willing” settle its disputes, enter into discussions “according to processes set out in Charter”. Beyond this, Egypt not ready, nor should UN be, to subscribe to idea that aggressor be rewarded for its aggression. After Israel’s withdrawal Egypt willing follow Charter processes. “It would not say Assembly not competent take up other matters. Egypt would in fact approve their inscription on agenda.” (This presumably refers to basic Palestine settlement issues.)
On Gaza, Egypt saw situation as similar although not identical to one in Canal Zone where UN forces had first taken over and then Egyptian forces had come in. Take over would be theoretically identical, [Page 361] but actually only similar since in Gaza UNEF would remain along demarcation line “for a while”. Otherwise, everything would be strictly in accordance with Armistice Agreement.
When Fawzi had concluded, Lodge said he had listened carefully to everything Fawzi had said and he had detected no change in Egypt’s policy from what it had already been stated to be. Fawzi replied in affirmative, saying that he had merely summarized his govt’s position in order be completely fair to UN and to US.
Lodge stated it had, from beginning, been US policy to end war through cease-fire and withdrawal, without bribes or rewards. At same time US wanted work for better state of affairs. We had said this from beginning, and it was still our hope. Indispensable first step, however, was prompt Israeli withdrawal. Fawzi broke in to say this would be in Israel’s own best interests, too. He concluded by saying as Israel withdraws some of other difficulties will gradually disappear.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/3–457. Confidential; Priority. Received at 9:01 p.m.↩