Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1957, Volume XVII

36. Telegram From the Mission at the United Nations to the Department of State¹

New York, January 24, 1957—8 p.m.

Delga 583. Re Gaza, Aqaba. Fawzi came in to see Lodge and said that his first reaction to Israeli unwillingness to withdraw is that this is a matter which concerns entire GA since it endangers peace and puts UN in difficult position. Fawzi’s intention, pending consultations with Cairo and other dels here, is not to rush matters by presenting res. He said it was important to establish facts before GA and try to get reactions so that GA can work as a team. He expressed hope that GA meeting on Monday² would not be violent or partisan and that GA would act with full awareness its responsibilities.

He emphasized, as in previous conversations, that economic measures continue to be maintained against Egypt and that war damages are still outstanding, while at same time economic aid is being given to UK, France and Israel. He said Egypt could not understand how restrictions could be maintained against her when her economy was being ruined as a result of aggression against her which UN had condemned.

He said that good progress is being made on clearance of Canal and that in his view choice for Egypt and others is whether Suez Canal is to be link of cooperation or bone of contention. Fawzi expressed hope that first alternative would prevail. He made statement that any ship which paid its tolls to Egypt will be allowed to pass. In response to our query as to whether this included Israeli ships, Fawzi was noncommittal and repeated that Egypt could not accept any conditions prior to Israeli compliance. Fawzi said Egypt was ready to reach agreement re Suez settlement including compensation for Suez Canal Company. He informed us that he will tell SYG today orally that as soon as Israeli withdrawals have been completed, Egypt is ready to discuss Suez Canal settlement in a positive, constructive and expeditious way.

In response to our question, Fawzi said he believes the SYG’s report is generally good. He commented on question of legal status of Aqaba mentioned in SYG report. Fawzi said that Egypt would not oppose any suggestion for advisory opinion from ICJ.

We inquired of Fawzi whether he had considered advantages from Egypt’s point of view of not linking withdrawal of Israeli forces with question of resumption discussions re basic Suez Canal settlement. Fawzi said he understood the advantage this might give them, but there was another side to the coin and quoted Briand’s statement that there would be no problems in foreign affairs if it weren’t for problems of internal affairs.

Lodge later saw Pearson to get their ideas re possible GA action.³Pearson said Canada cannot support any resolution imposing sanctions against Israelis. He does not believe resolution with sanctions could get two-thirds vote.

As indicated in Lodge–Wilcox telecon, Pearson said they had in mind resolution which should contain⁴ elements: (a) condemnation of Israel; (b) authorization of UNEF to be deployed on both sides of armistice line, including El Auja area; (c) UNEF positioned in Aqaba area with possible use of observers and some form of air inspection, and (d) UNEF positioned both sides demarcation line in Gaza area with Egyptians taking over civil administration of Gaza.

Pearson stressed desirability US-Canadian initiative in light of fact that some dels are working on a punitive resolution and others are working on resolution which would in effect have UN take over entire Sinai, which in Pearson’s view was totally unrealistic. Among those he mentioned ready to take initiative and whose ideas and sponsorship he thought undesirable, was Australia. Pearson believes we must move quickly, and that we must be careful in the choice of sponsors so that resolution can achieve what we desire. Feeling was that following might be included: US, Canada, Norway, India, Yugoslavia, Colombia and Brazil.

We agreed to consult further Friday⁴ on basis of specific text. I feel US early initiative is most important, as I told Wilcox this evening, and urge Department provide me with draft resolution on which I can consult again with Pearson immediately in the morning.

Lodge

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/1–2457. Limited Official Use; Priority. Received at 10:32 p.m.
2. January 28.
3. On January 23, Canadian officials in Ottawa and Washington delivered to U.S. representatives an aide-mémoire suggesting that the United States use its influence with Israel and at the General Assembly to obtain an Israeli withdrawal without prior conditions, but with assurances that the United Nations would take action as soon as they withdrew. According to the aide-mémoire, this would mean that Israel would be obligated to lean on the good faith of the Assembly and more particularly on the ability of the Secretary-General to negotiate and the Assembly to ratify an acceptable solution to Israel’s problems. The aide-mémoire is in Department of State, Central Files, 320.5780/1–2357; it is quoted in full in telegram 354 from Ottawa, January 23; ibid., 674.84A/1–2357.
4. January 25.
4. January 25.