62. Telegram From the Mission at the United Nations to the Department of State1
Delga 673. Re Israeli withdrawal. Spender (Australia) informed Lodge that he has been talking to Meir (Israel). He reported Meir as saying that Israel would withdraw if there were some form of public assurance in advance by Egypt that UNEF would be permitted in Sharm el-Sheikh area and that Egypt would not discriminate against Israeli shipping through the Suez Canal.
Spender believes it should be possible to find some form of words which Egyptians could agree to in public statement which would provide necessary assurances without making it appear that Egyptians were doing this “with the enemy’s foot in their face”. Spender expressed concern that if such a formula cannot be found we will all be confronted with an unmanageable situation which could lead to war.
We have conveyed substance of above to SYG. If Dept desires we do anything further here re above, we would appreciate your suggestions.
Eban later spoke to Barco along similar lines. He said he had requested SYG to ask Egyptians what their position on belligerency would be upon withdrawal of Israeli forces. SYG said that he could not [Page 98] put question to Egypt until he knew what Israeli position on withdrawal actually was. Eban said that this attitude of SYG dried up a possible avenue for negotiation. In response to query, he also said that he believed, although he could not say so for Israeli Government, that Israel would agree to withdraw from Gaza if other questions were settled. Rafael added that unless SYG were willing question Egyptians and they were willing give undertaking refrain from acts of belligerency, Israel would not withdraw and further outbreak of war would be result. Eban said sanctions would simply stiffen Israeli attitude. (We intend check with SYG above account Eban’s exchange with SYG.)
Eban also said that if SYG continued refuse put Israel’s questions to Egyptians, this would be serious abdication responsibility and Israel would have to take issue with him publicly. We assume Dept has seen Israeli press release today, which may be first step this direction.
According to Naevdal (Norway),2Hammarskjold told Eban yesterday he would not undertake, in absence clear indication Israeli intention withdraw, obtain assurances, or clarifications, from Egypt as Israelis had requested. SYG asked Eban, however, whether Israel would herself agree to having units of UNEF stationed “on both sides of armistice line”. SYG said unless Israel agreeable to this, there is no sense even discussing implementation “other measures”. SYG also asked Eban whether, if they withdraw, Israel’s withdrawal would include civil administration leaving Gaza. (Understand from Naevdal SYG has very pessimistic report from his representatives in Gaza saying there is virtual “reign of terror” going on against Arabs there.) Eban said he would have to refer questions to his govt. Naevdal said his impression after conversation with SYG last night was that Hammarskjold was very pessimistic about situation.
Naevdal also reported conversation with Riad (Egypt). Riad said Egypt was insisting on plenary meeting Thursday and that Fawzi had so indicated to Hammarskjold. Egypt felt US and six other cosponsors of last two resolutions must now take lead in moving on to further necessary steps. This, said Riad, would be test of good faith of US intentions under Eisenhower doctrine. (Comment: This is second instance in which Egyptians have made reference to Eisenhower doctrine in connection activities in UN on Palestine.)
Naevdal commented that while Norway was aware in cosponsoring two resolutions last week they were in a sense committing themselves to carry on, they had not expected to be presented with request to cosponsor res on sanctions. Murray (Canada) revealed similar implication of commitment to future action had weighed heavily with Pearson in his decision not to cosponsor. Norwegians recognized, however, [Page 99] that from Egyptian point of view it was logical for them to expect seven cosponsors to follow up on their resolutions if Israelis did not comply, particularly in view reluctant acquiescence of Fawzi in agreeing not to opposeResII. In subsequent conversation, Naevdal reported Egyptians were now willing hold off meeting till next week but considered that 7 cosponsors must take lead in next steps.
Re question of US position on sanctions, believe Dept should consider not only whether we are able to support res on sanctions but also how we are to deal with pressure to cosponsor such res with six other states.
Murray (Canada) indicated to us Cordier’s (Secretariat) assessment two-thirds vote for sanctions is now possible. Murray inclined agree on basis most states would find it extremely difficult oppose sanctions in face disregard by Israel of GA resolutions and would abstain rather than vote against.
Late this evening, Lall (India) called to inform us ASAF’s meeting tomorrow on Palestine, out of deference our views Egyptians had agreed hold off plenary until Monday. Question, however, in Indians’ view, was what we do then. He, too, believes seven cosponsors should consult on next steps.