501.BB Palestine/6–2849: Telegram
The Ambassador in Israel (McDonald) to the Secretary of State
495. ReDeptel June 25 [24] number 398. Following repeated readings of text I asked Herlitz of Foreign Office to residence. Ford also present. For more than hour June 27, we informally discussed main points text.
Then Herlitz read and paraphrased portions of Israeli Chargé’s report on conference with Rusk June 25.1 Chargé stressed friendliness of Department’s reply and Rusk’s verbal recommendation of bilateral [Page 1190] negotiations between Israel and Egypt, possibly on basis Gaza plan and later with other Arab states individually. Chargé said Rusk suggested “probable necessity territorial compensation” to Egypt. Herlitz interpreted Rusk’s words as meaning “southern tip Negev”. (To this I made no comment.) Egypt considered by Rusk as key to deadlock. Chargé added Rusk also suggested “territorial compensation to other Arab states” (or as singular state) in subsequent negotiations.
My questions to Department are: “Is above summary Rusk accurate and does his suggestion cancel earlier Department’s discouragement of bilateral negotiations between single Arab state and Israel?” (Deptel 330, June 1).2
Belated subject: Taking advantage of friendliness of Department’s reply to Israel, Deptel 398, June 25 [24], I brought conversation to refugees and said to Herlitz substantially: “No amount friendship for Israel can hide fact that it has, re refugee repatriation, been poor in promise and poorer in performance. Recognizing all difficulties, there are no justifications Israel’s relative inaction. Impossible exaggerate human tragedy if Israel persists failure cooperate. If Israel in good faith proposed absorb the more than 200,000 refugees Gaza strip, it must have envisioned ways to do this. Hence, no logic in Israel’s argument it unable repatriate more than few tens of thousands (as also stressed to Foreign Office by Kopper3 on his recent visit). Unacceptable everywhere except in Jewish circles, will be argument that ingathering of exiles makes repatriation Arabs impossible. Israel self-interest requires refugee cooperation asked by Department.” (Close paraphrase my refugee remarks.)
I shall press these views with Weizmann at lunch today4 and later with Ben Gurion and Sharett.
Meantime, please wire details US and UN emergency refugee relief financial proposals reported Leopoldville radio night June 27.
New subject: Will continue to press on Israeli officials points Deptel 397, June 24.
Sent Department 495; repeated Bern 7 (for USDel PCC).
- See Mr. Rusk’s memorandum, p. 1177.↩
- Not printed, but see footnote 1 to telegram 72, June 1, p. 1082.↩
- Samuel K. C. Kopper, Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs.↩
- Ambassador McDonald lunched with President Weizmann at Rehovoth on June 28 and urged the views of the United States on the refugee question. President Weizmann was said to have replied in substance that “your people don’t understand these refugees are our enemies and potential fifth column. Don’t your people read repeated threats from Arab capitals renewal war?” When asked how he reconciled his position with the Israeli offer to take the Gaza strip, he replied “That would be more than we ought to do but it certainly is utmost that is possible.” (telegram 498, June 29, 1 p. m., from Tel Aviv, 501.BB Palestine/6–2949)↩