280. Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, September 28, 1956, 3:14 p.m.1
Part I of II2
SUBJECT
- Matters Relating to Suez
PARTICIPANTS
- The Secretary
- Mr. Abba Eban, Ambassador of Israel
- Mr. Reuven Shiloah, Minister, Embassy of Israel
- Mr. Fraser Wilkins, NE
At his own request the Israel Ambassador called on the Secretary this afternoon. He said that he had requested an appointment because he had planned to return to Jerusalem on consultation but that his consultation had been postponed because of developments relating to the Suez question. He now planned to leave the end of next week and wished to bring himself up to date regarding important developments.
First of all he wished to discuss the Suez Canal question. Israel had a real interest in this question and had a special interest in participating in Security Council consideration of the matter. Mr. Eban said that there had been no instance in which a country which applied to the Security Council to be heard had not been admitted. He said that in discussing this question with British representatives in New York some resistance to Israeli participation had been noted. Mr. Eban thought that if Israel were debarred from participation it [Page 607] would be a momentous development in the history of the United Nations. He believed that Israel’s British friends had not thought through the matter.
Ambassador Eban continued that the British had, in effect, said that the United Kingdom itself could bring charges against Egypt in the Security Council but that Egypt could not bring charges against the United Kingdom. Israel, for its part, had been glad to see the Egyptian reference placed on the agenda of the Security Council and Ambassador Eban hoped the United States would not resist Israel’s appearance. Israel’s participation would be limited to juridical aspects of the matter. Israel would refer neither to Egyptian nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, nor to possible use of force by the United Kingdom and France, nor to the Palestine question. Israel merely wished to place on the record its own experience regarding the passage of ships through the Suez Canal. Israel did not wish to speak at an early stage, but would be willing to speak after all others had spoken and would not present its case on emotional grounds but on juridical grounds.
The Secretary asked Ambassador Eban whether Israel wished to sit permanently. He said that if we accept the proposition that every interested country is entitled to sit and to participate in all phases of the proceedings, there would be a deluge of applicants.
Ambassador Eban said that no applicant had previously been refused. Israel merely wished to make its intervention and would then depart.
The Secretary continued that if the door were opened to all applicants the proceedings of the Security Council would become a mockery, and it was for this reason necessary to limit the number of participants. He noted that Panama, the Arab states, India, Pakistan, Ceylon and others had already manifested an interest in participating; consequently a real practical problem was created. He recognized that Israel in some respects had a better claim to be heard than the others. It was a matter of degree. One could not easily fix the quantum of interest. He would be glad further to study the matter.
Ambassador Eban said the second matter to which he wished to refer was the inclusion in any Security Council resolution on Suez of reference to its earlier action in 1951 regarding Israeli shipping. He said that Israel attached great importance to the Secretary’s and to the President’s public statements in which they had mentioned difficulties which Israel had experienced in passing through the Suez Canal. He said that they did not think the discussion could take place without reference to the 1951 action of the Security Council. Israel thought that this earlier action should be referred to in the new resolution.
The Secretary made no comment.