My reply
to your personal messages which I very deeply appreciated has been delayed in
view of your absences from Washington and the succession of events within the
region which called for a reappraisal of the situation on our part.
It was
gratifying and highly important for us to learn from you direct that you were
fully alive to Israel’s anxieties and personally concerned to find ways and
means of allaying them.
We are
vitally interested to see the defences of democracy strengthened everywhere and
our own region safeguarded against the dangers threatening it. Yet we cannot
but be acutely mindful of the perils with which certain defence alliances are
fraught for our own security.
The Middle
East is beginning be a network of pacts from which Israel is excluded not only
as a participant but even as a candidate for participation. In the case of the
Suez Zone agreement she is singled out for not being even a beneficiary. All
the Arab States concerned are active enemies of Israel. They profess a fierce
desire see Israel obliterated. Their ‘peace terms’ spell Israel’s doom. Their
association in a western defence system without a prior change in their
attitude inevitably hardens their intransigence. Their arming is a direct
threat to Israel’s survival.
The
Turco-Iraqi pact is a notable case in point. Far from abating her hostility to
Israel, Iraq has managed through the pact to wring from Turkey a commitment to
support the anti-Israel case. This can hardly advance the cause of peace in the
Middle East.
We fully
agree that the region’s defences against the possibility of outside aggression
must be buttressed but we cannot contemplate with equanimity this being
attempted at the expense of our security and international position within the
region. That the regional balance of strength should not be upset to our
detriment is to us of paramount importance. We were therefore happy to learn
that some form of security commitment to Israel was under your active
consideration. What we would welcome is the conclusion of a defense treaty
between United States and ourselves, such as would guarantee the territorial
integrity of Israel and assure us an arms supply corresponding to that offered
to the Arab States.
As things
stand, the sense of isolation prevalent amongst our people is deepening. It is
partly against that background that the Gaza incident—in itself a reaction to
extreme provocation and the result of the breakdown of patience long
maintained—should of viewed. This isolated and exceptional occurrence must be
considered as an act of self-defense of a beleaguered nation surrounded Israel
enemies and increasingly encircled by the growth of military all alliances
either ignoring her existence or actively directed against her.
What you
said about the Gaza incident in your second and message has received our
deepest attention. The Government of Israel is as ever resolved to do its utmost to reduce existing tension. It
cannot naturally divest itself of responsibility for the defence of its
territory and population. As I write, the loss of life amongst our troops and
settlers as a result of Egyptian offensive action is a weekly occurrence and
the restraint of our people is again severely tried. Egypt must be prevailed
upon to put an end to murderous aggression. For our part, it is our determined policy
faithfully to observe the armistice agreement in the expectation that the other
side will be induced to act likewise. You will appreciate that a continued and
systematic one-sided violation of the armistice agreement is liable reduce it
to naught.
The
situation is complex. It would be of great help if you could possibly take me
into your confidence as to the action the United States intends taking in the
near future for the Middle East and in particular as to the exact steps
contemplated regarding Israel. Advance knowledge might be helpful in achieving
a common policy or would at any rate eliminate unnecessary misunderstanding.
Your intermittent discussions with our Ambassador, as you indicate, have been
in progress since last August, and I hope I will not be pressing you unduly by
saying that an early clarification of the position and prospects would be
extremely valuable.
As for
Ambassador Johnston’s mission, you are doubtless aware that he has succeeded,
by dint of skillful and painstaking negotiation, in narrowing considerably the
gap between conflicting claim and clearing up some of the points at issue
between him and ourselves. I am now soberly hopeful of an early solution which
would satisfy Israel’s minimum water requirements without interfering with her
sovereignty or imperilling her territorial integrity. Coupled with a fair share
of the waters these are the prerequisites any agreement to which we should be a
party.
I must
apologize for the length of this message, in the composition of which I was
encouraged by the sympathetic understanding which you have always brought to
bear upon the examination our problems both before and since you took office.
With
greetings and best wishes for your health and strength and for the success of
the great work in which you are engaged on behalf of the entire free world.
SOURCE: Forwarded by Lawson to the USSD on April 12, 1955. “The Prime Minister said that the following
document would be formally presented by Ambassador Eban tomorrow [April 13] but
that he thought in the meantime the Secretary would like to have the
opportunity to study its contents.” FRUS 1955-1957, XIV, doc.73.
