Memorandum on Arab and Israeli Positions on Johnson Plan
(October 20, 1962)
This memoradum relays the Arab and Israeli position
and rejection of the Johnson Plan, while also stating the criteria necessary
for both nations to accept the proposed plan.
SUBJECT
Arab Response to Dr. Johnson's Refugee Plan
On October 15, Dr. Johnson received Arab responses
to his plan for settlement of the refugee problem. UAR Foreign Minister
Fawzi acting independently of the other Arab delegations, posed certain
questions about implementation (what are Israel's true intentions with
respect to repatriation? what would be the physical situation of refugees
returning to Israel?), but said UAR representatives in New York have
full authorization to continue discussion with Johnson on all aspects
of his plan. Later the same day, Johnson was handed a joint Lebanese-Syrian-Jordanian
Note (text enclosed)/2/ which puts up a strong objection to the plan's
lack of assurance that Israel will permit return of refugees choosing
repatriation. An Arab representative (Rifai of Jordan) subsequently
confirmed that the Note should not be construed as rejection, but that
further discussion of other plan features is precluded until there has
been clarification on this point of Arab concern.
The Arabs' response puts them superficially in parallel
with the Israelis. Each side now demands a prior assurance it knows
the other cannot give. The Arabs ask that Israel agree in principle
that all refugees who opt for repatriation will be permitted to go back,
and they express concern regarding treatment of those who return. The
Israelis, inter alia, call for Arab recognition that repatriation will
be possible, at most, for no more than one refugee in ten.
This seeming equivalence aside, the positions appear
to differ in that Israel's line is somewhat harder. The Arabs have let
it be known that there is a good measure of protective coloration in
their objections, and they have stressed that they are not rejecting
the plan. Israel, on the other hand, tells us privately (we suspect
to strengthen its hand in bargaining) that it has rejected the plan.
Israel is careful, however, to avoid doing so in public and is in fact
working to unload the public onus on the Arabs. In addition, Israel
representatives voice a variety of other objections to the plan, some
being reasonable concerns which can conceivably be dealt with through
continued discussion if there is a basic will to progress, and some
being reiterations of old arguments, thoroughly gone into by Dr. Johnson,
that would effectively preclude any useful movement on the problem.
Over the next few weeks, we look to further discussion
with both sides (1) to keep the plan in play; (2) hopefully, to overcome
reasonable apprehensions; and (3) to counter, as appropriate, Israel's
lobbying against the plan in Congress, in the U.N., and in the American
Jewish community.
John Lloyd/3/
/1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, 325.84/10-2062.
Confidential; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Crawford on October 18
and cleared by Sisco, Strong, and Talbot.
/2/Attached but not printed.
/3/Lloyd signed for Brubeck above Brubeck's typed signature.
Sources: Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1961-1963: Near East, 1962-1963,
V. XVIII. DC: GPO,
2000. |