Memorandum on Further Discussion of the Johnson Plan
(October 4, 1962)
This memorandum discusses the U.S. position on the
Johnson Plan and chances of solving the Palestinian
refugee problem in light of the public learning of the plan.
SUBJECT
Next Steps on the Johnson Plan
The Johnson Plan has reached the press in New York
(source unknown) and the gist of it has been published./2/ It follows
that pressures will mount on Israel, on the Arab states, on the United
States, and on France and Turkey as the other members of the Palestine
Conciliation Commission to make their positions on the Plan known. We,
therefore, must be in a position shortly to take a reasonably clear
stand, yet at the same time avoid use of language which would precipitate
a public rejection by Israel. If it becomes necessary to say something
more publicly, we propose stating our belief that the Plan seems to
us to have real possibilities and deserves the most careful and sympathetic
consideration by the interested governments. We would avoid pledging
all out US support or engaging our prestige on the outcome.
We continue to believe we must keep the approach of
the Plan in play. If it is to be rejected, it must be rejected either
by both the Arabs and Israel or by the Arabs alone, preferably the former.
The Arabs have been careful thus far to avoid formal rejection of the
Plan, although this could be their effort to throw the onus of rejection
upon Israel. It continues to be in Israel's interest, and ours, that
the onus for rejection not fall on Israel alone, and we should keep
stressing this to them.
Keeping the matter in play involves continuing talks
with the Israelis, agreed to by Mrs. Meir, to be conducted by Assistant
Secretaries Talbot and Cleveland with Ambassador Harman over the next
four or five weeks. It involves avoidance by any United States official
of any indication to Israel that we consider the Plan dead. I declined
to agree with Mrs. Meir that the Plan is dead, telling her that the
two words "Johnson Plan" should not serve to prevent a profitable
discussion of how we can proceed on the problem of Arab refugees. We
should take this approach with Harman.
I propose in their discussions with Ambassador Harman
that Messrs. Talbot and Cleveland undertake detailed exploration of
the Israeli attitude on Arab refugees, determine what the Israelis in
fact are willing to do, determine what additional explanations or clarifications
might be made, and examine in detail the assurances which the United
States might be able and willing to provide Israel, starting from the
point of the United States assurances given earlier in Jerusalem./3/
We need not argue with Harman whether we are talking about the refugees
within or outside the Johnson Plan. We should not now discuss with Harman
how the Plan is to be handled in the PCC or in the GA. We expect to
consult periodically with Dr. Johnson as the discussions with Ambassader
Harman are pursued. We do not feel obliged to wind up the discussion
with something called the "Johnson Plan" but whatever it is
to be called the principal features of the Plan may well survive and
Israel must not reject the Plan unilaterally. This approach would serve
to meet Israel's current stand that the "Johnson Plan" as
such is unacceptable and non-negotiable. There is no way in which we
can relieve Israel of responsibility for rejecting the Plan if the Arabs
keep it in play.
One further step is important at this stage. We must
have authority to discuss fully and frankly with selected Senators and
Congressmen and with a number of Jewish leaders the proposals that have
been made and our reactions to them, the dangers of Israeli rejection,
and the willingness and ability of the United States to assure that
Israel's sovereignty, security and well-being are safeguarded. Similarly
we must be enabled to persuade the French and Turks to cooperate in
keeping the matter open during the coming weeks. In these talks we will
be pressed to state categorically our position on the Johnson Plan.
We should make clear that we do not consider the Johnson Plan dead but
that we are focussing on how to put into effect practical steps to resolve
the refugee issue.
I should appreciate your approval of the foregoing.
Dean Rusk/4/
/1/Source: Department of State, Central Files, 325.84/10-462.
Secret; Limit Distribution..
/2/Circular telegram 574 to certain Near Eastern, African,
and European posts, October 2, reported that a substantially accurate
summary of the main elements of the Johnson Plan, written by journalist
Milton Freudenheim, had appeared in the Chicago Daily News and The Washington
Post on October 2. The telegram also transmitted the text of the Department
of State spokesman's comment. (Ibid., 325.85/10-262)
/3/Talbot met with Harman on October 12. Cleveland
did not attend, but was represented by the Director of the Office of
United Nations Affairs, Joseph Sisco. The memorandum of conversation
is ibid., 325.84.10-1262; for text, see the Supplement, the compilation
on the Arab-Israeli dispute. Briefing papers prepared for the meeting
are in Department of State, NEA/IAI Files: Lot 70 D 44, Refugees, PCC,
General Policy; and ibid., IO/UNP Files: Lot 72 D 294, PCC--Johnson
Mission.
/4/Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.
A handwritten note next to the signature reads: "Sgnd by Secy &
sent to WH via UNP from New York 10/4/62 per/BWeiner." A copy of
the memorandum, attached to the source text, bears a handwritten notation:
"Orig handed to the Pres by NEA-Talbot 10/5/62-1 p.m."
Sources: Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1961-1963: Near East, 1962-1963,
V. XVIII. DC: GPO,
2000. |