Meeting With Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir
(December 27, 1962)
PARTICIPANTS
The President
Foreign Minister Golda Meir of Israel
Ambassador Harman of Israel
Myer Feldman, Deputy Special Counsel to the President
Phillips Talbot, Assistant Secretary of State for NEA
Robert Komer, White House Staff
Initiating a 70 minute discussion, Foreign Minister Meir said she brought
greetings to the President from the Prime Minister of Israel. All the
people of Israel, she said, have been watching with joy what the President
has been doing, especially the way in which he handled the Cuban crisis.
Israel saw it not just as a Cuba-US issue but as a big problem affecting
the world, and is delighted at the way it came out.
Israel, she continued, has never questioned whether it should be in
the free world. Its path is clear. Thus it appreciates US actions and
has gained much encouragement from American concern with its security
and from American friendship and understanding. She was glad that this
talk was taking place after the meeting of the General Assembly, and
would like to convey to the President the Israeli feelings about their
area and their neighbors.
She is not really surprised when people do not see Israel's security
problems as the Israelis do, Mrs. Meir said, but she does ask that others
try to understand Israeli views. Israel is not anti-Arab. From the beginning
it has been Israel's desire to live at peace with the Arabs. There is
an identity in the kind of developments the US and Israel would like
to see in the Middle East, i.e. each wishes an area in which every country
is independent, free of fear and free to concentrate on its own development.
Israel is sometimes called the only democratic country in the Middle
East. Israelis would like to see all the countries in the area both
democratic and rapidly developing. Their region should be one of cooperation
among the countries for the common good. The area is underdeveloped,
but Israel believes that it has possibilities and that Arabs would not
suffer from cooperating with Israel in the direction of development.
Israel is perfectly prepared to live within its present borders. It
doesn't want more land; it doesn't need, for example, Jordanian sand.
On Israel's borders are four Arab countries. Israel has never had real
trouble with Lebanon. Cows occasionally wander over the border from
Lebanon and are sent back. Girls in the Israeli army may get lost and
wander across the Lebanese border, but they are very politely returned.
None of the incidents are serious. The Jordanian border was for years
the scene of fierce actions, but it has been quiet for several years
now. There are, it is true, some incidents. For example, two Israeli
policemen were shot last year. But when the Jordanian commanders in
the area were transferred, Israel knew that Jordan did not want trouble.
There was also trouble with the Jewish cemetery on the Jordanian side.
Israel tried in every way not to give this too much publicity, and hopes
to be successful in the settling of this matter too.
The Syrian border, however, is different. Israeli agricultural settlements
lie in the valley, with the Syrian Army posted in the hills overlooking
them. The Syrians sometimes open fire on these settlements. On a visit
Mrs. Meir had made to one of the settlements two years ago, she found
every house hit by shells. This kind of action forces the Israeli Government
either to tell its people to evacuate the area or to declare its responsibility
for their security. Finally, the Egyptian border has been somewhat different
since 1956 than before, but Israel knows that the Fedayeen are being
trained to attack Israel either directly from Egypt or round-about across
the Jordan border. This, as anyone could see, is a dangerous situation.
With respect to Egypt, Mrs. Meir said that she believes, quite objectively,
that Israel has been prepared for anything and everything that might
make it possible to talk with Egyptian leaders about their common problems.
She herself has tried repeatedly. In 1956 a woman in the Pakistan Delegation
at the UN was willing to make an approach to the Arabs to get them to
talk privately to Mrs. Meir, but it came to nothing. On another occasion,
the head of the Burmese Delegation had a try. Regrettably, there has
so far been no result. Then there is the question of arms preparations
in the Arab countries, especially in Egypt. Israel knows that the Egyptians
have been getting more arms from the Soviets lately, especially since
the Yemen fighting began, but generally since last March. Israel has
seen that Soviet-supplied TU 16s have been able to fly from Egypt to
Yemen, drop bombs and fly back to Egypt. If they can do that, what could
they do to Israel? Israel knows that Egypt has, with German help, been
building ground-to-ground missiles since 1960. Now Israel has learned,
as it didn't know one or two months ago, that the Egyptians are making
preparations for radiological warfare. The warheads are to be filled
with materials that would contaminate the land for years and years.
It seems that if the refugees can't come back, the Egyptians think that
at least the land should not be available to Israelis. Now Israel has
information that Egypt has established a secret budget of $220-250,000,000
for work of about four years or so on this. There is, of course, nothing
in the official Egyptian budget on this item nor what the Egyptians
get from Russia. Israel also has the problem of its sea frontier, considering
the number of submarines that Egypt has. Egyptians say that Israel breathes
through only one border--the sea border--since the land borders are
taken care of. Maybe this is only Arab talk, but the talk could mean
something.
This, Mrs. Meir continued, is how the people of Israel live. The Israelis
are not a frightened or panicky people, but they are very conscious
of their security problems. If Mr. Rowan says (in the General Assembly
debate) that Arabs are not convinced of Israel's peaceful intentions,
this sort of statement may be "objective", but Israel cannot
be "objective" on this matter.
In the Middle Eastern area, she continued, things are not static. She
held no brief for the old Imam of Yemen and does not know what the young
one would do if he had power. The revolutionary change in Yemen could
be a positive development--if it were allowed to happen only for the
good of the people and not to throw off one yoke merely to take on another.
Israel did not think it right that Nasser should have forced Syria into
a union with Egypt, either. There is a constant shadow of Nasser's ambitions
in the Middle East. Nor does he work alone. Since Yemen he has gotten
more arms from Russia. Israel knows what he has done in Africa, e.g.,
in the Congo and Ghana. Israel is also represented in Africa, and Nasser
is always saying that Israel is the forerunner there of American and
British imperialism.
Then, Mrs. Meir went on, there is the refugee problem. She asked the
President to understand that Israel wants to see this problem solved.
In 1949 it had said it would take up to 100,000 refugees back. Even
though there was no peace, close to 40,000 came back. There are 230,000
to 240,000 Arabs living in Israel, about 11% of the population. Not
all of them are peaceful citizens. For example, as development programs
go forward peoples' houses sometimes have to be moved for new roads
or other facilities. Although no one likes his house to be destroyed,
Jewish citizens accept it even if they don't like it. But a few months
ago when a new road was to be cut through an Arab village, there was
a quite different reaction. We were accused of taking something away
from the Arabs. They said they would put their women and children right
in front of any bulldozers brought in. This is the sort of line they
always take.
The question is this: even if Israel is to accept a very small number
of Arabs, for what purposes would they be coming in? In the United Nations
the Arabs repeat frankly and openly for hours and hours the one refrain
that Israel has no right to exist and must disappear. This is the situation.
Israel knows about Arab plans to bring Arabs back to Israel and then
to make an Algeria out of Israel. They would create difficulties within
the country; then when the Israeli Government would do what any state
would have to do under the circumstances, the Arab countries would come
to the help of these returning Arab refugees.
The Government is Israel has two responsibilities, Mrs. Meir said.
On the one hand it is responsible for the security and welfare of the
people. But in this generation the leaders of Israel have another responsibility.
Twice before in history there has been Jewish sovereignty, but both
times the country was occupied and the people dispersed. This generation
has tried for the third time to establish a sovereign state, and this
could be the last time. The whole world remembers what happened in Europe.
In World War II Eastern Europe held the reservoir of people to come
and make a fresh start in Israel. Who knows what will happen to the
three or three and a half million Jews in the USSR? They may never get
out. If something happens again so that the Jews are dispersed from
Israel, this could be the last time. That is not a happy idea.
These, Mrs. Meir concluded, are the problems of Israel. She, of course,
recognizes that the President's position causes all sorts of people
to put their problems on his shoulders. Israel does this too. The United
States has taken on the responsibility for the free world. Israel is
part of the free world, and it is American interest and concern that
have made it possible for Israel to bring its problems to the President.
In response the President said that he appreciated Mrs. Meir's full
statement. In considering the problems of the world we should think
of the future and especially of the next year or two. Her last point
was particularly important: the burden which the United States carries
for the free world. No other country carries the same responsibility
for distant countries, for Korea, South Vietnam, India and Pakistan,
the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. Our concern is
in maintaining the balance of power in the interest of the free world.
This is why we find ourselves involved in issues between the Somalis
and Ethiopians, Indians and Pakistanis, Cambodians and Thais, and so
many other disputes which are not part of what we see as the central
struggle, i.e. the struggle of free peoples against the Communist Bloc.
The United States, the President said, has a special relationship with
Israel in the Middle East really comparable only to that which it has
with Britain over a wide range of world affairs. But for us to play
properly the role we are called upon to play, we cannot afford the luxury
of identifying Israel--or Pakistan, or certain other countries--as our
exclusive friends, hewing to the line of close and intimate allies (for
we feel that about Israel though it is not a formal ally) and letting
other countries go. If we pulled out of the Arab Middle East and maintained
our ties only with Israel this would not be in Israel's interest.
To be effective in our own interest and to help Israel, the President
continued, we have to maintain our position in the Middle East generally.
Our interest is best served if there is a group of sovereign countries
associated with the West. We are in a position then to make clear to
the Arabs that we will maintain our friendship with Israel and our security
guarantees.
Looking ahead 12 months, the President said, we see many problems.
In the Yemen crisis, we went ahead in order to try to lessen the impact
of the fighting on Saudi Arabia and the risk that a pro-UAR regime might
take over in Saudi Arabia. We know that the Saudi Arabian Government
is not the best in the world from your point of view, but this seemed
an action in your interest.
The President continued that in the next two years or so he could see
further problems arising which will put strain on United States' efforts
to maintain good relations with Israel and with the Arabs. One of these
is the Jordan waters issue. The United States has already given Israel
some assurances on this, but the Arabs are going to be anxious. Another
is the maintenance of order on Israel's frontiers with the various Arab
states. The United States feels that greater use should be made of the
United Nations to meet these problems, whereas Israel probably thinks
that the UN actions are too slow. Last spring the US took a view which
we knew was unpopular in Israel; we took it in order to maintain our
position in the Middle East. The third area of likely strain is the
question of the refugees; the fourth may arise when the Hawk missile
starts coming in. All of these are going to be problems for us, costing
us something.
We know that Israel faces enormous security problems but we do too.
We came almost to a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union last
spring and again recently in Cuba. Indeed, three or four times in the
past year there has been a situation which could easily have been built
up into a direct collision with either the Soviets or the Chinese. Because
we have taken on wide security responsibilities we always have the potential
of becoming involved in a major crisis not of our making, e.g. in the
event of a coup in Iran or of the Sino-Indian affair. Our security problems
are, therefore, just as great as Israel's. We have to concern ourselves
with the whole Middle East. On these questions--of water, of the UN
role and reprisals, of refugees and of missiles (though that is not
exactly similar to the other matters)--we are asking the cooperation
of Israel in the same way that we are cooperating with Israel to help
meet its needs. Israel doubtless thinks of itself as deeply endangered--if
the Arabs come up with skilled manpower and if they threaten Israel--and
Israelis have a tremendously deep patriotic sense. Our position in these
matters may seem to be asking Israel to neglect its interests. The reason
we do it is not that we are unfriendly to Israel, but in order to help
more effectively. I think it is quite clear that in case of an invasion
the United States would come to the support of Israel. We have that
capacity and it is growing. Also, the United States is helping Israel
economically. We would like now to see if we can make some progress
on refugees and maintain our friendship with Israel without constantly
cutting across our other interests in the Middle East. When Israel takes
actions in these matters, we hope it will understand our problems as
well as its own.
Mrs. Meir said that Israel welcomes the growing US influence in the
Middle East because it will help the Middle East in a way that is friendly
to Israel. But she might give an example of what happens with the UN
and shooting incidents. When Syria resumed shooting early in December
Prime Minister Ben Gurion called in General Von Horn two days later.
Von Horn told the Prime Minister that his observers had not yet finished
their report; then he took another four days to visit Damascus. If the
matter had been handled properly, he should have himself informed the
Israeli Government immediately that all necessary steps were being taken
without delay and he should have gone to Damascus without Israeli prodding.
The President responded that he did not know the details of this particular
case. His central point, however, was that the United States is interested
in the security of the free world and is trying to assert its influence
in this direction. There are gambles involved in all our programs. In
the Middle East we have the twin problems of being historically and
obviously associated with Israel and, especially in this Administration,
building on that association through our actions with respect to the
Jordan waters, Hawks, and aid, while at the same time we have other
responsibilities in the Middle East. Israel, the United States and the
free world all have difficult survival problems. We would like Israeli
recognition that this partnership which we have with it produces strains
for the United States in the Middle East.
When Israel takes such actions as it did last spring, whether right
or wrong, those actions involve not just Israel but also the United
States. We are being asked to understand by Israel. By the same token
we believe that Israel should consider the interests of the United States.
Because of its ties with the United States, Israel does not have to
depend wholly on its own efforts for security, but on the United States
as well.
When we discuss these problems, the President added, he would hope
Mrs. Meir and the Prime Minister would recognize that we on our part
have tried to work out a good relationship and that Israel should do
the same. We would hope Israel could proceed in such a way as to lessen
collisions between us.
Mrs. Meir asked the President to believe that the overwhelming majority
of Israeli people never have doubts about the position of the U.S. vis-à-vis
Israel. Israel has a double security problem. It is part of the free
world and it also is involved in a private war. When Syria shoots at
Israeli villages there are mothers and children there. The Government
must tell them that they will take care of their security.
As to the refugee problem, Mrs. Meir asked the President to recall
that in his talk with the Prime Minister in the spring of 1961 the latter
had not argued with the President's ideas. He had said he was not sure
that the U.S. would succeed in these efforts, but they were worth a
try. Israel still stands where the Prime Minister had at that time said
it stood, and still supports what the President said at that time.
The President noted that obviously Israel cannot accept a flood of
refugees. The Arabs have their troubles too. Maybe no compromises are
possible. But he did not think we should give up on refugees. They are
costing the United States money and they cause great damage to the prospects
of peace. What we were trying to put together may have been impossible.
Israel needed reassurances. The Arabs obviously could not make advance
commitments. Our judgment, however, was that the great majority of refugees
would resettle. We had not made any progress on the Johnson Plan and
that is gone. But we should keep trying. He is not convinced that it
is impossible. The fact is that if we don't get a settlement we face
an almost impossible position. It is like the Kashmir dispute; a settlement
might seem impossible to achieve, but is equally impossible to let this
dispute run on and blow up.
This country is really interested in Israel, the President said, as
he is personally. We are interested that Israel should keep up its sensitive,
tremendous, historic task. What we want from Israel arises because our
relationship is a two-way street. Israel's security in the long run
depends in part on what it does with the Arabs, but also on us. He would
hope, for example, that Israel would give consideration to our problems
on this atomic reactor. We are opposed to nuclear proliferation. Our
interest here is not in prying into Israel's affairs but we have to
be concerned because of the over-all situation in the Middle East.
Mrs. Meir reassured the President that there would not be any difficulty
between us on the Israeli nuclear reactor. She also said she wanted
to suggest that at least the first one or two talks in the new round
of US-Israeli discussions about the refugees should be held in Israel.
This would permit participation in the talks by the Prime Minister who
could bring to them his full authority. How helpful it would be, she
went on, if only the Arabs would agree to follow the President's proposals
on refugees. Indeed, it might be helpful if there were a possibility
of getting Israeli representatives together with Egyptian leaders for
talks which could be held anywhere, just to have direct discussions
about their common problems. We could be sure that the Israelis would
not be the ones to reveal publicly any private talks.
The President thanked Mrs. Meir for coming to see him in Palm Beach.
As she left she reiterated her hope that the beginning of the next round
on refugees could be conducted in Jerusalem.
Sources: Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1961-1963: Near East, 1962-1963,
V. XVIII. DC: GPO,
2000. |