Stalin, Soviets and İsraeli Question - then and now - 15 - Israel's Stand on the issue
RECORDING OF THE CONVERSATION OF THE USSR AMBASSADOR IN ISRAEL P.I. ERSHOVA WITH HEAD OF THE EASTERN EUROPEAN DEPARTMENT OF THE ISRAEL MFA SH. FRIEDMAN
October 17, 1948
Secret
Today, at his request, he received Friedman, who came to the Mission to inform about three issues: the hostilities in the Negev, the new formulation of the question of Jerusalem and the messages received from Paris from Israeli Foreign Minister Shertok.
Regarding the situation in the Negev, Friedman said that on July 16, the day before the start of the second truce, Jewish troops seized the Karatiya point and interrupted Egyptian communications from west to east. At the very beginning of the second truce, Egyptian troops bypassed this point from the southwest, thereby depriving Israel of the opportunity to communicate with the Negev. There was no response from the Jews, since they relied on the UN. Only a month later, on August 18, the chief of staff of the observers, General Landstrom, established the joint use of the Negev road intersection for the Egyptian and Jewish armies. Jewish transports could use this road from 6 o'clock. in the morning to 12 o'clock. days, while the Egyptians from 14 to 20 hours. Israel time. This timetable was supposed to go into effect on August 21, but the Egyptians did not agree to it. On September 14, United Nations Mediator Bernadotte signed Act No. 12, which repeated the above-mentioned conditions for operating the intersection and introduced a ban on the use of aircraft for communications in the area.
On October 15, a transport was sent to the Negev, which came under fire from the Egyptians and was forced to return, and two vehicles were burned. The Egyptians used aviation (6 Spitfires). The Jews launched a retaliatory military action. The next day, General Riley ordered the cessation of hostilities. Immediately there was a response from the Director General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and the command of the Jewish army that the troops would not stop hostilities until the freedom of movement of Jewish transports in the Negev was ensured. Currently, major battles are taking place with the participation of tank and air formations. An Egyptian plane was shot down yesterday. The scale of the battles is evidenced by the fact that Tel Aviv hospitals are now overcrowded with wounded.
The constant ceasefire violations by Egyptian forces on the southern front, Friedman said, can be explained by the fact that the Egyptians want to take over part of the Negev, while using the favorable attitude of America, given that, according to Bernadotte's plan, they were not supposed to get anything in the Negev. It should be borne in mind that America will lose interest in Israel after the presidential elections.
Moving on to the second question, Friedman said that about two weeks ago, new American proposals for the future of Jerusalem had become known in Tel Aviv. According to this plan, Jerusalem should be divided into three parts, with the Jewish part of the city being placed under the tutelage of the State of Israel, the Arab part under the tutelage of an Arab state, most likely Transjordan. The holy sites (i.e., obviously the old city of Jerusalem) will be placed under international trusteeship with limited governing authority. In order to persuade Israel to agree to this project, American representatives say that this project is not much different from the project of annexing part of the city to Israel, because it imposes only two minor restrictions: to send reports every two years to the UN Trusteeship Council and to answer questions from observers.
Further, Friedman reported on the telegrams received from Shertok, which contain conversations with representatives of various states. Belgian delegate Spaak believes that Israel itself should restrict freedom of immigration in order to put an end to talks about its allegedly aggressive intentions. This point of view of the Belgian delegate is in accordance with the general principles of British policy towards Israel.
The Swedes are deeply impressed by Bernadotte's assassination and consider it their moral duty to support the mediator's project. In general, their point of view is similar to the Belgian one.
The position of the Australian representative of Evvat and the Norwegian delegation is viewed by Shertok as favorable to Israel. When I asked about the details of this position, Friedman replied that the delegations of these countries object to the establishment of borders in Palestine at the current session of the General Assembly. In their opinion, a “good offices” commission should be created to determine the boundaries, which will present recommendations to the next session of the General Assembly. These delegations believe that Israel should be more flexible on the issue of the Negev.
Stopping in passing on the conversation between Shertok and the Indian delegate Pandit Nehru, Friedman said that the latter treats Israel favorably, but India should reckon with the presence of 35 million Muslims in India.
Shertok had a conversation in Paris with Soviet representatives Sobolev and Tsarapkin. According to Fridman, Sobolev discovered a freedom of approach to the question of Palestine. Sobolev believes that the fate of the Arab territories of Palestine should be predetermined by a concrete clash between Transjordan and Egypt. He called the American proposals for Jerusalem interesting. In his opinion, the present session of the General Assembly should adopt resolutions on the recognition of the State of Israel, on the withdrawal of the invading troops, a resolution requiring direct peace negotiations between Jews and Arabs. A commission of "good offices," should be created, which will be given the right to decide the issue of borders.
During a conversation with Sobolev, Shertok said that the Israeli government is ready to negotiate an end to hostilities with all Arab states, but about the future of Palestine, Israel will only negotiate with the de facto Arab authorities in Palestine.
To my question about the positions of America and England, Friedman replied that it remains the same, i.e. England supports Transjordan, and America supports Egypt, but the form and size of this support is not known to him.
At the end of the conversation, Friedman dwelled on a number of questions of the internal situation. He said that elections to the Constituent Assembly will be held only in mid-December this year. A draft constitution and election regulations are currently being developed, but a law on citizenship will be adopted even earlier. The issuance of a compulsory loan is being prepared for persons who own a certain capital.
Friedman also said that recently, measures are being taken to eliminate the separate headquarters of Palmach, 2, whose formations number up to 5 thousand people and form three brigades, which until now had their own separate headquarters. Now there is a need to resolve this issue, since parts of Palmach enjoyed a well-known privileged position in the Jewish army based on the fact that these formations bore the brunt of the fighting in the first stage of the war. The total number of the Israeli army is currently 60-70 thousand people. Although in Israel there is universal conscription for men from 18 to 40 years old, and for childless women from 18 to 26 years old, nevertheless, the order of contingents remains in force, since the general mobilization of draft-age people in areas such as the Negev and Galilee would lead to the complete deprivation of the labor force of the settlements located in these areas of new colonization.
I asked what new I heard from Meyerson. Friedman said that Trade Attaché Bezherano has developed a vigorous activity and is negotiating the purchase of oil and other materials. Defense Attaché Colonel Ratner sent a message that the Soviet military circles are interested in the structure of the Israeli army, martial law, etc. Friedman asked the General Staff to send maps and other materials to Moscow. The Israeli mission encountered economic difficulties: the furniture had to be purchased from Sweden, the premises provided turned out to be so small that the Israeli Foreign Ministry had to refuse to send some employees who were supposed to be additionally included in the Mission's staff.
Before leaving, Fridman conveyed Ms. Shertok's request for permission to send one boy to the USSR for surgery at the clinic of prof. Filatov, since he alone can cure his eye disease associated with brain inflammation. I said that it was necessary to first ask prof. Filatov - is he able to provide this assistance.
The conversation lasted 30 minutes, attache Semioshkin was present.
Envoy of the USSR in Israel P. Ershov of the RF
AVP. F. 089. Op. 1.P.1.D. 3.L. 17-20.
RECORDING OF THE CONVERSATION OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE Ukrainian SSR D.Z. MANUILSKY WITH MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ISRAEL M. SHERTOK
October 22, 1948
Secret
During the conversation, Shertok outlined the position of the Government of the State of Israel on the Palestinian issue, which is on the agenda of the current General Assembly, and Shertok's statements coincided with what he had previously said to Comrade. Malik.
I note only some new points that indicate that Shertok is coordinating his position with representatives of the US Department of State:
1. In response to my comment that after the presidential elections in the United States, the position of the State of Israel may be less favorable for defending the position of the Government of Israel, Shertok said that the elections will not change the attitude of the State Department towards the State of Israel, that the postponement of the discussion of the Palestinian issue, which is supported by the US , is explained by the fact that in the United States there is practically no government now.
2. The government of the State of Israel can already speak on the Palestinian issue - the speech is in Shertok's pocket, but, according to Shertok, about 30 states have not yet determined their position and therefore there is no need to rush to raise the Palestinian issue.
3. Schertok relayed the contents of a conversation he had in Paris with two prominent State Department officials on the Jerusalem issue. The latter suggested to him that the trusteeship of the Trusteeship Council should be established over Old Jerusalem, that the State of Israel should appoint its representative "guardian" over the Jewish part of New Jerusalem, and the Arab State of Palestine appointed its "guardian," over the Arab part of New Jerusalem.
4. Shertok believes that this session of the General Assembly should not define the boundaries of the Jewish State of Israel and that therefore the Government of the State of Israel will have to agree to the establishment of a conciliation commission with limited powers. As for the composition of such a commission, according to Shertok, in addition to the United States, Great Britain and France, Jews are interested in a representative of the USSR or one of the Slavic states, such as Czechoslovakia.
5. According to Shertok, refineries owned by private companies in Haifa with capital invested by the US, France and the UK should remain in the hands of these companies.
6. Shertok gave a positive assessment to the King of Transjordan, Abdullah, stating that the latter is burdened by the intervention of the British and allegedly would like to rely on the Jewish state (ie the United States) in order to get more freedom of maneuver.
7. Shertok also stated that although Bernadotte himself was a man of the British, however, in the last period of his life he tried to act in such a way as to establish contact with both governments, but he had two advisers, whose names Shertok did not name, who kept a strictly English orientation and interfered with Bernadotte takes a mediating position.
D Manuilsky
WUA RF. F. 07. Op. 21c. P. 49.D. 39.L. 89-91.
NOTE OF THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE MIDDLE AND MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES OF THE USSR MFA I.I. BAKULIN TO DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR V.A. ZORIN
November 24, 1948
Secret
November 11 this year In a conversation with me, the envoy of the State of Israel in Moscow, Golda Meyerson, and the military attaché of the Ratner mission, conveyed the request of the government of the State of Israel to the Soviet government to provide assistance to the State of Israel with heavy weapons and other equipment necessary for the Israeli army. Defense Attaché Colonel Ratner said that the Israeli army needs primarily artillery, tanks and aircraft, and that the Israeli government's request for weapons specifies the types of heavy weapons and other equipment. I replied that I would bring the request of the Government of Israel to the attention of the leadership of the Ministry.
In view of the fact that Meyerson and the military attaché Ratner may again return to this question and ask about the answer to the transmitted request of the Government of Israel, I would consider it possible, in the event of such an appeal, to answer them that the Soviet government, which is attentive to the fate of the State of Israel and protects its right to an independent and independent existence, nevertheless, does not want to contradict the decision of the Security Council to end hostilities in Palestine and to prohibit UN members from supplying arms to the armies of the countries fighting in Palestine.
We have already given the same answer to a similar question through Comrade Gromyko, in New York, to Israel's representative to the UN. I ask for your directions
I. Bakulin
WUA RF. F. 089. Op. 1.P.1.D.5.Sheet 17.
Published: Soviet-Israeli relations: Collection of documents. Volume 1: 1941-1953. Book 1: 1941 - May 1949. M., 2000. Doc. No. 201.
RECORDING OF THE CONVERSATION OF THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR A.Ya. Vyshinsky with PRIME MINISTER OF LEBANON R. SALKH
December 2, 1948
Secret
Received at his request the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Riad Bey Solh, who heads the Lebanese delegation to the General Assembly.
Solkh said he had no special questions for me, but wanted to take advantage of my stay in Paris to see me.
Having mentioned the Soviet Union's defense in 1946 of the interests of Lebanon and Syria in the Security Council on the issue of the withdrawal of troops, Solkh moved on to the question of Palestine. He said that he could not, of course, influence the position of the Soviet delegation on this issue, but he would like to emphasize that an independent Jewish state cannot exist in Palestine, since the Jews are a small national minority there and, in addition, the Jewish state will actually colonial territory and stronghold for the United States and England in the area.
Our position on the Palestinian issue is determined by our foreign policy, one of the most important principles of which is the right of nations to self-determination.
I replied that we regret that there are hostilities between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, and we believe that if there were no foreign troops and there would be no intervention of some great powers, then the Jews and Arabs could more easily reach an agreement ... I added that we hope that such an agreement will still be reached and peace will be established in Palestine. As for the state of Israel, it already exists and has the right to defend its interests.
Solkh said that the Arab countries are pursuing an independent policy on the Palestinian issue and oppose Britain and the United States on this issue. He mentioned that Syria and Lebanon would vote against the British draft resolution. In conclusion, he said that Lebanon is pursuing an independent policy and considers all those who support the independence of Arab countries as its friends.
I said to this that there was no need for us to prove that the USSR by its entire policy confirms that it most consistently defends the independence of small countries against imperialist policies.
Solkh replied that Lebanon always views the Soviet Union as its friend, despite some differences of views on the Palestinian issue.
The conversation lasted 15 minutes. Comrade Ratiani was present.
A. Vyshinsky
WUA RF. F. 0106. Op. 7.P.7, D. 4.L. 5-6.
RECORDING OF THE CONVERSATION OF THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE USSR V.A. ZORINA WITH F. ZEYNEDDIN
December 29, 1948
Secret
Today at 3 pm I received the Syrian envoy at his request. Zeyneddin, in connection with his departure to Damascus, set forth the orders of his government.
The principles of freedom and self-determination of nations, supported by the Soviet Union, are of vital interest to Syria as a small power, the envoy said. There are only 12 other countries in the UN that are second in size to Syria. It is the small countries that bear the heavy burden of fighting for their freedom and independence, but the Syrian people are eager to fight for their independence and freedom. Syria also supports the Indonesian people in their struggle for independence. Since the Soviet Union stands for the above principles and strives to preserve international peace, there is a solid basis for cooperation between Syria and the Soviet Union.
The envoy further emphasized the desire of his government to promote friendly cooperation with the Soviet Union and asked about my opinion on this matter. I replied that what he said would be brought to the attention of the Soviet Government, and added that without knowledge of the specific problems of cooperation it would be difficult to say anything on this issue.
Zeyneddin, after stipulating that all problems and issues should be resolved in a spirit of mutual understanding, as well as through consultation with each other and attempts to reach a unanimous opinion, told me that he had 4 specific issues on which his government would like to reach mutual understanding and cooperation with Soviet Government:
1. The issue of the evacuation of foreign troops from Syria.
2. The Palestinian question.
3. Tripoli.
4. Development of trade between Syria and the Soviet Union.
Dwelling further on the first question, Zeyneddin made the remark that, speaking about Syria, he also speaks about the interests of the entire Arab nation as a whole. Speaking about the evacuation of foreign troops, he said that he meant Alexandretta and the Alexandretta area, since there are no foreign troops in the rest of Syria. Syria has never recognized the occupation of this area and hopes to find support in this matter.
Moving on to the Palestinian question, he said that the point of view of the Soviet Union with respect to Palestine is known, since it has been detailed at the UN. However, he considers it unfair that Arabs seeking to liberate Palestine are called aggressors, because Arabs are being driven out by Jews from territory rightfully belonging to Arabs. The Messenger believes that it is wrong to apply the expression “persecuted,” to Jews. In support of his thesis, he pointed to the Jews from Eastern European countries who were moving to Palestine, and stated that they could not be called “persecuted,” since they live in truly democratic countries and enjoy equal rights with all other citizens. If we take Jews from the countries of Western Europe and America, then it must be remembered that large monopolies are concentrated in the hands of a handful of Jews in these countries, and rather these Jews “persecute” the rest of the population, rather than are “persecuted”.
In both cases, Zeyneddin continued, the resettlement of Jews is carried out for political reasons, in order to spread their influence. He also stated that there were rumors that the Soviet Union was allegedly helping the Palestinian Jews, but that he did not believe it and rejected this rumor in front of his government. However, - noted Zeyneddin, - he cannot say this in relation to the countries of Eastern Europe.
Abdallah, in his opinion, is, apparently, a puppet in the hands of the British, in fact, he is now pursuing the policy of the Americans. The UN Conciliation Commission, in his opinion, is only a tool for eliminating differences between imperialist groups, which have already been almost eliminated.
Zionism, according to Zeyneddin, is the bearer of the ideas of imperialism. Zeyneddin believes that there is a lack of understanding on the Tripoli issue. In his opinion, neither Italy nor any other country should in any form govern this territory. It must be self-governing. Italy itself is not a country independent of foreign influence, and these influences, in turn, would spread from Europe to colonial territory. "The promises of the British are worth nothing," Zeyneddin remarked with a grin, "for they were given by the British," “As for trade, then of course, - said Zeineddin, - this issue is within the competence of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Trade and the Syrian Ministry of Economy, but the Foreign Ministries of both countries must open the door for these negotiations,”. Zeyneddin did not put forward anything specific in this area.
In conclusion, stating that he foresaw my answer in advance, Zeineddin inquired whether it could be hoped that the Soviet Government would consider these issues in a spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding. I said that I would bring the questions raised to the notice of the Soviet Government, which could, naturally, consider them in the light of its policy.
The conversation lasted one hour. Comrade Matveeva was present.
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR V. Zorin
AVP RF. F. 021. Op. 9.P. 1.L. 5-7.
Translated From Russian; Svitlana M
Continue
Secret Documents 1949
.jpg)
No comments