Israel’s Reply to U.S. on Dulles’ Statement Revealed at Bond Conference
Menu JTA Search

Israel’s Reply to U.S. on Dulles’ Statement Revealed at Bond Conference

Download PDF for this date

Israel’s views on the United States policy statement with regard to the Arab-Israel situation made recently by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles were conveyed “within the past few days” to the U.S. Government, it was revealed here today by Israel Ambassador Abba Eban, addressing the National Mobilization Conference for Israel bonds which was attended by more than 1,000 Jewish leaders from all parts of the country.

The conference concluded its three-day deliberations today with the adoption of a resolution calling upon American Jewry to raise for Israel $35,000,000 between now and the end of this year, through the sale of Israel bonds, in order to help the Jewish State meet economic problems created by renewed mass immigration and security threats. The resolution pledged “the fullest measure of devotion” to the bond campaign in response to an urgent request made to the conference by Israel’s Finance Minister Levi Eshkol, who pleaded that bond sales be stepped up to yield $35,000,000 more this year and another $75,000,000 in 1956.

Ambassador Eban told the conference that the desirability of guaranteeing the existing Arab-Israel boundaries was “the central theme of the criticism which Prime Minister Sharett and I with his authority, have submitted to the U.S. Government.” This he told the delegates, was the main point conveyed in his statement to the State Department on the Israel Government’s reaction towards Secretary Dulles’ statement. He added that Secretary Dulles’ proposal of an American security treaty with Israel “as it stands, contains a built-in deadlock, with somber potentialities of anti-climax and disillusionment.”


The view of the Israel Government, Mr. Eban said, is that “this danger of deadlock is superfluous. Nothing in the situation objectively requires it. There is no reason for not applying the treaty to the present agreed frontier; and no merit in withholding that solution pending a new frontier agreement.” He stressed the fact that it was “acutely dispiriting to read the paragraph on frontiers” in the Dulles statement suggesting the possibility of an American-Israel treaty. “This provision could well destroy the validity and effect of the bold statement on an American treaty.” Mr. Eban declared.

A reader of the Dulles statement, Mr. Eban continued, “having been told that the United States holds the key instrument to stability, suddenly learns that the instrument may not be used.” He pointed out that “to make the treaty dependent on a contingency as remote as an agreed frontier change would not be far from rejecting the treaty altogether. Thus the main solution to the problem of tension is first outlined in full stature–and then seriously compromised by being made dependent on what may well be an unattainable condition.”

“Would it not be acutely disappointing if the great concept of a Middle Eastern stability, guaranteed by a great power, were to be accepted in principle, only to be frustrated by being made dependent on an unattainable condition–or being linked with adjustments which, whatever their defects or merits, may not be feasible today#” Mr. Eban asked. He cautioned that “unless the central purpose of an American security treaty is disengaged from impending conditions and from the threat of being vetoed by those opposed to stability in our region, the whole plan, despite its constructive potentiality, may hold within itself a somber potentiality of deadlock and disillusionment.”


The Israel Ambassador served notice that “while being ready in the proper context for mutual adjustments of the boundary line, we shall accept no unilateral concessions for ourselves, just as we have demanded none from our neighbors.” At the same time, he testified “to certain eminently constructive features of the Secretary’s speech.” However, he argued at length against the Dulles thinking on the withholding of a treaty pending a new frontier agreement and pointed out that “if the present frontier could be a fitting subject for a tri-partite statement in 1950 it cannot be an unfitting subject for a treaty engagement today.”

Declaring that “the present frontier is one of the few elements of stability in the current scene,” Mr. Eban stated: “To underestimate its status and authority would not be prudent. Any other frontier is a thing of paper, and imagination, whereas this frontier is real and has proved its essential stability.” He asked why” the great conception of an American treaty” was “attached to a dubious non-existent line rather than to this stable fulcrum”

“The parties are more likely to resign themselves, however tacitly and reluctantly, to their present frontier than to reach a new agreement,” the Ambassador indicated. “At any rate, there can be no question of unilateral concession by Israel to the Arab states which are so abundant in territory,” he added. He urged that now when there has been an expressed willingness by the American Government to enter a treaty “that this priceless stability be conferred upon our region now, and not be lost through association with unattainable conditions.”


Israel’s Finance Minister Levi Eshkol, addressing the conference, expressed fear over the fate of Moroccan Jewry. He asked: “How can we stand by and let rampant Arab nationalism crush Jewish men, women and children# How can we leave Jewish communities hostage in Arab countries#” He said that “to finance the North African immigration, we need new resources – above and beyond any funds on which we had counted in the past.”

Reporting on the Gaza situation, Mr. Eshkol said: “About two weeks ago, a band of murderers was sent into Israel by the Egyptian authorities in Gaza. Most of these men were released from Egyptian prisons, and were promised full release after completing their evil commission in Israel. The Egyptian convicts dared not face our armed forces instead they prowled about the countryside, killing civilian men, women, and children.

“There is only one unchallengeable answer to the Nassers and their friends in the Arab countries and in the West, and recently in the East: for every well that is blown up, two wells; for every yard of pipeline destroyed a mile of new pipeline; for every settlement bombed two new settlements. Only in this way can we establish our defense and insure our security,” Mr. Eshkol stated.


In an address stressing the importance of economic aid for Israel, Dr. Joseph J. Schwartz, executive head of the Bond Organization, said: “We are meeting at a critical testing period for Israel. The program embarked on by the Israel Bond Organization five years ago must prevail against Arab boycott and blockade and in the face of dislocations of the economy that may come from the resumption of large-scale immigration.”

Dr. Schwartz reported that “the situation in Morocco and other parts of North Africa is certainly in the category of an emergency.” He asked: “Who of us can forget those tragic years not so long ago when there was no Israel to save Jewish lives#” He announced that a total of $198,391,150 had been raised since May, 1951, through the sale of Israel bonds. More than 750,000 persons in the United States, Canada, Latin America and Western Europe had subscribed to the bonds, he stated.

William Rosenwald, general chairman of the United Jewish Appeal, reported to the conference that the American Jewish community has played a vital role in aiding the people of Israel through both the bond campaign and the United Jewish Appeal. He warned, however, that despite all that has been accomplished, Israel must have American support as fully as in the past.

Abraham Feinberg, president of the Israel Bond Organization, reported that in the four fiscal years extending from April 1, 1951 to March 31, 1955, a total of $156,155,000 in Israel bond proceeds was invested in the development of Israel’s economy. Of this sum.$71,910,000 was allocated to agriculture and irrigation, $46,108,000 to industry and electric power, and the rest for other purposes.

Leon H. Keyserling, former chairman of President Truman’s Council of Economic Advisers, told the conference that no country, large or small, has attained so quickly the economic progress “which has lifted Israel in seven short years” to a functioning economy. Dr. Keyserling, who recently returned from Israel, said Israel’s survival is “a condition for the security of the United States.”

A call for a spirit of optimism in the Israel bond drive and recognition of the distinctive character of Israel bonds was made here in an address by Julian Freeman of Indianapolis, president of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds. Morris W. Berinstein, national campaign chairman of the Israel Bond Organization, said that success of the conference can be measured only by one yardstick: “The devotion and the effort for Israel bonds which it inspires in us during the next four months.”

Founding Funders

The digitization of the JTA Archive would not have been possible without the generous support of the following donors:
  • The Gottesman Fund
  • Righteous Persons Foundation
  • Charles H. Revson Foundation
  • Elisa Spungen Bildner and Robert Bildner, in honor of Norma Spungen
  • George S. Blumenthal
  • Grace and Scott Offen Charitable Fund